ECLI: ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:2351

Titel: ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:2351 Rechtbank Amsterdam , 11-04-2025 / C/13/764975

Gerecht: Rechtbank Amsterdam

Datum uitspraak: 2025-04-11

Zaaknummer: C/13/764975

Proceduretype: NCC

Onderwerp: Civiel recht

Rechtsmacht: NL

Taal: nl

Uitspraaktype: Uitspraak

URL: https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:2351

---

Summary proceedings. Construction of a share purchase agreement (SPA) under Dutch law. Decisive weight is given to the most obvious text-based meaning of the provisions of the SPA: 
         •	the conditions precedent (Clause 4.1) have been fulfilled. The purpose of including conditions precedent in a share purchase agreement is to safeguard that the most fundamental conditions for the transaction have been satisfied before the transaction is completed, and to have deal certainty if and when these conditions have been satisfied. Ascertaining whether or not the Target infringed any regulatory laws would require an in-depth research into the Target’s actions and activities in all relevant jurisdictions, which is incompatible with this purpose.  
         •	Clause 19.9 of the SPA bars both seeking in-court and out-of-court rescission of the SPA. 
         Extraordinary circumstances could make relying on the waiver in Clause 19.9 SPA unacceptable in light of the principles of reasonableness and fairness (Article 6:248(2) Dutch Civil Code). If the transaction would have a serious impact on the licences Purchaser now holds and could even result in criminal charges brought against the Target and/or Purchaser itself, this would qualify as an extraordinary circumstance as mentioned above. However, the Court does not find that it is likely that these risks will materialise. Therefore, the Court will order the Purchaser to complete the transaction. 
       
       
       
         Kort geding. Uitleg van een overeenkomst tot verkoop van aandelen (share purchase agreement, SPA) naar Nederlands recht. De voorzieningenrechter kent beslissend gewicht toe aan de meest voor de hand liggende taalkundige betekenis van de bepalingen van de SPA: 
         •	de opschortende voorwaarden (conditions precedent) in artikel 4.1 SPA zijn vervuld. Het doel van het opnemen van opschortende voorwaarden in een SPA is dat aan de meest essentiële voorwaarden voor de transactie is voldaan voordat deze wordt voltooid, en dat er zekerheid is dat de transactie wordt voltooid zodra aan deze voorwaarden is voldaan. Met dit doel is niet te verenigen dat in dat kader vastgesteld zou moeten worden of de Target (de te verkopen onderneming) heeft gehandeld in strijd met regelgeving in alle in aanmerking komende landen, omdat dit een diepgaand onderzoek naar de handelingen en activiteiten van de Target zou vergen.  
         •	artikel 19.9 van de SPA staat in de weg aan ontbinding van de SPA via de rechter of een buitengerechtelijke verklaring.  
         In geval van uitzonderlijke omstandigheden kan een beroep op het doen van afstand van een recht op ontbinding onaanvaardbaar zijn naar maatstaven van redelijkheid en billijkheid (artikel 6:248 lid 2 BW). Dat zou het geval kunnen zijn, als de transactie ernstige gevolgen zou kunnen hebben op de vergunningen die Koper nu heeft of als de transactie zelfs zou kunnen lijden tot strafrechtelijke aansprakelijkheid van de Target of de Koper. Maar de voorzieningenrechter acht het niet aannemelijk dat deze risico’s zich zullen verwezenlijken. Daarom beveelt de voorzieningenrechter de Koper om de transactie te voltooien.

judgment 
     AMSTERDAM DISTRICT COURT 
     
     
       Netherlands Commercial Court  
       NCC Court in Summary Proceedings 
     
     
     
       Case number: C/13/764975 
     
     
     
       
         Judgment 
       
     
     
     
       
         11 April 2025 
       
     
     
     
       
         Claimants :  
     
     
       
         
           TRIPLE BELLS B.V. , incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands, with its corporate seat in Uithoorn, the Netherlands ("Seller I") 
       
       
         
           TRIPLE BELLS HOLDING B.V.,  incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands, with its corporate seat in Uithoorn, the Netherlands ("Seller II") 
       
       
         
           SALTIUM INVESTMENTS LTD.,  incorporated under the laws of Cyprus, having its address in Nicosia, Cyprus ("Seller III") 
       
       
         
           BETTOR CAPITAL HOLDCO I, LLC , incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, United States, having its address in Spring Lake, New Jersey, United States ("Seller IV") 
       
       
         
           OAKVALE VENTURES LTD. , incorporated under the laws of England and Wales, having its registered office in London, United Kingdom ("Seller V") 
       
     
     represented by R.Q. Potter, G.J.P. Freijser and S. Vlassak, lawyers, 
     
     
       
         Joining party on the claimants’ side: 
       
       
         BETTOR CAPITAL HOLDCO I-A, LLC , incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, United States, having its address in Spring Lake, New Jersey, United States ("Seller VI") 
       represented by R.Q. Potter, lawyer, 
     
     
     
       
         Defendants : 
     
     
       
         
           SEGA SAMMY CREATION INC.  (“Purchaser”) 
       
       
         
           SEGA SAMMY HOLDINGS INC.  (“Guarantor”) 
       
     
     
       both incorporated under the laws of Japan, having their address in Tokyo, Japan, 
       represented by A.A.H.J. Huizing, A.B.B. Wilmink and P.J.S de Jong-van den Bogaard, lawyers. 
     
     
     
       Claimants and the joining party are collectively referred to as Triple Bells or Sellers.  The defendants are collectively referred to as Sega Sammy and individually as Purchaser and Guarantor.  
       The term ‘lawyer’ has the meaning as defined in Article 3.1.1 NCC Rules of Civil Procedure (NCCR). 
     
     
   
   
     
       1 Procedural history 
     
       1.1. 
       The proceedings to date are listed in the interim judgment dated 31 March 2025 (the ‘Interim Judgment’, publication number ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:2288). In this judgment the Court ordered claimants to give notice to Bettor Capital HoldCo I-A, LLC (Seller VI) to appear in these proceedings pursuant to Article 118 Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (DCCP). 
       
