High Court rejects Tour des Finances claim over Belgian office tower valuation dispute

The Commercial Court has dismissed a claim brought by Tour des Finances NV GVBF against CBRE Loan Services Limited, finding that a disputed valuation of one of Belgium's largest office buildings, despite its shortcomings, satisfied the requirements of the parties' facility agreement.

Handing down judgement in Tour des Finances NV GVBF v CBRE Loan Services Limited [2026] EWHC 2321 (Comm), Robin Knowles J concluded that although the valuation prepared by Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL) was open to criticism, it was neither improperly influenced nor tainted by bias, and therefore qualified as a "Valuation" under the terms of the Amended Facilities Agreement (AFA).

The dispute centred on the Tour des Finances, described in evidence as the largest office building in Belgium and let principally to the Belgian federal government. The claimant financed its 2020 acquisition of the property, at a price exceeding €1.2 billion, under lending arrangements now governed by the AFA. CBRE Loan Services acted as Agent and Security Agent on behalf of eight commercial lenders, for whom PIMCO Prime Real Estate GmbH serves as investment manager.

Under the AFA, a "Cash Trap Event" is triggered where the loan to value ratio, calculated by reference to a defined valuation, exceeds a specified threshold, diverting rental income into a separate account. A valuation obtained from JLL in April 2026, putting the property's value at approximately €920 million, brought the loan to value ratio above that threshold. The claimant alleged that CBRE Loan Services and the lenders had interfered with the valuation process, including by directing JLL towards a predetermined conclusion, and that JLL had consequently lost its independence.

The judge accepted that CBRE Loan Services had expected, and at least one lender had wanted, a valuation at or below €950 million, sufficient to trigger the Cash Trap Event, and that JLL probably appreciated this by the time it finalised its report. However, he held that wanting or anticipating a particular outcome did not equate to bringing it about improperly, and was not satisfied that JLL had been pressured or instructed to reach a specific figure, nor that it had in fact lost its independence.

Robin Knowles J was critical of aspects of JLL's work, noting that its discounted cash flow cross-check was "at best cursory" and that some points raised by lenders during the review process had gone unaddressed. He found Jeremy Greenfield, the JLL valuer with primary responsibility for the report, to have seemed "a little out of his depth", though he did not question his honesty.

The judgement also examined an earlier, separate valuation exercise involving Knight Frank, which had resigned as valuer in January 2026 following what its representative described as undue pressure from PIMCO. The court declined to treat this episode as determinative, finding the evidence inconclusive as to why Knight Frank withdrew.

Expert evidence was heard from Taco Brink for the claimant and Tristan Dhondt for the defendant, with the judge noting genuine and legitimate differences of professional opinion between them on individual valuation assumptions, including tenant renewal probability, estimated rental value and reversionary yield.

The judge declined to draw adverse inferences from the defendant's decision not to call two further JLL witnesses, holding that any inference could not properly extend to a finding of impropriety.

In dismissing the claim, Robin Knowles J observed that the work done by JLL "may not have been a good job but it was a sufficient job and it was not a 'put up job'".