Author: admin

  • Binder Groesswang Represents mbi-group Beteiligung in UIAG Acquisition

    Binder Groesswang has advised the mbi-group Beteiligung GmbH (“mbi”) — the international mechanical engineering company, and owner of Anger Machining and HPC Produktions — on its sale of 40% shareholding to Unternehmens Invest AG (UIAG).

    UIAG’s acquisition was made by means of a capital increase and financial contribution in the amount of EUR 8 million.  As a result of the acquisition, current mbi owners Klaus Dirnberger und Dietmar Bahn are joined by a new strategic partner.  Signing took place on July 1, 2014, and the transaction is expected to close by September 30, 2014.

    UIAG, Dirnberger, and Bahn plan to further expand the group of companies over the next few years. In the course of the transaction ownership was rearranged for the long term. UIAG has the option to increase its shareholding in mbi to up to 70% in 2015.   

    The Binder Groesswang team consisted of Partner Florian Khol and Associate Hemma Parsche.

     

     

  • PHJW Announces Role in Now-Closed Electrica IPO

    Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker (PHJW) has announced that it advised Citigroup Global Markets Limited, Raiffeisen Bank, and Societe Generale on the EUR 444.3 million initial public offering of Electrica (initially reported by CEE Legal Matters on June 26).

    The offering, which closed on July 4, is the largest ever Romanian IPO, valuing the company at EUR 900 million. 

    According to PHJW, “the IPO comprised an offering of shares listed on the Bucharest Stock Exchange (BVB) and GDRs listed on the London Stock Exchange (LSE). The offer consists of 177 million new shares, representing 105 percent of the company’s total number of existing shares. The offering was a key requirement under a framework agreement between the Romanian State and the IMF and EU following their rescue loans totaling EUR 22 billion to the country.”

    As a result of the IPO, the Romanian State has cut its stake in the company to approximately 49 per cent. The offering included a sizable strategic investment by EBRD.

    Paul Hastings advised the underwriters on US and English law, with Musat & Asociatii advising on Romanian law, and the firm took primary responsibility for drafting the prospectus.

    The Paul Hastings team was led by London Partner James Cole, assisted by Partners Karl Balz and Ross McNaughton and Associates Matthew Poxon and Sam Holdsworth.

     

     

  • Wilson & Partners Advises Skanska on Office Building Sale in Prague

    Wilson & Partners has announced the successful completion of the sale of the Balabenka Office Building in Prague by Skanska Property to the CIB Group.

    The price of the transaction was not disclosed. Wilson & Partners has undertaken some leasing of the building, and also acted on behalf of Skanska on the sale, along with Cushman & Wakefield.

    Balabenka is located between Prague 8 and 9, two rapidly-developing parts of the city. The seven-story building provides 13,000 square meters of leasable office/retail space, and has an 81 percent occupancy rate. The building’s anchor tenants are Komercni Banka, CSOB, and Air Telecom. Skanska Property Czech Republic acquired the building, formerly known as Vysocanska brana, from ORCO, in 2010.

     

  • Legal Pitfalls in Crimea

    Legal Pitfalls in Crimea

    Considering the current situation in Crimea, in particular circumstances influenced on doing business there, it is clear that there are more questions than answers despite legislative settlements undertaken from both the Ukrainian and Russian sides. At present only the optimists retain confidence in doing business in the territory of the Crimean peninsula in line with the usual civilized rules. Perhaps, for the Ukrainian side the incurring of damages and reservation of right of ownership and other rights of property are the most pressing issues. And the range of pitfalls grows all the time…. 

    Have you had clients who were seeking damages associated with the occupation of the Crimea peninsula? From what sectors of economy? What models of protecting clients’ interests do you use in your practice? 