     
     
       1.2. 
       On 3 April 2025, the claimants submitted a notice for Seller VI to appear in eNCC. 
       
     
     
       1.3. 
       Seller VI entered an appearance in eNCC on 4 April 2025, and submitted a statement indicating that it: 
       
         
           fully and irrevocably supports the claims and factual representations as submitted by the Sellers, 
         
         
           waives its right to be heard at a second hearing, 
         
         
           wishes to join the proceedings as additional claimant on the Sellers’ side. 
         
       
       
     
     
       1.4. 
       The Court allowed the claimants and Sega Sammy to comment on this statement. 
       
     
     
       1.5. 
       By letters dated 8 April 2025, the claimants and Sega Sammy responded to Seller VI’s statement: 
       
         
           the claimants support Seller VI’s wish to join the proceedings on the claimants’ side, 
         
         
           Sega Sammy did not make any comments. 
         
       
       
     
     
       1.5. 
       Judgment was originally set for 10 April 2025, but due to the procedural matters referred to above judgment was deferred by one day to today.  
       
       
     
   
   
     
       2 Facts - background 
     
       2.1. 
       The Sellers are the shareholders of Stakelogic B.V. (“Stakelogic”), a Dutch developer and provider of online casino games and gaming solutions.	 
       
     
     
       2.2. 
       
         The Purchaser is a Japanese gaming machine manufacturer and gaming content 
         developer which operates in the global gaming industry. It is a subsidiary of 
         the Guarantor and a publicly traded Japanese multinational engaged in various 
         industries, including gaming and entertainment. The holding company was established 
         through the merger of Sega Corporation and Sammy Corporation. 
       
       
     
     
       2.3. 
       
         On 26 July 2024, Triple Bells and Sega Sammy entered into a share purchase agreement (the “SPA”) for the sale of  Triple Bells’ shares in Stakelogic (the “Shares”) to the Purchaser. The purchase price for Stakelogic was agreed at roughly EUR 130,000,000. The SPA reads – in relevant parts – as follows: 
         “(…) 
         
           1 Definitions 
         
         (…) 
         
           Restricted Territories List  means the document included in the Data Room named ‘Annex V 
         Restricted Territories’, with reference number 9.1.4.2., as updated and supplemented from time to 
         time, which will in any event include Japan as a jurisdiction where the licensee must not allow 
         participation on Stakelogic’s Licensed Games for real money play due to FATF AML restrictions; 
         (…) 
         
           3 Purchase Price, repayment of loans and payment 
         
       
     
     
       3.1 
       Purchase Price components; Completion Accounts mechanism 
       
         3.1.1 
         
           Subject to Completion, the purchase price for the Shares (the “ Purchase Price ”) to be paid by the Purchaser to: 
           (i) Seller II shall consist of the Earn Out (if any) only; and 
           (ii) Seller I and the VC Sellers shall consist of the Initial Purchase Price only. 
         
       
       
         3.1.2 
         
           The Transaction is based on a ‘completion accounts’ purchase price mechanism as per the Effective Time on a month-end basis, plus an earn out mechanism for the benefit of Seller II only. The Parties acknowledge that the Initial Purchase Price (i) will be estimated after the Signing Date but prior to Completion, and (ii) will be finally determined after Completion, all in accordance with the terms and conditions, including the calculation methods and accounting rules, as set out in the Completion Accounts Rules, the definitions used in this Clause 3 and subject to the other terms and conditions of this Agreement. 
           (…) 
         
       
     
     
       3.10 
       
         Guarantee 
         The Guarantor hereby guarantees towards the Sellers the due and punctual payment and fulfilment 
         of the (obligations with regard to) Purchaser Price under this Agreement. The Guarantor shall be 
         jointly and severally liable (hoofdelijk aansprakelijk) as if it had entered into the undertakings itself 
         and hereby waives any rights which it may have to require the Sellers to proceed first against or claim 
         specific performance from the Purchaser. In addition, the Guarantor hereby unconditionally agrees to 
         use all shareholder rights and other legal or factual influence it has over Purchaser in order to cause 
         Purchaser to fully comply with its obligations under this Agreement as soon as they become due. 
         (…) 
         
           4 Conditions Precedent 
         
       
     
     
       4.1 
       
         Conditions precedent 
         Completion is subject to the following conditions precedent (the “ Conditions Precedent ”) being 
         satisfied on or prior to the day following 11 months from the Signing Date or such later date as the 
         Sellers’ Representative and the Purchaser may agree in writing (the  “Long Stop Date ”): 
         (i) all obligatory notifications and filings to the regulatory authorities listed in Annex 4.1 (the 
         “ Regulatory Authorities ”) pursuant to the applicable regulatory laws have been made, all 
         waiting periods (including extensions thereof) with respect to such notifications and filings that 
         are required to expire prior to Completion shall have expired and the competent Regulatory 
         Authorities, to the extent required prior to Completion: 
         (a) shall have rendered a decision permitting the performance of this Agreement under the 
         relevant regulatory laws; or 
         (b) shall have rendered a decision stating that no clearance is required under the relevant 
         regulatory laws for the performance of this Agreement; or 
         (c) shall not have rendered a decision within the waiting period applicable under the relevant 
         regulatory laws, where the failure to render a decision within such period is equivalent to 
         the grant of clearance under the relevant laws for the performance of this Agreement; or 
         (d) shall have referred the matter to any other competent authority in accordance with the 
         relevant laws and clearance subsequently shall have been given by that other competent 
         authority in accordance with Clause 4.1(a), (b) or (c), whereby the necessary clearances have been further specified in Annex 4.1. The foregoing 
         hereinafter together the " Regulatory Conditions ”; 
         (ii) the FY23 Annual Accounts (i) have been prepared and adopted, all in accordance with the 
         Accounting Principles, and filed with the Dutch Trade Register and (ii) are accompanied with a 
         report of factual findings on the agreed upon scope of work for 2023 by BDO on the basis of 
         the AUP Procedure (the “ Accounts Condition ”); 
         (iii) the following agreements are terminated without any contingent costs or expenses incurred by 
         any Group Company: (a) the services agreement between [company X] and the Company dated 
         5 October 2023; (b) the services agreement between [company X] and the Company dated 
         26 February 2019; (c) the services agreement between [company X] and Triple Bells B.V. dated 
         19 July 2018; (d) the employment agreement between [Y] and the Company 
         20 March 2022 (the  [Y] c.s. Condition ); 
         (iv) Seller II and the Purchaser having duly executed the Earn Out Agreement (the  EOA Condition ); 
         and 
         (v) between the Signing Date and the date on which the Accounts Condition, the Regulatory 
         Conditions, the [Y] c.s. Condition and the EOA Condition have been satisfied or waived in 
         accordance with this Agreement, no Material Adverse Change having occurred (the “ MAC 
         
           Condition ”). 
         (…) 
       
       
     
   
   
     
       5 Pre-Completion undertakings 
     
       5.1 
       
         Notary Letter 
         On or prior to the date falling 1 Business Day prior to the Completion Date, the Purchaser and the 
         Sellers shall, and shall procure that the other parties thereto shall, sign the Notary Letter. 
       
