Kocian Solc Balastik has advised Solitea Holding on the acquisition of a 100% share in Clever Decision, a business intelligence solution and data warehouse company operating on the Czech and Slovak markets.
The KSB team was led by Partner Drahomir Tomasuk.
KSB did not reply to our inquiry on the matter.
CMS has advised Karimpol on the sale of Greenline, a 15,500 square meter office building in Prague to Wood & Company. Dentons advised the buyers on the deal.
The Greenline is home to tenants such as SCS Software, Huawei Technologies, Nordic Telecom 5G, and Kia Motors Czech. According to CMS, “the value of the deal has pushed the value of WOOD & Co.’s real estate portfolio to over EUR 500 million.”
Wood & Company is an investment bank that was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Prague. It is a member of the Prague, Warsaw, Vienna, Budapest, Bucharest, Sofia, and Ljubljana stock exchanges.
CMS’s team consisted of Partner Libor Prokes, Associate Petr Koral, and Lawyer Lucie Zanaskova.
The Dentons team advising Wood & Company included Partner Marketa Tvrda and Associates Jakub Nosek and Jan Hrivnak.
Senior Associate Kristína Bartoskova has been appointed head of Baker McKenzie’s International Commercial & Trade practice in Prague.
Bartoskova, who has been with Baker McKenzie for nearly seven years, focuses on corporate and commercial law matters. According to the firm, “she advises on all aspects of international commercial law including, inter alia, international trade, distribution and agency agreements, franchising, advertising and consumer protection, [and she] regularly conducts due diligence investigations involving both Czech and Slovak companies.”
In addition, Baker McKenzie reports, “Kristina has experience in regulatory proceedings, including public procurement proceedings, structuring strategy in public procurements, evaluation of technology issues and assistance in negotiations with contracting authorities. Kristína has also advised and represented clients in commercial litigations, insolvency proceedings and related litigations, employment and tax litigations, as well as domestic and international arbitration proceedings. In addition, she regularly provides advice in the areas of information technology including domain name disputes, and advises with respect to Czech and Slovak criminal law matters.”
She is a graduate of the Law Faculty of Charles University, where she received a Master’s degree. She is registered with the Czech Bar Association as an attorney and with the Slovak Bar Association as a European attorney.
BPV Braun Partners has advised a fund managed by Aventicum Real Estate on renovations and the expansion of the Prague Marriott Hotel.
According to bpv Braun Partners, “The hotel renovation and expansion project is anticipated to be finished in 2020, although a number of phases will be finalized and operational sooner. The project will extend the facility by more than 100 hotel rooms and overhaul the front areas, including the main lobby, reception, restaurant, and bar, as well as adding new lift cores.”
The bpv Braun Partners team consisted of Partner Miroslav Dudek, Senior Associate Pavlina Tejralova, and Junior Associate Filip Balousek.
Bond financing has recently become quite popular in the Czech Republic and companies often finance their business needs by issuing corporate bonds instead of the more usual credit financing. Obviously, the popularity of corporate bonds is also associated with the greater willingness of investors to buy them. Bonds are perceived by the general public as a safe and conservative investment instrument. Nevertheless, recent market developments show that corporate bonds issued by private companies may not always be a safe investment, as evidenced, for example, by the insolvency of online fashion store Zoot, which funded its expansion by issuing bonds.
The Czech Ministry of Finance acknowledges that retail investors are not always sufficiently informed about the investment risks and creditworthiness of borrowers. It has therefore prepared an amendment to the Bonds Act that should strengthen the protection of retail investors, in particular with respect to bonds issued without a public prospectus. To better understand this amendment, it is useful to recall a few basic facts related to bond issues and the possibility of a public offering.
The general documents for the issuance of bonds are the prospectus and emission conditions. As the prospectus contains a lot of information not only about the bonds but also about the emitter, some emitters try to avoid it by issuing bonds without following the Czech National Bank’s approval procedure. This is possible in two cases: First, for a below-the-limit bond issue with a value less than EUR 1 million (within a 12-month period), or second, for an issue valued at over EUR 1 million that is offered only to qualified investors (without limitation to the number of such investors) or as a private offer to unqualified investors (i.e., to a limited number of investors). Under law a maximum of 149 private offers can be made, but the Czech National Bank (CNB) interprets the term “public” more strictly, as it considers the public to be more than 20 people (for the purpose of financial market regulations), which limits the number of private offers.
