CEE Legal Matters

Author: admin

  • Walless Advises Triumph Financial on Acquisition of Greenscreens.ai

    Walless, working with Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, has advised Triumph Financial on the acquisition of Greenscreens.ai via a transaction valued at USD 160 million.

    Triumph Financial is a financial and technology company focused on payments, factoring, and banking. 

    Greenscreens.ai is a freight pricing platform.

    The Walless team was led by Partners Alina Makovska and Aiste Medeliene, with support from Associate Partner Vytenis Cepe, Senior Associates Dovile Jakimonyte, Mykolas Luksėnas, and Edita Masiule, as well as Associate Ieva Smigelskaite.

    Walless did not respond to our inquiry on the matter.

  • White & Case Advises on Establishment of Play’s PLN 3 Billion Bond Issuance Program and Issuance of PLN 700 Million Green Bonds

    White & Case has advised P4 on establishing a bond issuance program with a total nominal value of up to PLN 3 billion, and on the issuance of PLN 700 million green bonds under the program.

    P4 is the operator of Play network and a telecommunications provider in Poland.

    According to White & Case, the C-series bonds have a five-year maturity, are unsecured, and carry a variable interest rate of WIBOR 6M plus a margin of 1.80% per annum, targeting qualified investors in Poland. The proceeds will be allocated in line with the green financing framework compliant with the International Capital Market Association Green Bond Principles adopted by Iliad Group, the parent company of P4. The bonds have been registered in the securities depository maintained by the National Depository for Securities and will be introduced to the alternative trading system of the Warsaw Stock Exchange.

    The White & Case team in Warsaw included Partner Rafal Kaminski, Local Partner Bartosz Smardzewski, and Associate Michal Truszczynski.

  • BDK Advokati and Kinstellar Advise on A1 Srbija’s Acquisition of Conexio Metro

    BDK Advokati has advised A1 Srbija on its acquisition of Conexio Metro from Madison Debt Holdings. Kinstellar advised the sellers.

    A1 Srbija is a member of the Telekom Austria AG group.

    Conexio Metro operates the fiber-optic network of the former Targo Telekom. 

    According to BDK Advokati, the acquisition strengthens A1 Srbija’s network by adding 300 kilometers of fiber-optic cables, thereby providing access to more than 42,000 households.

    The BDK Advokati team included Senior Partner Tijana Kojovic, Partner Jelena Hrle, Senior Associate Djordje Zejak, Associate Jelena Skoric, and Junior Associate Petar Eric.

    The Kinstellar team included Partner Radovan Grbovic, Managing Associates Mina Sreckovic and Mario Kijanovic, and Associates Djordje Ilijasevic, Vuk Vuckovic, and Jelisaveta Folic.

  • Dorda, Freshfields, and E+H Advise on Sprints’s Partnership with Styria Media Group for Acquisition of Adevinta’s Shares in Willhaben

    Dorda, working with Roschier, has advised European growth investor Sprints on its partnership with Styria Media Group to acquire all of Adevinta’s shares in Willhaben. Freshfields advised Adevinta. E+H advised Styria Media Group.

    The transaction remains contingent on regulatory approval.

    Styria Media Group, founded in 1869, is an Austrian media group.

    Willhaben is an Austrian digital consumer marketplace with more than 3.8 million users per month.

    Adevinta is an online classifieds group operating digital marketplaces.

    According to Dorda, this joint venture, which combines Sprints’ extensive expertise in online marketplaces with Styria’s strong local market presence, is designed to drive the next phase of Willhaben’s growth and innovation. 

    “Sprints partners with technology companies that place long-term customer happiness at the heart of everything they do – Willhaben epitomizes this philosophy,” said Sprints Managing Partner Henrik Persson. “It has one of the most recognized and beloved brands in Austria, and we’re excited to join forces with them and Styria to support the next phase of the company’s growth.” 

    The Dorda team included Partners Christian Ritschka, Martin Brodey, Heinrich Kuehnert, Magdalena Brandstetter, and Christoph Brogyanyi, Principal Associates Ulrich Weinstich, Mirko Marjanovic, Julia Landskron, Magdalena Nitsche, Katrin Repic, Florina Thenmayer, and Ida Woltran, and Associates Max Lesjak, Thomas Krappinger, Corina Kruesz, Anna Martseva, Julia Moser, Maxie Muellbacher, Sophia Pux, Nicole Scharl, Julia Strass, and Antonia Stubbe.