    Kyrylo Antonov, Counsel, FCLEX Law Firm: 

    Losses associated with occupation of Crimea by the Russian Federation include:

    1. Loss of income resulting from impossibility to carry out entrepreneurial activity in the previous volumes (including due to the application by civilized nations of sanctions in respect of goods originating from the occupied territories). These losses are mostly export-oriented enterprises, whose counterparties are customers from different countries of the world. The option of attempts to obtain any compensation for losses from Russia is unlikely to have any future, and entrepreneurs can be recommended either to refocus on the Russian market, or to use a rather cumbersome scheme, implementation of which will allow, on the one hand,  to identify the final product as one produced in Crimea and, on the other hand, allow Ukrainian entrepreneurs to avoid sanctions on the part of the Ukrainian state for carrying out economic activities in the occupied territories.

    2. Companies also risk to suffer direct damages as a result of nationalization of certain assets of the companies, including by reason of the impossibility of their being in the place of their private property under the laws of the Russian Federation, which are imposed by the occupants in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (e.g. it concerns docks and other waterworks). Among our clients are a number of companies who really do face this threat but are not yet experiencing the problem. Much will depend on the manner of conducting this nationalization, the size of the compensation to be paid, on the further fate of the nationalized objects (e.g. lease by the previous owner), etc. 

    3. Quite significant losses are incurred by entrepreneurs of all levels because enterprises need to adapt their activities to occupation law, without which they are unable to actually work with the enterprises from the Russian Federation and are also at risk of reprisals from the occupying authorities. At the same time, the overall situation with the protection of the rights and interests of individuals and legal entities on the territory of the occupied Crimea is deplorable. This is due to the fact that the occupation authorities say, on the one hand, that legislation of the Russian Federation extends to the territory of ARC and, on the other hand, that since March 2014 sufficient legal acts have not been created to regulate enforcement procedures in this so-called “transition period”. 

    The On Rights and Freedoms of Citizens and Legal Regime in the Temporary Occupied Territory of Ukraine Act provides for the duty of the prosecutor’s office and judges to take measures to change the jurisdiction of unfinished cases and investigations in occupied Crimea. How is the Act implemented? What should parties of proceedings do?  

    Dmytro Shemelin, Lawyer, Ilyashev & Partners

    Although the Verkhovna Rada did its best to provide the relevant legislative framework for the transfer of cases from Crimean courts to courts on the “mainland”, in practice, the consideration of the transferred court cases is difficult.

    First, for a Crimean resident it is very difficult to have his or her case record transferred to the receiving Ukrainian court. Crimean courts, which are now under the control of the Russian state, are naturally reluctant to cooperate. Ukrainian courts try to deal with this problem by asking the parties to resubmit their pleadings with the relevant documents, but clearly, this may not always be done. As a result, Ukrainian courts have a hard time considering incoming cases.

    Second, it is both expensive and technically difficult for Crimean residents to appear in Ukrainian courts. While large companies may bear the cost of sending their representatives “abroad”, for the majority of civil litigation parties, which expected to litigate within several kilometers of their residence, the road to Kiev is an insurmountable obstacle. Naturally, the parties have to abandon oral hearings and suffer from a substantial disadvantage. 

    Finally, it is unclear whether the decisions of the Ukrainian courts in “Crimean cases” will be enforced in Crimea. Despite Russia and Ukraine undertaking to recognize the court decisions of one another, in most cases Ukrainian court decisions must still be enforced by Russian courts.

    How is the operation of Ukrainian companies legally regulated in Crimea 

    Tymofey Sykorskiy, Senior Associate, Salkom Law Firm Squire Patton Boggs — Salkom International Association

    Legal regulation of Ukrainian companies in Crimea raises a number of questions.

    Commercial activity in Crimea includes various spheres, each of them regulated using various methods. For instance, real estate transactions in Crimea were de-facto paralyzed, any alienation of such real estate outside of the peninsula is risky.

