Mignon de Vries
Intellectual property, Corporate Law & Disputes regulation and litigation
Attorney Mignon de Vries has been with Fruytier Lawyers in Business since 2001. She is well-versed in most areas of civil law. Mignon is an experienced litigator who is always looking for a way to resolve a case or win a lawsuit. In her view, a litigator must be able to devise a smart and feasible strategy. “…This requires more than just a good knowledge of the law, because it is the law that ultimately determines what is and isn’t possible…” As an avid winter sports enthusiast, Mignon is a strong advocate for study trips to the mountains, which have now taken place several times.
The energy she puts into her work is especially rewarding when she wins a major case. To ensure that happens, Mignon de Vries is careful not to rely solely on her experience. “Through continuing legal education, I keep my knowledge up to date and ensure that I prepare all my cases down to the last detail, regardless of whether they are large or small, and regardless of which attorneys I face on the other side of the table.” Mignon frequently represents clients in disputes involving directors’ liability, shareholder agreements, participation agreements, articles of incorporation, acquisitions, (international) contracts, (complex) debt collection, attachment and enforcement proceedings, disputes over security interests and collateral (liens, mortgages, suretyships), and financial law.
Mignon is a member of the Dutch Association for Procedural Law and the Corporate Litigation Association.
Follow: Mignon op LinkedIn
Mignon IN DETAIL
- Education: Dutch Law at Tilburg Catholic University and the University of Amsterdam
- Language skills: Dutch and English
- Lawyer since: 1994
- Expertise: Corporate Law, Litigation and Intellectual Property
- Contact: [email protected] | +31(0) 621 896 925
TRACK RECORD MIGNON
As an attorney, Mignon advises on and litigates a wide range of cases, from shareholder disputes and inquiry proceedings before the Enterprise Chamber to disputes involving procedural law or intellectual property law.
- PAL-V represented a client in summary proceedings to lift attachments on all assets, initiated by a former employee. (Case)
- Assisted a public limited company with a highly innovative product under development in lifting attachments on all assets imposed by a contractor, as well as in proceedings concerning SARS.
- Assisted a company in the interior design industry in multiple proceedings against several copyright infringers, in which claims for lost profits were also asserted. A witness examination was requested, and a seizure of evidence was ordered to obtain evidence regarding the extent of the damages.
- Assisted a former director against whom a seizure of evidence was issued, who was subsequently dismissed and sued to compensate his employer for damages (amounting to several tens of millions of euros) caused by his actions as a director. In this case, seizures of evidence were issued, witness examinations took place, and requests for the disclosure of information were made.
- Represented a company accused by a bank of having colluded in the misuse of a discrepancy in identity to acquire a property from the debtor at a value below market value. The debtor’s spouse was also accused of unlawfully frustrating the bank’s right of recourse by purchasing the debtor’s shares at an undervalued price.
- Assisted an entrepreneur in the healthcare sector with various collaborative projects and with establishing and further developing the organizational structure.
- Assisted various buyers and sellers of non-compliant properties in legal proceedings.
More cases handled by Mignon
Enterprise Chamber (OK) Inquiry Proceedings in the Spanish Case:
OK; survey; second phase; rejection of requests
Zie ook: JONDR 2022/263 | OR Updates 2022/152 | ARO 2022/57
OK; inquiry; the Enterprise Chamber declares itself without jurisdiction regarding forfeited penalty payments; referral to the competent ordinary Dutch court
Zie ook: JOR 2021/11 – Met noot – Zilinsky | OR Updates 2021/37 | JONDR 2021/121 | ARO 2021/7
Art. 81(1) RO. Corporate Law. Right to Conduct an Inquiry. Appeals against a second-stage decision rejecting a request to find mismanagement.
Zie ook: OR Updates 2023/111 | RvdW 2023/421 | ARO 2023/48
Other surveys by the Enterprise Chamber on shareholder disputes:
Zie ook: ARO 2013/73 | JIN 2013/115 – Met noot – Bleeker, E.J. |
Subject: OK; Inquiry; mismanagement established; director and share manager appointed on a provisional basis for a period of one year; revocation of the provisional measures previously taken; Articles 2:355, 356, and 349a(2) of the Dutch Civil Code.
Zie ook: JOR 2016/94 – Met noot – Scholten, C.J. | ARO 2015/231
Subject: OK; Inquiry; measures taken following a prior finding of mismanagement; extension of prior measures; dissolution of the company; Art. 2:356 of the Dutch Civil Code.
Zie ook: ARO 2017/44 | OR Updates 2016/307
Takeover disputes and the enforcement of stock certificates, including before the Court of Justice of the European Union:
Subject: Enforcement law; Financial Supervision Act (Wft). Foreclosure sale of seized share certificates. Applicability of the prospectus requirement (Art. 5:2 Wft) and the exemption provision (Art. 53(2) of the Wft Exemption Regulation). The Supreme Court refers questions for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU regarding Articles 1 and 3 of the Prospectus Directive (Directive 2003/71/EC).
