Acquisition Finance 2026 Comparisons

Dutch and International Banks

The Dutch acquisition finance market is active across the full range of deal sizes and remains diverse in terms of capital providers. Local commercial banks continue to play an important role, particularly in bilateral and club financings in the mid-market. They are often preferred by borrowers with an established domestic presence due to their relationship-driven approach and their familiarity with Dutch legal, tax and regulatory frameworks.

In larger and more complex transactions, international banks remain important, especially where underwriting capacity, syndication expertise and access to broader liquidity pools are required. In these transactions, international banks frequently act as arrangers, underwriters or bookrunners alongside other financing providers in the lender group.

Private Credit and Direct Lending

Private credit has become an established part of the Dutch acquisition finance landscape, particularly in sponsor-led transactions. Direct lenders are valued for their ability to provide committed financing and for offering flexibility in structure and documentation. At the same time, the private credit market has become more selective. Investor scrutiny has increased, leverage levels are assessed more conservatively and certain funds have reduced deployment or focus on specific sectors. As a result, private credit is no longer a uniform solution and is increasingly differentiated by strategy, risk appetite and sector focus.

Deal Size and Financing Structures

A practical way to view the lender landscape is by reference to the size and complexity of the financing. Smaller and mid-sized financings are often arranged bilaterally or in small clubs. Large financings more often involve wider syndicates or multi-product packages. The provider mix differs by segment. Domestic banks are visible in bilateral and club structures, while private credit providers are prominent in the mid-market and are increasingly present in larger tickets as well.

Recent Market Developments

Since 2025, two trends have become more pronounced.

First, private credit has continued to play a significant role, even against a backdrop of uneven M&A activity. Direct lenders compete primarily on speed of execution, certainty of funds and structural flexibility. This flexibility is reflected in covenant design, the availability of “accordion-style” incremental facilities and the use of bespoke baskets tailored to the borrower’s business.

At the same time, the private credit market has faced increased scrutiny from investors. Recent market commentary points to selective investor withdrawals, tighter redemption terms and a more cautious approach by fund managers, particularly in relation to highly leveraged or sector-concentrated strategies. This has contributed to a more disciplined lending environment, with greater focus on credit quality, downside protection and transparency.

Second, banks and private credit providers increasingly co-operate rather than compete in a strict sense. In Europe, this is visible in structures that combine a bank-provided revolving facility with private credit term debt. It is also visible in partnership models and joint ventures that formalise deal flow and capital allocation. These arrangements help banks manage balance sheet use while staying close to sponsor clients.

In practice, lender lending behaviour remains influenced by internal constraints. Banks continue to be more sensitive to regulatory capital requirements and portfolio concentration limits, which may affect leverage and pricing. Private credit providers can price risk differently, but will look closely at cash flow resilience and downside protection. In the current environment, both groups are more focused on quality of credit, data and diligence than during the most borrower-friendly periods.

Alternative and Structured Funding Sources

In addition to traditional lending, structured finance techniques are increasingly used as a funding tool in the Dutch market. Non-bank lenders and institutional investors deploy securitisation-based structures and asset-backed platforms to fund acquisitions and refinancings. These structures allow capital to be raised against predictable cash flows and are particularly relevant where balance sheet lending capacity is constrained. This development reinforces the role of private credit and alternative capital providers in acquisition finance, especially in sectors with recurring or granular receivable streams.

For sponsors and borrowers, such solutions are increasingly valued for execution certainty rather than pricing alone. Institutional capital can be deployed on a committed basis, with fewer syndication risks and greater flexibility around timing, which makes these structures attractive in competitive auction processes and other time-sensitive transactions.

This development also reflects a broader shift in the market, where non-bank lenders use structured finance techniques to complement traditional direct lending strategies.

Corporate acquisition finance and sponsor-led LBO finance overlap in documentation style, but differ in deal dynamics. In corporate-led acquisitions, the borrower may prioritise relationship lending, ancillary services and lower overall cost. Sponsors tend to prioritise execution certainty and flexibility to support buy-and-build strategies and future exits.

The Dutch market has seen a continued emphasis on refinancing and amend-and-extend activity where maturities approach and market windows open. This has influenced underwriting appetite and the timing of exits as periods dominated by repricings and refinancings reduce the need for lenders to compete aggressively for new M&A risk, particularly in certain sectors.

In 2024 and into 2025, the market was shaped by the cost of debt and by cautious buyer behaviour. A recurring theme has been the “value gap” between buyer and seller expectations. Where pricing pressure exists, borrowers use more layered solutions. Examples include vendor loans, subordinated shareholder instruments and structural leverage. Fund-level or holding-level solutions also appear when operating companies cannot absorb additional leverage on acceptable terms.

Looking forward, easing monetary conditions have supported a more constructive tone, but lenders still assess transactions against cash flow and downside scenarios. Sponsors often seek covenant headroom and flexible cure mechanics. Lenders respond by tightening reporting expectations and insisting on clear definitions. As a result, negotiations remain active, but are focused on a smaller set of core protections.

Across both corporate-led acquisitions and sponsor-backed LBOs, acquisition financing continues to be predominantly structured on a floating rate basis, typically combined with interest rate hedging to manage volatility. Compared to earlier market cycles, there has been a more selective use of payment in kind (PIK) features, primarily in subordinated or hybrid instruments, and occasionally as a partial cash/PIK structure to preserve liquidity. While these features provide flexibility, lenders increasingly assess their impact on cash flow sustainability and downside scenarios, resulting in a more disciplined approach than in previous, more borrower-friendly periods.

