Category: Austria

  • Wolf Theiss Promotes Birgit Kraml and Leopold Hoher to Partner

    Wolf Theiss Promotes Birgit Kraml and Leopold Hoher to Partner

    Birgit Kraml and Leopold Hoher have been promoted to Partner at Wolf Theiss in Vienna.

    Kraml has been with Wolf Theiss since 2001, and she joined the Real Estate practice in 2004. In 2012 she was appointed Counsel. She focuses on real estate law, tenancy law, and construction, plant, and environmental law. She has also expertise in real estate litigation and represents clients before civil and administrative courts. She completed her doctoral studies at the University of Vienna. 

    Finance specialist Leopold Hoher has been part of Wolf Theiss’s Banking/Finance team since October 2015, after working in the Vienna and Prague offices of Schoenherr. He specializes in financing and capital market transactions with a focus on advising national and international clients on domestic and cross-border structured debt financing transactions, secured finance transactions, restructuring transactions, and issuance of bonds. He completed his law studies at the University of Vienna in 2005.

     

  • CHSH,  Shearman & Sterling, and Schoenherr Advise on GE’s USD 3.25 Billion Sale of Distributed Power Business

    CHSH, Shearman & Sterling, and Schoenherr Advise on GE’s USD 3.25 Billion Sale of Distributed Power Business

    CHSH and Shearman & Sterling have advised General Electric on the USD 3.25 billion sale of its Distributed Power Business unit to Austria’s Advent International. The buyer was represented by Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy and Schoenherr.

    The Distributed Power Business unit of General Electric is a provider focusing on power generation and gas compression at or near the point of use. Distributed Power, which has approximately 3,000 employees at three main facilities in Austria, the U.S., and Canada, has delivered more than 48,000 gas engines to customers around the world.

    CHSH describes Advent International as “one of the largest and most experienced global private equity investors. The firm has invested in more than 335 transactions in 41 countries and manages assets of approximately 33 billion.”

    CHSH’s team included Partners Clemens Hasenauer and Johannes Prinz, Attorney Lorenz Pracht, and Associates Ferdinand Guggenmos, Alexander Reich-Rohrwig, and Benedikt Svoboda. 

    The Shearman & Sterling team included Partners Laurence Levy, Sean Skiffington, Simon Letherman, Ethan Harris, Jordan Altman, Alfred Kossmann, Iain Goalen, and Marwa Elborai, Counsels Mehran Massih, Jason Pratt, and Andrea de Pieri, and Associates Richard Porter, Sophie Rees, Helene Zotiades, Paul Pasalic, Michael Ward, JB Betker, Orla McMahon, Bradley Simon, Thomas Barker, Ryan Au, Evelin Moini, Andrew Cook, Benjamin Petersen, and Marc Lorenz. The team was supported by Trainees Arthur Morriss (in London) and Eugenio Zupo (in Milan).

    Schoenherr’s team included Partners Markus Piuk, Thomas Kulnigg, and Martin Ebner, and Attorney Manuel Ritt-Huemer.

     

  • FWP, Wolf Theiss, Arnold Rechtsanwalte, and E&H Law Advise on Kika/Leiner Sale

    FWP, Wolf Theiss, Arnold Rechtsanwalte, and E&H Law Advise on Kika/Leiner Sale

    Fellner Wratzfeld & Partner and Wolf Theiss have advised the Steinhoff Group on the sale of the Kika/Leiner Group to Signa Holding. Arnold Rechtsanwalte advised Signa Holding on the acquisition. Kika was represented by Urbanek Lind Schmied Reisch on the sale. Eisenberger & Herzog and the London office of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy advised a group of creditors of the seller of Kika/Leiner’s property assets in Austria and several CEE countries.

    The signing took place on June 21, 2018.

    “Given its international dimension, the complexity of the structures and the large number of stakeholders involved, along with the requirement to come to a closing as quickly as possible, this transaction is unprecedented in Austria,” FWP reported.

    Kika/Leiner, which has more than 70 locations in Austria and Eastern Europe, has been part of the Steinhoff Group since 2013.

    Michael Strenitz, Partner at E&H Law, said that “the deal’s greatest challenge was the impending bankruptcy of the operational Kika/Leiner companies and with that, the loss of more than 5,000 jobs if the negotiations had failed.”

