Track record

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.

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.

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.

Onno and Xagan successfully represented a company in an inquiry procedure following the sale of the business to a listed US company. The Enterprise Chamber dismissed the minority shareholder’s request for an inquiry.

Kelly and Lennard concluded a settlement agreement on behalf of a software company with its client following an earlier judgment. Under that agreement, the client is ordered to perform the contract after all, subject to a penalty payment.

Lennard successfully represented a director and several companies that were being held liable for full legal costs of €400,000 incurred in earlier proceedings. The court ruled in favour of Lennard’s clients, finding that they had not abused process or acted unlawfully through their litigation conduct. The claimant was ordered to pay AMS’s client €13,853.00 in legal costs.

Following a land consolidation, certain easements had lapsed. Together with Denise, Marco successfully represented parties opposing the lapse of these easements. The district court held that the easements had been re-established through acquisitive prescription, because the claimants had been possessors in good faith for at least ten years. The Court of Appeal reached the same conclusion.

Sander, Kelly and Lennard assisted a Danish/American client at a WHOA hearing. The client had a claim against a Dutch debtor who tried to prevent and/or delay attachments by obtaining a cooling-off period. Sander, Lennard and Kelly managed to prevent this. The client was then better able to collect the remainder of its claims.

Kelly and Lennard successfully claimed performance of a services agreement for the purchase of software on behalf of their client. The agreement and the general terms and conditions must be interpreted to mean that an interim termination ban had been agreed. The defendant was therefore not permitted to terminate before the end of the initial term and must perform the agreement.