Finally, both corporate borrowers and sponsors increasingly assess acquisition financing structures through the lens of balance sheet impact and funding flexibility. Structured finance techniques are therefore not limited to highly leveraged transactions, but are also considered in corporate-led acquisitions where asset-level funding or off-balance sheet solutions are relevant. This is particularly the case in transactions involving carve-outs or asset-heavy businesses.

For Dutch acquisition finance, governing law is primarily a function of deal size, syndication strategy and the location of the finance parties. Larger leveraged deals are often documented under English or US law, especially where the lender group is international and transferability is important. Mid-market and smaller transactions are often documented under Dutch law, particularly where EU commercial banks or Dutch counsel-led processes are used.

In substance, the governing law choice is usually driven by market familiarity rather than a belief that one legal system is materially more “lender-friendly” than another.

In transactions involving structured finance or securitisation-based funding, the governing law analysis may be more granular. While financing documents may be governed by English or other foreign law, security over Dutch assets and receivables will typically remain subject to Dutch law requirements.

In syndicated and larger leveraged financings, the starting point is commonly an LMA-based framework. Parties often use an LMA form as a baseline even where the final document is heavily customised. Banks tend to prefer this approach because it supports syndication and secondary trading. In recent years, covenant-light LMA facility agreements have become less common than during earlier market cycles, with lenders placing renewed emphasis on financial covenants, reporting requirements and maintenance-based protections.

Private credit providers may use LMA concepts but will often work from their own precedent. In the mid-market, it is also common to see shorter-form agreements. These can be structured as a streamlined version of an LMA-style facility.

Where acquisition financings are combined with asset based or structured finance elements, documentation is often more bespoke. This reflects the need to align loan terms with cash flow waterfalls, security mechanics and enforcement arrangements that differ from traditional corporate lending.

There is no general legal requirement that financing documents relating to Dutch transactions must be in the Dutch language. In practice, English is widely used for facility agreements, intercreditor agreements and most ancillary financing documents including security documents.

An important exception applies to certain documents that must be executed in the form of a Dutch notarial deed. This includes, for example, a deed of mortgage over Dutch registered real estate. Such deeds must be executed before a Dutch civil law notary and are typically drawn up in Dutch. However, a pledge over registered shares in the capital of a Dutch company must be executed in the form of a Dutch notarial deed and does not statutorily need to be executed in the Dutch language. In certain cases, bilingual (Dutch/English) deeds are used or, where a party does not understand Dutch, appropriate translation or interpretation arrangements must be made in accordance with notarial requirements.

Legal opinions play a central role in Dutch acquisition finance transactions and are typically included as conditions precedent to first utilisation. Such opinions generally address the corporate capacity and authority of Dutch obligors, as well as the enforceability in the Netherlands of the financing documents, including the recognition of choice of law and jurisdiction provisions.

In the Dutch market, it is common for lender’s counsel to deliver a comprehensive legal opinion covering both capacity and enforceability. This reflects the preference of international lenders for a single, consolidated opinion. Depending on the transaction structure and the parties involved, borrower’s counsel may in some cases provide a separate opinion limited to corporate capacity matters.

The scope of the opinion depends on the structure of the transaction and the governing law of the relevant documents. Dutch counsel will typically opine on documents governed by Dutch law and will address foreign law documents only to the extent relevant under Dutch law. The mandate and/or legal opinion of Dutch law firms is almost always subject to a liability cap in connection with the professional liability insurance of the law firm. Under applicable Dutch professional rules, each law firm must have “adequate” insurance in place, whereby the liability cap may range from EUR5 million to EUR500 million, depending on firm size.

Acquisition financings in the Netherlands are most commonly structured around senior secured term loans and revolving credit facilities (RCF). The term loan is typically used to fund the acquisition consideration, while the RCF provides ongoing liquidity for working capital, general corporate purposes, and ancillary needs of the group.

From a structuring perspective, senior debt is typically incurred at acquisition holding level. Following completion of the acquisition, guarantees and security are typically granted by the target group in favour of the senior lenders. This “downstream” or “upstream” guarantee and security package is, however, subject to Dutch corporate law limitations, including financial assistance rules, corporate benefit considerations, and restrictions relating to unlawful distributions. As a result, guarantee and security structures are often implemented post-closing and may involve certain limitations.

Senior facilities are usually documented on LMA-based terms, with adjustment to reflect Dutch law requirements and market practice where relevant. These adjustments typically address, among other things, security perfection requirements, insolvency considerations, and provisions relating to parallel debt and security agency structures, which are commonly used in the Netherlands to facilitate the holding and enforcement of security by a security agent on behalf of the finance parties.

Mezzanine and PIK instruments are commonly used in Dutch leveraged and sponsor-backed acquisitions to complement senior facilities, typically bridging the gap between senior debt and equity or enhancing overall returns. These instruments are often incurred at holding or sub-holding level and may include PIK features, allowing interest to be capitalised rather than paid in cash, thereby preserving liquidity within the group.