    The FWP team consisted of Partners Markus Fellner, Florian Kranebitter, Paul Luiki, Lukas Flener, and Christian Thaler, Junior Partner Elisabeth Fischer-Schwarz, and Associates Pia-Alena Havel and Julian Zarre.

    The Arnold Rechtsanwalte team was led by Partner Nikolaus Arnold. The team also included Partner Florian Arnold and Senior Associates Andreas Eder, Verena Stagl, Thomas Raubal, and Roman Gruber.

    The Wolff Theiss team in Austria included Partners Peter Oberlechner, Eva Spiegel, Markus Bruckmuller, Christian Mikosch, and Claus Schneider, Counsel Matthias Schimka, Senior Associate Jiayan Zhu, and Associates David Gschaider, Lukas Pinegger, Iris Riepan, Jakob Jelinek, Natascha Johannik, Stefan Horn, and Marlene Bouzek. Also working on the deal were, Prague-based Counsel Jan Kotous and Associate David Simek, Budapest-based Partner Janos Toth and Associate Peter Ihasz, Bratislava-based Counsel Katarina Bielikova and Associate Ivana Hovancova, and Zagreb-based Partner Luka Tadic-Colic and Associate Lucia Mocibob.

    The Urbanek Lind Schmied Reisch team was represented by Partner Ulla Reisch.

    The E&H Law  team consisted of Partners Michael Strenitz and Clemens Lanschutzer, Senior Associate Laurenz Liedermann, and Associates Wolfgang Kiegerl, Krzysztof Nowak, Karoline Hofmann, and Helena Neuner. 

    The Milbank team included Partners Yushan Ng and Peter Newman, Senior Associate Helen Ward, and Associates Scott Jardine and Natalie Raine.

    Urbanek Lind Schmied Reisch did not reply to an inquiry about the deal.

    Editor’s Note: After this article was published Wolf Theiss informed CEE Legal Matters that the team also involved Bratislava and Vienna Partner Erik Steger, Vienna Partner Niklas Schimdt, and Counsel Melanie Dimitrova. In addition, the Prague team included Associate Katerina Kulhankova, the Bucharest team included Counsel Flaviu Nanu and Associate Cristina Ion, the Zagreb team included Senior Associate Josip Martinic, the Budapest team included Associate Zoltan Banki, and the Bratislava team included Associate Dalibor Palaticky.

    In addition, Schoenherr announced that it also advised KIKA/Leiner on the sale. The firm’s team consisted of Partners Wolfgang Holler and Miriam Simsa, supported by Associate Philipp Kalser.

     

  • White & Case and Weber & Co Advise on OMV Hybrid Bond Issue

    White & Case and Weber & Co Advise on OMV Hybrid Bond Issue

    White & Case has advised joint lead managers BNP Paribas, J.P. Morgan, Erste Group, ING, MUFG, and Societe Generale Corporate & Investment Banking on a EUR 500 million hybrid bond issue by OMV Aktiengesellschaft with an initial fixed interest rate and interest adjustment. Weber & Co. advised OMV on the deal.

    According to White & Case, the hybrid bond has an unlimited term and an initial fixed coupon of 2.875% and is subordinated to OMV’s other financial liabilities. The hybrid bond will be admitted to trading on the regulated market of the Luxembourg Stock Exchange and the Official Market of the Vienna Stock Exchange. Proceeds from the issue are intended to be used for general corporate purposes.

    The White & Case team in Frankfurt was co-led by Partner Karsten Wockener and local Partner Cristina Freudenberger, and included Partner Rebecca Emory, Counsel Alexander Born, and Associate Philipp Kronenbitter.

    The Weber & Co. team was led by Partner Christoph Moser.

     

  • Binder Groesswang Advises Lenzing Group on Brazilian Wood Pulp Plant Joint Venture

    Binder Groesswang Advises Lenzing Group on Brazilian Wood Pulp Plant Joint Venture

    Binder Groesswang, working in cooperation with Veirano Advogados, has advised Austria’s Lenzing Group, a company specialized in cellulosic fibres, and Brazilian Duratex, a producer of industrialized wood panels, on their entrance into a joint venture, in order to build a single line dissolving wood pulp plant in Brazil.