    The Freshfields team included Vienna-based Partners Ludwig Hartenau, Maria Dreher-Lorje, and Katharina Kubik, Counsels Gernot Fritz and Lukas Pomaroli, Principal Associates Ludwig Pacher-Theinburg and Andreas Langer, and Associates Tanja Pfleger and Marcel Neuhauser as well as further team members in Frankfurt and Brussels.

    The E+H team included Partners Peter Winkler, Stefan Jeitler, Philipp Schrader, Dieter Thalhammer, Jana Eichmeyer, Judith Feldner, and Helmut Liebel, Attorneys at Law Felix Frommelt, William Redl, Franziska Egger, Susanna Falkenburg, and Associates Yvonne Wohlmuth, Florian Vidreis, Paul Rois, Lukas Weber, Alexandra Stadlober, and Markus Feneberger.

  • Hungary: Understanding the EU AI Act in Practice

    10+1 Questions and Answers for Hungarian Companies.

    1. What is the EU AI Act and how does it affect businesses in Hungary?
     
    The EU AI Act is an EU regulation that establishes harmonised rules for the development, distribution and use of artificial intelligence systems within the EU. It aims to ensure the safe and ethical use of AI, enhancing the internal market while protecting health, safety and fundamental rights.

    The AI Act applies to all businesses that develop, use, import or distribute AI systems in the EU, regardless of their location. This includes Hungarian companies that deploy AI systems in the course of a professional activity.

    2. Is it already implemented in Hungary? When will it enter into force?

    EU regulations, including the AI Act, are directly applicable in Hungary. The provisions of the AI Act are being implemented gradually, with the first significant provisions having already come into force on 2 February 2025.

    Hungary is also expected to adopt additional secondary legislation soon. So far, only government decisions have been adopted, indicating that a new enforcement authority will be established to implement the AI Act. This authority is expected to operate under the supervision of the Minister for National Economy, manage the domestic regulatory sandbox, and perform regulatory and market surveillance tasks. Furthermore, a Hungarian Artificial Intelligence Council is expected to be established under the leadership of the recently appointed Government Commissioner responsible for AI. This body will issue guidelines and opinions on the implementation of the AI Act in Hungary.

    3. Is it only relevant for IT businesses and large international companies? Can SMEs and microenterprises stop reading this article?

    Unfortunately, no. The EU AI Act establishes mandatory rules for any Hungarian business applying AI solutions, including SMEs and microenterprises. Therefore, we recommend continuing to read to learn the basic information relevant to your business. Certain companies, such as developers, importers and distributors of AI systems, must comply with special rules and are advised to seek more detailed legal advice.

    4. What are AI systems and how do I know if I use one? What if a company or its employees only use ChatGPT occasionally?

    Properly defining AI systems is not entirely straightforward – the Commission even issued a standalone guideline on the topic. In simple terms, AI systems encompass machine-based systems (typically software) designed to operate with varying levels of autonomy. What sets AI systems apart from traditional software is their ability to infer, learn, reason and model from data or inputs. The most common examples of AI-based systems are certain varieties of

    • recommendation engines: systems that suggest products, services or content based on user preferences and behaviour;
       
    • predictive analytics: systems that forecast future trends or behaviours based on historical data;
       
    • virtual assistants: AI-powered assistants like Siri, Alexa or Google Assistant that perform tasks based on voice commands;
       
    • robotic process automation: systems that automate repetitive tasks in business processes;
    • smart home devices: devices like smart thermostats, lights and security systems that adapt to user preferences and behaviours;
       
    • interactive chatbots: AI-powered chatbots that engage in conversations with users to provide information or support.

    In case of doubt, you should consult the developer or distributor of the specific software or other system on whether it qualifies as an AI system.

    ChatGPT and other similar generative applications also qualify as AI systems. If an employee uses it for professional purposes, the provisions of the EU AI Act will apply.

    5. Are all AI systems treated equally? Should businesses stop using them altogether?

    The AI Act introduces a risk-based approach that requires businesses to categorise their AI systems based on the level of risk they pose. Developers and users of AI systems must assess and classify their systems into one of the following categories:

    • Unacceptable risk: These AI systems present a clear threat to people’s safety, livelihoods or rights and therefore are banned under the AI Act. The regulation lists eight such prohibited practices (e.g. AI systems that manipulate human behaviour or exploit weaknesses).
       