They are structurally and contractually subordinated to senior debt, with intercreditor arrangements governing priority of payments, enforcement rights and standstill provisions. Documentation is generally bespoke but aligned with the broader financing structure, with the intercreditor agreement playing a key role in defining the position of mezzanine lenders.

From a legal perspective, mezzanine and PIK loans are subject to general corporate law principles, including corporate benefit and solvency considerations. These factors may affect the ability of Dutch group companies to provide guarantees or security, in line with the approach taken for senior financing.

Bridge facilities are commonly used in Dutch acquisition finance to provide interim funding pending longer-term financing, such as a refinancing in the loan or capital markets. They are typically structured as short-term senior facilities at acquisition holding level and rank pari passu with other senior debt, benefiting from the same guarantee and security package, subject to customary limitations under Dutch law.

Bridge loans are generally intended to be refinanced within a defined period, but may include mechanisms allowing conversion into longer-term instruments if a take-out is not achieved. As with other financing arrangements, the structure is influenced by Dutch corporate law considerations, including corporate benefit, financial assistance and solvency requirements, particularly in relation to the provision of guarantees and security by members of the target group.

In the Netherlands, high-yield bonds are used in certain larger and more complex acquisition financings, typically as part of a broader leveraged capital structure rather than as a standalone product. Where used, they are commonly issued at holding company level and combined with senior loan facilities, such as term loans and revolving credit facilities.

High-yield bonds are generally accompanied by guarantees from operating group entities to the extent permitted under Dutch law. The availability and scope of such guarantees, as well as any related security, are governed by general corporate and insolvency law principles, including corporate benefit considerations, financial position tests and customary limitation language.

Where high-yield bonds are combined with bank debt or other senior financing, the respective rights of lenders and bondholders are typically regulated through detailed intercreditor arrangements addressing ranking, payment priorities, enforcement rights and standstill provisions, adapted to Dutch law and insolvency considerations.

While the commercial terms of high-yield bonds are largely driven by international market practice, Dutch law does not provide a specific statutory framework for such instruments allowing for flexible structuring within the boundaries of general corporate, insolvency and regulatory rules, particularly in cross-border and sponsor-driven transactions.

In Dutch acquisition finance, private placements and loan note structures are typically used in bilateral or club-style transactions involving institutional investors, offering an alternative to broadly syndicated loans or public debt issuances. These instruments are usually tailored to the specific needs of the transaction and may be documented in note purchase agreements or similar formats, while economically resembling traditional loan financing. From a structuring perspective, they align closely with standard lending arrangements, including the use of guarantees and security granted by group companies where appropriate. Their treatment under Dutch law follows general principles applicable to debt financing, including those relating to security creation, creditor rights and enforcement.

In the Dutch market, asset-based financing is commonly used where the credit analysis is primarily driven by the value and quality of receivables, inventory or other identifiable assets. Such facilities rely heavily on Dutch law pledges over receivables, bank accounts and movable assets and are structured to align with Dutch perfection and enforcement requirements.

In practice, asset-based structures increasingly overlap with structured finance techniques, including funding models that resemble securitisation structures. These arrangements are used to support institutional or long-term funding and to isolate asset-level risk and ring fence cash flows from operating risk within a wider group structure. Dutch law is well suited to these structures due to the availability of undisclosed pledges, non-possessory security interests and efficient enforcement mechanisms.

As a result, asset-based and structured finance solutions are increasingly used alongside, or as an alternative to, traditional senior acquisition facilities, particularly in more complex acquisition scenarios. Typical use cases include carve outs, platform acquisitions and buy-and-build strategies, as well as transactions involving private credit or institutional investors where scalable and asset-driven funding solutions are required.

These developments also increasingly intersect with private credit strategies, where receivables backed and cash-flow-based structures are used to support longer-term institutional funding.

Role of Intercreditor Agreements in the Netherlands

As a starting point under Dutch insolvency law, unsecured creditors share proportionally in the proceeds of the debtor’s estate on a pari passu basis (paritas creditorum). This statutory principle may, however, be modified by agreement. Dutch law allows creditors to structure intercreditor arrangements through both contractual subordination of claims and priority arrangements at the level of security rights. These arrangements are typically documented in intercreditor or subordination agreements and play a central role in leveraged and structured finance transactions.

Intercreditor agreements are particularly relevant where a structure includes multiple layers of debt (eg, senior and mezzanine loans, bond financing and structurally subordinated shareholder, vendor or intra-group debt) and where hedge counterparties are part of the wider financing package. Their key function is to allocate economic ranking and entitlement to enforcement proceeds, while also regulating creditor behaviour in distress.

Market Practice and Documentation

Dutch market practice broadly follows European standards, with intercreditor agreements commonly based on the LMA models for leveraged acquisition finance. These agreements are enforcement driven and generally assume out-of-court enforcement as the primary outcome rather than court-led reorganisation, which contrasts with US-style intercreditors drafted with Chapter 11 dynamics in mind.

That said, developments in 2025–2026 show increasing sensitivity to restructuring considerations, driven in part by the Dutch Scheme of Arrangement (WHOA). While LMA-based intercreditor agreements remain the benchmark, parties pay closer attention to standstill periods, release provisions and payment blockages to ensure their effectiveness in a WHOA context.