    According to Article 13 of the On Ensuring the Rights and Freedoms of Citizens and on Legal Regime on the Temporarily Occupied Territory of Ukraine Act of Ukraine, economic activities in Crimea are regulated by the law. But to date there’s no such law. There are only plans to create a free economic zone and to grant companies remission of taxation for the period of occupation. It’s the optimal resolution because, on the one hand, it allows to introduce a customs regime in relations with Crimea, and, on the other — to consider Crimea a part of Ukraine.

    However, to date Crimea comes under the jurisdiction of the authorities of the Russian Federation. At the same time, in accordance with the above-stated law, such authorities and their instructions are illegal. Under these circumstances, the law does not provide for any model of behavior for the Ukrainian companies in Crimea, in particular with regard to taxes.

    As a result, before special laws are passed, Ukrainian companies in Crimea are, in fact, subject to regulation of both the Ukrainian and the Russian laws, while business operations in Crimea are unregulated and plagued by various risks. This is why such activity in each separate case should be planned ad hoc with the invitation of the relevant specialists.

    What tax changes have taken place in Crimea 

    Larysa Vrublevska, Associate Partner, International Law Center EUCON

    After the annexation of Crimea, many taxpayers faced numerous challenges: how to work, how to make payments and where to pay taxes?

    In order to continue their operations, the Ministry of Revenue and Taxes suggested that all companies that have decided to stay within the jurisdiction of Ukrainian legislation should re-register and replace their current location with any other region of Ukraine. All Crimean branches of Ukrainian companies will be re-registered at the location of their parent companies. In this case, there will be no problem with the reporting and payment of taxes. Everything can be done at the new place of registration. If a company decides to stay and carry on its business in Crimea, it should be understood that the tax agency of Crimea considers the Ukrainian companies staying on the peninsula to be foreign entities and demands that they submit documentation for registration with the tax authorities of the Russian Federation in the territory of the Republic of Crimea by 1 July 2014. If the companies fail to do so, the tax authorities will impose charges under the legislation of the Russian Federation for violation of registration requirements, which implies a fine of RUB 10,000 and a penalty for operating without registration in the amount of 10% of income received during the period of such operation, but no less than RUB 40,000. Accordingly, taxes will have to be paid into Russian accounts. Thus, given the fact that our country has not yet adopted legislation governing business operations on the occupied territory, taxpayers do not have many options. Either they register a new location in Ukraine, or they register in Crimea as a resident of Ukraine with the risk of double taxation or total termination of operation.

    How are intellectual property rights being protected in Crimea?  

    Natalia Meshcheriakova, Partner, Head of IP Department, ILG AstapovLawyers

    The Federal Intellectual Property Service states that according to the provision of the On Admission of the Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation Act any natural or legal entity that resides or locates in Crimea and is an owner of the intellectual property rights that have been registered before 18 March 2014 in Ukraine has the right to appeal to the Federal Intellectual Property Service in order to declare one’s exclusive rights on the territory of the Russian Federation.

    However, it provokes solid troubles as lots of trademarks that have been registered by Crimean enterprises or individuals are similar to the trademarks registered in the Russian Federation prior to Ukrainian registrations. The possibility to implement the right of prior use to the said cases is very doubtful. The Russian Federation claims an initiative to prioritize businesses that started use of the mark in its commerce activity earlier; however I do not think that this rule would be applied to the marks that were used earlier but on the territory out of Russia, particularly in Crimea. An increasing number of court hearings on these matters is foreseen.       

    As for patents I see the situation as follows. The unified requirement to the invention, utility model and industrial design is to suit to the features of novelty, and what is more to worldwide ones. Consequently, superiority belongs to the party who can prove that the opponent’s patent lacks novelty. Before the Russian Federation occupied Ukraine’s Crimea there was zero possibility to have a dispute between the market participants of the Russian Federation and Crimea as the title of protection operates on the territorial principle; but now such disputes may take place. 

    Crimean business will, unfortunately, face a lot of serious legal problems and the sphere of intellectual property is no exception.

