Category: Austria

As does every crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic has created an influx of high-profile litigation matters. A significant disparity has emerged during the crisis: Larger litigation departments – like our firm – are extremely busy, while some solo practitioners are suffering severely from the economic downturn.

Austrian Courts

While Europe seems horribly slow in getting its citizens vaccinated, the Austrian justice system has shown remarkable flexibility, enabling the courts to remain open – and almost fully operational.

The use of videoconferences for full court hearings has expanded significantly since being implemented in spring 2020. However, in order to provide a fair, human rights-compatible trial, its use requires express consent by all parties. As opposed to arbitration proceedings, court hearings must be public. Justice must not only be done, but also seen. Therefore, not all hearings can be held with the help of video conference equipment, especially if the underlying facts are hotly disputed, and evidentiary proceedings play an important role. Then, cross examinations in person are clearly preferred. Often, both judges and parties opt for hearings with at least the local parties being physically present.

Judges have become open to hybrid hearings, in which foreign witnesses or parties are heard via video-conference, and the locals are present. To facilitate this, courts have started to offer COVID-19 tests every morning before hearings start (so, for instance, at 7:45 a.m.), provided everybody agrees. Otherwise, FFP2 masks will be required and a two-meter distance maintained. At the entrance of the courthouse, body temperatures will be measured and, where no air conditioning is available, courtroom windows will be kept wide open, even at freezing temperatures (so we encourage those who will be attending to bring their warmest down coats along). If many participants are expected, we have seen judges move the proceedings to large hotel rooms or halls to allow for the necessary social distancing. Although such alternative arrangements can cause delay, overall, Austrian courts have adjusted incredibly well to the challenges and litigation practices across the country are booming.   

Arbitration

Arbitration was also affected by the challenges of the last year. The sudden travel restrictions made necessary by the COVID-19 pandemic required quick changes to Arbitration practice to ensure the progress of pending proceedings. Courts and tribunals all over the world had to decide if and under which circumstances oral hearings could be conducted remotely, and whether an arbitral tribunal could order a remote hearing over the objections of a party. As in most jurisdictions, Austrian arbitration law does not explicitly address this issue.

In July 2020, the Austrian Supreme Court issued a landmark decision favoring the admissibility of remote hearings and confirming that arbitral tribunals had the power to order remote hearings over the objection of a party. According to the Court, remote hearings do not per se violate the principles of equal treatment of the parties or the right to be heard, nor do they affect the recognition or enforceability of an award. Furthermore, the court concluded, a hearing held via videoconference over the objections of a party does not violate Art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as the right to a fair trial encompasses not only the right to be heard, but also the right of access to justice. Particularly in times of a pandemic, remote hearings allow a reconciliation of the right to be heard and the right to effective access to justice. Even though the decision was undoubtedly influenced by the restrictions brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Court’s acceptance of remote hearings is likely to survive even once the pandemic has subsided. 

Patience is required. Overall, we must prepare for slower, more fraught court processes. However, attorneys who are well equipped, both virtually and physically, to creatively apply know-how, are available to clients even in times of crisis. Also, the Supreme Court’s decision that holding a hearing via videoconference despite the objections of a party does not violate Art. 6 of the ECHR not only underlines the nature of arbitration as a flexible dispute resolution mechanism that swiftly adapts to the needs of the parties, but also offers an interesting insight into the Court’s understanding and interpretation of Art. 6 ECHR.

By Bettina Knoetzl and Florian Haugeneder, Partners, Knoetzl

This Article was originally published in Issue 8.3 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

The first rumors of a new infectious disease outbreak in late December 2019 initially only drew modest attention. Soon it became clear that the world had underestimated the spreading pandemic, and, despite Austria’s distance from the region of origin in Asia, by March 2020, the spread of COVID-19 in Europe had become a focus of concern. As hospitals struggled to deal with increasing numbers of coronavirus cases, governments throughout Europe – including Austria – imposed lockdowns that brought society as we know it to an abrupt halt. Overnight, European cities became ghost towns, with shops and services shuttered. Revenues vanished and, through no fault of their own, businesses had to face a difficult financial reality.