For a public offering of bonds, the CNB must approve the bond prospectus, but this approval is only formal, i.e., a verification that the prospectus contains all statutory requirements. If bonds are offered to retail investors based on the above-mentioned exemptions from the obligation to publish a prospectus, the main source of information for investors is the emission conditions. Although in accordance with the Bonds Act the emission conditions contain enough information about the issued bonds, they contain almost no information about the emitter and its financial situation, which raises doubts about the ability of the emission conditions to protect investors. Therefore, the amendment to the Bonds Act proposes to modify the existing regulation in two respects.
First, all bond issues should now be assigned an identification number under the International Securities Numbering System, which should ensure their proper registration. Second, the emission conditions should include information on whether and to what extent the CNB is supervising the issue and their emitter. If the prospectus is approved by the CNB, the emission conditions should state that: i) the prospectus is assessed solely for the completeness of the information contained therein; ii) the CNB does not assess the issuer’s financial results or financial situation when approving the prospectus; and iii) approval of the prospectus does not guarantee the emitter’s future profitability or its ability to repay the bond’s yields and nominal value.
Of course, the real question is whether these amendments are enough to protect retail investors. Although a retail investor will be sufficiently informed that the CNB does not verify the creditworthiness of the emitter, this does not guarantee that such an investor will be able to correctly assess the suitability of his or her investment in the bonds.
Ondrej Havlicek, Head of Banking & Finance, Schoenherr Prague
This Article was originally published in Issue 6.9 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.
Frances Gerrard, a member of CMS’s Corporate and M&A team in Prague, is a long way from her home in Australia. We spoke to her about the path that brought her to the Czech capital.
CEELM: Run us through your background and how you ended up in your current role with CMS in Prague.
Frances: I went to law school in Australia and took on my first graduate legal role in 2008 at Dawson Harford & Partners, a boutique corporate and commercial law firm in Auckland, New Zealand, starting as a trainee while working towards and finishing my admissions exams. Although I grew up in Australia, my family has very strong ties to New Zealand and I spent a great deal of time there over the years. In late 2010 I moved in-house in Sydney with Metminco Limited, a mining exploration company with operations in Chile and Peru, again focusing primarily on corporate and commercial matters and M&A. Throughout those years, I spent a lot of time travelling to Europe, mostly to visit the Alps over the European winter, and a move to Europe was always in the back of my mind. It’s not uncommon for Australian-qualified lawyers to explore and take opportunities in London; however, with plentiful M&A opportunities, a unique emerging market feel, and offering a difficult cultural experience, Central Europe was more on my radar. I came across an online advertisement for what eventually turned into my current role current while I was working in Australia and thought it could be a perfect fit. As luck would have it, our managing partner, Helen Rodwell, is also Australian, and it didn’t take much for her to sell Prague and the opportunities at CMS. I joined the firm in January 2012.
CEELM: Tell us briefly about your practice, and how you built it up over the years.
Frances: My practice focuses primarily on acting for international investors (strategics and private equity) on acquisitions and disposals across Central & Eastern Europe. I specialize in private M&A, often on large-scale cross border transactions – managing the deal process from Day 1 through closing. I also routinely act for a number of insurers on the provision of warranty and indemnity insurance across the region. CMS has a fantastic breadth of presence and expertise across CEE and I work closely and in parallel with my colleagues in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Romania, and Hungary (to name a few!) who are invaluable in the entire process.
Although I am based in Prague, the clients that I work with are based anywhere from London to New York to Asia. CMS has an incredible global network and the demonstrable number and quality of deals done by us in the CEE region year on year is a great credential. I am a firm believer in building a good rapport with individuals on both sides of a deal and in maintaining existing relationships after a deal is done. Building a network and a practice is an exercise in longevity – nothing happens overnight, but good relationships go a long way and are a key factor. Visibility and presence is also important, so I also try to frequent various networking events in Prague and international conferences in the region, particularly in the private equity and M&A space.
CEELM: How would clients describe your style?
Frances: Commercial, pragmatic, and responsive.
CEELM: There are obviously many differences between the English and Czech judicial systems and legal markets. What idiosyncrasies or differences stand out the most?
