Author: admin

  • PRK Partners Advises XXXLutz Deutschland on Acquisition of Porta Group

    PRK Partners, working with Hengeler Mueller, has advised XXXLutz Deutschland on its acquisition of the Porta Group from Porta Westfalica.

    According to PRK Partners, through the transaction, XXXLutz Deutschland has acquired an additional 140 furniture stores in Germany, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia.

    The Porta Group is a family-run furnishing company.

    XXXLutz is a German furniture retailer with over 370 furniture stores in 14 countries and employs more than 27,100 people. In addition, it operates 24 online shops in the XXXLutz, Moebelix, and Moemax sales channels.

    The PRK Partners team included Partners Vaclav Bily and Martin Kriz and Senior Attorneys at Law Lucie Vorlova and Silvia Kratochvilova.

  • BASEAK and KST Law Advise on Grand Games’ USD 30 Million Series A

    Dentons and its Turkish affiliate Balcioglu Selcuk Ardiyok Keki have advised Grand Games on its USD 30 million series A led by Balderton Capital with participation from existing investors Bek Ventures and Laton Ventures. Kinstellar’s Turkish affiliate KST Law advised Balderton. Baker McKenzie Turkish affiliate Esin Attorney Partnership reportedly advised BEK Ventures.

    Grand Games is a Turkish gaming company.

    The BASEAK team included Partner Selahattin Kaya and Associates Dilruba Guldogan and Simge Yilmaz.

    The KST Law team included Partner Emre Edmund Ozer and Associates Helin Akbulut and Nihal Dilan Canturk.

  • Sayenko Kharenko Advises Piraeus Bank on USD 20 Million Portfolio Guarantee Agreement with U.S. International Development Finance Corporation

    Sayenko Kharenko has advised Piraeus Bank on an agreement with the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation on the provision of a USD 20 million portfolio guarantee to the bank.

    According to Sayenko Kharenko, “the guarantee, covering 80% of the credit risk, will enable Piraeus Bank to extend up to USD 25 million in loans to Ukrainian small and medium-sized enterprises. This initiative aims to enhance access to financing for SMEs, supporting their resilience and development amid the ongoing challenges posed by the war.”

    The Sayenko Kharenko team included Partner Anton Korobeynikov and Associate Yevhen Koval.

    Sayenko Kharenko did not respond to our inquiry on the matter.

  • TGS Baltic Advises Zalvaris on EUR 5 Million Bond Issue and Admission to Nasdaq Baltic First North

    TGS Baltic has advised Zalvaris on its EUR 5 million Siauliu Bankas-arranged public bond issuance and the subsequent admission of those bonds to trading on the Nasdaq Baltic First North market by Nasdaq Vilnius.

    Zalvaris is a Lithuanian waste management company. According to TGS Baltic, each bond has a nominal value of EUR 1,000, a 9.5% annual coupon, and a two-year maturity. The issue attracted 647 investors, with an oversubscription totaling EUR 15 million.

    The TGS Baltic team included Partner Dalia Augaite and Legal Assistant Gabija Sidlauskaite.

  • PHH Advises ATG Entertainment on New Musical Theater in Vienna

    PHH has advised ATG Entertainment on establishing a new musical theater in Vienna together with the City of Vienna.

    According to PHH, “set to be the largest privately financed theater project in Austria in the past 100 years, Theater im Prater will feature 1,800 seats and become one of the country’s most prominent performance venues, setting new standards in international theater architecture. The construction costs for Theater im Prater, slated to open by the end of 2027, amount to nearly EUR 100 million, fully funded by ATG Entertainment. As a strategic partner for the project, ATG Entertainment secured the City of Vienna, represented by Wien Holding.”

    The PHH team included Partners Wolfram Huber, Julia Fritz, Nicolaus Mels-Colloredo, and Stefanie Werinos and Senior Associates, Hafize Stoehr, Matthias Fucik, Wolfgang Guggenberger, and Theresa Karall.

