Type of refusal

Refusal to disclose in crowdinvesting

In crowdinvesting, refusal to disclose rarely looks like an outright rejection. The platform keeps sending periodic updates while withholding the document that actually matters, the loan agreement, the borrower's identity, or the record of who holds what. Investors see a dashboard, not the underlying paper, and that gap is where the claim starts.

The contractual mechanism used

Most platforms interpose a nominee or a special purpose vehicle between the investor and the borrower, a structure described on the crowdinvesting and platform debt page. The investor signs the platform's terms of use, not a direct agreement with the underlying company. Those terms usually cap the platform's disclosure duty at periodic summary reporting and mark the loan file, the cap table, and borrower correspondence as confidential. The refusal is then framed as compliance with terms the investor already accepted, not as a breach. The same clause structure recurs across the categories grouped under refusal to disclose, and is discussed by asset type in the disclosure refusal insights.

The document that decides the framing

What the investor actually holds decides whether this is a contract dispute or a proprietary one. A direct loan note or shareholding gives a contractual or corporate claim against an identifiable debtor. A nominee arrangement or a pooled SPV interest gives, at best, a claim against the nominee, and only an indirect stake in the underlying debt. The subscription agreement, the nominee deed, and the platform's terms of use fix which applies, read together, before anything is filed. That distinction is worked through in this note on fund structures and shapes what a redemption default claim can target.

The cross-border question

The platform, the borrower, and the investor are rarely in the same country. A platform registered in one state may run its vehicle in a second, lending to a borrower in a third. Enforcement, if it comes to that, has to reach the country where the borrower or the nominee actually holds assets. Which authority hears the underlying claim depends on the contracts signed. Competent authority is determined by the applicable procedural rule for that claim. The same layered structure recurs, with different clauses, in the platform and frozen account cases, and in the Dutch and Spanish platform debt pages. None of this work is billed on a success-fee basis, and the firm's own registration is a matter of public record.