Marieke Bredenoord-Spoek

Marieke specialises in the area of international competition litigation with a focus on follow-on damages claims.

Furthermore, Marieke assists high-profile clients in litigation cases concerning claims in tort and contract, mainly as defence counsel. She also represents clients in proceedings before the European Commission and the European Court of Justice.

From 2007 until 2009, Marieke worked in Stibbe’s EU, competition and regulation practice group, moving to commercial litigation in 2009. In 2010, she practised in a London law firm in their competition litigation practice. In 2012, Marieke was seconded to a client working as an in-house competition counsel.

Marieke has a membership with the Dutch Competition Law Association and the Dutch Association for European Law. She regularly publishes on competition litigation and competition law.

Marieke has a master’s in company law from the University of Rotterdam.

Languages: Dutch, English
Admitted to the Amsterdam Bar: 2007

Experience

13.08.2019 NL law
Stibbe advises ADNOC

Experience - Stibbe together with Shearman & Sterling advised the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) on the acquisition of a 10% interest in VTTI BV, the owner and operator of storage terminals in 14 countries, including amongst others the Netherlands and Belgium, with 60 million barrels of capacity. Vitol and the IFM Global Infrastructure Fund will both own a 45% interest in VTTI.

Read more

Team: Emile Bongers, Hans Witteveen, Michael Molenaars, Pascal Vanden Borre, Sebastiaan Witkam, IJsbrand van Straten, Jan van Oosten, Muriël Rosing, Li Wee Toh, Roderik Vrolijk, Johanne Boelhouwer, Judica Krikke, Ea Visser, Anna Collignon, Cedric Degreef, Jan Proesmans, Annelies Van Huffel, Reinout de Boer, Marieke Bredenoord-Spoek, Jan Bouckaert
06.06.2017 NL law
Stibbe advises Blackstone

Experience - Stibbe has advised Blackstone on its sale of the DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel in Amsterdam to Anbang.

Read more

Team: Hans Witteveen, Emile Bongers, IJsbrand van Straten, Nora Offergelt, Marieke Bredenoord-Spoek, Christien Saris
10.01.2016 NL law
Stibbe advises KLM and Martinair

Experience - Representing KLM and its subsidiary Martinair in antitrust damage litigation in what is alleged to be Europe's largest ever cartel damage claim.

Read more

Team: Jeroen Kortmann, Christof Swaak, Rein Wesseling, Marieke Bredenoord-Spoek
21.07.2014 NL law
Stibbe advises Expereo

Experience - Stibbe advises Expereo, the Global Managed Network Operator, on its agreement with global alternative asset manager The Carlyle Group to take a majority stake in Expereo. The Expereo Founders will retain a significant stake in the business and will continue to serve in senior management positions in Expereo.

Read more

Team: Egbert Vroom, Marieke Bredenoord-Spoek, Floris ten Have
17.02.2014 NL law
Stibbe advises AkzoNobel and Eka

Experience - Representing AkzoNobel and Eka before the Amsterdam District Court in antitrust damage litigation following on from the European Commission's finding of an antitrust infringement in the sodium chlorate sector. This Amsterdam group action covers nine other European jurisdictions.

Read more

Team: Jeroen Kortmann, Matthijs Kuijpers, Christof Swaak, Marieke Bredenoord-Spoek
17.02.2014 NL law
Stibbe advises KLM and Martinair - CFI and EWD

Experience - Representing KLM and its subsidiary Martinair in antitrust damage litigation in the Amsterdam District Court, following on from the European Commission's finding of an antitrust infringement in the air cargo sector. This Amsterdam group action is run parallel to a similar action in London and to class actions in the United States. The claimants' action covers 11 jurisdictions.

Read more

Team: Jeroen Kortmann, Rein Wesseling, Marieke Bredenoord-Spoek
17.02.2014 NL law
Stibbe advises Schindler

Experience - Acting as defence counsel for Schindler Holding and its subsidiary Schindler Liften in antitrust damage litigation in both the Utrecht District Court and the Rotterdam District Court, following on from the European Commission's finding of an antitrust infringement in the elevator and escalator sector.

