When timing is everything: time-pressured closing risks under leasehold legislation
This article follows two successive sales of the office building at Pegasusweg 200, Rotterdam, over a period of approximately 18 months. After nearly ten years of active asset and property management, owner Union Street, together with Spring, decided the building was ready for sale.
While the commercial deals were straightforward, both transactions ultimately became dominated by a lengthy and non-urgent municipal approval process, exposing a critical mismatch between fiscal deadlines and administrative timelines.
A transaction driven by a fixed deadline
In real estate transactions, timing can be just as decisive as price. Particularly where a transaction depends on a statutory deadline, such as the period within which a resale must be completed to qualify for a refund of real estate transfer tax.
For Pegasusweg 200, this deadline was decisive in both sales.
First sale: approval no longer a formality
In November 2024, Union Street signed a sale and purchase agreement with a private investor, subject to approval by the municipality as leaseholder, a right derived from the deed of leasehold. Typically regarded as a formality, the approval process proved unexpectedly complex.
The municipality took the position that not only the transfer, but also the historic leasing of the building, was subject to prior approval under the General Terms and Conditions 1993. Although this requirement was not explicitly incorporated into the deed of leasehold — and lease agreements had never been approved in the past — the municipality refused to grant transfer approval until this issue was addressed.
From that point onward, completion became dependent on a municipal process with open-ended timelines, offering little accommodation for transactional urgency.
Second sale: urgency versus procedure
In March 2025, Union Street completed the sale to the private investor. Spring remained asset and property manager and successfully leased the remaining vacancy. Shortly thereafter, the asset was prepared for resale.
To remain eligible for a transfer tax refund, delivery to a new buyer had to occur before September. While investor demand was strong and exclusivity was reached quickly, the critical risk was no longer commercial, it was whether the transaction could be legally completed in time.
Municipal approval was requested in early August, including full documentation for the required integrity screening. The municipality requested a concept deed of transfer, which is unusual at such an early stage, and this was subsequently provided. Thereafter, the municipality applied its standard review period of four to six weeks, during which no substantive response was received.
No contractual workaround
As the September deadline approached, the parties explored whether delivery could take place pending approval. Under leasehold law, this proved impossible.
Without explicit municipal consent, the seller lacks legal authority to transfer the leasehold right. This is not a contractual risk that parties can allocate, but a matter of legal capacity. As a result, the civil-law notary could not proceed with delivery, nor could conditional or interim structures offer a solution.
Ultimately, conditional approval was obtained one day before the deadline, allowing delivery via a Groningerakte, which would have had to be unwound had approval been refused. Final approval followed only in late November, almost four months after the initial request.
Key takeaway
This case highlights a structural issue for landlords and investors dealing with leasehold assets: where a transaction depends on a hard fiscal deadline, municipal approval shifts from a background condition to a deal-critical risk.
Even in a cooperative market, a lack of urgency on the approving authority’s side can determine whether a transaction closes on time. Identifying this risk at an early stage and planning realistically around approval timelines is essential when transfer tax refunds or similar deadlines apply.
