Track record

Hidde represented a creditor in bankruptcy who, unlike the other creditors, had not received any distribution. The trustee had agreed and allowed a third party (the buyer of the business in the bankruptcy) to pay the admitted creditors a fixed percentage of their claims. However, the trustee disputed the claim of this particular creditor. After the claim was eventually admitted, it was established between the trustee and the buyer that the buyer was not obliged to pay this creditor after all. The trustee was held liable both in his capacity and personally on the grounds that he had acted unlawfully by agreeing to a distribution by a third party contrary to the statutory pari passu principle, thereby allowing this creditor to be treated differently from the others. The district court (and later the Court of Appeal) upheld the claim and ordered the trustee to pay the amount the creditor should have received under the arrangement with the buyer, plus interest.

Thomas won a lawsuit about an unlawful publication in De Telegraaf. The court held that the sources were insufficiently factual to support the serious allegations made.

Thomas won summary proceedings against the Socialist Party (SP). The preliminary relief judge held that the accusations and insinuations made by the SP could not be substantiated and were insufficiently concrete, and therefore had to be regarded as unlawful.

Around 2006, Nienke acted in a major case (with a stake of approximately €176 million) involving 74 parties, representing several flower bulb growers and their companies in proceedings in which they were held liable for large amounts alongside many other bulb growers, traders and parties in the sector. This high-profile case echoed the tulip mania of 1636-1637: just as in the 17th century, tulip prices rose sharply due to investor interest; via “koopbriefjes” (purchase slips), lots of bulbs still in the ground were repeatedly traded. This speculative futures market eventually collapsed.