Government
Government
For entrepreneurs, the government is an important party. In your business operations you have to deal with laws, regulations and government decisions, both at the national and local level, often with complex content. The relationship with the government has its pitfalls and obstacles.
The playing field with the government is often difficult for entrepreneurs to oversee, because of the multitude of measures, and to see through, because of the density and complexity of measures that can follow in rapid succession. This can increase the risk of enforcement by the government. Especially in environmental law, this is a concern for entrepreneurs.
In addition, contracting with the government often involves special rules of the game, which are usually not an issue in business-to-business relationships.
Moreover, in legal disputes with the government there are often short time limits within which the entrepreneur must take action.
Most entrepreneurs will at some point need to call upon specialist knowledge in the areas of enforcement, environmental law, procurement, permit procedures and/or administrative litigation in objections and appeals. LVH Advocaten has extensive knowledge and expertise in these areas.
Advising
Our lawyers can advise you in contractual matters with the government and in matters concerning government decisions. It is important to determine your legal position and strategy in time in matters with the government, given the often short time limits for taking action against an adverse government decision. This can prevent time-consuming and expensive procedures.
In daily practice, our lawyers advise and litigate in matters concerning zoning plans and environmental permits, tender procedures, applying for or contesting a permit or subsidy, disputes or conflicts with the (local) government, objections, compensation or planning compensation.
Litigating against the government
Should legal proceedings be necessary, our lawyers can defend your interests against the government. For example, our lawyers have extensive experience in objections and appeals against enforcement decisions, decisions to grant or refuse permits and the establishment of zoning plans.
Sometimes an entrepreneur is in danger of suffering serious damage as a result of governmental action and the normal course of legal proceedings cannot be awaited. LVH Advocaten is an expert in conducting emergency proceedings, such as interim relief proceedings against government decisions and interlocutory proceedings against decisions of the contracting authority.
SPECIALIZED LAWYERS
These are our lawyers who specialize in this area.
Maxime Visser
Tax employee
+31 10 206 17 84
visser@lvh-advocaten.nl
(more…)
Meer over onderneming & overheid
Prevent an earn-out from becoming a burn-out
An earn-out can benefit both seller and buyer, but it also carries risks. This article shows how an earn-out arrangement can help with uncertainties surrounding a business sale, but also how it can lead to conflict if there are no clear agreements. Find out how to avoid problems and draft a well-crafted earn-out arrangement to avoid misunderstandings and achieve optimal results for both parties.
Dismissal of directors of foundations: new risks and opportunities under the WBTR!
With the introduction of the Management and Supervision of Legal Persons Act (WBTR), the legislature has taken important steps to improve the management and supervision of foundations. One of the most notable changes concerns the expansion of the grounds for dismissal for directors of foundations. In this article, we discuss the new statutory regulation, illustrate the regulation with a practical example, and explain the implications for directors and stakeholders.
Directors’ liability after turboliquidation
In a recent court case concerning turboliquidation of a catering business, the court ruled that the directors were not personally liable. The case involved the discontinuation of the business without assets, with creditors being paid pro rata. The landlord claimed unlawfulness, but the court held that the turboliquidation had been carried out correctly with no obligation of bankruptcy.
