Author: admin

  • Wardynski & Partners Advises Modern Times Group on Acquisition of Plarium Global

    Wardynski & Partners, working with Baker Botts, has advised Modern Times Group on its acquisition of Plarium Global.

    Modern Times Group is a digital entertainment company based in Stockholm.

    Mobile gaming creation company Plarium is part of Australian-based Aristocrat Leisure. Plarium’s headquarters are in Israel with creative teams in Poland, Ukraine, Finland, and Spain.

    The Wardynski & Partners team included Partners Adam Pawlisz and Monika Gorska, Lawyers Dominik Kaszuba, Karolina Romanowska, Marcin Rytel, and Bartosz Troczynski, Attorneys at Law Tomasz Plesniak and Mateusz Chelstowski, Junior Associates Maciej Wierzchowiec and Patryk Jackiewicz.

    Wardynski & Partners could not provide additional information on the matter.

  • Ellex and Kirkland & Ellis Advise Advent International on Acquisition of Nuvei Corporation

    Ellex, working with Kirkland & Ellis, has advised Advent International on its acquisition of Nuvei Corporation. Stikeman Elliott and Sorainen reportedly advised Nuvei.

    The total value of the transaction is approximately USD 6.3 billion.

    Advent International is a private equity firm.

    Nuvei Corporation is a payment processing platform listed in Canada.

    According to Ellex, “after delisting from the stock exchange current shareholders Philip Fayer, Novacap and CDPQ will indirectly own approximately 24%, 18%, and 12%, respectively, of the equity in the resulting private company as part of the agreement, while remaining 46% will be owned by the new investor Advent International. The strategic alliance between Advent International and existing shareholders should ensure the successful development of Nuvei.”

    The Ellex team included Partner Ieva Dosinaite, Expert Lina Radaviciene, and Senior Associate Domantas Gudonis.

  • Schoenherr and Szabo, Kelemen & Partners Andersen Advise on BGK’s EUR 40 Million Financing for Puro Hotel in Budapest

    Schoenherr has advised Bank Gospodarstwa Krajowego on a EUR 40 million financing agreement for the development and long-term investment of a Puro Hotel in Budapest. Szabo, Kelemen & Partners Andersen advised Puro.

    BGK is Poland’s state development bank. It supports Poland’s sustainable social and economic development and plays a role in financing exports and the foreign expansion of Polish companies.

    According to Schoenherr, this marks the Puro brand’s first venture outside of Poland, with the hotel scheduled to open in mid-2026. The financing provided by BGK will enable the expansion of the Puro hotel chain into the Hungarian market.

    The Schoenherr team in Poland included Partner Ilona Fedurek, Senior Attorney at Law Piotr Bartos, Attorney at Law Aleksandra Kulik, and Associates Gabriela Chrzanowska and Filip Grabowski while the team in Hungary included Partners Laszlo Krupl and Gabor Pazsitka, Attorney at Law Lilla Szepsi Szucs, and Associates Balint Bodo, Viktoria Magyar, and Nora Lilla Szilvasi.

    The Szabo, Kelemen & Partners Andersen team included Partners Eva Balsay, Levente Kalman, and Zoltan Modos.

  • Rymarz Zdort Maruta and Clifford Chance Advise on EBRD’s EUR 100 Million Financing for Vantage

    Rymarz Zdort Maruta has advised Vantage on securing EUR 100 million in financing from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development for the construction and operation of a portfolio of rental flats. Clifford Chance advised the EBRD.

    Vantage is a company that develops and manages a private rented sector platform belonging to the TAG Immobilien group. It has premises in Wroclaw, Poznan, and Lodz.

    According to Rymarz Zdort Maruta, “the transaction will add approximately 3,000 new affordable housing units to the Vantage portfolio. The private rented sector is a sector of the residential real estate market in which specialized, professional agents rent out residential properties.”

    The Rymarz Zdort Maruta team included Partner Jakub Rachwol, Senior Associate Adrian Wieslaw, and Associate Maksymilian Kaszubowski.

    The Clifford Chance team included Warsaw-based Partner Andrzej Stosio, Counsel Bartosz Kaniasty, Senior Associate Anna Miernik, and Associates Aleksandra Bialyszewska, Gabriela Kobak, Maria Janiak, and Mikolaj Borusowski as well as further team members in Frankfurt and Munich.

  • Cultures Clash in Bulgaria: A Buzz Interview with Ventsislav Tomov of Schoenherr

    As Schonherr Head of Intellectual Property and Dispute Resolution practices in Bulgaria Ventsislav Tomov explains, Bulgaria’s delicate political situation and unreliable judicial system are creating a challenging environment for both local and international businesses. Amid these uncertainties, internal corporate investigations are on the rise, driven by cultural clashes between Western investors and Bulgarian management as well as growing concerns over compliance and governance.

