Supreme Court Litigation

Supreme Court Litigation

Some cases are so complex, or fundamental, that they have to be taken to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court proceedings are conducted by specialist lawyers, known in the Netherlands as ‘cassation lawyers’. Houthoff has one of the largest and most prestigious cassation practices in the country. Our cassation lawyers are fully integrated in our other practice groups and sector teams. They are familiar with the context in which disputes occur. Houthoff’s cassation team has secured countless ground-breaking judgments from the Supreme Court over the years.

  • recommendation people shaking hands
    "Houthoff's Supreme Court litigation team is top-notch."
     
    Chambers Europe, Dispute Resolution (2015 Edition)
  • recommendation people shaking hands
    "Maintains excellent reputation and particularly renowned for experience appearing before the Supreme Court."
     
    Chambers Europe, Dispute Resolution (2015 Edition)
  • recommendation people shaking hands
    First Tier firm.
    Chambers Europe, Dispute Resolution (2015 Edition)
  • recommendation people shaking hands
    First Tier firm.
    Chambers Global & Europe, Dispute Resolution (2017 Edition)
  • recommendation people shaking hands
    "An excellent law firm, and very thorough. Its lawyers stand out for their profound knowledge, experience and winner's attitude."
    Chambers Europe, Dispute Resolution (2017 Edition)
  • recommendation people shaking hands
    The team is "very efficient, forward-looking and client-friendly." 
    Chambers Europe, Dispute Resolution (2017 Edition)
  • recommendation people shaking hands
    "The firm is amongst the top five firms in the Netherlands and competes effectively with the international firms that have a presence in the jurisdiction."
    Chambers Europe, Dispute Resolution (2017 Edition)
  • recommendation people shaking hands
    First Tier firm.
    Legal 500, Dispute resolution: commercial litigation (2017 Edition)
  • recommendation people shaking hands
    "'Highly sophisticated and efficient law firm’ Houthoff Buruma is regularly instructed in high-profile disputes, with a particular specialism in financial services and corporate litigation."
     
    Legal 500, Dispute resolution: commercial litigation (2017 Edition)
  • recommendation people shaking hands
    First Tier firm.
    Chambers Global & Europe, Dispute Resolution (2016 Edition)
  • recommendation people shaking hands
    "The level of service has been excellent. The response time has been good, the lawyers have brilliant business acumen, and their approach has been thorough, in depth, to the point and aware of the risks involved."
     
    Chambers Europe, Dispute Resolution (2016 Edition)
  • recommendation people shaking hands
    "A true world-class law firm; the people I have worked with are extremely talented lawyers, and by far the most client responsive."
    Chambers Europe, Dispute Resolution (2016 Edition)

Examples of our expertise

  • appeal against the expropriation of the Hertogin Hedwige Polder (ongoing case);
  • successful appeal in the Meavita case;
  • successful appeal on liability for the dike breach at Wilnis;
  • various proceedings related to the expropriation of SNS;
  • various proceedings in the Yukos case;
  • successful defence of the composition plan relating to Lehman Brothers;
  • successful defence of the bankruptcy of Dutch financing subsidiaries of the Brazilian telecom giant Oi.

Cassation cases are complex. Our specialists always look beyond the problem and offer clients in-depth advice and strategic solutions. The success of our cassation team is internationally recognised and our cassation lawyers are called upon for advice by other law firms, companies and government bodies.

  • 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 ended in a victory at the Supreme Court.

     

    Click here for the judgment of the Supreme Court.

  • 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 reached the Supreme Court, leading to a fundamental judgment on the interplay between attachment in The Netherlands and foreign proceedings.

     

    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. After 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 the objectives of the Unbundling Act are ‘important reasons in the public interest’ and that the entailing restrictions on the free movement of capital or freedom of establishment are justified.

     

    Click here for the judgement of the Supreme Court. 

  • In a groundbreaking judgment, the Supreme Court found that civil-law notaries do not (automatically) have to refuse service when alienation constitutes a breach of contract in respect of a third party. The Dutch Supreme Court ruled that a civil-law notary must only refuse his service if the civil-law notary should realise that the intended acquirer does not have a legitimate interest in the transfer of title (which is the case if third party has a stronger right), 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.

  • 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 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.
  • On the basis of the appeal of Houthoff, the Supreme Court quashed on material and unprecidented formal grounds the decision of the Enterprise Chamber in the Meavita-case. The Enterprise Chamber's decision was rendered after the by far most costly investigation so far. It must fully reconsider the whole case.
Bart van der Wiel

Key Contact

Amsterdam
Advocaat | Partner
+31 20 605 61 11
+31 6 2025 0758
Albert Knigge

Key Contact

Amsterdam
Advocaat | Managing Partner
+31 20 605 65 62
+31 6 5184 5323
Alexander van der Voort Maarschalk

Key Contact

Amsterdam
Advocaat | Partner
+31 20 605 61 12
+31 6 5140 5058
Rob Meijer

Key Contact

Amsterdam
Advocaat | Partner
+31 20 605 61 08
+31 6 5149 4309
Jan Frans de Groot

Key Contact

Amsterdam
Advocaat | Partner
+31 20 605 65 44
+31 6 5152 7324