Category: Serbia

Pursuant to the Regulation on the Youth Employment Incentives Program “My First Salary” (Off. Gazette of the RS no. 107/2020 and 79/2021), on 22 August 2022 the National Employment Service has announced a public call for the implementation of the respective program (“the Program”), which specifies terms and criteria for application and participating therein.

The Program

The Program includes training of unemployed individuals for independent work, i.e., organization and conducting of a practice in order to acquire knowledge, skills and competences for work, without establishing an employment relationship.

The Program shall last for nine months, during which time the National Employment Service will provide the trainees with remuneration in the total monthly amount of RSD 25,000 for those with secondary school degree and RSD 30,000 for the trainees with university degree, and it will calculate and pay the contributions for the case of injury at work and occupational disease, in accordance with the law.

In addition to the aforementioned remuneration, the employers are allowed to pay additional amounts to the trainees, which on a monthly basis cannot exceed the amount paid by the National Employment Service, whereby such additional amount paid by an employer is subject to the tax on other income in accordance with the Law on Personal Income Tax (at the rate of 20%).

Conditions regarding employers

As for the employers, they are eligible to participate in the Program in case they meet the following requirements:

• to have a registered seat in the territory of the Republic of Serbia;
• to pay taxes and contributions for mandatory social insurance within legal deadlines;
• not to have been constantly registered for more than 30 days in the registry of debtors in enforced collection of the National Bank of Serbia;
• to have settled previous contractual and other obligations towards the National Employment Service, except for those underway, provided that they are regularly settled;
• to have employed mentor in charge of the trainees;
• to have technical, spatial and other capacities for training of individuals, to have work premises, technical means and equipment that functionally correspond to the number of trainees, as well as to ensure all conditions in accordance with regulations on safety and health at work.

Registration of employers and announcing of positions has begun on 22 August 2022, and it shall be conducted until 22 September 2022.

Requirements regarding unemployed persons

The following requirements must be met in order for an unemployed individual to be involved in the Program:

• to be enlisted in the record of unemployed persons of the National Employment Service;
• to have secondary school or university degree;
• to be maximum 30 years old;
• to have no work experience in jobs within the level of education at which he/she will be trained, i.e., to have work experience of less than 6 months in jobs within the level of education with which he/she applies;
• to have not passed the professional exam for jobs within the level of education with which he/she applies;
• to have not been previously involved in the Program;
• to have not been employed with the chosen employer in the last six months prior to the announcement of this public call.

The application of candidates will take place in the period as from 3 October 2022 until 31 October 2022.

This article is to be considered as exclusively informative, with no intention to provide legal advice. If you should need additional information, please contact us directly.

By Lara Maksimovic, Senior Associate, and Danica Nikitovic, Junior Associate, PR Legal

Bojovic Draskovic Popovic & Partners has advised Pactera EDGE on starting its operations in Serbia. 

Pactera EDGE is a digital and technology services company that designs, builds, and optimizes human-centric intelligent digital platforms. According to the company, it is a separate company from Pactera, who has authorized use of its trademark.

According to the firm, “the company’s initial goal is to hire about 100 local engineering and tech-focused employees. Serbia has steadily gained a global reputation for its engineering excellence and talent availability.”

The BD2P team was led by Partner Vuk Draskovic and Senior Associate Milos Andrejevic. 

In response to the announcements and decisions of individual banks to increase their fees for certain services related to payment accounts, on 11 August 2022 the National Bank of Serbia (“the NBS”) published the Information for the public regarding the package of measures of the NBS on the bank fees on its official website.

Reducing fees for payment services to citizens

According to the aforementioned announcement, in the previous period the NBS has undertaken numerous activities, which have directly resulted in decisions of all banks that previously, i.e., starting from 1 January 2021, increased fees for payment services to citizens to reduce those fees by 30% from 1 September 2022 or to return them to the level before the increase.

Decision regarding the payment account with basic services

In addition to the above, on 11 August 2022 the NBS passed the Decision on the Payment Account with Basic Services, which, as stated in the announcement, represents a huge step towards the guaranteed service, as it protects the standard of citizens in terms of payment services that are needed for everyday activities.

