Author: admin

  • Schoenherr, Clifford Chance and TZA Advise on Volksbank Sell of Loans Portfolio

    Schoenherr, Clifford Chance and TZA Advise on Volksbank Sell of Loans Portfolio

    On July 28, Volskbank Romania announced that it had finalized the sale of a EUR 495 million portfolio of non-performing loans to a consortium of foreign investors.

    Volksbank Romania was represented by Schoenherr, with Tuca Zbarcea & Asociatii and Badea Clifford Chance advising the buyers. PWC acted as a sales counsel on behalf of Volksbank. 

    The portfolio included 3,566 credits and associated collateral. The consortium purchasing it consisted of Deutsche Bank, AnaCap Financial Partners, H.I.G Capital International Advisers, and APS Holding SE. Volksbank reported that, as a result of the transaction, it lowered its rate of non-performing loans to what it describes as a “comfortable level of under 8%, 3 times lower than the average in the Romanian banking sector.”

    BAT

       

    Alexander Tscherteu, vice-president for Volksbank Romania (volksbank.ro)

    On the deal, Alexander Tscherteu, vice-president for Volksbank Romania, commented: “It is the first transaction of its kind on the Romanian market. Other banks are sure to follow in our footsteps. Closing the deal would not have been possible without the help of a dedicated team and without the help of Schoenherr as legal counsel and PWC as sales counsel.”

    The Schoenherr Romania team was led by Partner Matei Florea and included Partner Madalina Neagu and Attorney at Law Cristina Dumitrascu.

    Schoenherr Romania and Tuca Zbarcea & Asociatii were also involved in the VB Leasing Romania sell to the Polish company Getin Holding, reported on by CEE Legal Matters on May 20, 2014.

     

  • SPCG Advises Mostostal Zabrze on Settlement with Bank Zachodni WBK

    Studnicki Pleszka Cwiakalski Gorski has advised the Mostostal Zabrze holding company during negotiations and execution of its settlement agreement with Bank Zachodni WBK concerning claims Mostostal Zabrze filed in the bankruptcy proceedings of Reliz.

    Mostostal Zabrze’s claims related to its investment in construction of the 69,000 square meter Uni Centrum (now known as the Altus) building in Katowice. The value of Mostostal Zabrze’s claim against Reliz was at one point estimated as approximately PLN 46 million (EUR 11.7 million) plus interest, but terms of the settlement were not disclosed.

    Reliz was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Poland Kredyt Bank, which merged with Bank Zachodni WBK in January of 2013, creating the third largest bank in Poland by market share.

    SPCG Partners Piotr Kaminski and Tomasz Spyra led the firm’s team on the matter.

     

  • TZA Assists Marubeni in Deal With Romanian ELCEN

    Electrocentrale Bucuresti (ELCEN), the largest producer of termic energy in Romania, has signed a EUR 170 million joint venture agreement with Marubeni Corporation on July 29 to build a gas heating plant of approximately 250 MW in Fantanele, Romania. 

    The company resulting from the joint venture, Fantanele Gas Power, will be 90% owned by Marubeni Corporation, and the remaining 10% will be owned by ELCEN. The plant will operate as an independent energy producer. In signing the deal, the Marubeni Corporation was assisted by Tuca Zbarcea & Asociatii. The firm’s team was led by Partner Sorin Vladescu. 

    The new company will be listed in the Commerce Registry in August, 2014. According to current estimates, the construction of the plant will take approximately 18 months. Commercial exploitation of the new plant is planned for 2017.   

    This article is powered by our friends at LegalMarketing.ro. 

     

     

  • Triniti Argues for Internet Freedom Before European Court of Human Rights

    The Triniti law firm is representing one of Estonia’s largest news websites before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in a case that could have profound implications on freedom of expression on the Internet.