    What is the situation with registration/re-registration/alienation of real estate in Crimea? 

    Andriy Zhupanyn, Associate, Sayenko Kharenko

    Despite the fact that Ukraine has adopted a number of legislative initiatives aimed at creating a possibility to move business from Crimea, it is clear that immovable property is inseparable from its location. Considering this local regulations and Russian legislation are important to the owners of real estate in Crimea. 

    First of all, Russia recognizes the private property of Ukrainian citizens, foreign companies and legal entities established under the Acts of Ukraine. This is witnessed by Russian legislative provisions according to which the legal documents proving ownership and right of use in Crimea issued by Ukrainian authorities remain effective without limitation to their validity and unless otherwise provided therein. 

    Secondly, for the purposes of ownership transfer, the real estate object shall be registered within the Russian real estate register. In accordance with the information of our colleagues in Crimea, a test version of the system of registration of immovable property started working few weeks ago. 

    It is worth mentioning that Ukraine does not recognise documents issued by the local authorities in Crimea. Moreover, according to the On Securing Citizens’ Rights and Freedoms and a Legal Regime on the Temporary Occupied Territory of Ukraine Act of Ukraine transfer of ownership to real estate located in Crimea will be recognized and deemed to have legal effect in Ukraine and the other jurisdictions that did not recognize Crimea’s secession from Ukraine only if the requirements of Ukrainian law are complied with.

    How are banks depositors and clients being protected in Crimea? 

    Yevgen Porada, Partner, Asters

    The current situation in Crimea raised a number of issues in the banking area, including protection of depositors’ rights. This is a well known fact that currently the governmental bodies and state institutions of Ukraine are notable to fully perform their duties in Crimea. Since the banking system cannot operate currently without effective government control, on 6 May 2014 the National Bank of Ukraine (the NBU) adopted its Regulation No.260 which expressly obliged all Ukrainian banks to close their existing branches and divisions in Crimea within one month, prohibited opening new branches and divisions there, and prohibited Ukrainian banks from providing any financial services in Crime through their commercial agents. Notably, the NBU has not prohibited Ukrainian banks to provide financial services to individuals and legal entities residing /located in Crimea through their branches, divisions and commercial agents located in other regions of Ukraine. Therefore, inhabitants of Crimea may fully exercise their rights outside of Crimea on the “mainland” of Ukraine. Moreover, the deposit guarantee system protects not only individuals who are Ukrainian citizens, but also foreign individuals. Therefore, those residents of Crimea who became Russian citizens are covered by the deposit guarantee system as well.

    From the Ukrainian side, the most unprotected depositors are those who have contractual relations with PJSC Chernomorskiy Bank of Development and Reconstruction and PJSC Bank Morskiy headquartered in Crimea. On 6 May 2014 the NBU cancelled banking licenses of these institutions and on 27 May 2014 the Deposit Guarantee Fund terminated their participation in the deposit guarantee system without any payments to depositors.

    This article is powered by our friends at UJBL.

     

     

  • Mobil Oil Turk Names New General Counsel

    Fatma Ozbay Ustundag has taken up the position of General Counsel at Mobil Oil Turk A.S., effective as of July 1, 2014.

    Ustundag has been working with Mobil Oil and ExxonMobil Turkey since August, 2012, and before that spent 9.5 years as a lawyer with leading Turkish firm Herguner Bilgen Ozeke. She also spent one year early in her career with the European Court of Human Rights. She got her law degree from Marmara University.

     

  • White & Case Advises PetroNeft Resources on Sale of License 61 Stake

    White & Case has advised PetroNeft Resources, an oil and gas exploration and production company, on a sale of 50 percent non-operating interest in its License 61 project to Oil India Limited.

    License 61 is located in Russia’s Western Siberia basin. The value of the transaction was USD 85 million, consisting of a USD 35 million cash payment, USD 45 million of exploration and development expenditure on License 61, and a USD 5 million performance bonus. 