    According to Binder Groesswang, this decision supports the backward integration and the growth in specialty fibres, defined in Lenzing’s corporate strategy sCore TEN. The joint venture envisages the construction of a 450,000 tonne dissolving wood pulp plant, which according to the firm, “is expected to become the largest and most competitive single line DWP plant in the world.”

    Dissolving wood pulp is the key raw material for the production of Lenzing’s bio-based fibres. The two companies have secured 43,000 hectares of eucalyptus plantation that will provide the FSC-certified biomass. The plantation meets Lenzing’s wood and pulp sourcing policy. The basic engineering and the application for required permits and clearances will now be started.

    The Lenzing Group’s in-house team included General Counsel Florian Wirth and Senior Legal Counsel Pia Muhrer.

    Binder Groesswang’s team included Partners Florian Khol, Michael Kutschera, Raoul Hoffer, Christine Dietz, and Christian Wimpissinger, Lawyer Hemma Parsche, and Associates Lukas Sebastian Swoboda and Christoph Schober.

    The Veirano Advogados team was led by Partners Augusto Cesar Barbosa de Souza and Till Alexander Backsmann.

     

  • Wolf Theiss Advises Raiffeisen Centrobank on Reinvesting Certificates Introduction

    Wolf Theiss Advises Raiffeisen Centrobank on Reinvesting Certificates Introduction

    Wolf Theiss has advised Raiffeisen Centrobank Ag on introducing reinvesting certificates — an updated base prospectus for Raiffeisen Centrobank’s Structured Securities Program published on May 11, 2018.

    According to Wolf Theiss, the program foresees an innovative new category of certificates, i.e., reinvesting certificates. “These securities are designed to enable investors to follow specific investment strategies,” the firm reports. “For example, a Capped Bonus Certificate aims at enabling investors to generate a fixed but limited profit in upward, sideway, and partially in downward trending markets for the relevant underlying, with the risk of a total loss of the investment. Another strategy is a Winner Guarantee Certificate that provides a full capital protection without any profits in downward or sideway trending markets for the relevant underlying.”

    According to Wolf Theiss, “most investment strategies are linked to the performance of the underlying during a specific and limited time period; hence, any security reflecting such a strategy is usually issued with a fixed term. Therefore, investors with the intention to pursue such a strategy over an extended or even indefinite time period need to actively reinvest the proceeds of a security at the end of its term.”

    Thus, the firm claims, “in order to provide investors with a possibility to invest in a specific, time-limited investment strategy, without the need to continuously and actively reinvest the proceeds (upon maturity as is the case for securities which are not reinvesting), securities, issued with a fixed term, can be issued as ‘reinvesting’ securities under Raiffeisen Centrobank Structured Securities Program with a prolonged or even unspecified term/open-end.”

    The Wolf Theiss team was led by Partner Alex Haas.

     

  • Herbst Kinsky Advises on Sale of Sipwise to Alcatel Lucent Enterprises

    Herbst Kinsky Advises on Sale of Sipwise to Alcatel Lucent Enterprises

    Herbst Kinsky has advised the owner of Sipwise GmbH on the sale of the company to Alcatel Lucent Enterprises. The buyer was represented by Jones Day’s Munich office.

    Financial details of the transaction were not disclosed.

    Sipwise GmbH, founded in 2008, is an IT start-up that develops open source based software, delivers core telecom switching infrastructure to replace existing legacy infrastructure, and enables new over-the-top services for telecom operators.

    Herbst Kinsky´s team was led by Partner Philipp Kinsky with the support of Attorneys Carl Walderdorff and David Pachernegg.

     

  • Schoenherr and Allen & Overy Advise on Strategic CEE Partnerships Between UniCredit, Allianz, and Generali

    Schoenherr and Allen & Overy Advise on Strategic CEE Partnerships Between UniCredit, Allianz, and Generali

    Schoenherr has advised the UniCredit Group on its establishment of two exclusive strategic partnerships with Allianz and Generali for the distribution of insurance products for individuals and small businesses in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Allianz was advised by Allen & Overy, and Generali was reportedly advised by Linklaters.