Shared Security and the Security Agent

Dutch intercreditor structures typically assume shared security held by a security agent for the benefit of a defined group of secured creditors. As Dutch law does not recognise the concept of a trust, this is commonly implemented through the use of a parallel debt, pursuant to which the debtor undertakes an additional payment obligation to the security agent equal to the aggregate obligations owed to the secured creditors. Dutch security rights are then granted to secure this parallel debt, enabling a single entity to hold and enforce security on behalf of the creditor group.

The security agent acts in an administrative capacity and exercises its enforcement powers on the basis of instructions in the intercreditor agreement. Control of enforcement is a key commercial topic: typically, senior lenders (and hedge counterparties, where relevant) have exclusive instruction rights until the senior debt has been discharged in full, subject to limited exceptions and standstill arrangements applicable to junior creditors.

Subordination Structures

In Dutch practice, subordination is implemented through a combination of:

• contractual (claim) subordination, where creditors share equally ranked security but agree on payment and enforcement priorities;
• lien (in rem) subordination, where security rights rank differently as a matter of property law based on order of perfection or agreed reprioritisation; and
• structural subordination, resulting from the corporate structure, where senior debt sits at operating company level and junior debt at holding level.

Overall, intercreditor agreements remain a cornerstone of Dutch finance transactions, balancing contractual flexibility with insolvency‑law constraints, and continue to evolve in response to restructuring practice and private credit-driven deal structures.

In acquisition financings involving both banks and bondholders, the intercreditor framework is typically based on the LMA intercreditor agreement, which remains the prevailing market standard in the Netherlands. The LMA structure provides a familiar and widely accepted basis for aligning ranking, payment priorities and enforcement rights between bank lenders and bondholders in leveraged finance transactions.

In substance, the intercreditor mechanics in bank/bond deals do not significantly differ from those applied in other multi-layered debt structures. Bondholders generally participate in the same overarching intercreditor regime as the banks, with their rights exercised through a bond trustee or noteholders’ representative and subject to agreed standstill periods and enforcement limitations.

In Dutch leveraged finance transactions, borrowers are commonly required to enter into interest rate and, where relevant, currency hedging to reduce exposure to market volatility and stabilise debt service costs. As hedging arrangements may give rise to significant contingent payment obligations, senior lenders typically require hedge counterparties to accede to the intercreditor agreement.

Market practice follows the LMA approach, under which hedging liabilities generally rank pari passu with, and occasionally ahead of, senior lending obligations for enforcement purposes and share in the common security package through a parallel debt structure. Hedge counterparties’ control rights remain limited: voting or instruction rights in relation to enforcement are usually triggered only after termination or close-out of the hedging transactions and non-payment of the resulting settlement amounts. As long as ongoing hedge payments are made, enforcement strategy remains lender-driven.

Types of Security Commonly Used

In Dutch acquisition finance, security packages are generally structured as an all-asset security package, comprising pledges and mortgages over substantially all assets of the obligor group. Dutch law operates a closed system of property law security rights, meaning that only security interests expressly recognised by law may be created, resulting in the use of well-established and standardised security instruments.

In principle, both present and future assets may be pledged or mortgaged. However, security rights over future assets cease to capture assets that arise after the relevant security provider has been granted a suspension of payments or has been declared bankrupt, which remains a critical consideration in structuring Dutch security packages.

Shares

A pledge over shares in Dutch private or public limited liability companies (BVs and NVs) constitutes a core element of acquisition finance transactions. Share pledges are created by a notarial deed before a Dutch civil law notary and are commonly combined with agreed voting and dividend arrangements, under which such rights generally remain with the pledgor until an event of default has occurred and enforcement steps are initiated by delivery of a voting notice.

Depending on deal size, financing structure and risk appetite, either the shares in the capital of the holding company and borrower are pledged, or the shares in the capital of the entire obligor group is subject to a share pledge.

Movable Assets

Security interests over movable assets, including inventory, machinery and equipment, is generally created by way of a non-possessory pledge. This allows the pledgor to continue using and disposing of the assets in the ordinary course of business. Possessory pledges are legally possible but are rarely used in acquisition finance, as they require the transfer of possession of the assets to the pledgee.

Upon an event of default, the pledgee may take possession of the pledged assets and/or enforce its security interest by selling the pledged assets in accordance with Dutch law.

Bank Accounts and Receivables

Security interests over trade receivables and bank accounts are standard in Dutch acquisition finance. Dutch law distinguishes between disclosed and undisclosed pledges over receivables. In acquisition financing, such security interests are often initially created on an undisclosed basis, with notification to debtors or the account bank taking place upon an event of default.

An undisclosed pledge over receivables is created by a notarial deed or a private deed registered with the Dutch tax authorities. Upon an event of default, the pledgee may collect the receivables and take recourse against the proceeds thereof and/or enforce its security interest by selling the receivables in accordance with Dutch law.

The pledging of Dutch bank accounts remains complex in practice, as account banks generally hold a first-ranking pledge under their general banking conditions and are reluctant to co-operate with third-party pledges.

Intellectual Property and Insurance

Intellectual property rights and insurance receivables are commonly included in the security package, either through separate pledges or as part of a broader receivables pledge. For registered intellectual property rights, registration of the pledge in the relevant register may be required to achieve third party effect. Insurance receivables (including those resulting from W&I insurances) are commonly pledged on a disclosed basis, with enforcement directed at the insurance proceeds following an insured event.