    PHH did not respond to our inquiry on the matter.

  • Kinstellar and Wolf Theiss Advise on Genesis Growth’s Acquisition of Stake in LLP Group

    Kinstellar, working with Luxembourg-based Brouxel & Rabia, has advised Genesis Growth Equity Fund I on the acquisition of a majority stake in LLP Group from Adam Bager, Tim Smulders, Barbara Dreska, and Jiri Stiller. Wolf Theiss, working with Ashurst, advised the sellers.

    LLP Group is a business software consultancy specializing in financial and enterprise asset management solutions.

    According to Kinstellar, “LLP’s founders and shareholders will retain a minority stake, with a leadership transition appointing Tim Smulders as CEO.”

    In 2024, Kinstellar advised on Genesis Capital’s acquisition of Predvyber (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on July 25, 2024), on the sale of a majority stake in Carussel to Genesis Capital (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on April 4, 2024), on Genesis Capital’s acquisition of GAF (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on March 28, 2024), on Genesis Capital’s acquisition of the Schulte Group (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on March 20, 2024), and on its sale of Sanborn to Oriens (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on January 17, 2024).

    The Kinstellar team included Partner Jan Juroska, Managing Associates Michal Kniz and Petr Bratsky, Specialist Anna Marciano, and Junior Associates Zuzana Konecna and Paul Valka.

    The Wolf Theiss team included Counsel Tereza Naucova, Senior Associate Michal Matous, and Associate Maros Kandrik.

  • JDP and BNT Attorneys Advise on Trei Real Estate’s EUR 38 Million Financing from Deutsche Pfandbriefbank

    JDP has advised Trei Real Estate on EUR 38 million financing from Munich-based Deutsche Pfandbriefbank AG. BNT Attorneys advised Deutsche Pfandbriefbank.

    According to JDP, “the main asset securing the financing provided is a portfolio of ten retail parks operated by Trei Real Estate under the Vendo Park banner.”

    Trei Real Estate conducts development activities in the commercial real estate segment and in the residential real estate segment in Germany, the United States, and Poland.

    In 2023, JDP advised Trei Real Estate on a EUR 73.5 million loan from Deutsche Pfandbriefbank (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on August 31, 2023), as well as on a EUR 40 million financing from the Berlin Hyp real estate and mortgage bank (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on January 31, 2023). In 2021, JDP advised Trei Real Estate on a loan agreement with Bank Pekao (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on December 31, 2021) and on establishing a retail park development joint venture with Patron Capital (as reported on November 20, 2021). In 2020, the firm advised Trei Real Estate on EUR 51 million in financing for its Polish subsidiaries from PBB Deutsche Pfandbriefbank (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on October 8, 2020).

    The JDP team included Partner Maciej Chrzan, Counsel Michal Urbanski, and Associates Daria Gromotka, Dominik Grzegorzewski, and Karolina Janczura-Krolasik.

    The BNT Attorneys team included Partner Katarzyna Domanska-Moldawa, Senior Associates Agnieszka Wolny and Maciej Kurek, and Associate Michal Bielinski.

  • Promotion at RTPR: Energy expert Bogdan Cordos is promoted to Partner at RTPR

    RTPR announces the promotion of Bogdan Cordos to Partner. He joins the team of 8 partners consisting of Costin Taracila, Victor Padurari, Alexandru Retevoescu, Mihai Ristici, Valentin Berea, Roxana Ionescu, Alina Stavaru and Cosmin Tilea.

    “Bogdan’s promotion to partner is a recognition of his consistent efforts and exceptional contribution to the development of our energy practice. We are confident that, in his new role, Bogdan will continue to provide our clients with high-quality legal solutions and strengthen our market-leading position. We are proud of our team, which includes some of the most talented and experienced lawyers in Romania, and Bogdan’s professionalism and dedication have contributed significantly to its success. We are delighted to welcome him as our partner”, said Costin Taracila, Managing Partner RTPR.