    In particular, the dispute between the Delfi news agency and Estonia, after that country’s Supreme Court dismissed Delfi’s appeal of a ruling in favor of an Estonian ferry company’s main shareholder, involves the question of how closely websites need to police comments and whether they can be held accountable for defamatory posts — even if they are responsive in deleting such posts once asked to. 

    In a press release by Triniti, the firm describes it as “a historic court case – a precedent could be set that all online environments where users can comment and upload images or videos, must pre-moderate the content created by users.” Triniti quotes Dirk Voorhoof — who the firm describes as “one of the best known media-and-freedom of speech professor from Gent University, Centre for Human Rights and Centre for Journalism Studies — as saying that: “the whole world of online media and civil society stimulating participatory public discussion is looking very much forward to the Grand Chamber’s judgment in the Delfi case. There are legitimate reasons to assume that the Grand Chamber can opt for a more sustainable approach in light of international and European standards on internet liability for intermediaries for user generated content, online freedom of expression and the right of anonymity on the Internet.”

    The case dates back to early 2006, when a neutral news item was published online by Delfi about an ice road breaking down, reportedly in connection with the maneuvers of the Saaremaa Laevakompanii (the Saaremaa Shipping Company). The article attracted 185 comments. At the time, Delfi was using a filter system to automatically remove comments containing profanities and “Report an unsuitable comment” button, which could be clicked to support the removal of the comment. Six weeks after the publication of the article, Delfi was presented with a letter from a lawyer, stating that 20 comments were offensive and defamatory. Delfi removed the offending comments immediately after receiving the letter.

    Nonetheless, in April 2006 the ferry company sued, and an Estonian court found Delfi liable for damages in the amount of 5,000 Estonian kroon (approximately EUR 340). Delfi’s appeal was dismissed by Estonia’s Supreme Court in June, 2009. Delfi then took the case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which ruled that: “Given the nature of the article, the company should have expected offensive posts, and exercised an extra degree of caution so as to avoid being held liable for damage to an individual’s reputation.” The judgment declared that if a commercial website allows anonymous comments, it is both “practical” and “reasonable” for it to be held legally responsible for the contents of those comments.

    In response, a group of 69 media organizations, Internet companies, human rights groups, and academic institutions sent an open letter to Dean Spielmann, the 51-year-old judge and president of the European Court of Human Rights, explaining that the court’s judgment could lead to “serious adverse repercussions for?.?.?.?democratic openness in the digital era.” The 69 signatories included Google, Guardian News and Media, the Daily Beast, PEN International, and the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers.

    The Court’s decision isn’t final, however. On February 17 it was accepted for referral to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, a relatively rare occurrence (only about 5% of cases are accepted for consideration).

    According to Triniti, “Delfi’s purpose is to convince the court that in order to substantiate the freedom of expression on the Internet, it must extend to the disseminators of user generated content like news portals, video and picture sharing sites, blogs, social media. Otherwise, we give the state the right to decide what is available on the Internet.” And Triniti Partner Karmen Turk points out the logistic nightmare the court’s ruling could create: “Every minute, more than 130 hours of video is uploaded to Youtube; more than 40 000 posts on Facebook; more than 2000 posts and comments in just one blogging platform WordPress.”

    The court heard the positions of Estonia and Delfi on July 9, and its decision is expected sometime in 2015.

    Urmo Soonvald, the editor-in-chief of Delfi, says, “we have come from a society where the civil society and freedom of opinion was a luxury. We wish that from now on, no one in Estonia or elsewhere in Europe should have to fight for freedom of opinion, because it is a basic right of people.” 

    Delfi is represented by Triniti Partner Villu Otsmann and attorney Karmen Turk.

     

  • Skrastins and Dzenis Obtains Result in Dispute Between FBP and Banks

    Skrastins and Dzenis have persuaded the Latvian Supreme Court that the rulings of lower courts in a real investment dispute had been made in error, and the case has been returned for further consideration. 