    Schoenherr provided legal advice in all relevant CEE jurisdictions and overall project coordination in the CEE region (Molinari e Associati advised UniCredit Group on Italian law). The Schoenherr team was led by Partner Robert Bachner and reportedly included ten advisory teams in nine CEE jurisdictions.

    Linklaters did not reply to our inquiries on the matter.

    Editor’s note: After this article got published, Linklaters confirmed their involvement in the project. Their team included Partners Lucio D’Amario and Pietro Belloni, Managing associate Alice Galbusera, and Associate Carolina Gattai. 

     

  • Efficient Arbitration – Part 1: Metrics

    This is the first in a series of articles by Schoenherr focusing on efficiency in arbitration. In our series, we will explore various tools which serve to improve the efficiency of any given arbitration and so achieve a favourable outcome without wasting resources.

    But before exploring those tools we need to determine what efficient arbitration actually means.

    Thanks to its well-known advantages, arbitration has grown exponentially over the past few decades. However, as more complex, high-value disputes emerge and become regular subjects of arbitral proceedings, the length and cost of these proceedings inevitably increase. In fact, cost is now regarded as one of, if not the, worst feature of international arbitration (IBA Compendium of Arbitration Practice 2017).

    This has not only spawned a torrent of third-party funding (an initiative to de-risk dispute resolution through the involvement of a funder), but a general push for efficiency in arbitration. For the past few years, law firms have been flagging efficiency as the year’s hottest trend. Possible solutions and tools have been evaluated in surveys, protocols, institutional guides and panel discussions. The recent tightening of institutional procedures, including expedited and summary disposition, is yet another example of the impact of this quest.

    But efficiency is not just about cutting costs. Some argue that efficiency can be measured against two standards: time and money. In his article Key to Efficiency in International Arbitration, Veijo Heiskanen explains that in terms of money, arbitration may be deemed efficient if its costs are significantly less than the value in dispute. Thus, the greater the difference between the amount awarded and the fees spent, the more efficient the arbitration. The same could apply in terms of time. But a shorter arbitration is not necessarily an efficient arbitration. While it may save the party money in the immediate term, it could result in a less persuasive case and an unfavourable award. In a slightly longer arbitration, on the other hand, the parties could present their case more compellingly and thoroughly, which may result in a more favourable (and economic) award.

    But time and money aren’t everything. Efficiency is also about quality. In her article Efficiency in Arbitration: Whose Duty Is It?, Jennifer Kirby postulates the concept of the “Iron Triangle”, in which efficiency in arbitration is the relationship between time, money and quality. When less time and money are spent on arbitration, its quality suffers. It is only when time and money are spent (or rather, wasted) on things that do not contribute to improving the arbitration that time and money can be reduced without affecting the quality.

    Therefore the key to efficiency is to identify when resources are being invested and when they are being wasted – a daunting task. A variety of tools can help to identify and avoid unnecessary expenditures throughout the proceedings. We will introduce and explore these tools in the course of our series.

    After all, if the right tools are chosen, arbitration will be efficient. The parties will end up with a quality arbitration free of unnecessary costs, and still be in a position to achieve the best possible outcome.

    By Victoria Pernt, Associate, Schoenherr 

  • Beware: not only May 25 but also June 9 has passed

    It seems not only companies but also many Member States were so busy preparing for the GDPR that they lost sight of the Trade Secrets Directive that should have been transposed into national laws by June 9. That’s regrettable, because it is important legislation between “privacy”, unfair competition and IP, establishing a modern and for the first time EU-wide regime for the protection of trade secrets.

    Relevance of the Directive  

    Being aware that confidential know-how and business information are among the most important assets of many companies, the EU has recognised that the protection in the Member States is inconsistent and often insufficient.

    The Trade Secrets Directive (EU) 2016/943 contains adefinition of trade secrets (which is new in Austria) and determines the scope of protection of the owner, who may prevent any unlawful acquisition, use or disclosure of a trade secret. Under certain conditions, the production, offering or placing on the market of infringing goods, including import, export or storage, will be considered unlawful and thus may be prevented as well. The directive not only requires Member States to provide a wide range of claims in case of infringements, but also to ensure that trade secrets are protected during court proceedings, which is an important but difficult task. 