    “I am honoured to accept this new role at RTPR, the law firm where I started my career and I developed as a professional. I enthusiastically join the RTPR partnership team and their trust further motivates me to contribute to the team’s growth and RTPR’s success. Together, we will focus on further expanding our energy practice to meet the increasingly varied needs of our clients at a time of profound change in the energy sector, marked by technological transformations, challenges and a dynamic regulatory framework. We will continue to provide innovative solutions at the highest quality standards, as we have done in the past, by working on the most important and complex projects in the sector”, declared Bogdan Cordos, the new RTPR Partner.

    Bogdan Cordos joined RTPR in 2011, as soon as he graduated from the Faculty of Law of the “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University in Iasi. He is specialised in energy projects and is recognised as one of the most experienced and appreciated lawyers in this field. Throughout his career, Bogdan also gained experience in various practice areas such as corporate, banking & finance, regulatory and real estate. He was part of the teams which advised investors, international financial institutions and major European banks in energy related finance projects, especially in the renewable energy sector, energy distribution and trading, real estate financings, deals in the telecommunications industry and environmental matters.

    Bogdan coordinated the due diligence for Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets (MIRA)’s acquisition of a portfolio of power assets owned by CEZ Group in Romania, including electricity distribution network, energy supply and the largest on-shore wind farm in Europe, from Fantanele – Cogealac (2021), in one of the largest transactions in the energy industry in recent years. In another significant project, he assisted Electrica and its distribution subsidiaries in relation to one of the largest reorganisation processes in Romania (2019), considered the third major project in the history of Electrica, alongside the privatisation process and the IPO. Other recent mandates include renewable energy projects for clients such as Engie, OX2, Tenaris.

    During the last three years, in addition to his activity at RTPR, Bogdan was a Chief Legal and Strategy Officer at nextE group, specialised in renewable energy production, trading and on-site supply of green energy for large industrial consumers.

    Bogdan Cordos is recognised as a specialist in the energy area by international legal directories, in which he has been included for several years. The latest edition of the Legal 500 recommends him as a Leading Associate in the Energy and Natural Resources section, and IFLR1000 2024 ranks him as a Notable practitioner.

    RTPR is one of the most experienced and appreciated law firms in Romania, recognised as such by the Legal 500, Chambers and IFLR 1000 – the most reputed international legal directories – which constantly include RTPR on top tiers in their rankings for various practice areas, such as Banking and Finance, Corporate/M&A, Capital Markets, Dispute Resolution, Competition, Energy and natural resources, Real Estate and Construction, Employment and Intellectual Property.

    In 2024, RTPR was named “Romania Law Firm of the Year” at the Chambers Europe Awards, one of the most prestigious accolades in the legal area which confirms the firm’s status as a leader in the field.

  • Corporate Due Diligence Obligations in Supply Chains in Germany and the Impact of the Serbian Economy

    The German Law on the Corporate Due Diligence Obligations for the Prevent of Human Rights Violations in Supply Chains introduces for the first time the obligation for German companies to comply with certain procedures and rules, implement due diligence obligations and appropriate measures, in supply chains, with the aim of preventing human rights violations and damages to the environment. The mentioned German Law does not have a direct impact on companies in Serbia, so the sanctions prescribed by that Law cannot be enforced in Serbia, however, there is a certain influence on Serbian companies that will need to comply with, for reasons of further cooperation with German companies.

    Leaving the voluntary concept of Corporate Social Responsibility in Germany, with the adoption of the Law on Corporate Due Diligence Obligations for the Prevention of Human Rights Violations in Supply Chains (the Law – in German: Gesetz über die unternehmerischen Sorgfaltspflichten zur Vermeidung von Menschenrechtsverletzungen in Lieferketten – LkSG), for the first time, the companies in Germany are formally legally obliged to comply with the defined due diligence obligations in the supply chains (starting from the extraction of raw materials to the delivery to the end customers) in the fields of human rights and environmental protection.