Governments Step In

On March 20, 2020 Austria’s Minister of Finance announced that the Austrian government would save jobs and safeguard Austria’s economy, whatever the cost. A wide range of measures to safeguard Austria’s economy was introduced, including short-time work, subsidies, state-backed financings, and deferrals of tax and social security payments. Furthermore, the obligation to open insolvency proceedings was suspended, allowed only to apply to those already insolvent prior to COVID-19 or without enough liquidity to pay their debts.

Insolvencies at an All-Time Low

The efficiency of these measures will be under review for a long time. Yet one fact cannot be denied: the number of business insolvency proceedings in 2020 decreased significantly – down nearly 40 percent from both 2019 and 2018, and 56.1% from the post-financial-crisis year of 2009. Only a few insolvencies and restructurings involving large corporates have so far made headlines in Austria.

Why has the insolvency wave not yet hit Austria’s economy? It seems that the Austrian government’s deferral of tax and social security payments, together with government-backed financings and subsidies, has so far sufficiently eased the liquidity pressure on entrepreneurs. As claims did not become due, fiscal and social security authorities did not have to apply for the commencement of insolvency proceedings.

Beyond the Pandemic

Some argue that this is the calm before the storm. The Austrian economy has obviously been hit hard by the pandemic, and the government’s deferrals and subsidies clearly cannot be maintained forever in their current form. The scaling back of government support has already started. Most entrepreneurs will struggle or simply be unable to recoup lost revenues in the short- to medium-term, even after lockdown measures are finally lifted.

Exploring ways to deal with the economic effects of the pandemic will be of utmost importance. The financial crisis in 2008 has shown that long-term state-backed (re)financings are an efficient way to support and eventually save a struggling sector, such as the banking industry. As Oesterreichische Kontrollbank and its banking partners have a long track record of refinancing Austria’s economy by way of governmental guarantees, Austria is well-placed to adapt this model to deal with the economic effects of the pandemic and to provide long-term assistance to Austrian businesses.

Outside of this bank-led refinancing option, the EU-Restructuring Directive and its transposition into Austrian law may just be what the doctor ordered to deal with the aftermath of the pandemic. The EU-Restructuring Directive’s tool kit is tailored to facilitate solvent restructurings. This may be the way to fairly distribute the economic effects of the pandemic while allowing businesses to survive and save jobs.

Prospects for the Future

Quite a few areas of Austria’s economy will continue to be significantly affected by the impacts of the pandemic. It remains to be seen to what extent the Austrian government will be prepared and in a position to do to further support the economy post-COVID-19. In addition, the transposition of the EU-Restructuring Directive might well turn out to be a crucial piece of legislation in this pandemic. Only time will tell if and when a restructuring wave will sweep over the country (as well as others).

By Florian Klimscha, Partner, and Franz Tengg, Principal Associate, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer

This Article was originally published in Issue 8.3 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

Austria – in particular Vienna, the capital and second largest German speaking city in the world, as well as Linz and Graz – is conveniently placed at crossroads of international trade routes providing excellent access to major European economies in all four directions.

In the last decade, an increased demand for suitable real estate and a shift in interest between asset classes have accelerated the increase of prices in the logistics market. In addition, companies are focusing ever more on urban areas in order to satisfy requests for same or next day delivery. The so-called “Building Right” offers an alternative to the acquisition of land for developers, reducing initial costs while providing legal certainty for up to 100 years.

Under Austrian Law, the ownership of land and buildings must be united and cannot be separated. Superstructures (i.e., buildings newly erected on leased land), and Building Rights (i.e., a right registered in the land register according to which land and use including the right to erect a building are separated), constitute the only two exceptions to the general rule.

Building Rights are similar to leases, but contain stronger elements of ownership and are exclusively regulated by the Building Right Act 1912. The Building Right must be granted for a minimum of ten and a maximum of 100 years and can only be terminated for non-payment of consideration for two consecutive years. Additional contractual termination reasons are void.

Building Rights must be registered in the electronic land register and can subsequently be transferred, mortgaged, encumbered, or rented out. A Building Right can be established for existing or future buildings, as it only refers to the land and not to specific buildings. The owner is allowed to establish condominium ownership (for example, making each logistics building one unit.)