Frances: Primarily the various document and registration formalities involved in getting the deal done and the incorporation of English law concepts into Central and Eastern European transaction documentation, where there is not, in many cases, a significant body of case law. That said, deal documentation in the Czech Republic is more aligned than ever with what I would see as international market standard and the legal market here is well developed. Market trends in M&A also tend to differ when looking at CEE deals, as too do the specific issues or risks that crop up across the region, which make local knowledge and expertise important factors in every deal (as they would be in any jurisdiction).
CEELM: What particular value do you think a senior expatriate lawyer in your role adds – both to a firm and to its clients?
Frances: As my focus has primarily been on complex and cross-border transactions throughout the region, I have become aware of some of the key differences between, for example, transaction structures that would be possible in one jurisdiction but not another, and I have developed a feel for the rigidity of authorities in certain countries. I believe that particularly on multi-jurisdictional deals clients appreciate having a single point of contact that is aware of local differences that may affect the transaction and that can interpret various areas of advice provided by the local colleagues in the context of the wider transaction.
CEELM: Do you have any plans to move back to Australia?
Frances: While my friends and family back home might have something to say about it, I do not have any immediate or medium term plans to move back to Australia. I am from Sydney, which is a fabulous city; however, from both a professional and personal perspective, I feel very much at home in the Czech Republic and it is hard to pass up the quality of work/deal flow and European lifestyle.
CEELM: Outside of the Czech Republic, which CEE country do you enjoy visiting the most, and why?
Frances: That is a tough one as I tend to enjoy most of the CEE countries I visit. Although, I spent a couple of months in Bucharest on a deal a few years ago and always look back fondly on the city. There are some great open, green spaces in and around the city and the city has a very interesting mix of old and new, which I like.
CEELM: What’s your favorite place to take visitors in Prague?
Frances: Prague becomes more and more cosmopolitan every year – the food scene in particular. I like to take visitors on a bit of a culinary tour of my favourite, new, and longstanding spots. If the season is right, I also like to explore the various food markets – the Naplavka farmers’ market is always a hit – and of course the beer gardens in Letna and Riegrovy Sady are a great place to enjoy the sun with some spectacular views of the city.
This Article was originally published in Issue 6.9 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.
One of the challenges of introducing class actions to the Czech legal system is the finding of a proper balance between the interests of clients and those of attorneys. While the default position is that attorneys are to protect the justified interests of their clients and place them before their own (within statutory limits, of course), a careful balancing exercise will need to be carried out if class actions are to be allowed. While class action law is still at the stage of an initial proposal in the Czech Republic, this proposal is demonstrative of the direction the Czech Ministry of Justice intends to take.
A perfect example of the trickiness of this balancing exercise is the determination of the remuneration payable to attorneys representing claimants in class actions. There are many examples from other jurisdictions (including the USA in particular) that clearly demonstrate the difficulty of the task as well as the extremes that can occur when sufficient safeguards to protect relevant interests are not put in place (including, for example, when attorneys’ fees significantly exceed the damages received by the claimants, whether as individuals or even a group).
The current proposal in the Czech Republic allows for the possibility of attorney remuneration on the basis of a percentage share of the awarded damages, up to 25% of the awarded amount. While this structure is generally allowed in the Czech Republic, it is not an entirely traditional form of attorney remuneration. Historically, it was permitted only in exceptional circumstances, and even today the Czech Bar Association’s Code of Conduct requires that remuneration on this basis be proportionate and generally amount to a maximum of 25% of the awarded amount.
Even though this proposed system of remuneration in the context of class actions may, at first glance, seem somewhat noble – it does, after all, provide access to justice to even the poorest of claimants – steps must be taken to ensure that it does not serve as an incentive for claimants (and their attorneys) to file frivolous claims forcing defendants to choose between entering into costly settlements or even more costly litigation. It must also be ensured that an attorney is not motivated by this form of remuneration to pursue a class action against the interest of his or her clients. It is questionable whether a limit of 25% can do this.
Concerns in relation to remuneration as percentage of the award have also been voiced by the European Parliament’s Committee for Legal Affairs, which has proposed an amendment to the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Representative Actions for the Protection of the Collective Interests of Consumers and Repealing Directive 2009/22/EC, which reads: “Member States shall ensure that the lawyers’ remuneration and the method by which it is calculated do not create any incentive to litigation, unnecessary from the point of view of the interest of any of the parties. In particular, Member States shall prohibit contingency fees.”
It should also be noted that despite the popularity of the class action instrument in the USA, some US states have now also started restricting the use of contingency fees or limiting the remuneration awarded to attorneys.