     
     
       5.2 
       Conduct of business 
       
         5.2.1 
         
           Except as (i) otherwise provided in this Agreement, (ii) already provided for in the Budget, or (iii) approved with the prior written consent by the Purchaser, and subject to applicable (competition) 
           Law, the Sellers shall from the Signing Date until the earlier of Completion or the Long Stop Date 
           procure that: 
           (i) each Group Company: 
           (a) carries on its business in accordance with the rules and principles as set out in the 
           Restricted Territories List, uses its reasonable best efforts to procure that its customers 
           comply with the rules and principles set out in the Restricted Territories List and keeps the 
           Restricted Territories List up-to-date; 
           (b) immediately reports to the Purchaser on any material fact, material matter, material 
           circumstance or material event outside the ordinary course which it should reasonably 
           understand to be of material importance to the Purchaser as a purchaser of the Shares; 
           and 
           (ii) Notwithstanding Clause 5.2.1, no Group Company: 
           (…) 
           (e) enters into any material agreement, agreement in principle, letter of intent, memorandum of understanding or similar contract with respect to any joint venture, strategic partnership or alliance, profit and/or loss sharing arrangement, minority equity investment or similar, 
           (…) 
           (k) materially amends the terms of employment of any of its Key Employees or terminates the employment of a substantial number of employees of any Group Company simultaneously or within a short period of time; 
           (…) 
           
             6 Completion 
           
         
       
     
     
       6.1 
       Completion Date 
       
         6.1.1 
         
           Provided that all Conditions Precedent have been satisfied or waived (as the case may be) in 
           accordance with Clause 4, Completion shall take place (the “ Completion Date ”): 
           (i) if the Conditions Precedent have been satisfied or waived on or prior to the 20th (twentieth) 
           calendar day of a given month: on the first day of the first month following the month in which 
           all Conditions Precedent have been satisfied or waived; or 
           (ii) if the Conditions Precedent have been satisfied or waived after the 20th (twentieth) calendar day 
           of a given month: on the first day of the second month following the month in which all 
           Conditions Precedent have been satisfied or waived, 
           or such date as mutually agreed otherwise by all Parties in writing after the Signing Date. 
           (…) 
         
       
       
         6.1.2 
         Completion shall take place at the offices of Greenberg Traurig, LLP in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 
       
     
     
       6.2 
       
         Completion Actions 
         At Completion, the Parties shall procure that the following actions (the "Completion Actions") are 
         taken or have been taken in the following sequence: 
         (i) the Purchaser (as the lender) and the Sellers shall procure that the relevant Group Companies 
         (as the borrowers) shall enter into the Buyer Loan Agreement; 
         (ii) the Parties shall sign the Escrow Agreement; 
         (iii) the Purchaser shall have transferred the Completion Amount to the Notary Bank Account in 
         accordance with the Notary Letter, and the Notary shall have confirmed the receipt thereof; 
         (iv) the Sellers shall deliver to the Notary the original shareholders’ register of the Company; 
         (v) the Purchaser shall deliver to the Sellers’ Representative: 
         (a) a copy of the duly executed W&I Insurance Policy; 
         (vi) the Sellers shall deliver to the Purchaser: 
         (a) the ‘bring down certificate’ as required in respect of the W&I Insurance Policy; 
         (b) a copy of the FY23 Annual Accounts; 
         (c) a waiver for the change of control in connection with the Intra-Group Current Account 
         Agreement; 
         (d) a waiver for the software licence agreement between the Company and Bally’s Interactive LLC dated 10 July 2023; and 
         (vii) the Sellers shall deliver to the Notary with a copy to the Purchaser (i) the written resignation 
         letter of Triple Bells B.V., stating that it resigns as director of the Company and legalized and 
         apostilled, as and where required, and (ii) written shareholder’s resolutions of the Company (a) 
         acknowledging and accepting the resignation of, and giving discharge to Triple Bells B.V. and 
         (b) resolving upon and approving the amendment of the articles of association of the Company 
         in accordance with the Deed of Amendment and granting the Notary the authorization to 
         execute the Deed of Amendment on the Sellers’ behalf, subject to and with effect from the 
         execution of the Deed of Transfer; 
         (viii) the Sellers shall transfer the Shares to the Purchaser, the Purchaser shall accept transfer of the 
         Shares from the Sellers and the Company shall acknowledge the transfer of the Shares by means 
         of the execution of the Deed of Transfer; 
         (ix) the Sellers shall procure that the Notary shall execute the Deed of Amendment; 
         (x) [Z] Capital B.V. and the Company shall execute the Management Agreement; 
         (xi) the Notary shall transfer the Estimated Initial Purchase Price minus the Escrow Amount to the 
         Sellers on the date following the Completion Date in accordance with the Notary Letter; 
         (xii) the Notary shall transfer the Loan Repayment Amount to the Lenders on the date following the 
         Completion Date in accordance with the Notary Letter; 
         (xiii) the Notary shall transfer the Cash Bonus Payment to the Company on the date following the 
         Completion Date in accordance with the Notary Letter; and 
         (xiv) the Notary shall register (a) the transfer of the Shares and the amendment of the articles of 
         association of the Company in the shareholders’ register of the Company, (b) the Purchaser as 
         sole shareholder of the Company and the amendment of the articles of association of the 
         Company with the Dutch Chamber of Commerce and (c) the changes in the ultimate beneficial 
         owner of each of the Group Companies in the Dutch UBO register,  
         whereby the Parties acknowledge that Completion will only be deemed effectuated after all Completion Actions have been fulfilled. Each of the Completion Actions shall be deemed to take place simultaneously provided that, for practical reasons, Completion shall take place in the sequence set out hereabove. Accordingly, each of the Completion Actions to be carried out at Completion shall be deemed to have been carried out subject to the condition precedent that each of the other Completion Actions shall have actually been carried out and Completion shall not have occurred until all Completion Actions have been carried out. 
         (…) 
         
           9 Warranties and liability 
         
         (…) 
       
     
     
       9.2 
       Liability 
       
         9.2.1 
         Subject to the terms of this Agreement, in the event of a Breach or a breach of any other provision of this Agreement, the Sellers shall pay the Purchaser or, at the direction of the Purchaser, a Group Company the actual amount of Damages suffered by the Purchaser or the Group Companies as a result of such Breach or breach of any other provision of this Agreement. 
       
