Global menu

Our global pages

Yuri Wehrmeijer, Partner

Yuri Wehrmeijer



Dutch, English

Practice areas

  • Commercial litigation
  • Financial services disputes and investigations
  • Industrials
  • Inquiries and investigations
  • Insurance and reinsurance
  • International arbitration
  • Litigation and dispute management
  • Private equity

Practice notes


After concluding his law studies at Leiden University, Yuri started his career in 2007 with Houthoff and joined Eversheds Sutherland in 2018 as a Litigation and Dispute Management partner. Yuri leads the global legal practice’s litigation offering in the Netherlands.

Yuri has extensive litigation experience, advising and representing national and international clients from a variety of sectors in corporate and commercial disputes in court and in arbitration. His experience includes class actions, corporate law disputes, inquiry-proceedings before the Enterprise Chamber of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal, post-M&A disputes, squeeze-out proceedings, commercial contract disputes, cross border liability cases, finance litigation, fact-finding proceedings, attachment proceedings and preliminary relief proceedings. Yuri also has five year experience as a cassation lawyer at the Dutch Supreme Court.

Yuri is a contributor to the civil law journal Rechtspraak Burgerlijk Procesrecht and the corporate law journal Bedrijfsjuridische berichten. Yuri lectures in the Evidence Gathering section at the Law Firm School.

Recent experience includes:

  • Representing a major Irish company in a NAI arbitration in relation to a contract interpretation dispute
  • Representing a listed Dutch insurance company in a class action on unit-linked insurance policies
  • Representing former management in multi-jurisdictional litigation issued by the company in relation to a dispute on the value of an executed asset-deal
  • Representing seller in relation to a post-acquisition dispute with purchaser having a EUR 30 million euro exposure
  • Representing several listed companies in squeeze-out proceedings before the Enterprise Chamber of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal vis-à-vis minority shareholders, amongst other following a multibillion public take-over offering
  • Representing one of the largest Rotterdam based privately owned business in a cross-border conspiracy litigation in the Netherlands and Malaysia against former management of a portfolio company and their investors
  • Representing a EUR 700 million family owned business in inquiry proceedings before the Enterprise Chamber of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal


  • Dutch Corporate Litigation Association
  • Dutch Association for Procedural Law
  • Dutch Association for Civil Law


October 2018: annotation to squeeze-out proceedings in DeepOcean, JOR 2018/242 and 2018/243

In this annotation, I go into the squeeze-out proceedings in the DeepOcean-case before the Enterprise Chamber of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. Particularly interesting are the developments in relation to the test applied by the EC to determine a fair share price for the minority shareholders and the information the EC requires in this respect. In DeepOcean, for the first time, a fair price was based on amongst others private contracts.

July 2018: Reactie op het consultatievoorstel tot aanpassing van het Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering in verband met de vereenvoudiging en modernisering van het bewijsrecht

In this response, we react to the proposal of the Dutch legislator to change the Dutch Code of Civil Proceedings. The Dutch legislator envisages to simplify and modernize the Code on the law of evidence, including the law on disclosing documents. The proposal contains certain key improvements compared to current law but at the same time on certain topics we are more cautious and recommend alternatives.

July 2018: Kroniek uitkoop en geschillenregeling 2017, in: Geschiften vanwege de Vereniging Corporate Litigation 2017-2018 (p. 217-250)

In this chronicle, we provided and commented on the 2017 cases concerning the squeeze-out procedure of minority shareholders (including those proceedings following public takeover offers) and the Dutch statutory dispute settlement procedure enabling to exit as a shareholder in a company.

February 2018: Naar een moderner burgerlijk bewijsrecht? TCR 2018/1

In this article we go into the advice report which has been published by a commission appointed by the Dutch government containing proposals to renew Dutch procedural rules in civil proceedings on evidence. We provide a description of the proposals and our views in this respect. Main point of the report is shifting the moment of gathering evidence to the very beginning and even prior to proceedings on the merits combined with a penalty when parties have failed to put in sufficient effort. On particular this last point there will be a considerable debate.

June 2017: Nieuwe piketpalen bij aansprakelijkheidsvorderingen tegen indirecte bestuurders via art. 2:11 BW, MvV 2017, nummer 6

In this article, we go into the scope of a third-party claim vis-a-vis an indirect statutory director (indirect statutair bestuurder) of a Dutch company in view of a judgment of the Dutch Supreme Court of 17 February 2017 (ECLI:NL:HR:2017:275)

May 2017: Corporate governance, Bb 2017/40

In this article, we introduce this special issue of Bb on Corporate governance following the new Dutch Corporate Governance Code.

2017: Commentaar & Context KEI Het gewijzigde Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering becommentarieerd vanuit de parlementaire geschiedenis van de KEI-wetgeving, Boom Juridisch

I am a co-author of this legal textbook concerning the new Dutch Code of Civil Procedure which covers the entire law and provides background from legislation history as well as practical guidelines.

September 2016: Minderheidsaandeelhouders en uitkoop: nieuw peilmoment voor aandelenwaardering, Bb 2016/57

In this article, we address the Unit-4 judgment of the Enterprise Chamber of the Amsterdam Appeal Court (Ondernemingskamer) of 7 July 2015, in which judgment the EC changed its course in respect of squeeze-out / buy-out proceedings and the valuation moment of the shares involved.

June 2015: Buitengerechtelijke vernietiging van een Share Purchase Agreement: en dan?
Geschriften vanwege de Vereniging Corporate Litigation 2014-2015 (Deventer: Wolters Kluwer 2015)

In this article we have set out the legal framework regarding an extra-judicial annulment of a SPA according to Dutch law. Dutch legal literature on this subject is rare. We identified some specific issues that can come up when a transfer of shares is annulled vis-a-vis the position of the buyer and that of the seller. Also, we explored the position of the board of the target how to manage the company if on shareholders level a debate arises regarding the entitlement to the shares in the company.

December 2014: Onpartijdigheid gerechtelijk deskundige, JBPR 2014/50

In this explanatory note, I addressed the procedural rules regarding a court appointed expert and focused on the topic that a court appointed expert needs to be independent and also needs to avoid the appearance that the expert is not independent. In the case at hand, only after years of civil proceedings, it turned out the court appointed expert was in a way tied to one of the parties. To avoid such conclusions, and to avoid wasting of time and money, I suggested to introduce a disclosure statement at the beginning of the procedure regarding a court appointed expert as is done in Commen Law jurisdictions.  


Yuri has extensive litigation experience, advising and representing national and international clients from a variety of sectors