    The EUR 2.5 million case involves a dispute between First Baltic Property Riga (FBP) — a property of the Liechtenstein Investment fund, and S&D’s client in the matter — and the property developer Urban Art and Swedbank and DNB banka, involving a real estate project.

    According to Partner Verners Skrastins, in 2006 FBP invested about EUR 2 million in a real estate project financed by the two banks, with the understanding that FBP would receive title to 22 apartments once the project was finished, and that all the investment made by FBP would go into the project. On the same day as the agreement was signed, however, Urban Art also signed an agreement with the two banks, according to which its mortgage was registered on the property. When the project was finished after the global economic downturn the developer became insolvent, and the banks as secured creditors refused to give their permission to FBP to register its title to the apartments.

    FBP petitioned the Court to have title to the apartments established in its name and to impose a duty on the banks to register the title in the land register. According to Skrastins FBP’s request was initially denied, and then again on appeal, but the Supreme Court has ruled that the lower courts failed to consider several of FBP’s most compelling arguments, and it remanded the case with instructions that they do so.

    Skrastins notes that the case is not over yet, because the Supreme Court has not decided the case on the merits, but only rejected the lower court’s arguments and returned the case to the court of second instance for further consideration.

    Skrastins & Denis Partner Andrejs Gulajevs and Associate Daina Tervite led the representation of FBP in the matter.

     

  • Sorainen Advises Avis Lithuania on New Restrictions on Rental Cars

    Sorainen Latvia has advised Avis Lithuania, one of the leading automobile leasing companies in Lithuania, regarding possible solutions for driving Avis Lithuania’s automobiles in Latvia by Latvian residents.

    Advice concerned the new Latvian legal regulations restricting Latvian residents to drive rented cars with foreign plates in Latvia. 

    Avis Lithuania was advised by Sorainen Latvia Partner Agris Repss and Associate Linda Renesla.

     

  • Jara & Partners Represents Constructor in Dispute Regarding Polish National Stadium

    Jara & Partners has brought a claim on behalf of Alpine Bau Deutschland against the Polish State Treasury – Minister of Sport and Tourism, seeking PLN 139 million in damages following construction of the National Stadium in Warsaw. 

    Three companies — Alpine Bau Deutschland, Alpine Construction Polska, and the Austrian-based Alpine Bau — were the lead constructors in developing the National Stadium (the consortium also included PBG and Hydrobudowa Polska – both of which are currently in liquidation). According to a Jara & Partners statement, “the claim concerns damage which arose following the failure of the State Treasury to fulfill its investor obligations on negligent performance of its obligations.” Claims made by Alpine Blau Deutschland include “incomplete project documentation, numerous amendments in the documentation giving rise to additional costs, and commissioning of unscheduled works.” 

    According to Jara & Partners, previous efforts made to to settle the dispute out of court have been unsuccessful, though the firm notes that additional efforts may be made down the road.    

    Jara & Partners lawyers Przemyslaw Drapala and Andrzej Sokolowski are leading the firm’s representation in the matter. 

     

  • Last Call General Counsel Survey

    Today is the last day for General Counsel to have their voices heard in the CEE Legal Matters 2014 Corporate Counsel Best Practices Handbook. 

    The main goal of the research project is to centralize best practices of GCs/Heads of Legal into a useful report. The Handbook focuses on critical aspects of the GC role, such as:

    – building and managing an internal legal team

    – working with external counsel

    – managing compliance within a company

    – and others.

    The survey was prepared with the input of the Advisory Board of General Counsel and Heads of Legal from the region.

    Over 3200 General Counsel, Heads of Legal, and Legal Managers throughout CEE jurisdictions have been invited to participate in the survey — and close to 650 have already answered the call. 

    We are excited with the participation rates and look forward to processing the submissions we received. If you would like to receive a copy of the result report, it is not too late to participate in the survey. 

    All data collected will be kept completely confidential, will not be shared with any third parties, and will be used strictly to generate the mentioned report. The results will be shared only as percentages and participants to the survey will not be identified in any manner.