       
         9.2.2 
         
           The sole and exclusive remedy of the Purchaser for a Breach, a Tax Claim as well as a Claim under Clause 14 will be an action for Damages and the Purchaser waives its rights to claim specific 
           performance (nakoming) or any other remedy in respect thereof. In case of any Other Claim the Purchaser shall also have the right to claim specific performance (nakoming). 
         
       
       
         9.2.3 
         
           The Parties hereby exclude the applicability of title 1 of book 7 DCC to this Agreement. 
           (…) 
           
             19 Miscellaneous 
           
           (…) 
         
       
     
     
       19.9 
       
         No rescission 
         Unless stated otherwise in this Agreement, the Parties waive their rights, if any, to in whole or in part 
         annul (vernietigen), rescind (ontbinden) or partially rescind (gedeeltelijke ontbinding) this Agreement 
         on the basis of article 6:228, article 6:258, article 6:265 or article 6:270 of the DCC. Furthermore, Parties waive their right to request a competent court to amend this Agreement on the basis of article 6:258 or article 6:230 of the DCC. 
         (…) 
         
           20 Law and jurisdiction 
         
       
     
     
       20.1 
       
         Governing Law 
         This Agreement shall be governed by and constructed in accordance with the laws of the Netherlands. 
       
     
     
       20.2 
       
         Jurisdiction 
         The Netherlands Commercial Court in Amsterdam, the Netherlands shall have exclusive jurisdiction 
         over a dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement. 
         (…)” 
       
       
     
     
       2.4. 
       
         Annex 9 (Warranties) to the SPA reads – insofar as relevant – as follows: 
         “(…) 
         
           17 Compliance 
         
       
     
     
       17.1 
       
         Each Group Company is qualified to conduct the Business and are conducting the Business in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. No Group Company or any of its directors, officers, representatives or their employees or former employees (during the course of their duties) has done or omitted to do anything which is a contravention of any applicable law giving rise to any fine, penalty, other liability, or sanction on the part of any Group Company, no complaints have been received by any Group Company in respect of such matters, and, to the Sellers’ knowledge, no circumstances exist or have existed which result, or have resulted in, a contravention of any such law. 
         (…)” 
       
       
     
     
       2.5. 
       By letter dated 17 February 2025, Triple Bells communicated to Sega Sammy that the conditions precedent under the SPA had been fulfilled and requested Sega Sammy’s cooperation in closing the transaction on the Completion Date which, in accordance with Clause 6.1.1(i), should take place on 1 March 2025. 
       
     
     
       2.6. 
       On 18 February 2025, the Purchaser declined Triple Bells’ request. 
       
     
     
       2.7. 
       On 25 March 2025, Sega Sammy served a writ of summons on Triple Bells seeking the NCC District Court to declare that Triple Bells breached its obligations under the SPA and to rescind the SPA as a result of these breaches. 
       
     
   
   
     
       3 The claims  
     
       3.1. 
       In these summary proceedings, the Sellers’s aim is for the Purchaser and the Guarantor to perform their obligations under the SPA and to close the transaction. More specifically, the claims - as amended, see the Interim Judgment - are presently as follows: 
       
         
           i) to order the Purchaser to perform all of its obligations under the SPA; 
         
         
           ii) to order the Purchaser to perform all of its obligations under Clauses 6.1, 6.1.1, 6.1.2 of the SPA and by taking all steps necessary to effectuate all steps of Clause 6.2 which contains obligations for the Purchaser (Clauses 6.2(i), 6.2(ii), and 6.2(v) of the SPA); 
         
         
           iii) to order the Purchaser to perform all of its obligations under the SPA to enable the transfer of the Shares, including by signing all documentation as may be required by the SPA, as well as by transferring the Completion Amount to the Notary Bank Account (as defined in the SPA), all within 3 days after the date of service of the judgment or, alternatively, within a term deemed fair by the Court in accordance with the proper administration of justice; 
         
         
           iv) to order the Purchaser to perform all of its obligations under Clause 6.2(iii) of the SPA; 
         
         
           v) to order the Guarantor to perform its obligations under the SPA, by taking all steps necessary to effectuate the transfer of the Shares to the Purchaser, including by signing all documentation as may be required by the SPA, as well as by taking all steps necessary for the Purchaser to perform all of its obligations under Clause 6.2(iii) of the SPA; 
         
         
           vi) to order the Guarantor to perform all of its own obligations under Clause 6.2(iii) of the SPA, in case Purchaser fails to do so; 
         
         
           vii) to order the Purchaser to pay a direct penalty of EUR 140,000,000 if it does not fully comply with the order demanded under (iv); 
         
         
           viii) to order the Guarantor to pay a direct penalty of EUR 140,000,000 if it does not fully comply with the order demanded under (v) and (vi); 
         
         
           ix) to order the Purchaser to pay a penalty of EUR 10,000,000 for each day it does not fully comply with the orders demanded under (ii) and (iii), with a maximum of EUR 130,000,000; 
         
         
           x) to order the Purchaser and the Guarantor to pay the costs of these proceedings increased by post-judgment costs and statutory interest. 
         
       
       
       
     
   
   
     
       4 Discussion 
     
       4.1. 
       In the Interim Judgment the Court already ruled on the jurisdiction of the Court, the applicable law, and the amendment of the claims, so it will not repeat these rulings here.  
       
