Bart van der Wiel

Bart van der Wiel

Advocaat | Partner

Languages

Nederlands
Engels

Follow me

Als cassatiespecialist is Bart betrokken geweest bij talloze toonaangevende zaken op het gebied van finance, insolventie en aansprakelijkheidsrecht, waarbij hij heeft opgetreden voor financiële instellingen als Achmea, AIG, Allianz, ING en Nationale-Nederlanden. Voorts trad hij op voor de curatoren van KPNQwest tegen aandeelhouders en bestuurders en treedt hij op voor de boedel van Lehman Brothers Treasury in kwesties van groot belang voor de afwikkeling van deze insolventies.

  • Bart van der Wiel is ranked in Tier 1.
     
    Chambers Europe, Dispute Resolution: Supreme Court Litigation (2017 Edition)
  • "He made an excellent impression. He really understands the needs of his client and makes exceptional efforts to serve their interests. He stands out as a highly qualified Supreme Court lawyer, which is reflected in a keen and solid analysis of each case. He wants to win and goes beyond the ordinary to achieve that."
     
    Chambers Europe, Dispute Resolution: Supreme Court Litigation (2017 Edition)
  • Recommended
    Legal 500, Dispute Resolution: Commercial Litigation (2017 Edition)
  • Sources appreciate his "very straightforward, excellent legal skills," while a client adds: "He is meticulous, sharp and a really smart lawyer - I would recommend him without hesitation."
     
    Chambers Europe, Dispute Resolution: Supreme Court Litigation (2016 Edition)
  • Recommended
    Legal 500, Dispute Resolution: Commercial Litigation (2017 Edition)

Bart is in 2004 gepromoveerd en heeft sindsdien vele publicaties geschreven. Hij is redactielid van het Tijdschrift voor Civiele Rechtspleging en een veelgevraagd spreker en docent.

Opleidingen

  • Gepromoveerd in 2004 (Universiteit Leiden)
  • Civiel Recht (Universiteit Leiden)
  • Klassieke Talen (Universiteit Leiden)
  • Houthoff recently advised on the acquisition of the shares in the IEF portfolio by a consortium led by CBRE Global Investors (three institutional investors from the Netherlands, plus CBRE Dutch Retail Fund). IEF is a joint venture formed by Bouwfonds Investment Management and IEF Capital. The portfolio consists of 31 Dutch retail properties (mostly flagship stores), including the well-known Dutch retail chains HEMA and de Bijenkorf. The deal was valued at more than one billion euros. As well as overseeing the share purchase, Houthoff was also hired to advise on the financial arrangements by the banks financing the deal: ING, ABN AMRO and BerlinHyp. In all, Houthoff had a team of more than 50 staff working on the deal.

  • Advised Vi Holding, the largest shareholder of aluminum multinational Vimetco N.V. on several proceedings in the Netherlands and the UK relating to a transaction with regard to a significant minority stake in Vimetco. Disputes arose with respect to certain obligations under this transaction, and also a third party initiated proceedings in both the UK and the Netherlands following it. In the Netherlands, one of the issues has reached the Supreme Court.
  • Advised Aurelius, through its investment vehicle Capricorn, in lodging several claims in the Netherlands, relating to, among others, (a) the voidance of several intercompany transactions of the Oi Group which have been to the detriment of the group's creditors and (b) to prevent the ailing Brazilian parent company from borrowing any more money from one its Dutch subsidiaries. Furthermore, Houthoff advised Aurelius investment vehicle Citadel in bankruptcy proceedings against a financing entity of the Oi group. This branch of the matter has reached the Supreme Court.
  • In a groundbreaking judgment, the Supreme Court found that civil-law notaries do not (automatically) have to refuse service when alienation or encumbrance constitutes a breach of contract in respect of a third party. Houthoff acted for the civil-law notary. At the request of the seller and the buyer of a property, a civil-law notary executed the deed of transfer while the seller had an (unfulfilled) obligation towards a third party to offer the property for sale. The Dutch Supreme Court ruled that in such a situation a civil-law notary must only refuse his service if the facts known to the civil-law notary justify the view that the intended acquirer does not have a legitimate interest in the transfer of title or encumbrance (which is the case if the right of the third party is designated as the stronger right by a legal rule), or that the intended acquirer would act unlawful in respect of the third party by requiring transfer of title or encumbrance. For the latter it is not sufficient that as a result of the transfer of title or encumbrance the alienator is in breach of contract in respect of a third party.

    Click here for the judgment of the Supreme Court.
  • The Unbundling Act requires that the integrated energy companies unbundle their network companies, and forbids privatization thereof. Three large energy companies argued that the act infringes on the right to free movement of capital and therefore does not bind them. Today, after well over six years since the matter was initiated against the State by the energy companies and a preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Dutch Supreme Court found that the Unbundling Act is in line with the right to free movement of capital. The Supreme Court reasons that with the Unbundling Act, the legislature wanted to secure the supply of gas and electricity on a high level, and to make the energy market transparent. This is in the interest of the purchasers, including consumers. These objectives of the Unbundling Act are ‘important reasons in the public interest’. With the group prohibition and the prohibition of sideline activities, the Unbundling Act meets its objectives, whilst not going further than necessary for that. For that reason the Supreme Court rules that these restrictions on the free movement of capital or freedom of establishment are justified.
  • In deviation of its judgment Vis q.q. / NMB from 1989, in JPR / Gunning q.q. the Supreme Court found that a bankruptcy trustee can revoke an electronic payment transaction if the payment order has not led to a credit entry in the bank account of the receiving party on the moment of the bankruptcy. The Supreme Court overruled its own old judgment prospectively: the new rule is only applicable to bankruptcies declared after the new judgment.

    Click here for the judgment of the Supreme Court.
  • Houthoff represents ING Commercial Finance in defending a case before the Supreme Court concerning 'surplus sharing arrangements'. Such arrangements provide lenders of the same debtor with rights for recourse on a potential surplus in the collateral provided to each of the other respective lenders. Recent Supreme Court decisions have raised questions with scholars and financial markets on the enforceability of surplus sharing arrangements in case of bankruptcy of the debtor. Considering the volume of surplus sharing arrangements used by credit institutions, it is of importance that the Supreme Court provides clarity in this respect.
  • Houthoff represented ING Commercial Finance in a Supreme Court concerning 'surplus sharing arrangements'. Such arrangements provide lenders of the same debtor with rights for recourse on a potential surplus in the collateral provided to each of the other respective lenders. The Supreme Court confirmed that such arrangement is enforceable if a bankruptcy of the debtor follows (‘bankruptcy proof’) , under the condition that the debtor was a party to this arrangement. Considering the volume of surplus sharing arrangements used by credit institutions as security arrangement, this judgment is of prime importance for financial institutions active on the Dutch market.

    Click here for the judgment of the Supreme Court.