    “Bulgaria’s political situation is quite delicate,” Tomov begins. “We are likely facing our eighth consecutive election, and the parliament is essentially nonfunctional, which means no meaningful legislative amendments are being passed. This creates a ripple effect across various sectors, contributing to legal uncertainties and weakening the enforcement of laws.” As he puts it, the court system remains unreliable, and public prosecution and police authorities are often unable – or unwilling – to address key issues. “This lack of effective law enforcement fosters a sense of impunity among corporate managers, making internal corporate investigations increasingly common.”

    Focusing on why internal corporate investigations have become such a common trend, Tomov says that “there are several reasons, but the cultural differences between Western and US investors and Bulgarian managers stand out. Western investors often bring decades – or even centuries – of corporate governance traditions and strict compliance policies, which can clash with local practices.” According to him, Bulgaria’s historical background as an ex-communist state plays a role here. “While we’ve transitioned to a market economy, cultural shifts are much slower. Many managers struggle to align with the high expectations of international investors, leading to governance issues like financial leakages or even infringements on employees’ rights.”

    To provide a more specific image of the situation, Tomov says that “most cases arise from whistleblower reports or financial discrepancies discovered by investors. These investigations aim to uncover the truth behind possible crimes, fraud, or civil and administrative infringements. Sometimes, the issues are clear-cut, like embezzlement, but often they stem from cultural misunderstandings or unconventional business practices.” For instance, “what may appear as mismanagement to an international investor might simply be a local manager’s interpretation of how to handle a situation,” he says.

    Furthermore, Tomov reports that internal corporate investigations require a very delicate approach. “As local lawyers, we need not only legal expertise but also an understanding of Bulgaria’s cultural nuances. These cases often involve assessing compliance with internal corporate rules, which can be complex and may conflict with local customs.” Moreover, he adds that “data protection and legal privilege are also major considerations, as we must carefully navigate access to internal communications while respecting privacy laws.”

    Finally, Tomov adds that “patent litigation – particularly in the pharmaceutical sector – has been on the rise over the last two to three years. Large companies are increasingly fighting over patent rights, both in court and through extrajudicial measures.” According to him, “this reflects a broader trend across the region, but it has become especially prominent in Bulgaria recently.” In conclusion, Tomov stresses that internal investigations and patent disputes are likely to continue growing in prominence, driven by globalization and the increasing influence of international investors. “The challenge will be aligning Bulgaria’s legal and corporate practices with global standards while respecting local cultural nuances. It’s a complex but fascinating dynamic to navigate.”

  • New Product Liability Directive and Software AI Newly Considered as Products

    On 18 November 2024, the new Product Liability Directive (the Directive) was published in the Official Journal of the EU (link). It replaces almost 40 years of legislation that was no longer relevant in the digital age, given the dynamic development of new technologies. What does it bring and what has changed? We have prepared a short summary for you.

    What constitutes a product? Both software and artificial intelligence systems now fall under product liability!

    The new Directive explicitly classifies software as a product. It is irrelevant whether the software is stand-alone or integrated into another item or how the software is provided (e.g. whether it is provided as part of cloud or on-premises solutions). It is clear from the Directive’s recitals that the definition also includes artificial intelligence systems. However, liability does not apply to free and open-source software when it is provided outside the course of a commercial activity. Conversely, if software is provided in exchange for personal data, it is considered to be supplied in the course of a commercial activity, and liability would therefore to such software.

    When is a product considered defective?

    A product is defective if it does not provide the safety that a person is entitled to expect or that is required by law. In doing so, all relevant circumstances must be assessed, including the presentation and characteristics of the product, the reasonably foreseeable use of the product, or product safety requirements, including cybersecurity requirements. AI’s continuous learning ability can be also taken into account when such product is placed on the market or put into service.

    It is therefore worth bearing in mind that even inappropriate advertising or marketing claims on product packaging can now contribute to consumer claims. Not only the software’s marketing promotion, but also its technical documentation or any breach of cybersecurity legislation will play a role when assessing liability for damage caused by the software. With regard to AI systems, we point out that the Artificial Intelligence Act, if breached, can result in in, for example, liability for damage caused by the AI system under the Product Liability Directive.

    Liability caused by product defect

    The Directive updates the existing rules on the strict liability of manufacturers for defective products. It provides that anyone who has suffered damage to health (physical or psychological), property or data (through destruction or corruption) as a result of a defective product is entitled to compensation. The Directive includes compensation for any damage, including non-material losses if those losses can be compensated under national law. However, the Directive only addresses claims by natural persons and not claims by legal persons. The damage is no longer required to exceed €500. At the same time, it should be noted that the rules cannot be contractually limited or excluded in relation to consumers.

    Who can be held responsible? Not only the manufacturer!

    The Directive provides for a cascading mechanism to shift liability for product defects to successor entities in the supply chain, starting with the importer on the EU market and the manufacturer’s representative in the EU. If the manufacturer or importer cannot be identified, any distributor of the product in the EU may be held liable.

    In addition to the manufacturer of the product itself, the manufacturer of a specific defective component may also be held liable if the integrated component caused defect. In addition, a person who substantially alters a product outside the manufacturer’s control and then places it on the market or into service in the EU may also be considered the manufacturer.

