Bart van der Wiel

Bart van der Wiel

Advocaat | Partner

Languages

Dutch
English

Follow me

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.


  • recommendation people shaking hands
    Bart van der Wiel is ranked in Tier 1.
    Chambers Europe, Dispute Resolution: Supreme Court Litigation (2018 Edition)
  • recommendation people shaking hands
    "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)
  • recommendation people shaking hands
    "Bart van der Wiel is 'outstanding in Supreme Court litigation' and 'very pleasant to work with'."
    Legal 500, Dispute Resolution: Commercial Litigation (2018 Edition)
  • recommendation people shaking hands
    Recommended
    Legal 500, Dispute Resolution: Commercial Litigation (2018 Edition)
  • recommendation people shaking hands
    "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)
  • recommendation people shaking hands
    "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)

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)
  • 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. 

  • 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.

  • 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.