       
         
           Procedural issues 
         
       
       
     
     
       4.2. 
       Sega Sammy raised several procedural issues which, in its opinion, should result in the Court declaring Triple Bells inadmissible in its claims and/or denying Triple Bells’ claims, because: 
       
         
           one of the Sellers under the Agreement (Bettor Capital HoldCo I-A, LLC, “Seller VI”) was not amongst the claimants initiating these proceedings ( exceptio plurium litis consortium ), 
         
         
           Triple Bells’ claims are too vague, 
         
         
           the dispute is not suitable for summary proceedings, and 
         
         
           the Guarantor, Sega Sammy Holdings Inc., has been summoned without prior default notice (in Dutch:  rauwelijks gedagvaard ) 
         
       
       
     
     
       4.3. 
       The Court addressed the first issue in the Interim Judgment. Since (a) the claimants complied with the order in the Interim Judgment to give notice to Seller VI to appear, (b) Seller VI entered an appearance in these proceedings on 4 April 2024, and indicated that it wishes to join the proceedings without further additional conditions and/or requirements, (c) the claimants support Seller VI joining on their side, and (d) Sega Sammy did not comment on Seller VI joining the proceedings, the Court allows Seller VI to be joined in these proceedings on the claimants’ side.  
       
     
     
       4.4. 
       The Court rejects Sega Sammy’s remaining procedural defences for the following reasons: 
       
          The claims in the operative part of the writ of summons are very broad, but this does not mean that Sega Sammy is unable to raise any defences against these claims. The aim of the claims is perfectly clear: to force Sega Sammy to perform its obligations to complete the transaction contemplated under the SPA without further delay. 
          Complicated matters may be brought in summary proceedings, even factually or legally complex matters. This does not mean that it would be inappropriate for a court to decide the matter in summary proceedings pursuant to Article 256 DCCP. The parties explained in a detailed manner what the relevant facts are and what the content of relevant foreign law is, and it is now up to the Court to decide on the matter. 
          As to the defence on not providing a prior default notice ( rauwelijks dagvaarden) : if a party – prior to initiating proceedings – does not demand the counterparty to perform certain actions it will be seeking judgment for in judicial proceedings, the consequence of this is not that the party will be declared inadmissible in its claims or that the claims will be denied.  
       
       
       
         
           The merits of the case 
         
       
       
     
     
       4.5. 
       The standard in summary proceedings (Article 254 DCCP) is whether: 
       
         
           the matter is urgent, which means that the claimant cannot be expected to await the outcome of (potential) main proceedings,  
         
         
           the claimant is likely to succeed in (potential) main proceedings, and  
         
         
           the immediate measure is appropriate, given the parties' mutual interests. 
         
       
       
       
         
           Urgency 
         
       
       
     
     
       4.6. 
       
         The urgency of the matter follows from the fact that – if the conditions precedent have been fulfilled, as Triple Bells claims – the Completion Date under the SPA was  
         1 March 2025, which date has already passed.  
       
       
       
         
           Is the claimant likely to succeed in (potential) main proceedings? 
         
       
       
     
     
       4.7. 
       This dispute is about a share purchase agreement. Triple Bells argues that Sega Sammy is obliged to perform the actions needed for completion of the transaction contemplated under the SPA (“Completion”), as all of the conditions precedent under Clause 4.1 of the SPA have been satisfied. 
       
     
     
       4.8. 
       Sega Sammy’s defence is twofold: 
       
         
           i) the condition precedent regarding the permission by regulatory authorities for performance of the SPA (the “Regulatory Condition”) has not been fulfilled, 
         
         
           ii) Triple Bells breached certain pre-completion undertakings, which allows Sega Sammy to suspend any obligations it may have under the SPA, pending the main proceedings, that have been initiated by way of the writ of summons dated 25 March 2025 (see para 2.7), where it seeks to rescind ( ontbinden ) the SPA. The basis for its claim for rescission is that Triple Bells failed to perform its obligations: 
         
       
       
         a. to seek approval for the dismissal and replacement of Stakelogic’s CCO (Clause 5.2.1 (ii)(k) SPA), 
         b. to inform Sega Sammy about and seek its approval for the large number of employees (209) leaving Stakelogic or making these employees redundant (Clause 5.2.1 (ii)(k) SPA), 
         c. to seek formal approval for entering into a strategic partnership with GAN Ltd. (Clause 5.2.1(ii)(e) SPA), 
         d. to procure that Stakelogic will carry on its business in accordance with the rules and principles as set out in the Restricted Territories List, and to use its reasonable best efforts to procure that its customers comply with the rules and principles set out in that list (Clause 5.2.1 (i)(a) SPA and Clause 17 of the Warranties included in Annex 9 to the SPA). Stakelogic breached this obligation by effecting, facilitating, and/or allowing that Stakelogic games (i) are offered both in Japan as in Türkiye and/or (ii) are accessible in Japan and in Türkiye and/or can be played for real money in Japan and in Türkiye. 
       
       
     
     
       4.9. 
       The Court notes that the parties disagree on how the SPA should be construed. The construction of the SPA is governed by Dutch law (Clause 20.1 SPA). The standard under Dutch law is that construction of a contract is not solely guided by a text-based interpretation of the provisions of the contract, but also by (a) what meaning a reasonable person of the same kind as the parties would have given to the language of these provisions in the same circumstances, and (b) what a reasonable person of the same kind as the parties would expect the adverse party to do under these provisions in the same circumstances. This enquiry may focus on matters such as who the parties are and the legal expertise that similarly situated parties may reasonably be expected to have ( Haviltex ).  Additional guidance clarifies that certain circumstances (such as the nature of the transaction, the size of the contract and the amount of detail, the way the contract was concluded, and the existence of an entire agreement clause) may make it appropriate for the court, as a rule, to give decisive weight to the most obvious text-based meaning of the provisions of the contract, in conjunction with the other provisions of the contract which may be relevant for its interpretation. 
       
     
     
       4.10. 
       The Court considers these circumstances: 
       
         
           the parties are professional parties who instructed professional advisors to assist them in the acquisition of Stakelogic and in the drafting of the SPA, 
         
         
           the SPA is of considerable size (45 pages, excluding the annexes, which consist of more than 150 pages) and sets out the parties’ obligations in detail, 
         
         
           the SPA contains an entire agreement clause (Clause 19.12). 
         
       
       
     
     
       4.11. 
       In light of these circumstances, the Court gives decisive weight to the most obvious text-based meaning of the provisions of the SPA. 
       