    PetroNeft, which is listed on the AIM market of the London Stock Exchange and on the Irish Stock Exchange Enterprise Securities Market, will remain as operator of Licence 61 and Oil India will be able to book 50 percent production and reserves from the project. This is the first investment in Russia by Oil India, the second largest Government-owned exploration and production company in India.

    “We were very pleased to support our longstanding client PetroNeft on this successful transaction,” said White & Case Partner Marc Polonsky. “The commitment of Oil India and the Indian government towards this joint venture with the company reflects the strength of the License 61 project and the opportunities for foreign investors in Russia.”

    The transaction was announced in mid-April and was approved by shareholders in May; Russian regulatory approvals were received in June. The transaction enables PetroNeft to repay its outstanding loans (from Macquarie Bank and Arawak) and to have significant funds available to invest directly in License 61 over the coming years.

    The team was led by Polonsky, supported by London Associates Natalya Bremen and Adnan Chida and Moscow Associates Peter Kotelevtsev, Rimma Izmaylova, Ekaterina Palagina, Ksenia Tyunik, Ekaterina Tulaeva, and Alexey Butusov.

     

     

  • Bird & Bird and BTS & Partners In Cooperation Agreement

    Bird & Bird has announced that it has entered into a cooperation agreement with Istanbul-based law firm BTS & Partners.

    Bird & Bird explained that, “the move follows significant client demand for legal services in the region, particularly in the technology and media sectors, where BTS & Partners is an acknowledged market leader. Turkey is a fast growing knowledge economy with a strong focus on new technologies, IT, Internet and media. Its on-going technological development, growing population and a significant rise in the number of Internet users is expected to continue to support the rapid expansion of its e-commerce and IT markets.”

    According to a Bird & Bird press release: “BTS & Partners is one of Turkey’s leading firms for technology, telecommunications and media, areas in which Bird & Bird is strong globally. The two firms have cooperated for several years and have a successful track record of working together.  The cooperation agreement brings together BTS’s local knowledge with Bird & Bird’s international reach and outstanding reputation for advising clients in industries that are being disrupted by the use of technology. This association will allow both firms to provide comprehensive legal services for multinational corporations competing in the Turkish market and for the growing number of Turkish companies competing in the global markets.  

    Bird & Bird CEO David Kerr said: ‘Turkey has proved a significant region for our clients, particularly those in technology driven sectors. We are very pleased to formalize our cooperation with BTS & Partners and delighted to be associated with a firm whose area of expertise closely reflects our core strengths and capabilities. BTS & Partners has been repeatedly ranked as a regional leader in technology and innovation and together we will be able to provide our clients with a high quality, comprehensive offer on a local and global level.’  

    Yasin Beceni, Managing Partner, BTS & Partners said: ‘We are very excited to be entering into a cooperation agreement with Bird & Bird, a firm with a strong  international network, excellent reputation for innovation and the highest quality of services. BTS’s local knowledge and Bird & Bird’s global capabilities for advising clients in industries that are being disrupted by the use of technology will help us provide even more comprehensive and unique solutions for both national and multinational clients.’”

  • Romanian Firms Vindicate Bank of Cyprus Representatives Before Supreme Court

    Voicu & Filipescu and Reff & Associates, working together, have successfully defended representatives of the Bank of Cyprus before the Romanian Supreme Court.

    The two firms — associated with Squire Patton Boggs and Deloitte in Romania, respectively — referred to the case as “one of the largest capital market litigation cases at the European level considering the value of the transactions involved.” The four-year old case, initially brought before the Criminal Section of the Bucharest Tribunal, concerned transactions related to the Bank of Cyprus’s acquisition of approximately 9% of Banca Transilvania shares, and focused on allegations of insider trading and market manipulation.