There is no specific minimum or maximum consideration. The parties can agree on one single payment or on annual or monthly payments, with the latter being more common. Unlike rent, there is no service charge as the owner of the Building Right pays all costs directly. Naturally, when renting out, owners of Building Rights include their consideration and their operational costs in the tenant’s rent (under Austrian law there is no specific limitation on rent, provided that the building permit is dated on or after May 30, 1953).

Generally speaking, the owners of Building Rights enjoy more rights and freedoms than tenants, although many land owners restrict them in the contract. Owners of Building Rights are treated as real owners and not mere tenants under construction laws and do not need the land owner’s consent to apply for building or operation permits, which makes development easier.

As a Building Right may be granted for up to a century, the term may consist of several investment and refurbishment cycles. While the Building Right Act 1912 allows the owner of the Building Right to claim one fourth of the value of the building at termination, the parties may deviate in the contract. Many contracts include reasonable solutions to prevent litigation, particularly for logistics properties, as the owner of the Building Right may have to refurbish in the last years of the contract in order to let the premises.

Increased demand for Building Rights and continuing criticism of the comparatively old Building Right Act 1912 have resulted in pressure to make legislative amendments. The current coalition between the conservative and green parties have included the modernization of the Building Right Act 1912 in their agenda, specifically to make construction land more available.

While we will have to wait to see which changes are planned, the Austrian Building Right has already become very attractive for developers in the last ten years. This trend is very likely to continue.

By Klaus Pfeiffer, Partner, Weber & Co

This Article was originally published in Issue 8.3 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

Lately, the effects of COVID-19 have caused a significant surge in interest by high net-worth individuals (HNWIs) on global migration, as political stability and safety, access to well-functioning healthcare and education systems, and the ability to maintain a high standard of living became even more important.

Unsurprisingly, a rising number of these individuals have shown interest in migrating to Austria, as the country maintains high levels of peace and stability and offers a high standard of living, recognized as it is, for example, as an international center for culture, history, and art. Furthermore, Austrian citizenship also allows visa-free or visa-on-arrival access to 186 destinations, including the EU, the US, Canada, Japan, and Australia, and therefore is also very attractive for those HNWIs who travel frequently.

In addition, Austria also offers a very attractive tax regime, under which HNWI’s can enjoy various tax benefits, some of which are worth explaining in more detail.

Benefits of Becoming a Tax Resident in Austria

First-tax residency can be setup fairly easy in Austria, as it is only necessary to establish a domicile (in German, a “Wohnsitz“) or habitual abode (a “gewoehnlicher Aufenthalt“) in the country to become an Austrian tax resident. Thus, Austrian tax residency is not based on citizenship.

Second, assets held by a HNWI that is becoming an Austrian tax resident can be stepped-up, meaning that the book value of such assets is stepped-up to their fair market value at the time the HNWI establishes his or her tax residency in Austria. Future taxation of capital gains on the disposal of stepped-up assets will be calculated on the basis of the stepped-up fair market value of the disposed assets, while prior to the step-up it is the book value of the assets that is decisive for the calculation of the taxable capital gain.

Austria also offers attractive perspectives regarding estate planning, which is inevitably of importance for HNWIs, as the country currently levies neither gift nor inheritance taxes.

Finally, of particular interest for HNWIs, who usually operate their businesses in multiple jurisdictions, is that Austria has entered into double tax treaties with around 90 jurisdictions worldwide, including the US, UK, Russia, and a majority of CIS/CEE jurisdictions, in order to avoid double taxation on cross-border income.

Tax Benefits Under the Double Tax Treaty Between Austria and Russia Remain in Place

As Russia has recently revised its double tax treaties with Cyprus, Malta, and Luxembourg (and announced plans to do so with Hong Kong, the Netherlands, and Switzerland), dividend and interest payments, which were previously exempt from withholding tax, are now generally subject to a withholding tax rate of 15%, so that company structures that once were beneficial for their ultimate beneficial owners may now have lost their advantages.

HNWIs who are affected by this may find that the migration and relocation of their assets to Austria could turn out to be particularly favorable, as Austria is currently not on Russia’s revision list and therefore it is rather unlikely that the withholding tax on dividends (5% to 15%) and interest payments (0%) will be increased in the near future.