    When should the manufacturer (or other responsible person) be exempted from liability?

    Similarly to the 1985 Directive, this one provides for a number of exonerating circumstances, for example, if it is likely that the defect that caused the damage did not exist when the product was placed on the market. However, the creator of the software is not exempted from liability if the defect was caused by a subsequent or insufficient update of the software.

    Simplifying the burden of proof: New obligation to disclose evidence and rebuttable presumptions!

    A further significant change brought about by the Directive is the introduction of an obligation for the defendant to disclose relevant evidence on request. Courts are then entitled to require that evidence to be presented in an easily accessible and easily understandable manner, which can be problematic in practice, particularly in the case of software and artificial intelligence. Conversely, courts are obliged to take special measures that are necessary to preserve the confidentiality of trade secrets.

    The Directive also establishes a number of rebuttable presumptions which, in certain circumstances—for example, if the defendant fails to disclose relevant evidence—allow for the presumption of, for example, the defectiveness of the product or a causal link between the defect in the product and the damage. In practice, these rules also ease the burden of proof for the plaintiff.

    Practical implications? Class actions!

    Product liability claims can become subject of class action in the future. In the EU, the deadline for implementing the Class Actions Directive, which allows authorized entities to bring actions on behalf of a group of consumers, has recently passed. Due to the nature of product liability claims, class actions could significantly increase the overall scope of claims and thus the associated business risk exposure.

    When will the rules come into force?

    The Directive will enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. Member states have two years to implement the Directive in national legislation.

    By Zdenek Kucera, Partner, and Stepanka Havlikova, Senior Associate, Dentons

  • RPHS Law and ICL Legal Advise on Swinto’s Sale to Virtus Invesco Partners

    RPHS Law has advised Swinto on the sale of the majority of its shares to Virtus Invesco Partners. ICL Legal advised the buyers.

    Swinto is a non-banking financial institution licensed by the Central Bank of Kosovo. 

    Virtus Invesco Partners focuses on enterprise and holding company management.

    The RPHS Law team included Partner Mentor Hajdaraj and Senior Managing Associate Klit Shala.

    The ICL Legal team included Managing Partner Mehmet Berisha, Partner Attorney Rafet Ferizi, and Senior Legal Associates Nita Dragusha and Jeton Ulaj.

  • TGS Baltic Advises Superhero Capital on EUR 2.5 Million Investment Round for Cyber Upgrade

    TGS Baltic has advised Superhero Capital on leading a EUR 2.5 million investment round for Cyber Upgrade with Specialist VC, Firstpick, NGL Ventures, and angel investors Marios S. Kalochoritis and Sergei Anikin also participating. Noor reportedly advised on the round as well.

    Superhero Capital focuses on seed to early-stage investments in software, information technology, and internet sectors, with a geographical focus on Finland and the Baltics.

    According to TGS Baltic, the funds will be used to enhance Cyber Upgrade’s AI system, aiming to achieve fully autonomous operation without human oversight. Offered as a subscription service, the tool seeks to make high-level cybersecurity accessible to businesses of all sizes.

    The TGS Baltic team included Senior Associate Paulius Dabulskis, Associates Violeta Maciulyte and Aurelija Gamulka, Junior Associate Viktorija Janciuraite, and Legal Assistant Meda Stankute.

  • Paksoy Advises General Atlantic on USD 500 Million Series E Investment in Insider

    Paksoy, working with Milbank, has advised General Atlantic on its USD 500 million lead investment in Insider’s series E funding round.

    General Atlantic is an American growth equity firm.

    Insider is a Turkish software company specializing in AI-powered customer experience and customer engagement solutions.

    The Paksoy team included Partner Ayse Demirel Atakan, Senior Associate Pinar Babaoglu, and Associate Sibel Postacioglu. 

    Paksoy did not respond to our inquiry on the matter.

  • Rymarz Zdort Maruta Successful for DESA Unicum Before Internet Domain Arbitration Court

    Rymarz Zdort Maruta has successfully represented DESA Unicum before the Internet Domain Arbitration Court at the Polish Chamber of Information Technology and Telecommunications in a case brought by Desa Dziela Sztuki i Antyki concerning the infringement of rights as a result of an agreement for the maintenance of the desa.pl domain name.

    According to Rymarz Zdort Maruta, “both parties to the dispute were associated with the state enterprise “DESA” Dziela Sztuki i Antyki, which was split into two entities in 1991. Over the years, both entities also changed the form of their business, which in both cases, however, concerned trading in works of art and antiques. At the time of the split, it was not possible to establish the consensual use of the disputed ‘Desa’ name. In dismissing the action of Desa Dziela Sztuki i Antyki against DESA Unicum, the Internet Domain Arbitration Court emphasized the fact that the respondent had succeeded in demonstrating the continuity of the use of the desa.pl domain for activities conducted under the DESA Unicum designation and the long-standing toleration of this state of affairs by the claimant was of key importance for the decision.”

    The Rymarz Zdort Maruta team included Managing Partner Marcin Maruta and Partner Zbigniew Okon.