Inside Stibbe

Stibbe advises Picnic

Stibbe advises Picnic

31.03.2017 NL law

Stibbe advises online supermarket Picnic on obtaining EUR 100 million growth capital from several Dutch family funds.

A year and a half ago Picnic started making deliveries of groceries and other daily shopping needs and it has experienced explosive growth since. The investment in Picnic will enable the online supermarket to realize its ambitious growth plans.

Team

Related news

20.09.2017 NL law
Tax alert: Budget Day 2017

Short Reads - On 19 September it was budget day (Prinsjesdag) in the Netherlands on which the Dutch government announced several bills containing tax law proposals. In this Tax Alert we will provide you with a summary of the main proposals relevant for international businesses. Most attention will be given to the proposal regarding changes to the Dutch dividend withholding tax rules for holding cooperatives and BVs/NVs.

Read more

04.09.2017 NL law
Uitsluiten transitievergoeding bij AOW-leeftijd: Europeesrechtelijk geen probleem

Articles - Het HvJ EU is kritisch over uitsluiting van ontslagvergoedingen bij ontslag op pensioenleeftijd. Analyse van die rechtspraak leert dat het daarbij om vervroegd pensioen gaat. Bij ontslag op of na de algemene wettelijke pensioenleeftijd lijkt die uitsluiting wel mogelijk. De uitspraak in de zaak Toftgaard suggereert anders, maar dat is een uitzonderlijk geval. De uitsluiting van transitievergoeding (zonder individuele hardheidstoets) bij ontslag op of na AOW-leeftijd is toelaatbaar, maar niet bij ontslag op een vervroegde pensioenleeftijd.

Read more

01.09.2017 NL law
Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal rules on duration of a non-competition clause in SPA

Short Reads - On 10 August 2017, the judgment of the the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal (Court of Appeal) was published which held that a purchaser of all the shares in a Dutch company, Thermagas, could not rely on a non-competition clause with a duration of 5 years in a share purchase agreement (SPA). This decision quashes an earlier District Court judgment, which had allowed the purchaser to invoke this clause against one of the sellers that had gone on to continue business in the same market with a different company.

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy and Cookie Policy