    The Law is based on international guidelines and principles such as the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the human rights conventions of the International Labor Organization, and three specific environmental conventions (Minamata Convention, Stockholm Convention, and the Basel Convention). It entered into force on January 1, 2023. It was then applied to German companies with at least 3,000 employees, while starting from January 1, 2024, it also applies to companies based in Germany with at least 1,000 employees, regardless of their legal form.

    Under the supply chain, the Law includes all products and services of a company, and the chain consists of all the steps, both in the country and abroad, that are necessary for the production of products and the provision of services, starting from the extraction of raw materials, until the delivery of the same to the end customer, and includes:

    • the company’s actions in the field of its own business (any activity undertaken by the company in order to achieve the business goal, i.e., any activity aimed at the production and sale of products and the provision of services, regardless of whether it is carried out in a place in the country or abroad. In affiliated companies, the parent company’s own business also includes a group company if the parent company exercises a decisive influence on the group company),
    • actions of the direct supplier (partner from the supply agreement or the provision of services, whose supplies are necessary for the production of the company’s products or for the provision and use of appropriate services), and
    • actions of an indirect supplier (any company that is not a direct supplier and whose supplies are necessary for the production of the company’s products, or for the provision and use of appropriate services).

    In accordance with the Law, companies are obliged to, within their supply chains, appropriately carry out due diligence obligations in the areas of human rights and environmental protection, with the aim of preventing risks in these areas, reducing damage to the environment, or ending violations of human rights or environmental protection rights.

    Due Diligence obligations include:

    1. establishing a risk management system (obligation to establish an appropriate and effective risk management system, with the aim of complying with the due diligence obligations, which should be grounded in all relevant business processes through appropriate measures);
    2. determining internal competence in the company (by appointment of a human rights officer);
    3. performing regular risk analyses (risk analysis measures in order to determine the risk of human rights violations and environmental risks regularly in the area of ​​own business for direct suppliers, and in the case of indirect suppliers when there is a specific reason for this);
    4. issuing policy statement (related to strategy for human rights, for example by the adoption of a Code of Conduct);
    5. establishment of adequate prevention measures in the field of own business towards direct suppliers;
    6. taking remedial measures (if the company discovers that a violation of human rights or environment-related obligation has already occurred or is imminent in the area of ​​its own operations or at a direct supplier, it must take appropriate remedial measures, without delay, in order to prevent this violation, end or minimise the extent of this violation);
    7. establishing a complaints procedure (obligation to establish internal complaint procedure at the level of the company);
    8. implementing due diligence obligations with regard to risks of indirect suppliers (obligation of establishing a complaints procedure and adjusted risk management system);
    9. documenting (the fulfillment of the duty of care is continuously documented internally in the company, and the documentation is kept within the stipulated period) and reporting (the company is obliged once a year to compile a report on the fulfillment of its due diligence for the past business year and to publish it publicly on its website within the stipulated period).

    Violation of the obligations from the Law does not give rise to any liability under civil law, towards victims of violations of human rights and environmental protection, but for non-compliance, the Law stipulates fines for companies and restrictive measures in public procurement.

    The mentioned German Law does not have a direct impact on companies in Serbia, it does not establish a direct obligation, thus the sanctions prescribed by that Law cannot be enforced in Serbia. It should be mentioned that all the conventions on which the German Law is based have been ratified in Serbia and are directly applied in Serbia, but there are no due diligence obligations or procedures for Serbian companies as prescribed by the German Law. However, German companies to which this Law applies are also obliged by that Law to carry out their due diligence procedures in Serbia, provided that they have their own representative office or branch, or if it is a subsidiary company over which the German company has a decisive influence, and which Serbian entities are suppliers to German company. Likewise, towards the Serbian company that is a contractual partner, i.e., the direct supplier of those German companies, while the due diligence obligations will be applied to those that are indirect suppliers when there is a specific reason in terms of the Law. Finally, Serbian companies that do business with companies in Germany, in order to further cooperate, will have to harmonize their operations with the obligations stipulated by the Law for the aforementioned German companies.