Zie ook: NJB 2012/2112 – Hoge Raad – 28-9-2012 | JONDR 2012/1314 | JOR 2012/327 | JWB 2012/439 | NJ 2012/549 | OR Updates 2012/244 | RF 2013/1 | VIND Bestuursrecht 2013
Subject: Acquisition of shares based on a five-year earn-out; dispute regarding the goodwill factor to be used in determining the purchase price; supplementary agreement; due diligence review; no error or breach.
Subject: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of September 17, 2014, Almer Beheer BV and Daedalus Holding BV v. Van den Dungen Vastgoed BV and Oosterhout II BVBA Request by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands for a preliminary ruling Preliminary ruling – Corporate law – Directive 2003/71/EC – Article 3(1) – Obligation to publish a prospectus when securities are offered to the public – Foreclosure sale of securities Case C-441/12
Zie ook: JOR 2014/303 – Met noot – Schoonewille, M.T.G. – Hof van Justitie EU – 17-9-2014 | 62012CJ0441 | C-441/12 | JONDR 2014/1225 | JOR 2014/303 | NJ 2016/46 | OGR Updates 2020/60 | OR Updates 2015/8 | Ondernemingsrecht 2014/149 | RF 2015/1
Subject: Foreclosure sale of stock certificates, Art. 474g of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure. Does enforcement of the preliminary injunction lapse because a judgment has been rendered in the main action? Does the blocking provision apply? Is a prospectus required?
Zie ook: JONDR 2011/11 | JOR 2011/215
Dispute over a guarantee for a debt without the spouse’s consent:
Subject: Liability for a loan. This is governed by Dutch law and is therefore classified as a suretyship. The question of whether the spouse’s consent was required is governed by Swiss law, which requires that such consent be given in writing, either prior to or simultaneously with the guarantee. Since no consent was given, the spouse is correct in asserting that the guarantee is invalid. There is also no possibility of conversion.
Zie ook: JOR 2015/242 – Met noot – Bertrams, R.I.V.F. – Gerechtshof Amsterdam – 23-12-2014
Copyright Dispute:
Subject: IP preliminary injunction—Art. 8 Aw—Setting aside of the judgment regarding the lamp, speaker, and wine cooler, and subsequent granting of various injunctions and orders
Zie ook: AMI 2019/5 | IE-Forum.nl – 10-12-2018
- ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:12111, Rechtbank Den Haag, Rechtbank Den Haag 3 november 2021
Nikki Amsterdam v. Nomenta et al.
Zie ook: legalintelligence.com/documents.37221278 | IE-Forum.nl – 7-12-2021
Dispute over non-conformity of a canal-side property (“Valerbosch ruling”):
Summary: Procedural Law. Contract law. A justice of the court of appeal dies after the date of deliberation stated in the judgment (which is also the date of the oral argument) and before the date of the ruling; the concept of “deliberation”; information obtained pursuant to Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Appeal; nullity of the interim judgment and the subsequent final judgment. Interpretation of the agreement; standard; interpretation in accordance with the linguistic meaning as a preliminary ruling.
Zie ook: AR 2019/6507 | ECLI:NL:HR:2019:1940 | JBPR 2020/18 | NJB 2020/6 | PS Updates 2020/4 | Prg. 2020/60 | RvdW 2020/86
Subject: Procedural law. A judge of the Court of Appeal retired between the date of rendering the interim judgment (which was also the date of the oral argument) and the date of the final judgment. Did the Court of Appeal apply the correct meaning of the term “rendering”? Application of Supreme Court decisions of November 18, 2016, ECLI:NL:HR:2016:2607 and 2614 (Meavita), and April 13, 2018, ECLI:NL:HR:2018:604. The Supreme Court requests information from the Court of Appeal pursuant to Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure.
Zie ook: NJB 2019/20609 | ECLI:NL:HR:2019:1408 | NJ 2019/368 | PS Updates 2019/1129 | RBP 2019/90 | RvdW 2019/968
Purchase of real estate; explanation of the warranty provision in the purchase agreement; the heading and wording of the purchase agreement unambiguously create the expectation that the seller warrants that the property has been re-piled, such that the buyer could reasonably infer from this—subject to proof to the contrary—that the foundation was in good condition. The seller failed to provide proof to the contrary. The buyer’s claim for compensation, to be specified in a subsequent statement, for other damages was granted; follow-up to the interim judgment ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2016:1540.
MIGNON IN DE MEDIA
| Name article | Media |
| In leveringsketen lamp/speaker/wijnkoeler kwalificeert IJsvogel als tussenhandelaar | Boek 9 |
| Besturen met verantwoordelijkheden binnen verenigingen | Lexology |
| Verkoop van uw onderneming: van begin tot eind | Het Ondernemersbelang |
| Pandrecht onder de loep | Kijkopnoord-holland.nl |