    • High risk: AI systems that pose a threat to a person’s health, safety or social status (e.g. assessing creditworthiness during a bank loan application or AI systems used in employee evaluations) are classified as high risk. While these systems can be used, they are subject to strict obligations before being deployed on the market.
       
    • Limited risk: These AI systems (e.g. chatbots) carry lower risks but still require transparency. For instance, if an AI system interacts directly with humans, users must be informed that they are interacting with an AI system, especially if it is not immediately obvious to the user.
       
    • Minimal or no risk: The AI Act does not introduce specific rules for minimal or no risk AI systems (e.g. spam filters). However, it is still recommended that businesses develop a code of conduct aimed at promoting AI literacy, ensuring that those involved in the development, operation and use of AI are aware of best practices and ethical considerations. 

    6. What are prohibited AI practices and when will their ban come into effect?

    AI practices such as harmful manipulation and deception, harmful exploitation of vulnerabilities, social scoring, individual criminal offence risk assessment and prediction, untargeted scraping to develop facial recognition databases, emotion recognition, biometric categorisation and real-time remote biometric identification have already been prohibited since 2 February 2025. Businesses should not engage in such practices, otherwise they may face severe sanctions.

    7. What action should I take if my business uses only minimal or no risk AI systems?

    As a first step, from 2 February 2025, all businesses must ensure that their staff and those responsible for operating or using AI systems have sufficient AI literacy. In particular, businesses should:

    • assess the current AI literacy levels within their workforce;
       
    • develop and implement tailored AI literacy training programmes;
       
    • establish internal policies and procedures, such as a code of conduct for AI usage.

    Additionally, businesses should:

    • proactively assess their current use of AI systems;
       
    • classify AI systems according to the risk level defined by the regulation;
       
    • provide transparent information regarding the use of AI systems in consumer services.

    Businesses applying limited or high-risk AI systems must further ensure that appropriate measures are in place to address the specific requirements of the AI Act.
     
    8. What about businesses that are actively using AI systems? What about AI developers

    Such businesses are recommended to seek in-depth legal and technical advice on the implementation of the EU AI Act. AI developers and other providers of AI systems should also keep an eye on the expected introduction of AI regulatory sandboxes. These sandboxes are controlled frameworks set up by a competent authority, offering providers or prospective providers of AI systems the possibility to develop, train, validate and test (where appropriate in real-world conditions) an innovative AI system, pursuant to a sandbox plan for a limited time under regulatory supervision.

    The Hungarian Government has also recently acknowledged the need to establish a domestic sandbox through a government decision. Further details are expected to be revealed soon.

    9. How will all this be monitored and what are the expected penalties for non-compliance with the EU AI Act?

    As mentioned, the detailed rules on monitoring in Hungary are still pending, as the necessary secondary legislation has yet to be issued. Nevertheless, once a monitoring regime is established, non-compliance can result in substantial fines, even up to EUR 35m or 7 % of the company’s total worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher. These penalties will be enforced starting from 2 August 2025.

    10. So, is this everything one needs to know about the EU AI Act? Are there any other publicly available resources?

    No, these are just the very basics. The EU AI Act is more than 140 pages long and further implementation rules are expected at both the EU and national levels. The Commission has also issued guidelines to assist the affected companies to comply with the AI Act’s requirements. Businesses are highly recommended to seek customised legal and technical advice to ensure compliance with this new regulatory regime, stay informed about regulatory changes and mitigate legal risks.

    10+1. Is the EU Commission’s announced work programme expected to result in the review and potential simplification of the rules prescribed by the EU AI Act?

    The 2025 EU Commission work programme foresees a broader assessment of whether the expanded digital acquis of the EU (which also includes the EU AI Act) adequately reflects the needs and constraints of businesses with special regard to SMEs and small midcaps. Nevertheless, the already published information on the upcoming “Digital Package” primarily signals a revision of EU legislation on cybersecurity and data protection, without explicitly mentioning the EU AI Act.

    By Gergely Horvath and Akos Kovacs, Attorneys at Law, and Barbara Darcsi, Associate, Schoenherr

  • Reverse Transfer of a Business Share in a Slovak Limited Liability Company

    The transfer of a business share is a routine process in corporate transactions. A share purchase agreement (SPA) must be in writing with notarized signatures. The transfer becomes effective upon the company’s receipt of the SPA unless a later date is specified. However, if required by law or the memorandum of association (MoA), it cannot take effect before the general meeting grants approval. Each transfer must also be registered in the Slovak Commercial Register (“Commercial Register”). In practice, complications may arise when one party withdraws from an SPA.