    While with the global growth of industry, technology, and economy, in the race for profit and personal enrichment, there is at the same time an increasing risk of violation of human and environmental rights, we want to believe that by the introduction of such due diligence obligations in the corporate world, the awareness is spreading of its own responsibility and of necessity to adjust the business to the aim of prevention of human rights violation and environmental damages.

    By Jelena Stankovic, Partner, and Mirjana Milosevic, Senior Associate, JPM & Partners

  • Austria: Supreme Court Confirms: Partial Transfer of Share Permissible Subject to Shareholder Approval, Despite Agreed Indivisibility.

    The Austrian Supreme Court (6 Ob 224/23v) recently determined the requirements for a partial transfer of a share if the articles of association expressly stipulate that shares cannot be divided.

    Facts of the case

    In the case, an Austrian LLC (GmbH) had two shareholders: one holding 90 % of the shares and the other 10 %. The articles of association expressly excluded the division of shares. The majority shareholder entered into a trust agreement with the later claimant, which included an offer to transfer a part of the 90 % share. The majority shareholder declared that it had acquired part of the share as the claimant’s trustee and was obliged to transfer the share at any time free of charge. Ultimately, the claimant declared their intention to take over the (trust) share from the majority shareholder. Despite the articles of association stipulating the indivisibility of shares, the minority shareholder confirmed the transfer of the share to the claimant. However, the majority shareholder, who also served as the managing director of the company, refused to register the change in shareholders with the Commercial Register.

    Both the court of first instance and the court of appeal rejected the registration on the grounds that the articles of association expressly exclude the division of shares.

    Supreme Court decision

    Addressing the purpose of Section 79(1) GmbHG, which establishes the indivisibility of shares unless expressly stipulated in the articles of association, the Supreme Court cites two key objectives. On the one hand, the provision protects the shareholders’ interest in partial disinvestment; on the other hand, it safeguards the company from an unrestricted increase in the number of shareholders. It should be left to the shareholders to decide whether they consider it necessary to permit a division at all and whether they reserve the transfer of parts for their approval.

    In an earlier decision (1 Ob 530/76), the Supreme Court already confirmed that compliance with the requirements for division of shares is not to be examined ex officio if all shareholders were involved in the partial transfer of shares.

    According to the current decision of the Supreme Court, the offer of the majority shareholder in the trust agreement is considered as implicit consent to the partial transfer of the share. Since the minority shareholder also confirmed the transfer to the claimant, the partial transfer was valid despite the contrary provision in the articles of association.

    The Supreme Court does not differentiate between articles of association that are “silent” on divisibility and articles of association that expressly stipulate indivisibility.

    Furthermore, the consent of all shareholders to the partial transfer does not need to be provided simultaneously or in the same document; it can also be granted after the effective transfer. However, once the partial transfer of the share has become effective, revocation of consent is not permitted.

    Key takeaways

    • The Supreme Court decision illustrates the importance of considering future assignment modalities when drawing up the articles of association. This is because any general deviation from the (in)divisibility is only possible through an amendment to the articles of association.
    • The stipulated indivisibility can be waived with the consent of all shareholders. Even minority shareholders can, therefore, effectively block a partial transfer of a share.
    • The consent must be granted separately for a specific (partial) transfer. However, consent (i) does not have to be declared at the same time or in the same document, and (ii) can also be provided after the effectiveness of the transfer.
    • With respect to the consent of shareholders, there is no difference between articles of association that are silent on divisibility and articles of association that expressly regulate indivisibility. In both cases, indivisibility is ultimately part of the articles of association, either expressly or by dispositive law.

    By Harald Strahberger, Counsel, and Florian Sesztak, Associate, Wolf Theiss