       
         
           (i) The Regulatory Condition 
         
       
       
     
     
       4.12. 
       For the Regulatory Condition under Clause 4.1(i)(a) SPA to be satisfied: 
       
         
           all obligatory notifications and filings to the Regulatory Authorities pursuant to the applicable regulatory laws must have been made,  
         
         
           where applicable: all waiting periods must have expired, and  
         
         
           the competent Regulatory Authorities, to the extent required prior to Completion, must have rendered a decision permitting the performance of this Agreement under the relevant regulatory laws. 
         
       
       Contrary to what Sega Sammy states, the Regulatory Condition does not in any way require Triple Bells to request the authorities to also authorise the new owner of Stakelogic to commence or continue gaming operations in jurisdictions where Stakelogic is active. The condition solely pertains to obtaining permission for the takeover of Stakelogic.  
     
     
       4.13. 
       Sega Sammy does not dispute, nor has it provided sufficient substantiation to the contrary, that all relevant regulatory authorities have permitted the completion of the transaction under the relevant regulatory laws. It argues that the notifications and filings to the regulatory authorities usually also contain confirmations by the notifying party (Triple Bells) that it acts in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. By infringing regulatory laws on online gambling in Japan and Türkiye the notifications and filings to the regulatory authorities were not filed in a complete and correct manner. 
       
     
     
       4.14. 
       The purpose of including conditions precedent in a share purchase agreement is twofold: 
       
         
           to safeguard that the most fundamental conditions for the transaction have been satisfied before the transaction is completed, 
         
         
           to have deal certainty if and when these conditions have been satisfied: satisfaction of the conditions precedent triggers the completion of the transaction as per Clause 6.1, which automatically determines what the date for Completion will be.  
         
       
       In light of this contractual framework, the conditions precedent in the SPA have been drafted in such a way that it is possible to objectively ascertain whether or not the conditions have been met, and if so, at what moment in time. This means that the Regulatory Condition is satisfied if and when (i) notifications and filings to the regulatory authorities have been made (which Triple Bells has done) and (ii) the regulatory authorities have decided to permit performance of the SPA (which is also the case). Ascertaining whether or not Stakelogic infringed any regulatory laws would require an in-depth research into Stakelogic’s actions and activities in all relevant jurisdictions. This is incompatible with the hard and fast rules given in the SPA’s provisions on conditions precedent and Completion. 
       
     
     
       4.15 
       In light of the fact that Sega Sammy did not sufficiently dispute that the other conditions precedent were also satisfied, the Court does not consider it likely that a court in any main proceedings would rule that the conditions precedent have not been fulfilled. This means that Sega Sammy was obliged to complete the transaction no later than 1 March 2025 (extended to 3 March 2025 by Triple Bells, because 1 March was in a weekend).  
       
       
         
           (ii) Breach of pre-completion undertakings? 
         
       
       
     
     
       4.16. 
       The next question the court would have to deal with in (potential) main proceedings is whether Triple Bells breached certain pre-completion undertakings, and if so, whether Sega Sammy would have the right to rescind the SPA on this basis (and suspend its obligations pending a decision on its claim for rescission). 
       
     
     
       4.17. 
       The Court will first analyse the second issue, as Triple Bells states that Sega Sammy is barred from rescinding the SPA, even in case of breach of pre-completion undertakings (Clause 19.9).  
       
     
     
       4.18. 
       
         Clause 19.9 of the SPA reads as follows: 
         
           “19.9 No rescission 
         
         
           Unless stated otherwise in this Agreement, the Parties waive their rights, if any, to in whole or in part annul (vernietigen), rescind (ontbinden) or partially rescind (gedeeltelijke ontbinding) this Agreement on the basis of article 6:228, article 6:258, article 6:265 or article 6:270 of the DCC. Furthermore, Parties waive their right to request a competent court to amend this Agreement on the basis of article 6:258 or article 6:230 of the DCC.” 
         
       
       
     
     
       4.19. 
       The most obvious text-based meaning of this provision is that no rescission of the SPA is possible, either in-court or out-of-court. This follows not only from the heading of this clause, but also, and more importantly from its contents. The clause explicitly refers to Articles 6:265 and 6:270 of the Dutch Civil Code (DCC) which deal with this matter. Article 6:265 DCC sets the standard for (partial or full) rescission of an agreement, whereas Article 6:270 DCC states what the consequences are of a partial rescission. No reference is made to Articles 6:267(1) or (2) DCC which provide for the specific ways in which rescission can be sought: by a written declaration to the counterparty (paragraph 1) or by a court decision (paragraph 2). If Clause 19.9 was intended to cover only an out-of-court rescission, a reasonable person would have expected the clause to include a reference to Article 6:267(1) DCC. However, such reference is absent.  
       
     
     
       4.20. 
       The fact that the second sentence of Clause 19.9 explicitly mentions the “competent court” and the first sentence does not, is immaterial. The second sentence only pertains to amendment of the agreement, not to rescission.  
       
     
     
       4.21. 
       The reference to other Articles in the DCC is insufficient to alert a reasonable person to a subtle distinction between in-court and out-of-court options to amend, annul or rescind the SPA: 
       
         
           Article 6:228 DCC does not state the way in which an agreement may be annulled, but only sets the standard for seeking annulment. Another provision in the DCC determines how annulment can be sought: in-court or out-of-court (Article 3:49 DCC). 
         
         
           Article 6:258 DCC sets the standard for amendment of the agreement for unforeseen circumstances, and determines that only a court has the power to amend on this basis.  
         
         
           Article 6:230 DCC determines only the way in which a court may amend an agreement instead of annulling it on the basis of Article 6:228 DCC. 
         
       
       The fact that amendment of a contract pursuant to Articles 6:258 and 230 DCC can only be done by a court confirms why Clause 19.9 specifically mentions the “competent court” in the second sentence of this clause. 
       
     
     
       4.22. 
       The Court – on the basis of the preliminary analysis made above – finds it likely that a court dealing with the main proceedings would construe Clause 19.9 SPA to mean that both seeking in-court and out-of-court rescission is barred. This means that – even if Triple Bells breached certain pre-completion undertakings – Sega Sammy must abide by its obligation under the SPA to complete the transaction. Any breaches can only be remedied by an action for damages (Clause 9.2 of the SPA). 
       