Thus, in cases in which certain tax privileges have been restricted due to Russia’s amendments to certain double tax treaties, for example with Cyprus and Malta, HNWIs may still take advantage of such benefits if they relocate their businesses and assets, as under a company restructuring program, to Austria.

By Lukas Roeper, Partner, Evgeny Rodionov, Counsel, and Matthias Fucik, Senior Associate, PHH Rechtsanwalte

This Article was originally published in Issue 8.3 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

An interview with Marcell Nemeth of Wolf Theiss, about his path from Budapest to Vienna.

CEELM: Run us through your background, and how you ended up in your current role with Wolf Theiss in Vienna.

Marcell: Once upon a time – and not yesterday – I started my career in Budapest where, after graduating from law school in 1993, I got my first job with Shearman & Sterling. In a few months, I found myself in the firm’s Paris office, on a secondment to the US capital markets team, and I have to say I quite liked the international environment, the intensity of the work, and trying to read some small bits of those scary big volumes of US securities laws. I also spent some time in the firm’s London office, again with the US securities group that was handling IPOs of Hungarian blue chip companies in London or New York.

Funnily enough, it was in Paris where, as a trainee, I was asked to deliver a claim form to a district judge, which – and this is now a historical fact – was my first official appearance in court. And, as I soon started to specialize in finance transactions, I am really not sure if I went to a court hearing in any other countries afterwards.

To cut a long story short, I liked the idea of working abroad, and soon after joining Allen & Overy in Budapest, an additional secondment followed in London. I thought that adding an English qualification to my original Hungarian could help in broadening the scope of deals I could handle, and as English law seemed to be particularly relevant in finance, I hoped that this would allow me to operate on a wider CEE/SEE footing – which I very much wanted to do. In 2008, I joined Pinsent Masons, moved back to London again and spent a few years there as a partner. However, these were the years of the financial crisis, which did not make a transition easy, and due to a variety of factors – including personal reasons – my family’s steering committee decided that we would come back to “our” region. Because there was an opportunity in Vienna at UniCredit, in 2013 we ended up in Vienna. So I spent two fascinating years with that bank, working on super-interesting deals, primarily on the Russian and CIS markets, which unfortunately dried up, to a large extent due to political events in 2014.

At the end of the day I always wanted to go back to private practice, and a chance to do that came up late in 2014 with Wolf Theiss, which I thought would be a good idea given the firm’s regional presence and a strong commitment to this market – located, so-to-say, between Germany and Russia. I decided to go for it, and that’s the sort of regional finance work that I have been up to during the last six years now.

CEELM: Budapest is just down the road, of course. What value does it add – either for the firm or for you personally (or both) – for you to be in Austria?

Marcell: Yes, absolutely, the old country is around the corner, and accordingly, it is easy to jump in the car, which gives you a horrible stressful journey on the motorway, or on the train, which gives you a lovely relaxed two hours which you can spend reading or working (except in the winter of course, when, as happened to me once, the train stops somewhere due to a casual snow storm in the border area and the heating goes off after five hours or so, leaving one to wonder why people need so much mobility and develop an even fuller understanding of why Leo Tolstoy preferred horse coaches to trains).

Anyhow, in the pre-pandemic times I visited Budapest a lot and kept in touch with many clients. Hungary will always be the country where I grew up, where I got my first degrees, started to work, and learned what young lawyers need to know to embark on this job. On the other hand, given the jobs I am tasked with at Wolf Theiss, I (used to) travel quite often to other capitals in CEE/SEE, which I also very much like, and I think this whizzing between CEE/SEE countries and capitals as well as looking at these places as one unit for the purposes of the work I do is probably where I try to add value to what the firm wants to achieve. I have noticed that in Vienna, because it is really an international city with many expats and foreigners working all over the place – including in the banks that tend to be our main clients – there is a sentiment developing that there is some distinctive feature in assisting businesses in their cross-border activities in this area. Quite often the clients categorize me simply as a “CEE/SEE lawyer.” I’m not sure that exists as a strict legal profession, but there is something in it as an approach to practice perhaps.

CEELM: Was it always your goal to work outside of Hungary?        