Despite the evident shift in the approach to class actions (and attorney remuneration in relation thereto) and the experience in other jurisdictions, the Czech Ministry of Justice has failed to take into account extensive (and constructive) criticism of the draft law by professional bodies, courts, and other legal professionals. The draft law therefore still contains the concept of remuneration as a share of the amount awarded and does not, as yet, incorporate sufficient safeguards and guarantees to ensure that the system of collective redress would not be abused.
By Robert Nemec, Partner, and Azlbeta Hermankova, Associate, PRK Partners
This Article was originally published in Issue 6.9 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.
The Deal: Earlier this year, CEE Legal Matters reported that Clifford Chance Prague had advised CTP, an industrial developer in the CEE region, on a EUR 1.9 billion underwriting package agreement with Erste Group Bank AG; Ceska Sporitelna a.s.; Societe Generale S.A. and Komercni Banka a.s.; and UniCredit S.p.A. and UniCredit Bank Czech Republic and Slovakia a.s. White & Case advised the lenders on the agreement, which covered CTP’s Czech industrial portfolio consisting of over 200 buildings and covering 2.7 million square meters of industrial space.
The Players:
CEELM: How did you and Clifford Chance become involved in this matter? Why and when and by whom were you selected as external counsel initially?
Milos: We had experience with CTP historically but in recent years before the transaction we had not done much work for the company as there often had been a cheaper offer for more routine real estate financing. Last summer we were contacted by CTP Group CFO Richard Wilkinson with a request for proposal. Based on the pitching process and face-to-face meetings, we were selected by CTP as their advisor.
CEELM: What, exactly, was the initial mandate when you were first retained by CTP for this project?
Milos: We were mandated to assist with structuring and advice on a multi-layer refinancing of the Czech part of the CTP Group consisting of more than forty companies.
CEELM: Who were the members of your team, and what were their individual responsibilities?
Milos: I was in charge of the overall coordination of the Clifford Chance team. Senior Associate Marian Husar focused on the senior finance documents. Associate Dominik Vojta supported Marian with respect to the finance documents and worked on all other transactional aspects. Associate Jan Strnad focused on the sections related to corporate changes and on corporate aspects relating to the transaction.
Last but not least, Real Estate Partner Emil Holub, supported by Senior Associate Milan Rakosnik, was in charge of coordinating the real estate aspects of our mandate and was critical in helping to implement the material publicity concept in the due diligence exercise and its acceptance by the lending institutions.
CEELM: Please describe the final agreement in as much detail as possible: How was it structured, why was it structured in that way, and what was your role in helping it get there?
Milos: The final structure of the financing was an LMA-based set of documents consisting primarily of the senior syndicated facility agreement with investment and development facilities, the intercreditor agreement, and a significant number of security documents and other ancillary documents such as hedging agreements.
The documentation had many innovative aspects and is ready for other layers of financing. For example, it complies with the requirements for Pfandbrief eligibility. It was quite a complex process to achieve this given that the concept of Pfandbrief is not known to Czech law and, as far as I am aware, has never been used in the Czech Republic in the context of a financing anywhere near as complex as this transaction. We and our colleagues at White & Case spent a significant amount of time finding and refining a workable solution to make the documentation Pfandbrief eligible without imposing unnecessary administrative or legal limitations on CTP or non-Pfandbrief lenders. In the end, all parties that were involved – the client, the arrangers, and the syndicate lenders – benefit from a flexible financing structure that is acceptable to a large number of various types of lending institutions.
CEELM: What was the most challenging or frustrating part of the process?
Milos: The most challenging was clearly the size and complexity of the transaction including related due diligence, especially with respect to the title. The key for the due diligence was to use all available legal concepts protecting title to real estate and so limit the scope and depth of the review exercise which had to be undertaken by counsel to the lenders.
Emil: We helped the lending institutions to accept only limited title due diligence based on the principle of newly introduced reliance on the records of the Czech Cadastral Register in relation to certain historical title transactions. We have, among others, contacted and coordinated leading experts from the academic and legislative sectors and other leading law firms to obtain confirmatory expert opinions supporting our view on the principle of material publicity.
And thus we created in essence something which creates a legal revolution and has the potential to establish a new market standard and which completely changes the landscape of the real estate legal framework in the Czech Republic.