    The harmonised legal definition of protectable “trade secrets” is one of the core elements of the Directive. According to this definition, the information shall not only be secret (meaning that it is not generally known or readily accessible) and of commercial value, but must also have been subject to reasonable protection measures. Companies are thus well advised to identify their valuable know-how and business information and to implement a protection/compliance system. Obviously, it would make sense to combine the implementation of such a system with the internal reviews and measures taken in relation to the GDPR, since information security and data protection are also compliance issues and have much in common.

    June 9

    Why should you care that June 9 has already passed? Because other Member States have recently adopted new laws or will do so soon. In any case, the courts will have to interpret their national laws in accordance with the Directive. As far as these laws contain broad general clauses (such as the Austrian Act Against Unfair Competition), the courts will have plenty of room to do so even if the Directive has not yet been transposed. However, Member States should also beware, as they may be held liable if an important trade secret is lost or cannot be enforced because the Directive was not (sufficiently) transposed. In this regard procedural rules also seem to be highly important.    

    Status of implementation 

    Here is an overview of the implementation status in Schoenherr’s EU jurisdictions:

    Austria 

    While a separate act on trade secrets as an addition to the acts on IP rights would have been desirable, an amendment to the Act Against Unfair Competition is to be expected. A draft will be provided soon, but parliamentary procedure will probably not start before autumn.

    Bulgaria (input provided by Ventsislav Tomov): 

    Bulgaria has yet to implement the Directive and by now not even a draft law has been presented. There is no information on the implementation date. Bulgaria likely will not get a separate codification of trade secrets provisions but only an amendment of the Act Against Unfair Competition (although the Commission on the protection of competition decided still in 2014 that trade secrets should be regulated by a new separate codification of private law, but not by an amendment of the Act Against Unfair Competition – being part of the public law).

    Croatia (input provided by Dina Vlahov Buhin): 

    The Directive has been implemented into Croatian law through the new Act on Protection of Undisclosed Information with Commercial Value, which came into force in early April 2018.

    Czech Republic (input provided by Denisa Assefová& Libuše Dočekalová):

    The Directive will not be implemented by topic-specific independent legislation, but merely through a single amending act, amending the existing Trademark Act and the Act on the Enforcement of IP Rights. The changes to the trade secret protection regime introduced by this amending act (in respect of the protection of trade secrets) will be only minor, as it is generally perceived that 90 % of the Directive’s provisions are already embedded in the existing legislation, namely the Civil Code and Code of Civil Procedure (although we doubt that this perception is correct). It is not yet foreseeable when the bill will be approved – probably in September or October 2018, unless any amendments are submitted during the legislative process.

    Hungary (input provided by Márk Kovács):

    Hungary is adopting a new, separate act on trade secrets and know-how protection. Currently, this is regulated as part of the personality rights in the Hungarian Civil Code. The new act will depart from this concept and will ensure protection similar to intellectual property rights, especially in case of infringement. The bill was already at the Parliament for discussion, however, due to the elections in Hungary it was not accepted. According to the latest information minor amendments in the wording of the new act are planned and then the bill will be refiled to the Parliament. 

    Poland (input provided by Paweł Halwa): 

    Poland will implement the Directive through the amendment of the Act on Combating Unfair Competition. The government project of amending the act was directed to the Parliament of Poland on 11 May 2018. A week later the draft was directed to the first reading in the Parliament session.

    Romania (input provided by Eduard Pavel):

    The Directive has not yet been implemented in Romania. According to publicly available information, a draft law should be issued by the Competition Council. However, no further information on this draft and its status is available now.

    Slovakia (input provided by Michal Lučivjanský):

    The Directive has already been implemented into Slovak law by way of an amendment of the Slovak Commercial Code with effect as of 1 January 2018.

    Slovenia (input provided by Urša Kranjc and Matej Črnilec):

    Slovenia has not implemented the Directive yet; however, a respective act – namely the Trade Secrets Act – is in preparation (as evident from the website of the Government Office for Legislation, reference no. 2017-2130-0032). It seems that the Government is still working on the proposal of the act, which will then be considered by the Parliament. In practice this means that the act is unlikely to be adopted in the very near future.

    By Dominik Hofmarcher, Attorney at Law, Schoenherr