Track Record

As bankruptcy trustee, Marleen filed a claim as injured party in criminal proceedings for bankruptcy fraud (prejudice to creditors) by siphoning off assets (money) from the estate of his company, of which he was director, and by failing to keep proper accounts and to hand over the full administration to the trustee. The claim was awarded.

Hidde represented a purchaser in a transaction involving the transfer of an entire bookshop business. The seller was declared bankrupt shortly afterwards. The trustee sued the purchaser on the basis of the actio pauliana in bankruptcy. Both the district court and the Court of Appeal dismissed the trustee’s claims.

Thomas was involved in various legal proceedings concerning the luxury department store Haussmann that was to be opened on the Rokin in Amsterdam, but where Hudson’s Bay ultimately settled instead.

Hidde represented the director of a transport company whom the bankruptcy trustee had held liable for the entire deficit in bankruptcy. The district court had granted the claim at first instance. On appeal, the director ultimately prevailed. The Court of Appeal held that it had not been established that manifestly improper management was an important cause of the bankruptcies. Although the annual accounts had been filed more than eleven months late, the director succeeded in rebutting the statutory presumption in Article 2:248(2) Dutch Civil Code.

Thomas won the well-known “revenge porn summary proceedings” against Facebook. The preliminary relief judge in Amsterdam ordered Facebook to disclose the data behind a fake account.

Against the backdrop of the scandals and public unrest in the Dutch social housing sector around 2015, Nienke successfully held a former director liable on behalf of a major housing corporation. After a successful appeal as well, the corporation reached a favourable settlement in April 2018.

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.