    The sponsors of the project are: Edwards Wildman, CMS Reich-Rohrwig Hainz, Freshfields, and Tuca Zbarcea & Asociatii. 

     

  • Massive Arbitration Award Against Russia

    Massive Arbitration Award Against Russia

    In what Shearman & Sterling calls “an historic arbitral award,” on July 18, 2014, an Arbitral Tribunal sitting in The Hague held unanimously that the Russian Federation had breached its international obligations under the Energy Charter Treaty by destroying Yukos Oil Company and appropriating its assets.

    The Tribunal awarded the claimants just under half of their USD 114 billion claim. Shearman & Sterling represented the successful claimants, the majority shareholders of Yukos, while lawyers from Baker Botts and Cleary Gottlieb represented the Russian Federation. 

    In 2003, when the events underling the arbitration occurred, Yukos was the largest oil company in Russia in terms of daily crude oil production. It had around 100,000 employees, six main refineries and a market capitalization of about USD 33 billion. It was controlled by Mikhail Khodorkovsky (foto), until he was arrested at gunpoint in 2003 and convicted of theft and tax evasion in 2005. The company, once worth USD 40 billion, was broken up and nationalised, with most assets handed to Rosneft, a company run by Igor Sechin, an ally of President Vladimir Putin. 

    Shearman & Sterling filed its claims in October 2004, and the arbitration started in February 2005. On November 30, 2009, the Arbitral Tribunal — sitting under the auspices of the Permanent Court of Arbitration — issued a decision on jurisdiction, holding that the Russian Federation was bound by the ECT by virtue of its provisional application (despite the fact that the Treaty had not been ratified by the Russian Duma), and that the claimants were protected investors under the ECT.

    The dispute attracted massive media attention, and in the end the Tribunal concluded that, “Yukos was the object of a series of politically-motivated attacks by the Russian authorities that eventually led to its destruction,” and that the Russian Federation’s aim was “to bankrupt Yukos, assign its assets to a State-controlled company, and incarcerate [Mikhail Khodorkovsky] who gave signs of becoming a political competitor.” The Tribunal held that the Russian Federation’s actions amounted to an “unlawful expropriation,” that the Russian Federation had breached its obligations under Article 13(1) of the ECT, and that the claimants were entitled to “reparation for the injury they suffered as a result of those of [Russian Federation’s] measures that the Tribunal has found to be internationally wrongful.” 

    The Tribunal ordered the Russian Federation to pay damages in excess of USD 50 billion to the subsidiaries of the Gibraltar-based Group Menatep (which now exists as the GML holding company), which controlled Yukos. The Tribunal also ordered the Russian Federation to reimburse an additional USD 60 million in legal fees (which Shearman & Sterling estimates as constituting 75% of the fees incurred in the proceedings), and EUR 4.2 million in arbitration costs. The Tribunal also held that the claimants will be entitled to post-award interest if the Russian Federation fails to pay the amounts due by January 15, 2015. According to Shearman & Sterling, “this is by far the largest award ever rendered by an arbitral tribunal.” 

    The award will be shared amongst the shareholders, including Russian-born Leonid Nevzlin, a business partner of Khdorovsky’s, who fled to Israel to avoid prosecution. He has a stake of around 70 percent. The other four ultimate beneficial owners, each of whom owns an equal stake, are Platon Lebedev, Mikhail Brudno, Vladimir Dubov, and Vasilly Shaknovski. 

    “The award is final and binding, and is now enforceable in 150 States under the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards,” said Yas Banifatemi, International Arbitration Partner in charge of the Shearman & Sterling Public International Law practice. (Despite this, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said that Moscow would most likely appeal the decision). 

    “This award is a major victory for us. After intense scrutiny, the Tribunal confirmed what the Claimants have been saying all along, namely that Yukos was destroyed, and its assets expropriated, for political reasons,” said Tim Osborne, director of GML.

