Track Record

In summary proceedings about an investment dispute between private investors and an investment fund in managed accounts, the monetary claim of AMS’s clients was allowed. The company was ordered to repay and to provide insight into returns and – conditionally – the director was held personally and jointly liable if the company failed to pay.

In 2024, Clemens represented a client in a dispute with a car dealer about a camper van worth €50,000 that developed defects shortly after purchase. The seller refused to carry out repairs and argued that the buyer was not allowed to engage a third party to perform them. Clemens demanded payment of €11,000 in repair costs and, after the seller rejected the demand, brought proceedings before the subdistrict court. The court ruled in favour of his client: the seller was ordered to pay the full amount, plus extrajudicial collection costs, statutory interest and legal costs.

Lennard and Kelly conducted summary proceedings in February 2025 in a third-party attachment declaration procedure, because several third-party garnishees refused to submit a correct and complete third-party attachment declaration. The preliminary relief judge ordered the garnishees to submit written, accurate, reasoned and documented declarations and to pay to the bailiff any amounts owed under those declarations, subject to a penalty payment.

For a Dutch client, Lennard levied a prejudgment attachment on a seagoing vessel abroad under the Arrest Convention. The vessel was placed in judicial custody so it could not sail away. Under that pressure, the owner of the vessel entered into a settlement agreement.

Rosa represented a client in a special distribution case. The client and a business partner jointly owned a rented house and wanted to end this structure. They agreed that the client would acquire full ownership of the property for a set purchase price. When a dispute arose and the partner refused to honour the agreement, he started proceedings and claimed that the client should be ordered to cooperate in a sale to a third party at a higher price. The court rejected that claim: there was a valid purchase agreement which the partner had to perform.

Marco acted for a client who was confronted with additional work invoices. The district court held that there was no valid additional work and dismissed the claims.

Lennard represented a shareholder of a healthcare company. On behalf of the client, he petitioned the Enterprise Chamber to order an inquiry. The Enterprise Chamber found there were well-founded reasons to doubt the soundness of the company’s policy and course of affairs, justifying an investigation, and appointed a director with a casting vote.

Lennard represented a shareholder of a healthcare company. On behalf of the client, he petitioned the Enterprise Chamber to order an inquiry. The Enterprise Chamber found there were well-founded reasons to doubt the soundness of policy and the course of affairs, justifying an investigation. This was due, among other things, to the transfer of staff by the director, declining profits and transactions in which the director had a conflict of interest.

Lennard assisted a client against whom an evidence seizure had been levied. The request to inspect the seized information was fully rejected because there was an insufficient link between the claim for which the seizure had been granted and the legal basis of the disclosure claim.

Marco successfully obtained conservatory attachments for a contractor in a dispute with its client, who had failed to pay the contractor’s invoices. The client sought to have the attachments lifted in summary proceedings, but that claim was dismissed.