    CASE

    Company A and Company B entered into an SPA under which Company A transferred a business share in Company C to Company B for a purchase price. However, Company B failed to pay, which led Company A to withdraw from the agreement and request the return of the share. Company B agreed to cooperate, including facilitating the required registration changes with the Commercial Register.

    The key questions are: Is withdrawal from the SPA sufficient for de-registration in the Commercial Register? How can the original status be restored?

    PRACTICE

    When registering a change in the commercial register due to the withdrawal from the SPA,  Commercial Register in practice often requires not only the submission of a document containing the declaration of intent to withdraw from the SPA and proof of its delivery to the other contracting party, but also the submission of the new SPA for the reverse transfer of the business share from the original acquirer (Company B) back to the original transferor (Company A). Is such a procedure correct?

    In the Slovak legal system, withdrawal from an agreement constitutes a unilateral legal act (by Company A), which creates an obligation for the other party (Company B) to return what was provided (the business share). Since the consequence of withdrawal is the obligation to return the business share and not an automatic transfer of the business share, the registration of the shareholder change in the Commercial Register also requires the conclusion of the second “reverse” SPA. If Company B does not co-operate, the transfer of the business share will not occur. This formal requirement can present several practical obstacles, outlined below.

    Since Company B did not pay the purchase price for the business share, the SPA concluded after the withdrawal should be without consideration. However, nothing prevents Company B from setting a different condition for the reverse transfer of the business share if the settlement is not amicable as in scenario above.

    In reverse transfer, the original seller (Company A) may be interested in due diligence or receiving representations and warranties from the Company B. The process also involves additional costs, including preparation of the SPA, registration fees, and potentially due diligence expenses. Hence, it is advisable that in larger transactions, a scenario of reverse transfer should be captured in greater detail in the transaction documentation.  Another viable solution is to always insist on escrow structure, here the purchase price is deposited beforehand. Even in the case of a reverse transfer, the approval of the general meeting is necessary if required by law or the MoA. This step prolongs the entire reverse transfer process and involves a third party that may have no interest in the reverse transfer, particularly if relations among shareholders were not amicable. The matter can become even more complex, if only part of shares was subject to transfer and reverse transfer in a setting with pre-emptive right of the remaining shareholders.

    The absence of an automatic transfer of the business share in the event of withdrawal from the SPA brings numerous challenges that should be considered during the preparation of the SPA.

    By David Kozak, Associate, Majernik & Mihalikova, PONTES

  • The Turkish Competition Authority Decided That There Is No Procedural Benefit in Initiating Commitment Negotiations

    Pursuant to the Competition Board’s (“Board”) decision dated 15.12.2022 and numbered 22-55/850-M, an investigation was initiated to determine whether Nestle Türkiye Gıda Sanayi AŞ (“Nestle”) infringed Article 4 of the Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Competition Law”) by (i) setting the resale price of its distributors and (ii) imposing regional and customer restrictions on them.

    During the investigation process, Nestle requested the initiation of commitment discussions for both allegations. This request of Nestle was rejected by the Board’s decision dated 28.04.2023 and numbered 23-19/357-M. Then, within the framework of Article 11 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (“IYUK”), Nestle requested that the Board reassess and revoke the decision to reject the request to submit a commitment, thereby enabling the commencement of commitment discussions.

    In the Re-assessment Decision, the Board rejected the requests by majority of vote with a dissenting opinion. The dissenting opinion argues that a distinction should be made between the different findings in the case file regarding the initiation of commitment negotiations, allowing for a commitment path for certain alleged conducts.

    This article analyses the Board’s decision on whether to initiate commitment procedure in this case.

    The Board’s Stance on Evaluating the Commencement of the Commitment Procedure

    First of all, in the Re-assessment Decision, it was reiterated that the findings of the investigation gave rise to a suspicion that Nestle infringed the Article 4 of Competition Law by setting the resale price of distributors operating in the downstream market and restricting both active and passive sales by its distributors to a specific region and customer group.