As a result, the review of title was much shorter and cheaper for the client and for secured lending generally as the debt was secured by the mortgages created with reliance on the so-called “principle of material publicity.” Although this principle has been in place since the beginning of 2014, it came into full practical effect only in 2018, and, in short, it represents a statutory protection of any new right with respect to real estate property created by an owner who has been registered (as owner) in the Cadastral Register for more than three years as long as the beneficiary acts in good faith. This guarantees the rights under the mortgages as newly created rights, despite not remedying potential owner’ title defects with respect to properties, which also gives the financing institutions greater certainty.
Milos: As far as we are aware, this is the very first time that this new concept of material publicity was successfully used in this market. And I consider this to be an excellent achievement as the lenders were able to rely on this principle for almost EUR 2 billion financing.
CEELM: Was there any part of the process that was unusually or unexpectedly easy?
Milos: Definitely cooperation with the client. The clients’ team was very cooperative and professional. Moreover, decisions on the clients’ side were made very quickly.
CEELM: Did the final result match your initial mandate, or did it change somehow from what was initially anticipated?
Milos: The initial mandate was to help with the structuring of the financing and financing as such without outlining the particular structure so yes, the initial mandate, to help the client to achieve refinancing of its Czech portfolio, was achieved. The use of the principle of material publicity was also discussed during the pitching process and my impression is that this was one of the key points for the client.
CEELM: What specific individuals at CTP directed your team’s work, and how did you interact with them?
Milos: The key persons instructing us on behalf of the client were Richard Wilkinson – the Group CFO who was in charge of the overall supervision of the transaction and a key decision maker on the commercial aspects of the transaction; Kveta Vojtova – the Head of M&A and Transaction Legal, the leader of the CTP legal team for this transaction, and our primary client contact for all legal matters; and Zdenek Raus – the CFO for the Czech Republic and Slovakia, our primary contact for finance and development matters.
CEELM: How would you describe the working relationship with White & Case on the deal?
Milos: White & Case is certainly a top firm which is very experienced in similar types of mandates. We had numerous negotiations over the period of nine months on our regular lawyers conference calls followed by slightly less frequent all-party-calls with a couple of large physical meetings towards the end of the transaction. These communication streams were supported by one on one communication among the White & Case and Clifford Chance team members, with leading Partners Jan Linda [from White & Case] and I communicating on a daily – and in peak times almost-hourly – basis.
Emil: I can only support this – the working relationship with White & Case was very professional. Although we often had different views on certain legal aspects, which is usual in the use of similar innovative concepts, we were always able to find the middle ground and come to a solution which worked for both sides of the transaction as well as both law firms. We would like to extend our thanks to them for their cooperation throughout the deal.
CEELM: How would you describe the significance of the deal to the Czech Republic, or to the region?
Milos: As to some extent mentioned before, this deal was extremely interesting and challenging for us, given its scale, legal complexity, and regionality – with its EUR 1.9 billion to refinance more than 40 properties within the CTP Group it was the largest real estate transaction to date in Central and Eastern Europe.
The use of innovative legal solutions (such as reliance on material publicity) and structures enabling multilayer financing and Pfandbrief eligibility in the context of such a large transaction with the corresponding attention and focus of all-involved lending institutions, including major CEE and European banks.
Emil: The complexity of the deal is also uncommon in the region. Especially in regards to the number of participants involved on the lending side, some of which had very limited experience in the Czech market and had to understand and overcome related Czech law issues.
The key factor of which we are especially proud is the use of material publicity. Without overstating the point this has changed the Czech legal landscape – being, to our knowledge, the first time that it has ever used in this market, in particular given the size of the transaction which was nearly 2 billion euros.
This Article was originally published in Issue 6.9 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.
Schoenherr has advised Facebook, Inc. and Facebook Technologies, LLC on the acquisition of Czech games studio Beat Games s.r.o., which develops and upgrades the Beat Saber virtual reality game. Beat Games was advised by BBH.
Beat Games is a Prague-based game studio established in 2018 by Jaroslav Beck, Jan Ilavsky, and Vladimir Hrincar. The studio’s Beat Saber game has already sold 100,000 copies, earning over a million dollars in the first week alone. Beat Games will join Facebook’s Oculus Studios as an independently operated studio in Prague.
The Schoenherr Prague team consisted of Partner Vladimir Cizek and Attorneys at Law Jitka Kadlcikova, Helena Hangler, and Eva Bajakova.