Marcell: If not a definite goal, as I said earlier, I always wanted to run deals across borders and I tried to make moves with my career and be in geographies where this goal could be achieved – and in this sense I was ready to accept jobs outside Hungary if I thought they could provide these opportunities. But, of course, Budapest is a financial center too with regional players in finance, so this sort of work can be attacked in a variety of places in CEE.

CEELM: Tell us briefly about your practice, and how you built it up over the years.    

Marcell: My practice is essentially based on loan products, and my transactions always involve a loan agreement in one way or another, be it a refinancing, or a transfer of the loan, or occasionally other forms of lending – involving debt securities, for example. As I was originally trained as a leveraged finance lawyer, this type of financing still lies very close to my heart, and I really like the dynamics of financing acquisitions. But I do other forms of finance too, of course, including real estate, which is bread and butter in the region, or projects where I personally believe the CEE/SEE offers, in which home-grown knowledge and local presence, combined with international experience, will be a key factor for law firms. Our firm typically appears on the side of lenders, but we do borrower or sponsor work as well in the project finance area.

CEELM: How would clients describe your style?    

Marcell: In addition to providing skilled legal advice, I try to approach transactions holistically, as a process, where next steps and responses to the moves of the other players need to be planned and anticipated. I hope to be able to bring that sort of experience to the table – a bit of leadership, perhaps, in helping the client make the next move and then the next move again. I would describe this as a politely hands-on attitude, without interfering in the decisions that must be made at the commercial level, but definitely not completely hands-off (which to me at least means that counsel answers questions but does not anticipate and drive things ahead). I hope some clients at least would say that I am able to preserve some sense of humor and a good spirit when navigating through deals, but I also appreciate that when one says these things about oneself, the magic is easily gone. So let’s just say I hope that’s what people think …

CEELM: Are there any significant differences between the Hungarian and Austrian judicial systems and legal markets? Which stand out the most?      

Marcell: Quite frankly, I am not sure I am best placed to answer this question right here and right now because my deals tend to be mainly English-law driven, or, if different, loan agreements are, let us face it, fairly similar in most instances, when one works with the accepted international standards. That being said, as I do deals in various countries in our region, certainly in the area of finance, I find that broadly similar (if not identical) answers are given to similar questions. In light of the civil-law-based jurisprudence and the many resemblances in respect of how one takes security, for example, from my perspective at least, the region does not present widely differing approaches when it comes to the legal environment, at least when it comes to origination and securing loan assets (although restructuring can be a very different experience). Anyway, I have a secret blue notebook in which I note if and when an answer on a legal technical question is strikingly different from what is usually received in other countries, and my credulity is challenged a little.

CEELM: How about the cultures? What differences strike you as most resonant and significant? 

Marcell: As you often hear from politicians, I thank you for the question. I could fill up volumes with answers, and we could launch a periodical if you are interested. But jokes aside, the difficulty in answering properly really lies in the relatively minor differences that crop up at every corner. Everything is very similar, yet everything is quite different. I know for a fact that some people simply could not cope with this, while other enjoy it thoroughly. I really don’t think – but the beauty of these things is that others may deeply and fiercely disagree (that’s the meaning of culture) – that as between Austria and Hungary, an expat would face a cultural shock (even postal cheques look very familiar, both ways), but differences exist and adaption may be necessary. Ultimately, this is what I personally like about being exposed to the CEE/SEE region; while a capital city in one of the Northern countries is extremely different to a capital city in the Balkans, traces of a more-or-less shared past and history can be felt, and a good understanding of this cultural background helps, even in doing business, with the caveat that differences await at every corner.

In the cultural sense, CEE is a complex equation with many x-es to it, but discoveries or solutions to an x in country A could give you a key to another x in country B. Or not, of course. My daughter, for example, is still a relative food conservative, which means that she does not always embrace the culinary experience of tasting food originating in distant places, but as long as we have schnitzel, goulash, and apricot jam pancakes (and we are really not picky about the way these goodies are spelled and pronounced in various places), we are quite at home.

CEELM: Do you have any plans to move back to Hungary?         

Marcell: Everything is possible, nothing is excluded, but probably not immediately, no.

CEELM: Outside of Hungary and Austria, which CEE country do you enjoy visiting the most, and why?         