Read more

Team: Job van Hooff, Jeroen Kortmann, Christof Swaak, Marieke Bredenoord-Spoek
17.02.2014 NL law
Stibbe represents British Telecom

Experience - Represented British Telecom in a major contractual dispute with an internet company, an affiliate of a large insurance company. The internet company claimed damages in connection with the alleged failure of a predecessor of British Telecom to timely supply sufficient internet connection capacity.

Read more

Team: Gertjan Boekraad, Toni van Hees, Matthijs Kuijpers, Marieke Bredenoord-Spoek, Winfried van Hemel

Related news

06.02.2020 NL law

CDC/Kemira: Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies European principle of effectiveness to limitation periods

Short Reads - In a private enforcement case brought by CDC against Kemira, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies the European principle of effectiveness and rules that claims are not time-barred under Spanish, Finnish and Swedish law. With reference to the Cogeco judgment of the ECJ, the Court considers that claimants must be able to await the outcome of any administrative appeal against an infringement decision, even in relation to respondents who themselves have not filed appeals against the infringement decision.

05.12.2019 NL law

Court of Appeal applies competition notion of undertaking in civil damages claim

Short Reads - The Court of Appeal of Arnhem – Leeuwarden recently applied the competition law notion of an 'undertaking' in a civil damages suit between TenneT and an entity belonging to the Alstom group of companies. The Court of Appeal ruled that Cogelex formed a single undertaking with its 48% shareholder Alstom. Cogelex could therefore be held liable under civil law for the competition law infringement of its 48% parent company. The Court of Appeal based its decision on a broad application of the ECJ’s reasoning in its Skanska judgment of 14 March 2019.

Marieke Bredenoord-Spoek Senior Associate Amsterdam

06.02.2020 NL law

Den Bosch Court of Appeal revives damages claims in Dutch prestressing steel litigation

Short Reads - On 28 January 2020, the Court of Appeal of Den Bosch issued a ruling in the Dutch prestressing steel litigation. In its ruling, the Court of Appeal overturned a 2016 judgment of the District Court of Limburg, in which it was held that civil damages claims brought by Deutsche Bahn were time-barred under German law (see our January 2017 newsletter).

07.11.2019 NL law

Rotterdam District Court rules that claims in elevator cartel damages proceedings need further substantiation

Short Reads - The Rotterdam District Court has ordered claimant SECC (a litigation vehicle) to substantiate its claims in proceedings against Kone and ThyssenKrupp regarding the elevator cartel. The Court also ruled that some claims have become time-barred, unless SECC can show that these were timely assigned to SECC and notified to Kone and ThyssenKrupp. The Court rejected several defences of Kone and Thyssenkrupp, including a jurisdictional challenge based on arbitration clauses between the defendants and assignors of claims to SECC.

Marieke Bredenoord-Spoek Senior Associate Amsterdam

09.01.2020 NL law

Floodgates open? ECJ allows cartel damage claim for remote economic loss

Short Reads - A mantra of EU competition law is that "any person" can claim full compensation for all the loss caused to him or her through a competition law infringement. In the Otis judgment of 12 December 2019, the ECJ clarified that "any person" is not limited only to market participants such as buyers or suppliers. Persons who suffered a loss as a result of missed investment opportunities must also be able to request compensation.

05.09.2019 NL law

ECJ answers preliminary questions on jurisdiction in cartel damage case

Short Reads - On 29 July 2019, the ECJ handed down a preliminary ruling concerning jurisdiction in follow-on damages proceedings in what is termed the trucks cartel. The court clarified that Article 7(2) Brussels I Regulation should be interpreted in such a way as to allow an indirect purchaser to sue an alleged infringer of Article 101 TFEU before the courts of the place where the market prices were distorted and where the indirect purchaser claims to have suffered damage. In practice, this often means that indirect purchasers will be able to sue for damages in their home jurisdictions.