    Then, the Board refers to the Communiqué No. 2021/2 on Communiqué on The Commitments to Be Offered in Preliminary Inquiries and Investigations Concerning Agreements, Concerted Practices and Decisions Restricting Competition, and Abuse of Dominant Position (“Communiqué No. 2021/2”), and states that for naked and hard-core infringements, the commitment process cannot be initiated. In accordance, the Board mentions that in vertical relationships; agreements and/or concerted practices regarding the resale price maintenance are considered as naked and hardcore infringements which is one of the allegations against Nestle.

    While the practices of resale price maintenance falls within the category of “naked and hard-core infringements”, Nestle’s practices regarding region and customer restrictions, were not characterized as “naked and hard-core infringements” in Communiqué No. 2021/2. Moreover, the Board has previously accepted requests to submit commitments for the types of infringements subject to the Nestle investigation. For example, regarding the prevention of passive sales infringements, which is considered as one of the infringements committed by Nestle in the Nestle Decision taken by the Board as a result of this investigation, the Board had accepted the request to submit a commitment in the SDF decision. Regarding the region and customer restrictions, which is also one of Nestle’s infringements, the Board, in its UNTAD decision, accepted UNTAD’s request to submit a commitment on the practices of restricting the regions where its buyers will sell and imposing non-competition obligations on its buyers.

    However, the Board, in Nestle investigation, without differentiating between the two alleged Nestle’s infringements, rejects Nestle’s request to submit a commitment and states that:[1]

    “It has been concluded that the implementation of the commitment mechanism regarding only some of the competition concerns in the case file will not provide the expected procedural benefit, and considering the position of NESTLE in the market, this issue will restrict the competitive benefits expected from the commitment procedure. For this reason, it has been assessed that the commitment that may be submitted in order to eliminate the concerns related to the allegations subject to the investigation within the scope of the file will not provide the expected benefit from the commitment procedure.”

    In this framework, the Board concluded by majority of votes (4-3) that there is no ground for the Board’s decision regarding the rejection of Nestle’s request to submit a commitment to be revoked, withdrawn, amended or a new action to be taken within the scope of Article 11 of the İYUK.

    As can be seen, the Board refers to two factors while rejecting Nestle’s request to submit a commitment: (i) presence of infringements in the file for which the commitment mechanism cannot be operated and (ii) Nestle’s market power.

    Regarding the first reasoning, in other words, the presence of infringements in the file that cannot be subject to the commitment mechanism, it should be underlined that there are previous decisions of the Board to the contrary. For instance;

    • Within the scope of the investigation initiated to determine whether Farmasi Enternasyonal Ticaret AŞ (“Farmasi”) violated Article 4 of the Competition Law by resale price maintenance and restricting internet sales, despite the fact that the commitment mechanism cannot be utilised in relation to the violation of resale price maintenance, the Board accepted Farmasi’s request to submit a commitment regarding the internet sales ban and the provisions that are likely to restrict the regions and customers to be sold by resellers.
    • Within the scope of the investigation initiated to determine whether Biota Bitkisel İlaç ve Kozmetik Laboratuarları AŞ (“Biota”) violated Article 4 of the Competition Law by resale price maintenance and restricting online sales, despite the fact that the commitment mechanism cannot be utilised in relation to the resale price maintenance infringement, the Board accepted Biota’s request to submit a commitment regarding the online sales restrictions to resellers.
    • Within the scope of the investigation initiated to determine whether Avon Kozmetik Ürünleri Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ (“Avon”) violated Article 4 of the Competition Law by resale price maintenance and restricting internet sales, despite the fact that the commitment mechanism cannot be operated in relation to the resale price maintenance infringement, the Board accepted Avon’s request to submit a commitment regarding Avon’s practices that require resellers to obtain approval from Avon in order to sell over the internet.
    • In addition to the above examples, there are several of similar decisions of the Board where it accepted commitment request the presence of infringements in the file that cannot be subject to the commitment mechanism. Therefore, it is thought that the reason for divergence from the Board’s case law in the Nestle investigation is Nestle’s market power. As a matter of fact, the Board found that Nestle is the leader in the instant coffee, speciality coffee, cold coffee, breakfast cereal, chocolate powdered beverage and coffee creamer categories, and among the top three players in the tablet chocolate, baby food and pet food categories in terms of turnover in 2022. In addition, the Board stated that according to the data of an independent research company, Nestle is the leader in some of the infringing product categories, with a share of more than 50% and a share more than five times that of its closest competitor. Therefore, in cases where there is a high market power, it is observed that the Board does not consider the commitment mechanism sufficient for the establishment of competition.