Real Estate and Registered Assets

Although less commonly used in acquisition financings, real estate is included in the security package by way of a mortgage over the registered fixed assets. Mortgages may also be created over registered movable assets such as registered ships and aircraft.

Mortgages are granted for a specified maximum amount, typically covering principal, to be increased with a certain percentage for interest and enforcement costs, and cannot be established over future assets.

Structuring Considerations

The use of an omnibus deed of pledge (verzamelpandakte) is widespread as a structuring mechanism for creating security interests. Under such arrangements, present and future assets, such as movable assets, receivables, bank accounts and IP rights, can be pledged, subject to the limitation that future assets must arise from existing legal relationships. Powers of attorney are commonly used to facilitate periodic supplemental pledges and the enforcement of security interests.

As regards timing, security is typically taken over the shares and assets of the bidco at closing, with the shares and assets of the target group acceding to the security package post-closing.

The formal requirements for creating security interests under Dutch law depend on the type of asset involved. Dutch law does not recognise a general or floating security interest. Instead, security is asset specific, meaning that separate security rights must be created for different categories of collateral, each subject to its own statutory requirements.

Secured Liabilities and General Requirements

Security rights may only secure monetary payment obligations. For a valid security right to be created, the collateral must be capable of being pledged or mortgaged and must be sufficiently identifiable. In addition, the creation of a valid security interest requires (i) a valid legal title, (ii) the power of disposal of the security provider and (iii) compliance with the applicable formal requirements. These requirements broadly mirror those applicable to the transfer of the relevant assets.

Notarial Deeds

Certain types of security interests must be created by notarial deed executed before a Dutch civil law notary, in particular pledges over registered shares in BVs and NVs and mortgages over real estate and other registered assets, such as registered ships and aircraft. Mortgages must be registered in the relevant public register, which constitutes a perfection requirement. Share pledges must be recorded in the shareholders’ register to achieve third-party effect, although such recording is not constitutive for validity.

(Private) Deeds, Registration and Notification Requirements

Moveable assets

Security over movable assets may take the form of either a possessory or non-possessory pledge. In acquisition finance transactions, non-possessory pledges are standard practice, as they allow the security provider to continue using the assets in the ordinary course of business. Non-possessory pledges are created by entering into a private deed that must be registered with the Dutch tax authorities to establish certainty of date. Upon the occurrence of a trigger event, a non-possessory pledge may be converted into a possessory pledge.

Receivables and bank accounts

Security over receivables, including trade, intercompany and insurance receivables, is created by way of a right of pledge and may be either disclosed or undisclosed. Disclosed pledges require notification to the debtor to take effect. Undisclosed pledges are created by a private deed registered with the Dutch tax authorities and initially cover existing receivables and future receivables arising from existing legal relationships. As a result, periodic supplemental pledge deeds are commonly used to ensure continuous coverage of future receivables.

Cash held in Dutch bank accounts is treated as a receivable against the account bank and is pledged in the same manner. In practice, the creation of effective security over bank accounts is often impeded by Dutch general banking conditions, which grant the account bank a first-ranking pledge and set-off rights. Account banks are increasingly reluctant to provide waivers or acknowledgements in favour of third-party lenders, meaning that valid third-party pledges over bank accounts are often difficult to achieve.

Intellectual property

Security over intellectual property rights is created by entering into a private deed of pledge. While registration with the Dutch tax authorities is generally required for pledges over licences and domain names, pledges over registered IP rights must be recorded in the relevant IP register to be enforceable against third parties, although registration is not constitutive for validity.

Powers of Attorney and Ancillary Arrangements

Security documentation commonly includes powers of attorney granted to the pledgee or security agent to facilitate enforcement, collection of receivables and the execution of supplemental pledge deeds following an event of default.

Language and Execution

There are no general language requirements under Dutch law for security documentation other than that a notarial deed of mortgage must be executed in the Dutch language. Security documents may be governed by Dutch law or foreign law, depending on the type of asset, although security interests over Dutch assets that are subject to Dutch property law must comply with Dutch formal requirements. Execution under a power of attorney is commonly used, particularly in cross-border or syndicated transactions.

The steps required to perfect security interests under Dutch law depend on the type of asset and the form of security used. A distinction is made between registrations with public effect, which determine third-party effectiveness and registrations that serve solely to establish certainty of date.

Notarial Deed

Security interests that require a notarial deed, such as mortgages over real estate and registered assets, must be registered in the relevant public register (including the Dutch Land Registry). Such registration constitutes a perfection requirement, with priority generally determined by the time of registration. Share pledges must be recorded in the shareholders’ register to achieve third-party effect, although such recording does not constitute a perfection requirement.

Non-Possessory Pledges and Undisclosed Pledges

Non-possessory pledges over movable assets and undisclosed pledges over receivables are perfected by registration of the private deed with the Dutch tax authorities. This registration is not public and does not require renewal. Undisclosed pledges over receivables cover only receivables arising from existing legal relationships, meaning that continuous perfection is typically achieved through periodic registration of supplemental pledge deeds with the Dutch tax authorities.

Disclosed Pledges

For disclosed pledges over receivables and bank accounts, notification to the relevant debtor or account bank is required to allow collection and enforcement. Once properly perfected, security interests generally remain in place without further action, subject to supplemental measures required to capture newly arising assets.