    According to Emmanuel Gaillard, Head of Shearman & Sterling’s International Arbitration Group, “this is a great day for the rule of law: a superpower like the Russian Federation is held accountable for its violations of international law by an independent arbitral tribunal of the highest possible calibre.”

    The Tribunal was chaired by Yves Fortier, formerly Canada’s Representative on the UN Security Council and President of the Council. The Russian Federation appointed Judge Stephen Schwebel, former President of the International Court of Justice, and the Claimants appointed Dr. Charles Poncet, Partner at CMS von Erlach Poncet, in Geneva.

    The proceedings involved a ten-day hearing on jurisdiction and admissibility in 2008 and a 21-day hearing on the merits in 2012, attended by over 50 party representatives as well as fact witnesses and experts. The parties’ written submissions exceeded 6,500 pages and the transcript of the hearings is over 3,300 pages long. Over 11,000 exhibits were filed with the Tribunal.

    According to Shearman & Sterling, “the expropriation of our clients’ investment in Yukos was achieved through a series of steps, which included paralyzing the Company (notably through the arrest, imprisonment and harassment of its management and employees), manufacturing a pretext for the taking of the Company’s assets (namely, the fabrication of over USD 24 billion in tax debt), using that pretext to take Yukos’ assets piece by piece (beginning with Yuganskneftegaz, Yukos’ crown-jewel asset), and later transferring all of the Company’s assets to Russian State-owned companies Rosneft and Gazprom. This in turn allowed Rosneft to become the nation’s largest oil producer whose current market capitalization is at USD 67 billion. The Russian Federation’s actions culminated in the liquidation of Yukos in November 2007, and the complete and total deprivation of our clients’ investments.”

    Yukos’ majority shareholders were represented in the arbitration proceedings by Shearman & Sterling Partners Emmanuel Gaillard and Yas Banifatemi, and Counsel Jennifer Younan. Among the over 20 firm additional arbitration lawyers working on the matter over the years were Partners Coralie Darrigade, Mark McNeill, Associates Ilija Mitrev Penusliski, Lara Kroop, Elise Edson,Ketevan Betaneli, Dimitrios Katsikis, Benjamin Siino, Ximena Herrera-Bernal, and Emmanuel Jacomy.

    Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton lawyers representing the Russian Federation included Partners Claudia Annacker, Lawrence Friedman, David Sabel, Matthew Slater, Senior Counsel William McGurn, and Counsel J. Cameron Murphy.

    Baker Botts lawyers on the matter included Partners Michael Goldberg, Jay Alexander, Johannes Koepp, and Alejandro Escobar.

    photocredits: businessinsider.com

  • ICT Group Legal Director Leaves for Renova

    Oleg Khuazhev has taken on the role of Deputy Projects Director – Head of Projects at Renova Group (Legal and General Management) in Russia.

    Prior to the move he was ICT Group’s Legal Director in the Investment Department for three years. Khuazhev’s previous experience includes 2 years with Marshall Capital Partners and little under one and a half years with White & Case in Moscow. 

    Renova Group represents a private business group that consists of asset management companies and direct and portfolio investment funds owning and managing assets in metals mining, oil, machine building, mining, construction development, energy, telecommunications, nanotechnologies, utilities and financial sectors in Russia and abroad. It is a stakeholder and strategic investor in many Russian and international companies, including TNK-BP, UC Rusal, Integrated Energy Systems, Oerlikon and Sulzer. Renova Group integrated direct investment funds and management companies operates in the energy sector (IES, Avelar Energy), real estate development (Renova StroyGroup), portfolio investments (Svarog Capital Advisers, Columbus Nova), telecommunications (Akado Group), chemical industry (Renova Orgsintez) and precious metals (Zoloto Kamchatki).

    The group invests in Russia, Switzerland, Italy, South Africa, Ukraine, Latvia, Kirghizia, Mongolia, and other countries.