Track record

Onno represented several foundation directors in a principled dispute with a fellow director about the performance of directors’ duties.

In proceedings about the dissolution and division of a general partnership (vof), the Rotterdam District Court held – after expert evidence – that the business was continued by the remaining partners and that they had to pay AMS’s client an amount for under-allocation, in addition to his legal costs.

Thomas successfully represented an Indonesian commercial agent in a dispute over an agency agreement with a Dutch company.

This case essentially concerned whether there was a loan agreement between a company and one of its shareholders, AMS Advocaten’s client. The district court held that there was and that the company had to repay the loan.

On behalf of a bankruptcy trustee, Sander successfully acted against a former director who had breached a non-compete clause in the shareholders’ agreement after the bankruptcy date. In summary proceedings, the preliminary relief judge ordered the director to cease his competing activities. The director’s appeal was dismissed for lack of interest, after Sander successfully argued that the term of the non-compete clause had already expired.

On behalf of a client in the art sector, Nienke intervened in proceedings to dismiss the board of a foundation. Under that pressure, the board voluntarily resigned.

At Lennard’s request, the District Court supplemented a previous judgment in a later decision, in which the director personally and the parent and subsidiary of the company in question had been held liable for a claim against that company, so that the interest start date was correct and the judgment could be enforced immediately.

Onno successfully represented a partner in summary proceedings about the conclusion of a settlement agreement and improper payments made by the other partner.

Onno successfully represented a Swiss company in a dispute over the purchase of a large batch of flooring. At first instance the Swiss client’s claims were dismissed, but the case was settled under the pressure of appeal.

AMS Advocaten represented a client on appeal in disciplinary proceedings against a bailiff concerning the abusive use of attachment as a means of pressure in a group claim. The Court of Appeal declared the complaint partly well-founded, imposed the sanction of reprimand on the bailiff and ordered him to pay the costs in both instances.