Intellectual Property

Security interests over intellectual property rights are created by private deed. While such pledges are typically perfected by registration of the deed with the Dutch tax authorities (in particular for licences and domain names), pledges over registered IP rights must additionally be recorded in the relevant IP register in order to be enforceable against third parties. This registration does not constitute a perfection requirement for the validity of the pledge itself, but is required to preserve priority and third-party effectiveness. Once registered, no periodic renewal is required, subject to supplemental deeds being executed if future IP rights are to be captured.

Under Dutch law, upstream and cross-stream security is permitted, provided that the granting of security falls within the corporate objects and corporate interest of the security provider. There is no general statutory prohibition on upstream security for BVs.

In assessing whether upstream security is permissible, the board of the security provider must consider whether the transaction serves the company’s interests, taking into account the group context. Relevant factors include the extent to which the company benefits from the financing (directly or indirectly), the risks assumed under the security, the financial position of the company and whether other group companies share the security burden.

If the granting of security is manifestly disproportionate to the benefits for the company or exposes the company to risks it cannot reasonably bear, this may give rise to directors’ liability and may allow the transaction to be challenged, including in insolvency proceedings. In addition, if a transaction falls outside the company’s corporate objects and the counterparty knew or should have known this, the transaction may be voidable.

As a result, upstream security is common in acquisition finance but is typically supported by board resolutions and, where appropriate, corporate benefit analysis.

Dutch law distinguishes between BVs and NVs in relation to financial assistance.

For BVs, the statutory prohibition on financial assistance was abolished in 2012. As a result, a BV may in principle provide guarantees or security in connection with the acquisition of its own shares or shares in its holding company, subject to compliance with general corporate law principles, including corporate interest and director duties.

For NVs, financial assistance restrictions continue to apply. An NV and its subsidiaries are generally prohibited from providing security or guarantees with a view to the acquisition of shares in the NV. Limited exceptions exist, in particular for loans, but these are subject to strict statutory conditions, including board and shareholder approvals and balance sheet limitations.

In acquisition finance transactions involving an NV, these restrictions are typically addressed through transaction structuring, with acquisition debt incurred at holding level and security packages designed to avoid prohibited financial assistance.

In addition to financial assistance rules, the primary limitation on the provision of security under Dutch law is the requirement that the transaction serves the corporate interest of the security provider. This assessment must be made by the board at the time the transaction is entered into and applies both on a standalone basis and in a group context. It is closely linked to directors’ duties and potential personal liability.

Further restrictions may arise from contractual arrangements, such as negative pledge provisions or other covenants in existing financing documentation, as well as from limitations included in the articles of association. In practice, third-party consents may also be required, for example from account banks in the case of pledges over bank accounts or receivables.

Dutch law does not impose general statutory limitations on the amount or scope of security that may be granted. Provided that the relevant corporate law requirements are satisfied and the security provider has the power of disposal over the assets concerned, security may in principle be granted without quantitative restrictions.

Under Dutch law, a secured creditor is generally entitled to enforce its security once a default has occurred in respect of the secured obligations. Whether a default exists is determined by reference to the terms of the underlying finance documentation and the law governing those obligations, and enforcement typically follows acceleration of the secured liabilities.

As a general rule, Dutch security rights can be enforced without prior court involvement. Depending on the type of security, enforcement may take place by way of a public auction or, subject to statutory requirements, by private sale. Dutch law prohibits appropriation of the secured assets by the secured creditor, although a secured creditor may participate as a bidder in a public sale or acquire the assets with court approval.

Enforcement by Type of Security

Pledges over receivables and bank accounts are usually enforced by notification to the relevant debtors or account bank, following which the pledgee is entitled to collect the receivables or apply the credit balance towards satisfaction of the secured claims.

Share pledges are enforced in accordance with Dutch law and the arrangements set out in the relevant pledge documentation. This typically includes the right to sell the pledged shares and, where agreed and permitted, to exercise voting rights following the occurrence of an enforcement event, subject to applicable statutory limitations and corporate law considerations.

Mortgages over real estate and other registered assets are enforced in accordance with mandatory statutory procedures, typically through a public sale conducted by a Dutch civil law notary, unless an alternative method has been agreed and is legally permissible.

Court Involvement and Insolvency Considerations

Judicial involvement is generally only required where out-of-court enforcement is unavailable or ineffective. In insolvency proceedings, secured creditors retain a strong position and may, in principle, enforce their security as if no insolvency proceedings had been opened. This position is subject to mandatory insolvency law provisions, including temporary stays, claw-back rules and the possibility for the bankruptcy trustee to take over enforcement, in which case the secured creditor retains its priority in the proceeds, subject to statutory costs and preferential claims.

Syndicated Transactions and Security Agency

In syndicated and multi-lender acquisition finance transactions, enforcement is typically co-ordinated by a security agent acting on behalf of the finance parties. As Dutch law does not recognise the concept of a trust, security is commonly held through a parallel debt structure, enabling the security agent to enforce security in its own name for the benefit of the creditor group.

Parallel debt structures are widely accepted under Dutch law and are particularly relevant in transactions involving non-bank and institutional lenders, where enforcement must be centralised while preserving the economic position of each creditor. This legal certainty contributes to the Netherlands’ attractiveness as a jurisdiction for structuring complex acquisition finance transactions.