Marcell: As said earlier, I (used to) travel a lot within CEE and I do have my favorite places, but I will not say which, because my other favorite places may take an issue with that. The truth is that wherever I go, I have absolutely fantastic colleagues in our offices in the country, and I get on-the-spot, top-end advice on cultural things, places to go, places not to go to, things not to do, and then it is just fine. I receive an amazing introduction, a nice evening out, and yes, that city becomes a favorite too.

CEELM: What’s your favorite place to take visitors in Vienna? 

Marcell: This is an interesting question. I really to attempt to be a good host, and offer all these lovely opportunities with the beautiful palaces in Vienna, or sites and vineyards around Vienna, or indeed the Opera, which is clearly one of the best on the planet. I do not say I never ever get a positive response, and of course we do go to these places, but most visitors in fact demand the Christmas Market. Obviously, this is also a very nice thing to do, and we like it too (although no visits last year, for obvious reasons), but the tendency is clearly observable. I shall and try to concentrate invitations on the summer, and I’ll see what people wish to do then.

This Article was originally published in Issue 8.3 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

According to the Life Science Report Austria, Austrian biotech companies recorded a turnover of USD 379.3 million in 2017, with USD 206.3 million – or 54.6% – flowing into research and development.

Companies in this sector found increased interest from venture capitalists, which meant an increase in financing via venture capital or private equity to USD 166.8 million – three times the amount of the previous year. A strong intellectual property environment, a well-developed and well-funded healthcare system, established local players, and a growing international profile are making Austria a market worth keeping an eye on.

Austrian companies and start-ups in the life sciences sector form a dynamic, rapidly evolving environment for research, making Vienna a CEE biotech hotspot. Although the outlook is positive and promising, the sector still faces some difficulties. The sector, as profitable as it is, is known for both enormously high research costs and time-consuming development processes, which require lots of funding from the very first stage. This proves to be a hurdle for many innovative young start-ups currently fighting for a spot in the market with multinational conglomerates. Most start-ups expect to be bought out “midterm” by larger market players and often fail in the process. Opportunity lies, however, in structured advice and financing plans set up from the beginning with business angels and other advisors. In Austria, there are some hubs supporting young entrepreneurs, including AWS or INiTS, which take on intermediary roles.

There are also quite a number of private equity investments in the sector, but there is much more capital and a lot of dry powder that could be utilized. However, this sector is not necessarily the ideal environment for private equity due to its long product cycles, which do not comply with the desired exit horizon of three to five years (with some exceptions in the generics market). Private equity investors have a crucial role in bringing the life science sector to the next level – not only because they have the necessary expertise, but also because they already have well-established, professional teams to facilitate investment processes smoothly. Besides, the kind of problems there sometimes are with large strategic investors in the post-merger integration of young companies when it comes to raising synergies are rare in this context, because private equity companies mostly see themselves in the role of financiers and often have no interest in creating synergies.

The vehicle of choice often is a limited liability company (in German, a “Gesellschaft mit beschrankter Haftung, GmbH“) since it allows direct shareholder influence and has limited corporate governance requirements. A stock company (an “Aktiengesellschaft, AG“) might, however, be interesting if the business is considering a multinational structure and is thinking of bringing a large number of partners or shareholders on board. In addition, with an AG one always has the possibility of listing on the stock exchange, and the assignment of shares is easier than with a GmbH, which requires a notarial act for each transfer.

With the current pace of development in the life science sector, an upswing in the market is inevitable, and with it, the time to ignite the long-awaited dry powder by private equity investors.

By Rainer Kaspar, Partner, PHH Rechtsanwalte

This Article was originally published in Issue 8.3 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

Dorda, working with lead counsel Allen & Overy, has advised DIF Capital Partners on the sale of its stake in a PPP portfolio including two hospitals in Vienna to Equitix. CMS advised Equitix on the deal, which was announced on April 19 and remains subject to several regulatory and other approvals.

DIF Capital Partners is a global independent fund manager with EUR 8.5 billion of assets under management across nine closed-end infrastructure funds and several co-investment vehicles. It invests in greenfield and operational infrastructure assets located primarily in Europe, the Americas, and Australasia.

