Bart van der Wiel
As a Supreme Court specialist, Bart has been involved in numerous landmark cases, acting for banks, corporates, insurers and investors. He has litigated in the bankruptcy cases of KPNQwest and Dutch subsidiaries of Oi, and represents the estate of Lehman Brothers Treasury, in matters that are vital for the resolution of these insolvencies.
“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)
RecommendedLegal 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)
"Bart van der Wiel is 'outstanding in Supreme Court litigation' and 'very pleasant to work with'."Legal 500, Dispute Resolution: Commercial Litigation (2018 Edition)
RecommendedLegal 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. in 2004 and has since authored many publications. He is a member of the editorial team of the Tijdschrift voor Civiele Rechtspleging journal and a highly sought-after speaker and lecturer.
Qualifications & Experience
- PhD Civil Law (Leiden University)
- Civil Law (Leiden University)
- M.A. Classics (Leiden University)
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.
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.
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.