     
     
       4.23. 
       Extraordinary circumstances could make relying on the waiver in Clause 19.9 SPA unacceptable in light of the principles of reasonableness and fairness (Article 6:248(2) DCC), which could persuade the Court to decide differently as to Sega Sammy’s right of rescission.  
       
     
     
       4.24. 
       Sega Sammy argues that by completing the transaction it runs the risk of losing (or suspension of) the gambling licences it now holds in various jurisdictions, such as the United States of America, and even be exposed to criminal charges. This is because Stakelogic – according to Sega Sammy – allows users from Japan and Türkiye (where online gambling is strictly prohibited) to access and play Stakelogic gambling games.  
       
     
     
       4.25. 
       The Court agrees with Sega Sammy that if the transaction (i.e. making Stakelogic an intricate part of its operations) would have such a serious impact on the licences Sega Sammy now holds and could even result in criminal charges brought against Stakelogic and/or Sega Sammy itself, would qualify as an extraordinary circumstance as mentioned above. No company can be forced to take such risks. 
       
     
     
       4.26. 
       However, the Court does not find that it is likely that these risks will materialise. The reasons for this finding are as follows. 
        Sega Sammy performed ‘trial runs’ in March 2025 to show that it was possible to play Stakelogic gambling games from Japan. However, the BDO report submitted by Triple Bells  raises serious concerns as to whether or not a VPN connection was used during the trial runs (by the player in Japan or somewhere along the way to the Stakelogic server). The Court is aware that the report was drafted on the instructions of Triple Bells, but this does not render the report useless. The expert engaged by Sega Sammy in response to the BDO report  was not able to state with confidence that no VPN was used.  The Court will therefore follow the BDO report where it  confirms that geo-blocking for Japan was in place at the time of the trial runs, and that the player of the specific sessions were localised in the Stakelogic database from (virtually) the United States (instead of Japan). This is confirmed by the fact that, in BDO’s presence, Stakelogic’s Chief Technical Officer tried to access the games through a VPN connection with location set at (virtually) Japan and the games did not load. BDO states in its report that technically it could be possible that Stakelogic changed the IP addresses for both sessions to a VPN IP address outside Japan, but: 
       
         
           “The responsible staff declared that they did not make changes in the database before preparing the screenshots and given the restricted access no other staff could have made changes.” 
         
         In the Court’s opinion, it would not make sense for Stakelogic staff to lie about not making any changes to the IP address. It is undisputed that Stakelogic is paying for geo-blocking services (MaxMind’s invoices were in the data room used in the disclosure process), so it is implausible that Stakelogic would not use these services for jurisdictions where online gambling is strictly prohibited, such as Japan and Türkiye. This is especially so, as not activating geo-blocking for restricted territories could jeopardise the licences Stakelogic now holds in various jurisdictions that allow online gambling and therefore would expose its worldwide activities. 
       
        Sega Sammy did not make it sufficiently plausible that Stakelogic games were playable in Japan  for real money . During the trial runs in March 2025, Sega Sammy did not attempt to play Stakelogic games for money, but only in demo mode. Sega Sammy did not sufficiently dispute Triple Bells’ assertion that no jurisdiction in the world prohibits playing online gambling games in demo mode. This is confirmed by the SPA, as the definition of “Restricted Territories List” only pertains to Stakelogic games to be played “for real money”. The legal opinion on Japanese law provided by Sega Sammy also relates to gambling for money only. 
        Even if Stakelogic games could be played for money by persons in Japan or Türkiye, Stakelogic is not the entity directly responsible. Stakelogic is not the company running the website which provided access to its games, but only a content provider. Therefore, the risk that it will face criminal charges is negligible. This is confirmed by the legal opinions on Turkish and Japanese law. 
        Stakelogic uses the services of a geo-blocking service provider, which aims at preventing access to its games from jurisdictions where online gambling is prohibited. This would likely make it very complicated for authorities to prove intent to violate gambling laws and bring charges against Stakelogic (and against Sega Sammy as Stakelogic’s parent company). No evidence was presented that regulatory authorities of countries which prohibit online gambling actually require specific additional technical measures (besides geo-blocking) to prevent online gambling. 
       
         
           Since the trial runs in March 2025 the website which provided access to Stakelogic games in Japan ceased to offer access to these games, even in demo mode. Sega Sammy did not present any evidence on other websites in Japan that still allow for Stakelogic games to be played – without the use of a VPN connection – by a player located in Japan. 
         
         
           If Sega Sammy after completing the transfer of Shares wishes to minimise any risk that persons in Japan, Türkiye or any other restricted territory are able to play Stakelogic games using a VPN connection, it may impose a limitation of accessing these games by VPN, as apparently (e.g.) Netflix has done. 
         
       
       
     
     
       4.27. 
       The other alleged breaches of pre-completion undertakings referred to in para. 4.8 are not severe enough to warrant barring Triple Bells from relying on the waiver in Clause 19.9. Triple Bells has provided a plausible explanation on the release of the CCO, made it sufficiently likely that the personnel changes only had minimal impact on Stakelogic’s business, and that the GAN project was initiated by Sega Sammy. This is confirmed by Sega Sammy’s position which is that the personnel changes and lack of formal approval for the GAN project did not affect Sega Sammy’s willingness to proceed with the transaction.  This only changed because of the alleged offering of Stakelogic games in restricted territories  (which was ‘a serious paradigm shift’, according to Sega Sammy). 
       
     
     
       4.28. 
       From the above it follows that Stakelogic’s reliance on the waiver in Clause 19.9 SPA is not unacceptable in light of the principles of reasonableness and fairness. This means that it is unlikely that the court dealing with the main proceedings will rescind the SPA. 
       
       
         
           Balance of interests 
         
       
       
     
     
       4.29. 
       In summary proceedings, the court must assess whether the measure is appropriate in light of the parties’ interests. The Court is aware that it would be difficult to reverse the transaction if the Court were to oblige Sega Sammy to complete it. And there still is a risk, however small, that regulatory authorities would rule differently on Stakelogic’s conduct than this Court has done.  
       