According to Dorda, DIF sold its stake in a portfolio of a total of six European PPP assets to Equitix. “The portfolio consisted of shareholdings in a number of critical infrastructure projects that DIF invested into as primary transactions: A1/A6 Road, IJmond Sea Lock and N18 Road in the Netherlands, A7 Nord Road and Netz West Rolling Stock in Germany, as well as the radio-oncology centers at two hospitals in Vienna (Krankenhaus Hietzing and Sozialmedizinisches Zentrum Ost).”

Dorda’s team included Partners Tibor Varga, Martin Brodey, and Bernhard Muller, Senior Associate Patricia Backhausen, and Associates Clemens Semelmayer and Anneliese Keinrath.

The A&O team included Netherlands-based Partner Zeeger de Jongh, UK-based Partner Sara Pickersgill, Germany-based Partner Wolfgang Melzer, UK-based Senior Associate Hugh Hobhouse, Netherlands-based Associates Cees van Ginneken and Mesut Korkmaz, and UK-based Associate Olivia Hardy.

CMS’s team was led by London Partner Bill Carr and included CMS Austria Partners Peter Huber, Bernt Elsner, and Marcell Clark, Attorneys at Law Mario Maier and Simon Cook, and Associate Ruth Bittner, as well as lawyers from CMS’s offices in the Netherlands, Germany, and the UK.

Brandl Talos, working with McCullough Robertson, has advised Sportradar Group on its acquisition of InteractSport Group, a sports data and technology company based in Australia and England.

The acquisition is subject to regulatory approvals and is expected to close in the second quarter of 2021.

Sportradar Group is a provider of sports data intelligence and sport entertainment solutions. According to Brandl Talos, “the acquisition of InteractSport provides Sportradar with the opportunity to expand its portfolio into increasingly popular sports like cricket – being one of the most popular sports in the world with a global fanbase of more than two billion – and include cricket data and content in its offering to the global media and betting markets.”

Earlier this year, Brandl Talos advised Sportradar Group on the acquisition of Synergy Sports (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on March 30, 2021) and Fresh Eight (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on March 18, 2021),

Brandl Talos’s team included Attorneys Thomas Talos, Stephan Strass, Sonam Schima, and Celine Chiara Dobnikar. Brandl Talos was unable to identify counsel for the seller.

McCullough Robertson’s team included Atorneys Adrian Smith, Alex Hutchens, and Andrew Bukowski.

Wolf Theiss has advised Kommunalkredit Austria AG on its successful issue of ordinary senior eligible notes in the amount of EUR 300 million. Schoenherr advised joint lead managers Erste Group Bank AG, Landesbank Baden-Wurttemberg, and Raiffeisenbank International AG, and co-lead manager Landesbank Hessen-Thuringen Girozentrale.

The issuance is part of Kommunalkredit’s EUR 800 million debt issuance program. The notes have a term of three years, mature in May 2024, and have a denomination of EUR 100,000 each. They are admitted to the Official Market of the Vienna Stock Exchange.

Schoenherr’s team consisted of Partner Christoph Moser and Associate Angelika Fischer, among others.

Wolf Theiss’s team consisted of Partner Alexander Haas, Counsel Eva Stadler, Senior Associate Nikolaus Dinhof, and Associate Sebastian Prakljacic.

Dorda and King & Wood Mallesons have advised a fund managed by Pinova Capital and other shareholders of Deurowood Holding GmbH on the sale of Deurowood to Freudenberg Chemical Specialities, a German manufacturer and marketer of specialty chemical products.

According to Dorda, “after the takeover by FCS, the responsible management of Deurowood continues to be in charge of the operative management. Company headquarters will remain in Hard, Vorarlberg.” Deurowood, founded in 2003, is a supplier of additives for the paper impregnation industry and provides special expertise in the application field of engineered wood. 

FCS, headquartered in Munich, develops, manufactures, and markets chemical specialties and is a supplier of special lubricants, release agents, and products for chemical surface technology, ranging from chemo-technical products for maintenance and repair to solutions for the refinement of confectionery and other food products. 

Dorda’s team included Partner Bernhard Rieder and Attorney Lukas Herrmann.

KWM’s team included Partner Markus Herz and Associate Lorenz Liebsch.

Dorda did not reply to our inquiry on the matter.