Track record

Kelly and Lennard conducted interim relief proceedings on behalf of a ticketing platform provider against a customer that had started using its own ticketing platform for its branches, despite a cooperation agreement containing an exclusivity clause running until the end of 2027. The interim relief judge considered the client’s interpretation reasonable but refused the claim for specific performance, because whether exclusivity had been agreed requires evidence to be taken in proceedings on the merits. The claim for disclosure under Article 194 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (the successor to former Article 843a) was, however, granted. Until the end of 2027, the customer must report each quarter the number of tickets sold online and offline per branch, subject to a penalty payment, so that the client can quantify its damages.

Onno and Xagan represented the selling shareholders in a post-closing dispute arising from a management buy-out. The shareholders faced claims based on error (dwaling) as to the purchase price, the warranties and other alleged breaches of the sale and purchase agreement and the management retention arrangement. After extensive correspondence and the issuing of a writ of summons to recover the vendor loan, the parties brought the dispute to an end by concluding a settlement agreement. This provided, among other things, for repayment of the vendor loans and for the cancellation of the non-solicitation and non-competition clauses.

Onno and Marleen represent two interested parties in the inquiry proceedings initiated with respect to the bankrupt company DBMC NL B.V.. DBMC was active in property development. In particular, investments amounting to tens of millions of euros were lost in connection with a project in Mönchengladbach, Germany. The Enterprise Chamber (Ondernemingskamer) has ordered an investigation. The case is not yet closed at this time (June 2026).

Lize and Onno assisted an investor from Singapore in a dispute with a Dutch company regarding the repayment of a loan and an additional investment, for which no separate investment agreement had been concluded. As a result, certain risks existed regarding the competent court and the applicable law. Following a formal demand and negotiations, a payment arrangement was agreed. Ultimately, the full amount of more than three hundred thousand euros was repaid, including a contribution towards the investor’s legal costs.

Xagan, together with Onno, advised a Swiss company holding a minority interest in a Dutch company in a shareholder dispute with the management board and co-shareholders. The dispute concerned, among other things, the alleged infringement of information rights and pre-emptive rights. After extensive advice and correspondence, Xagan and Onno filed a request for inquiry proceedings with the Enterprise Chamber (Ondernemingskamer) on behalf of the minority shareholder. The parties subsequently negotiated and ultimately resolved the dispute through an amicable settlement.

In January 2026, Lennard again successfully represented the same property trader in substantive proceedings before the Amsterdam District Court, this time concerning the sale of a different agricultural plot. The purchaser sought annulment of the purchase agreement on the grounds of unfair commercial practices and mistake, together with retransfer of the plot and repayment of the purchase price of €119,505. The court dismissed all claims: the brochure, the sales conversations, and in particular the verification form and telephone verification call made clear that no guarantees were given regarding a (timely) change of planning designation or increase in value, and that the purchaser was aware of the speculative nature of the transaction and the risk of loss. A subsequent telephone conversation revealed expectations at most, not commitments. The purchaser was ordered to pay costs of €10,897.

In January 2026, Lennard successfully represented a property trader in substantive proceedings before the Amsterdam District Court. A purchaser of an agricultural plot sought annulment of the purchase agreement on the grounds of alleged unfair commercial practices and mistake, claiming repayment of the purchase price of €52,209 and retransfer of the plot. The court dismissed all claims: neither the brochure, the (sales) conversations, nor the verification process could have led the purchaser to conclude that a change of planning designation to residential use was certain in the near term, and the trader had moreover given no express guarantees. The purchaser was ordered to pay costs of €5,601.

Het Financieele Dagblad published an analysis of the intervention by Minister Karremans and the Enterprise Chamber in the Nexperia matter. In the article, Onno discusses, among other things, how an initially governance- and corporate-law issue could, due to its societal dimension, escalate into a geopolitical conflict between the Netherlands and China.

Marleen and Willem represented a director who was held personally liable by the landlord of the BV she managed. The BV intended to operate a lunchroom, but when it became clear that the zoning plan was insufficient and no operating licence would be granted, the BV terminated the lease agreement. The landlord claimed that the BV’s directors were liable for the damages suffered (missed rental payments). The court dismissed all claims and ordered the landlord to pay the legal costs.

Het Financieele Dagblad published a second analysis on the intervention by Minister Karremans and the Enterprise Chamber in the Nexperia matter. The article notes, among other things, how exceptional it was that the Enterprise Chamber reached a decision without hearing the other party: “That is seldom, if ever, seen and has led to significant debate among legal scholars. ‘Such a decision conflicts with the fundamental right to be heard,’ wrote corporate law attorney Onno Hennis of AMS Advocaten in a blog. The ruling shows that, among other factors, the urgency of the matter prompted the court to follow this exceptional procedure.”