Rixt de Vries
Advocaat | Partner
Rixt specialises in employment law, including the law on collective and individual employment termination, employment participation law, the law on collective bargaining agreements, mergers and acquisitions, and reorganisations. Her work involves advising on the employment law aspects of acquisitions, mergers and reorganisations. She also has extensive experience with conflicts between individual partners and partnerships, and between medical specialists and healthcare institutions.
“Clients say she is ‘excellent in court and creative in finding solutions.’”Chambers Europe, Employment (2019 Edition)
"Rixt de Vries 'gets to the crux of the matter in clear language and gives sound advice,' according to clients who also praise her 'in-depth knowledge of the customer and case she is working on and impressive technical skills'."Chambers Europe, Employment (2018 Edition)
RecommendedLegal 500, Employment (2018 Edition)
"A true professional who has excellent technical knowledge and commercial awareness."Chambers Europe, Employment (2017 Edition)
"Houthoff Buruma’s key figure is the ‘outstanding’ employment law partner Rixt de Vries. "Legal 500, Employment (2017 Edition)
RecommendedLegal 500, Employment (2017 Edition)
Rixt de Vries has "very good commercial awareness and excellent legal knowledge and skills," according to clients. She is experienced in collective bargaining agreements, collective and individual dismissals and co-determination.Chambers Europe, Employment (2016 Edition)
RecommendedLegal 500, Employment (2016 Edition)
Rixt teaches at the Grotius Academy, SSR (Training and Study Centre for the Judiciary) and Magna Charta (Academy for Legal Practice), and is a deputy justice at the Court of Appeal in Arnhem/Leeuwarden.
Qualifications & Experience
- LL.B. Law (Vrije University Amsterdam)
- The Hague University of Applied Sciences
- University of Applied Sciences for Business Administration (specialisation: commercial and international)
Advised the sellers, including Lion Capital and Avedon Capital Partners, on the sale of Van Geloven, a Netherlands-based frozen food producer with leading positions in the Netherlands and Belgium, to TowerBrook Capital Partners and the management of Van Geloven.
Advising on the governance of Martini Ziekenhuis and its Medical Specialists, including advice on the legal structure and setting up cooperation agreements between the Medical Specialists and the Board of the Hospital.
Advising Dichterbij, a country-wide Dutch health care institution, on its reorganisation and related employment matters. The reorganisation has been a consequence of significant changes in health care legislation that stipulates a transfer of extramural health care from government to municipalities. These changes also translates in a significant decrease of the budget (possibly up to 20%) for extramural health care which inevitably leads to restructuring of the business, including a reduction of number of employees. The above mentioned changes in the health care legislation are one of the most visible milestones that have been implemented in this sector in the recent years.
V&D was a landmark brand of high street located department stores (63 stores) in the Netherlands and was founded in 1887. Houthoff advised the company in a wide array of matters, including the restructuring of its debt, and representing the company in several high profile litigation matters related to real estate and labour law.
Advised Huntsman, a global manufacturer and marketer of differentiated chemicals, in a procedure against Unions FNV, CNV and De Unie (the Trade Unions). The Trade Unions representing a group of operators employed by AkzoNobel (and represented by the Unions), threatened to go on strike leading to a reduction of the production of chlorine by 85%. Huntsman and Shin Etsu, the two largest chlorine customers of AkzoNobel, started summary proceedings against the Unions and argued that the announced strike would mean an increased risk to health, safety and environment, because both Huntsman and Shin Etsu would be forced to close down their plants because of an insufficient supply of chlorine. AkzoNobel joined the procedure. The court has ruled in favour of Huntsman c.s. and decided that AkzoNobel should keep its production of chlorine at a level of at least 40% (according to the claims of Huntsman c.s.) on order to avoid any health, safety and environment risk.