    The Dissenting Opinion

    The dissenting votes stipulate that while the acts of the supplier to determine the resale prices of its distributors are considered as naked and hard-core infringements, the acts of the supplier to restrict the active and/or passive sales of its distributors to a certain region and customer group are not within this character. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority decision of the Board on the grounds that the commitment procedure may be invoked independently of other claims in respect of regional and customer restriction allegations that do not constitute a naked and hard-core infringement.

    It appears that the dissenting votes do not share the majority votes’ reservations about Nestle’s market power and consider that the commitment mechanism should apply directly to all undertakings. This is because the dissenting votes, instead of addressing the place of Nestle’s market power in the establishment of competition, directly mention that imposing regional and customer restrictions would not constitute a naked and hard-core infringement and that the request to submit commitments should be accepted.

    Conclusion

    The Re-assessment Decision stands out among the Board’s decisions on the commitment mechanism in terms of emphasising the importance of discretionary power of the Board by showing that the Board may decide not to initiate the commitment mechanism in cases that are not considered naked and hard-core infringements.The Board, while explaining why the commitment mechanism was not utilised for the infringement that is not considered as a naked and hardcore infringement, refers to the fact that the expected benefit would not be obtained by utilising the commitment mechanism for only a portion of the competition concerns within the scope of the file. Considering that the Board has separated the infringements in its previous decisions and utilised the commitment mechanism for some of them, it is noteworthy that a different path was followed in the Nestle’s Re-assessment Decision. Considering that the main reason for this differentiation is Nestle’s market power, the market power of the undertaking submitting the request to offer a commitment is an element that the Board will take into account when exercising its discretionary power to accept commitment requests.

    By Erdem Aktekin, Counsel, and Seda Eliri, Associate, Actecon

  • The Constitutional Court of the Republic of North Macedonia Votes to Annul Solidarity Tax Law

    On 5 February 2025, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of North Macedonia (“Court”) annulled the Solidarity Tax Law (“Law”), ruling that it violated several key constitutional principles.

    In 2023, the Law introduced a one-time solidarity tax on companies with realised total revenue of over EUR 10 million in 2022, intended to fund crisis mitigation efforts.

    The Court ruled that the Law violated the fundamental constitutional principle of legal certainty by retroactively undermining companies’ legitimate tax expectations. It also found that the Law created inequality, infringing on companies’ property rights and market freedoms.

    Companies that have paid the solidarity tax can investigate available legal remedies, including requesting a refund of the amount paid.

    The information in this document does not constitute legal advice on any particular matter and is provided for general informational purposes only.

    By Veton Qoku, Partner, and Ana Kashirskaa, Senior Associate, Karanovic & Partners

  • Dentons and BASEAK Advise Anadolubank on USD 150 Million International Bond Issue

    Dentons and its Turkish affiliate Balcioglu Selcuk Eymirlioglu Ardiyok Keki Attorney Partnership have advised Anadolubank on its debut international bond offering raising USD 150 million through the issuance of fixed rate resettable tier 2 notes due 2035.

    Goldman Sachs International acted as the Sole Bookrunner. 

    Anadolubank, the financial services arm of the Habas Group, operates in Turkiye and the Netherlands.

    The BASEAK team included Partners Barlas Balcioglu and Sedat Enes, Counsel Ceyda Aydin, and Associate Erkin Tuzcular.

    Editor’s Note: After this article was published, CEE Legal Matters was informed that A&O Shearman and its Turkish affiliate Gedik & Eraksoy advised Goldman Sachs on the issuance. 

  • Gessel Advises Enterprise Investors on Acquisition of 80% Stake in Expobud Domy

    Gessel has advised Enterprise Investors on its acquisition of an 80% stake in Expobud Domy. Sole practitioners Daniel Setcki and Bartosz Loboda advised Expobud Domy.

    Enterprise Investors is a private equity fund.

    Expobud Domy, based in Torun, Poland, is a construction contractor.

    The Gessel team included Managing Partner Marcin Macieszczak, Partner Bernadeta Kasztelan-Swietlik, Managing Associate Bartlomiej Wozniak, Senior Associates Katarzyna Olszak, Diana Strzalkowska-Grad, Karolina Olszewska, and Natalia Lesna, Associate Wiktoria Bednarska-Busz, and Junior Associate Anna Komorzycka.