Restructuring Under the WHOA

Outside formal insolvency proceedings, enforcement rights may be affected by the WHOA.

The WHOA allows a debtor to propose a restructuring or liquidation plan that can bind dissenting secured creditors, subject to court confirmation and compliance with statutory safeguards, including the “no creditor worse off” principle and the absolute priority rule. During the WHOA process, enforcement actions may be stayed, while the debtor remains in possession of its assets.

In Dutch acquisition finance transactions, corporate guarantees are commonly provided by group companies to support obligations of the borrower under the acquisition facilities. These guarantees are typically structured as joint and several obligations (hoofdelijke aansprakelijkheid), allowing lenders to claim directly against any guarantor without first enforcing against the borrower.

In group financings, cross-guarantees and declarations of joint and several liability by the target and its (material) subsidiaries are frequently used to enhance the overall credit support and strengthen the creditworthiness of the financing structure. In addition, it is common for the parent company to provide a parent guarantee in respect of the obligations of its subsidiary, which is usually the borrower in the acquisition finance transaction.

Guarantees are typically granted alongside security interests and form part of an integrated credit support package. In leveraged transactions, operating companies within the group commonly act as guarantors, subject to applicable corporate law limitations. The precise form of the guarantee is less relevant than its effect, provided that the guarantor assumes a direct, primary and enforceable payment obligation.

Under Dutch law, a company may in principle provide guarantees for the obligations of third parties, provided that the transaction falls within the scope of its corporate objects and serves its corporate interest (vennootschappelijk belang). This assessment applies equally to upstream, downstream and cross-stream guarantees and must be made by the board at the time the guarantee is granted.

In determining whether a guarantee serves the corporate interest, all relevant circumstances must be taken into account. While the wording of the objects clause in the articles of association is relevant, it is not decisive. The key consideration is whether the interests of the company are served by the transaction and whether the risks assumed are proportionate to the benefits obtained. In a group context, indirect benefits may be taken into account, particularly where group entities are economically and operationally interconnected. This corporate interest assessment is fact-specific and forms part of the directors’ statutory duties.

There are no general statutory restrictions under Dutch law on the granting of upstream guarantees by BVs, following the abolition of the financial assistance prohibition. By contrast, for NVs, financial assistance rules continue to apply and may restrict the ability of an NV and its direct or indirect subsidiaries to grant guarantees or security in connection with the acquisition of shares in the NV (see 5.5 Financial Assistance and 5.6 Other Restrictions).

Guarantees that are manifestly disproportionate, granted outside the scope of the company’s business purpose, or entered into at a time when insolvency was foreseeable may be vulnerable to challenge by a bankruptcy trustee and may expose directors to personal liability. In practice, however, the corporate interest test does not generally present an obstacle in group financings, provided that the financing structure is commercially justified and appropriately balanced.

Under Dutch law, there is no general legal requirement for a guarantee fee to be charged in order for a guarantee to be valid or enforceable. The absence of a guarantee fee does not affect the legal effectiveness of the guarantee.

The key consideration is whether the granting of the guarantee can be properly justified from a corporate interest perspective. In assessing corporate interest, the absence of remuneration may be relevant but is not determinative, particularly in a group financing context where indirect benefits may be present.

In practice, guarantee fees may be agreed for tax or transfer pricing purposes, or to mitigate potential corporate benefit concerns, but they are not required as a matter of Dutch corporate law.

Dutch law is based on the principle of equal treatment of creditors, subject to statutory priorities and valid security rights. There is no general doctrine of equitable subordination comparable to that applied in some common law jurisdictions. In particular, shareholder loans are not automatically subordinated to other unsecured claims by operation of law.

Subordination of claims is therefore primarily achieved through contractual arrangements, such as subordination or intercreditor agreements, or by structural features of the financing. Absent such arrangements, shareholder and intra-group loans rank in principle pari passu with other unsecured liabilities.

Only in rare and highly fact-specific cases have Dutch courts effectively subordinated shareholder loans in insolvency, typically where such funding was considered informal equity rather than genuine debt (for example, where it was provided on terms no third-party lender would have accepted). These circumstances are exceptional and unlikely to apply where financing is provided by professional third-party lenders.

For lenders, the main risks do not arise from discretionary subordination, but from insolvency challenges based on corporate law principles, fraudulent preference or claw-back rules.

Under Dutch insolvency law, pre-bankruptcy transactions may be challenged by a bankruptcy trustee or creditors under the actio pauliana if they are prejudicial to creditors and the statutory requirements are met. Dutch law does not provide for fixed hardening periods as such, but claw-back risk may arise in practice for transactions entered into within one year prior to bankruptcy or suspension of payments.

Claw-back risk is particularly relevant in acquisition finance where security or guarantees are granted close in time to insolvency, or where transactions involve upstream or cross stream credit support. To succeed, a challenge generally requires that the debtor, and – in the case of transactions for consideration – the counterparty, knew or should have known that the transaction would prejudice other creditors. For certain categories of transactions, such as related-party dealings, payments or security for not-yet-due obligations, or transactions involving a material imbalance in consideration, such knowledge is legally presumed if the transaction occurred within one year prior to insolvency. Recent case law confirms that a set of interrelated transactions may be assessed as a whole when determining prejudice and knowledge.

In practice, lenders manage claw-back risk through careful timing, solvency and corporate benefit assessments and by documenting early-stage undertakings to create security, while avoiding late-stage enhancements lacking a clear commercial rationale.

