Cassatie
Het cassatieteam van Houthoff heeft in de loop der jaren talloze baanbrekende uitspraken van de Hoge Raad verkregen.
-
“A client specifies that ‘the quality is good, the lawyers are responsive and they understand both the legal issue and the business’.”Chambers Europe, Dispute Resolution (2022 Edition)
-
“Houthoff's services are at a very high level.”Chambers Europe, Dispute Resolution (2022 Edition)
-
“A client describes the team as ‘highly responsive, committed and with great insight and knowledge’.”Chambers Europe, Dispute Resolution (2022 Edition)
Voorbeelden van onze expertise
- beroep tegen de onteigening van de Hedwigepolder (lopende zaak)
- succesvol beroep in de Meavita-zaak
- succesvol beroep over aansprakelijkheid voor de dijkdoorbraak bij Wilnis
- verschillende procedures rond de onteigening van SNS
- succesvolle verdediging van het faillissementsakkoord inzake Lehman Brothers
- succesvolle verdediging van het faillissement van Nederlanse financieringsdochters van de Braziliaanse telecomgiant Oi
-
Represented Wells in the Wells v Bariven case in proceedings before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reinstated the arbitral award after it was set aside for alleged corruption.
-
Represented CBRE in proceedings before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's judgment which found that CBRE Investors does not have to offer properties to Bijenkorf.
-
Assisted a taxpayer in civil proceedings of principle against the Dutch state before the Supreme Court, in which the state unsuccessfully tried to recover the costs of a tax audit from the taxpayer.
-
Advised Vi Holding, the largest shareholder of aluminum multinational Vimetco N.V. on several proceedings in the Netherlands and the UK relating to a transaction with regard to a significant minority stake in Vimetco. Disputes arose with respect to certain obligations under this transaction, and also a third party initiated proceedings in both the UK and the Netherlands following it.
-
Advised Aurelius, through its investment vehicle Capricorn, in lodging several claims in the Netherlands, relating to, among others, (a) the voidance of several intercompany transactions of the Oi Group which have been to the detriment of the group's creditors and (b) to prevent the ailing Brazilian parent company from borrowing any more money from one its Dutch subsidiaries.
-
The Unbundling Act requires that the integrated energy companies unbundle their network companies, and forbids privatization thereof. Three large energy companies argued that the act infringes on the right to free movement of capital and therefore does not bind them. The Dutch Supreme Court found that the Unbundling Act is in line with the right to free movement of capital. The Supreme Court reasons that the objectives of the Unbundling Act are ‘important reasons in the public interest’ and that the entailing restrictions.
Click here for the judgement of the Supreme Court.
-
On the basis of the appeal of Houthoff, the Supreme Court quashed on material and unprecidented formal grounds the decision of the Enterprise Chamber in the Meavita-case. The Enterprise Chamber's decision was rendered after the by far most costly investigation so far. It must fully reconsider the whole case.
Publicaties
-
14-april-2023
-
31-oktober-2022
-
29-oktober-2022
-
De aansprakelijkheid voor belastingschulden van gewezen bestuurders van een vof. BNB 2020/150 nr. 1204-november-2020
-
13-juli-2020
-
19-mei-2020
-
04-september-2019
-
08-mei-2019
-
26-april-2019
-
14-september-2018
-
06-juli-2018
-
12-januari-2016
-
12-januari-2016