Bart van der Wiel

Bart van der Wiel

Advocaat | Partner

Contact

+31 20 605 61 11
+31 6 2025 0758

Languages

Dutch
English

Follow me

Bart heads the Supreme Court Litigation Team. As a Supreme Court specialist, he has been involved in numerous landmark cases on finance, insolvency, contracts, procedure and liability law, acting for corporates, investors, and leading financial institutions such as Achmea, Allianz, and ING. As a trial lawyer, he has represented the estates of KPNQwest and Lehman Brothers Treasury, and bondholders in the multi-billion dollar Oi restructuring in vital matters for the resolution of these insolvencies.
  • Recommended
    Chambers Europe, Dispute Resolution: Supreme Court Litigation (2020 Edition)
  • Bart van der Wiel is ranked in Tier 1.
    Chambers Europe, Dispute Resolution: Supreme Court Litigation (2020 Edition)
  • “Clients remark that ‘he is very analytical,’ adding: ‘In difficult situations he explains everything in an understandable way.’”
    Chambers Europe, Dispute Resolution: Supreme Court Litigation (2019 Edition)
  • Bart van der Wiel is ranked in Tier 1.
    Chambers Europe, Dispute Resolution: Supreme Court Litigation (2019 Edition)
  • Recommended
    Legal 500, Dispute Resolution: Commercial Litigation (2019 Edition)
  • Bart van der Wiel is ranked in Tier 1.
    Chambers Europe, Dispute Resolution: Supreme Court Litigation (2018 Edition)
  • "He's a very good lawyer, very thorough, very calm and collected and very methodical in his approach. He is a very reliable litigator."
    Chambers Europe, Dispute Resolution; Supreme Court Litigation (2018 Edition)
  • Recommended
    Legal 500, Dispute Resolution: Commercial Litigation (2018 Edition)
  • "Bart van der Wiel is 'outstanding in Supreme Court litigation' and 'very pleasant to work with'."
    Legal 500, Dispute Resolution: Commercial Litigation (2018 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)
Bart received a Ph.D. from Leiden University in 2004 and has authored many publications. He is the editor and co-author of a leading textbook on Supreme Court litigation, and a member of the editorial team of the Tijdschrift voor Civiele Rechtspleging, the leading Dutch journal on civil procedure. Bart is a highly sought-after speaker and lecturer, and a member of the Advisory Committee on Civil Procedural Law of the Ministry of Justice and Security.

Qualifications & Experience

  • PhD Civil Law (Leiden University)
  • Civil Law (Leiden University)
  • M.A. Classics (Leiden University)
  • 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.

  • 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.
  • 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. 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 the objectives of the Unbundling Act are ‘important reasons in the public interest’ and that the entailing restrictions.

     

    Click here for the judgement of the Supreme Court.