No Dutch registration tax, transfer tax, stamp duty or other similar documentary tax is payable in the Netherlands in respect of or in connection with the execution, performance or enforcement of financing documents, including security documents and guarantees.

This also applies to enforcement by legal proceedings, including the recognition or enforcement of foreign judgments in the Netherlands.

Any costs are generally limited to court fees in the event of litigation and, where applicable, fixed notarial and administrative fees, such as those payable for the registration of a mortgage with the Dutch Land Registry.

Interest and other payments made by a Dutch borrower for the granting of credit are subject to a VAT exemption and therefore not subject to Dutch VAT.

Under Dutch tax law, interest payments made by Dutch obligors under financing documents can generally be made free from withholding or deduction of Dutch withholding tax. This position typically applies to loans provided by third-party lenders in acquisition finance transactions.

However, the Netherlands has introduced a conditional withholding tax on interest payments, which may apply in limited circumstances, notably where interest is paid to affiliated entities in low-tax or non-cooperative jurisdictions, in hybrid mismatch structures or in abusive situations. In addition, debt instruments that, based on their terms and conditions, are requalified as equity for Dutch tax purposes (for example, deeply subordinated or profit-participating loans with an exceptionally long or indefinite term) may give rise to dividend withholding tax exposure, potentially combined with conditional withholding tax.

As a result, these rules are primarily relevant in the context of shareholder loans and intra-group financing. In practice, acquisition finance structures mitigate these risks through appropriate structuring, the inclusion of qualifying lender concepts and transaction-specific tax analysis. Nevertheless, independent tax analysis on a per transaction basis may be advisable.

Dutch tax law does not contain formal thin-capitalisation rules, but interest deductibility is subject to a general earnings-stripping regime. Under this rule, a Dutch taxpayer’s net interest expense is deductible only up to the higher of a fixed monetary threshold and a percentage of its tax-adjusted EBITDA. Any excess interest is generally non-deductible, subject to carry-forward rules. In leveraged acquisition financings, these limitations are a key structuring consideration and are typically assessed through financial modelling of projected EBITDA and cash flows to determine an appropriate balance between debt and equity.

Apart from merger control review by the European Commission and the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets, the acquisition of privately held companies in the Netherlands is generally not subject to transaction-specific regulation. Sector-specific approvals or notifications may, however, be required depending on the activities of the target. Supervision is exercised by a range of authorities, including the Dutch Central Bank, the Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM), the European Central Bank, the Dutch Healthcare Authority and, in limited cases, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy.

A change of control of a regulated entity typically requires prior regulatory approval, based on an assessment of the acquirer’s suitability, financial soundness and strategic plans. Unlike public takeovers, private M&A transactions are not subject to a formal certainty-of-funds requirement, although funding terms are addressed in the transaction documentation.

Lending to businesses is not regulated as such and lenders are not required to be licensed solely by virtue of providing acquisition financing. Where regulated targets are involved, however, bank financing must comply with applicable prudential, AML and reporting requirements.

In the case of listed targets, the acquisition process is governed by the Dutch Financial Supervision Act and the Public Takeover Decree and is subject to supervision by the AFM. A bidder may only launch a public offer after submitting an offer document to the AFM and obtaining regulatory approval. The takeover regime imposes a structured and largely mandatory timetable, which has a direct impact on the structuring and documentation of acquisition financing.

At the time the offer document is submitted for approval, the bidder must publicly confirm that it has secured funding for the offer consideration. Although evidence of funding is not formally reviewed by the AFM, certainty of funds is critical in practice and is closely scrutinised by the target board and its advisers. Acquisition facilities are therefore typically documented on a strict certain funds basis, with limited draw conditions and termination rights aligned with the takeover process. Security is generally granted following settlement of the offer, subject to applicable corporate law and financial assistance constraints.

A defining feature of Dutch acquisition finance is the close interaction between corporate law and financing structures. Concepts such as corporate interest, directors’ duties and statutory financial assistance rules in case of NVs play a central role in structuring guarantees and security, particularly in leveraged and sponsor-backed transactions. These principles require careful assessment to ensure that security packages and upstream or cross-stream support are enforceable and compliant with Dutch law.

Dutch law does not recognise trusts in the common law sense. In syndicated financings, security is therefore typically held by a security agent through contractual mechanisms, most notably a parallel debt structure. This allows the security agent to have an independent claim under Dutch property law, facilitating effective enforcement for the benefit of the lenders.

The Netherlands also provides a robust legal framework for structured finance and securitisation-backed acquisition financing. Security can be efficiently created and enforced over movables, receivables, bank accounts, IP and cash flows, enabling the use of institutional or capital-markets-driven funding structures. This flexibility is particularly relevant for cross-border transactions and private equity acquisitions involving private credit or asset-backed lenders.

A key additional consideration is employee participation under the Dutch Works Councils Act (Wet op de ondernemingsraden). Companies with 50 employees or more are generally required to establish a works council, which may have advisory rights with respect to significant decisions relevant to acquisition financings, including changes of control and financing arrangements outside the ordinary course of business. Failure to properly involve the works council in a timely manner may lead to proceedings before the Enterprise Chamber of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal and cause delays to the transaction, making works council timing a critical aspect of deal planning.