    The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s appeal means that the defendants (who included Georgios Chrisoforou (the former General Manager of Bank of Cyprus, Romania Branch), Anastasios Isaakidis (the former sanctioning manager), and Horia Ciorcila (the President of the Board of Directors of Banca Transilvania)), have been fully and finally acquitted. 

    Legal assistance for the Bank of Cyprus officers throughout the four years of the case was provided by lawyers from Reff & Associates, including Andrei Burz-Pinzaru, Leontin Trifa, Radu Straut and Andreea Serban, and by Florin Dutu of Voicu & Filipescu.

    Georgios Christoforou stated that: “As one can understand, for myself and for my former colleague Tassos Isaakides, this result comes with satisfaction after almost five years of legal proceedings. It also makes justice, because it confirms that we have executed the mandate by our former employer for its own benefit and in full legality. Noteworthy, the acquittal decisions in this case comprise of more than 200 pages of well-documented argumentation, which negate any contrary allegations and of course the speculations that hit the general public especially in the last 16 months. On this occasion I would like to warmly thank – besides my family and the loyal circle of close friends – the lawyers that defended the case on our behalf. In particularly, ?ndrei Burz, Leontin Trifa, Radu Straut and Andreea Serban from Reff & Associates and Florin Dutu from Voicu & Filipescu.”

    According to a joint press release by Reff & Associates and Voicu & Filipescu, “such a precedent is extremely important for all markets players, bringing certainty with respect to the correct interpretation of the law in such matters. During the four years of the case, the defense attorneys relied extensively on the EU capital markets legislation, interpretations and best practices, including norms and recommendations issued by the EU and national authorities as well as doctrine and jurisprudence at the EU and national level which were upheld and quoted by the Tribunal and Court of Appeal to substantiate the acquittal decisions. Apart from the technical complexity of the file, this is one of the largest capital market litigation cases at the European level considering the value of the transactions involved.”

    Reff & Associates also set out reasons why “the decision is of significant importance for investors, financial intermediaries and issuers,” including that:

    • “It confirms that negotiations between investors regarding transactions on the Deal Market of the Bucharest Stock Exchange is not per se a form of market abuse and is not punishable by criminal law;
    • It confirms that the Deal Market is not susceptible to market manipulation by maintaining the prices at an abnormal or artificial level or by acting in view of creating a dominant position over the offer/demand of financial instruments having as effect price fixing or the creation of other incorrect trading conditions;
    • It indicates the rigorous standards to be used when assessing the concepts of “inside information” and “insider dealing”;
    • It clarifies the relevant differences between the usage of the general term of “market abuse” and the distinctive features of “market manipulation”, “insider dealing” and “unauthorized transfer of insider information”, which represent different offences (whether criminal offences or not);
    • It emphasizes the essential role of the securities regulator in assessing suspicious transactions from a capital markets technical perspective. Given its essential role in maintaining a safe and stable environment in the capital market, the exercise by ASF of an active role is essential in order to differentiate in an early stage between market abuse cases and normal market practices. As known by the market participants, there is a major difference between so-called “suspicious transactions”, which must be notified to the supervisory authority for investigation, and actual market abuse cases. The European securities guidelines emphasize this aspect by indicating expressly that not all transactions which may appear as “suspicious” (and hence must be reported to the securities regulators) are necessarily market abuse cases. Notably, in developed markets like the UK, it is the Financial Services Authority which decides whether to initiate criminal proceedings, which is only natural given the specific technical aspects of the securities markets and the in-depth level of expertise and access to data and market practices which is required in the assessment of such complex matters;
    • Finally, the whole case should be seen also as a red flag for all the capital markets players, as it shows that the public authorities are scrutinizing securities transactions with particular care. In this case the solutions issued by the courts at all the levels of jurisdiction were positive ones, confirming the legitimate conduct of the parties involved. However, the capital markets actors (whether investors, brokers or issuers) should be aware of the risks posed by securities transactions in a highly complex and not always very clear regulatory environment, particularly in the context whereas the market trends, both in Romania as well as at EU level are towards a constant increase of scrutiny from the authorities with respect to potential market manipulation and insider dealing. Notably, very recently the European regulatory framework for market manipulation and insider dealing has been significantly amended. Specifically, on 12 June 2014, Regulation No 596/2014 on market abuse and Directive 2014/57/EU on criminal sanctions for market abuse have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union. It is expected that the new rules on market abuse will strengthen the existing framework to ensure market integrity and investor protection and will lead to an increased monitoring and enforcement of the rules by the regulators;
    • Last but not least, the assessment of potential market abuse cases should always be grounded on the key principles set forth in the Market Abuse Directive which, as also repeatedly emphasized in the rulings of the European Court of Justice, state that “the purpose of the directive is to protect the integrity of the financial markets and to enhance investor confidence”. Such desiderate requires on one hand a level of general awareness of the market abuse prohibitions and strict compliance with such rules but equally call for a clear and consistent interpretation of the relevant legal concepts by the supervisory authority and the courts in order to secure a sound and stable capital markets environment.”