     
     
       4.30. 
       However, Triple Bells’ interests outweigh Sega Sammy’s interests in awaiting the outcome of the main proceedings. Because of the already delayed completion of the transaction, Stakelogic has been running out of cash, which it was able to overcome only by way of additional funding. And also Stakelogic has started to integrate its services with Sega Sammy and is continuing to do so. 
       
       
         
           Conclusion 
         
       
       
     
     
       4.31. 
       Therefore, the Court will order Sega Sammy to complete the transaction. It will do so by allowing claims iii), v) and vi). These claims are clear enough for Sega Sammy to know what to do, especially as the SPA provides clear guidance on this (Clause 6.2). However, the Court will allow Sega Sammy more time to comply with the orders. The Court will impose a penalty on non-compliance with the orders,  but it will reduce the requested penalties as indicated in the conclusion and order below. The remaining claims are too broad and are not needed to obtain the required result, and therefore they will be denied.  
     
     
       4.32 
       Sega Sammy is unsuccessful in these proceedings and will therefore be ordered to pay the costs (including post-judgment costs), with statutory interest. 
       
       
     
   
   
     
       5 Conclusion and order 
     THE COURT 
     
     
       5.1. 
       orders the Purchaser to perform all of its obligations under the SPA to enable the transfer of the Shares, including by signing all documentation as may be required by the SPA, as well as by transferring the Completion Amount to the Notary Bank Account (as defined in the SPA), all within two weeks after the date of service of this judgment, 
       
     
     
       5.2. 
       orders the Guarantor to perform its obligations under the SPA by taking all steps necessary to effectuate the transfer of the Shares to Purchaser, including by signing all documentation as may be required by the SPA, as well as by taking all steps necessary for Purchaser to perform all of its obligations under Clause 6.2(iii) of the SPA, 
       
     
     
       5.3. 
       orders Guarantor to perform all of its own obligations under Clause 6.2(iii) of the SPA, in case Purchaser fails to do so, 
       
     
     
       5.4. 
       
         orders the Purchaser and the Guarantor each to pay a penalty of EUR 10,000,000 if either of them does not fully comply with the orders under 5.1., 5.2. and 5.3  
         above, 
       
       
     
     
       5.5. 
       orders the Purchaser and the Guarantor to pay the costs of the proceedings, quantified up to this judgment at EUR 14,200.50 (EUR 4,600 in lawyer’s fees, EUR 119.50 for serving the writ of summons and EUR 9,481 in court fees), to be increased by the statutory interest as referred to in Article 6:119 DCC as from the fifteenth day after the date of this judgment, 
       
     
     
       5.6. 
       orders the Purchaser and the Guarantor to pay the post-judgment costs, quantified at EUR 178 in case service of the judgment is not needed, and EUR 270 in case service is needed, to be paid within fourteen days after the date of the judgment, to be increased by the statutory interest as referred to in Article 6:119 DCC as from the fifteenth days after the date of this judgment, 
       
     
     
       5.7. 
       declares this judgment enforceable notwithstanding appeal. 
       
     
     
       5.8. 
       dismisses all other claims. 
       
       
         Done by C.W.D. Bom, Judge, assisted by W.A. Visser, Clerk of the Court.  
       
       
       
       
         Issued in public on 11 April 2025. 
       
       
       
       
         
           APPROVED FOR DISTRIBUTION IN eNCC  
         
       
       
     
   
   
      Paras. 3.1 and 3.2 of the writ of summons in the main proceedings (Exhibit 29 Sega Sammy) 
   
   
      Supreme Court 13 March 1981, ECLI:NL:HR:1981:AG4158 ( Haviltex ) 
   
   
      Supreme Court 19 January 2007, ECLI:NL:HR:2007:AZ3178 ( Meyer/Pontmeyer ), para. 3.4.3 
   
   
      Exhibit 51 Triple Bells 
   
   
      See the Forcyd report (Exhibit 30 Sega Sammy) 
   
   
      It merely concludes that “there is no reason to assume“ that the IP address was located outside Japan and that a VPN address may easily appear through tunnelling. 
   
   
      The screenshot submitted on page 10 of Sega Sammy’s pleading notes is unconvincing, as – according to its own expert – the link between IP address and geographical location, also where it pertains to open source IP locators, is dependent on source data of the websites in question (see page 2 of the Forcyd report). 
   
   
      According to the legal opinion (Exhibit 27 Sega Sammy), Stakelogic could be facing charges for aiding and abetting the running of  gambling places “for the purpose of gain” and Sega Sammy could be facing charges of “money laundering”, if it were to receive any proceeds from gambling in Japan. 
   
   
      Exhibit 24 Sega Sammy: “ While developers, operators, and content providers such as Stakelogic may technically be subject to criminal liability  [in Türkiye; added by the Court] , in practice, enforcement measures would primarily target B2C operators rather than B2B providers. ” Exhibit 27 Sega Sammy:  “At present, there are no cases  [in Japan; added by the Court]  in which business operators providing contents to online casino operators such as Stakelogic have been arrested.” 
   
   
      The Dutch Supreme Court asked the Court of Justice of the EU to answer a preliminary question regarding the effectiveness of geo-blocking in a case regarding intellectual property law (which may affect the legal framework for online gambling). See Supreme Court 20 September 2024, ECLI:NL:HR:2024:1263 and C-788/24. However, until the CJEU decides otherwise, the current view is that geo-blocking is sufficient, except where the user is intentionally applying ineffective geo-blocking (see para. 38-45 of the Opinion of the Advocate-General in the  Go4yu  case C-423/21, which case was discontinued on the request of the referring court). The A-G said:  “(…) there are no safeguards, either in the virtual world or in the real one, which cannot be circumvented or broken; the only issue is how difficult it is to circumvent or break them. This also applies to geoblocking. Various technical means, including VPN services, enable those blockades to be bypassed, in particular by virtually changing the user’s location. While there are technical means of counteracting such practices, they are not and probably never will be fully effective, as breach techniques are always one step ahead of security techniques.”  This analysis still holds true today. 
   
   
      Para. 5.10 Statement of Defence 
   
   
      Para. 3.8 Statement of Defence 
   
   
      Para. 3.9 Statement of Defence 
   
   
      Para. 3.70 Statement of Defence 
   
   
      The claims that will be awarded may result in Sega Sammy having to pay the purchase price, but this does not does not mean that the court order is for payment of money as meant in Article 611a DCCP. They are to be considered claims for performance.