The BBH team assisting Beat Games was led by Partner Tomas Sedlacek and included Associate Kristyna Domokosova and Junior Associate Martin Prochazka, among others.
In the 26 years since its launch in 1993 by Marek Prochazka as a Prague banking and finance boutique, PRK Partners has added offices in Bratislava and Ostrava and grown into one of the largest and most successful law firms in the Czech and Slovak Republics. That growth, the firm’s partners maintain, is a by-product of the firm’s traditions of flexibility, professionalism, and innovation, rather than the result of a predetermined plan.
“We are not a firm that puts together a strategic plan and then works under it for ten years,” says Partner Robert Nemec. “We like to look to the future, of course, but at the same time we are more or less flexible, and we pursue various ways and try various methods as to how to remain up to date. I think it speaks for itself that today we have 14 partners and we have this kind of democracy in the firm. We don’t have one strong leader who would set up one big plan and then pursue it.” He smiles. “It might be a bit different from other firms, but we are what we are.”
That relaxed business ethic has put the firm on the map, and kept it there. PRK Partners has worked on a number of extremely high-profile deals in recent years, it is consistently listed at the top of the market in international rankings, and it has won multiple local and international industry awards.
Part of the firm’s success is tied to its flexibility and innovation. Nemec and fellow Partner Roman Pecenka point proudly to new software the firm has created and is promoting with legal publisher Wolters Kluwers. Nemec describes the software, known as Vzorne Pravo, as “a kind of automated document creator, which allows medium to small entrepreneurs – even in-house lawyers – to create their legal documents online with an interactive system.”
According to Pecenka, the PRK Partners team is “providing the legal know-how as to the form and content of the documents,” and “the idea, at the end of the day, is that rather than taking documents from the Internet, users can create them interactively. Of course, they can also communicate with real lawyers if their needs are more complicated.”
Pecenka’s enthusiasm for the new software is infectious, and he believes its simplicity and ease-of-use – “the instructions to the people working on the documents were to keep things as simple as possible,” he says, “and that’s a prevailing demand from our clients as well: to keep things user-friendly, with no 200-page documents” – will make it extremely valuable for users.
He reports that the process of creating and overseeing the software has proven useful internally as well. “It’s allowed us to see how simple some contracts can be, and we focus on keeping the Czech as simple as possible,” he says. “So we’re learning from it as well.” In addition, he says, “the second benefit for the firm is that we were forced to organize our internal know-how, so we can offer some of our clients services based on this kind of effective drafting of contracts. For example, in the Real Estate market, we are able to draft lease agreements based on a term sheet in a standard form. So it makes our work for our clients very effective.”
Ultimately, Pecenka says, “it helps us a lot to start thinking about how we believe legal services will be used in the future. This is a new experience for the lawyers drafting the legal documents. We are trying to keep up-to-date.”
This reflects an impressive flexibility and awareness of the way client demands and expectations change. Thus, in 2018, the partnership expanded via the promotion of Pharma/Life Science expert Monika Moshkova and the addition of former Baker/McKenzie IP/IT Partner Michal Matejka. Nemec reports that the firm has recently strengthened its Compliance department as well.
Still, now at over 100 lawyers, Nemec reports that PRK Partners is likely to stay more or less at its current size. “The limit on growth is the potential conflicts of interest that start arising,” he explains, “so we’re staying in this range.”
In addition to concern about conflicts, the number of lawyers is affected by economic realities, and the partners at PRK Partners are aware that the recent boom in the Czech Republic may be slowing. “Generally things are going pretty well, I would say,” Nemec reports, “but we are obviously conscious of the fact that some economists are talking about potential financial slowdowns.” As a result, he says, “we are rather careful, and we are trying to keep our costs under control, to stay prepared.” All things considered, he says, “we are quite prepared for a slow-down in any area of business.”
In the meantime, the firm’s partners exude a relaxed confidence and camaraderie. Matejka reports being pleased at the positivity he found among his new colleagues. “Baker McKenzie in Prague has a reputation for being a very friendly environment, and I was very pleasantly surprised to see that PRK Partners is as well.” But, he says, commenting on the significant role he is playing in the development of the Vzorne Pravo software, the firm is hardly resting on its laurels. “We always try to be ahead of the market, especially in terms of using AI in our work.”
With attention to detail, a commitment to innovation and technology, and a flexibility that allows the firm to respond to a dynamic market, PRK Partners is moving forward in style.
This Article was originally published in Issue 6.9 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.