     

     

  • Paksoy Advises Turkiye Finans on Issue of Ringgit Sukuk

    The Turkish Paksoy Law Firm has advised Turkiye Finans on its issuance of the first ringgit sukuk originating from Turkey to — according to the firm — “raise up to MYR 3 Billion In Malaysia.”

    The bank initially raised MYR 1 billion with a five-year commodity sukuk on June 30, with an annual return of 6 %. The sukuk under the program will have tenure of one to 20 years. Funds raised will go towards general corporate purposes. The sukuk will be issued through TF Varlik Kiralama, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Turkiye Finans. Malaysia’s RAM Ratings has accorded the programme an indicative long-term rating of AA3. HSBC Amanah Malaysia and Standard Chartered Saadiq were the joint advisers.

    Paksoy Partner Omer Collak and Head of the firm’s Tax practice Baris Kencebay advised Turkiye Finans and the issuer TF Varlik Kiralama.

     

  • Wolf Theiss Advises on Slovenian Banks’ Return to International Capital Markets

    Wolf Theiss has advised Commerzbank, Merrill Lynch International, and UniCredit Bank on managing the issuance of bonds by Nova Ljubljanska banka, d.d, Ljubljana (NLB), the largest Slovenian bank.

    Wolf Theiss acted as Slovenian legal adviser to the managers in connection with the issuance of the EUR 300 million 2.875 per cent Notes due 2017. The yield to maturity of the Notes at the issuance was 3 per cent. The Notes, which were awarded international ratings BB-/BB- by the rating agencies Fitch and Standard & Poors, are listed on the Luxemburg Stock Exchange. 

    NLB is the first Slovenian bank to successfully return to the international capital markets after a 5 year absence. The market’s interest for the Notes was substantial, with indications of interest from over 40 accounts. The orders were entered mainly by the large high quality buy-and-hold investors, with asset managers purchasing 68% of the issuance while the rest was purchased by pension funds, insurance companies, banks and others. The majority came from the United Kingdom (79%), followed by Italy (7%), Slovenia (5%), Netherlands (4%) and others (5%). 

    Wolf Theiss reports that NLB will use the proceeds from the bonds for general funding purposes, diversification of funding sources, and replacement of some more expensive funding sources. Further bond offerings in the future are anticipated. 

    The firm’s team was led by Partner Markus Bruckmuller and Associate Uros Notar. The scope of their work included negotiating the documentation from a Slovenian law perspective, drafting the taxation section in the prospectus, and providing a standard legal opinion on the documentation. Wolf Theiss Managing Partner Erik Steger said of the deal that: “It is of particular importance to see evidence of an improving market also in Slovenia and its capital and debt market. We are happy to effectively and efficiently support so many successful issuers of bonds.”