Namely, the respective decision has limited, i.e., prescribed the price of the payment account with basic services (150 dinars), and specified the guaranteed content of the said service. Thus, citizens who opt for this package of services will be able to: open a dinar currency account in a bank, take cash at the tellers and ATMs of their bank free-of-charge, get a free-of-charge debit card, as well as mobile and e-banking with an unlimited number of transactions at POS via the QR code.

Additionally, in those banks that charge orders via mobile or e-banking, users of the respective package of services will have a 30% discount compared to the lowest price of that order paid by users of other packages, and they will also be able to upgrade it with an additional service (e.g., credit card, foreign currency account, overdraft or check issuance) without having to switch to a more expensive package, while the fee they have to pay for that service is also limited.

Decision amending the decision on the bank risk management

To ensure the future transparent and clear conduct of banks in the event of an intended increase in fees for the provision of payment services, as well as when introducing new fees, on 11 August 2022 the NBS also adopted the Decision on Amendments to the Decision on Bank Risk Management.

The subject regulation, therefore, aims to ensure that the NBS is informed in a timely manner about the planned changes to the banks’ tariff list, which further enables the timely identification of whether the banks’ operations are appropriate, as well as the undertaking of proper activities in this regard, all to ensure a uniform interpretation of the rules and their application at all banks operating in the Republic of Serbia.

This article is to be considered as exclusively informative, with no intention to provide legal advice. If you should need additional information, please contact us directly.

By Lara Maksimovic, Senior Associate, PR Legal

Serbia does not have a foreign investment screening regime comparable to European regimes shaped by the EU FDI Screening Regulation. Rather, Serbia operates a single-sector authorisation system covering the defence sector.

Legal basis

The Production and Trade of Arms and Military Equipment Act (Official Gazette of Serbia no. 36/2018).

Filing requirement

A foreign investment in the field of arms and military equipment manufacturing is defined by the Arms Act as an investment of capital by a foreign investor by way of:

• establishing a company active in the manufacturing of arms and military equipment, either independently or with another domestic or foreign natural or legal person or with the Republic of Serbia;
• recapitalisation of a company active in the manufacturing of arms and military equipment; or
• purchase of capital of a company active in the manufacturing of arms and military equipment.

In this sense, a company active in the manufacturing of arms and military equipment means a company incorporated in Serbia and holding an appropriate licence to produce these items.

All transactions falling under the above criteria need to be notified for foreign investment screening and approval.

Relevant sectors

The current foreign investment screening regime in Serbia is limited to the defence sector, specifically to foreign investments in the production of arms and military equipment.

Process and timetable

Competent authority: Ministry of Defence and the Serbian Government

Mandatory filing requirement: Yes

Filing deadline: There is no filing deadline, but the process of the change of ownership over a company active in the production of arms and military equipment cannot be initiated without prior approval.

Responsibility for filing: The foreign investor is obliged to notify a foreign investment and procure its approval.

Sanctions: The Arms Act provides for penalties if a change of ownership is initiated without the required approval. The range of penalties is approximately EUR 4,200 – 6,000 (RSD 500,000 – 750,000) for companies and EUR 420 – 600 (RSD

50,000 – 75,000) for responsible individuals.

Length of the proceedings: Upon receipt of the request (by the Ministry of Denfence), the Government must issue its decision (which will be based on a proposal of the Ministry of Defence) within 120 days from the date of receipt of the request.

By Danijel Stevanovic, Partner at Moravcevic Vojnovic i Partneri in cooperation with Schoenherr

NKO has advised CTP on the acquisition of Levante Logistics from the Kenzai Group. Stanivuk & Manasijevski advised the seller.

CTP is a Netherlands-based customized industrial and logistics parks developer and manager.

The NKO team was led by Partner Djordje Nikolic and Senior Associate Andjela Mirkovic.

The Stanivuk & Manasijevski team was led by Partner Bojan Stanivuk and included Partner Bojan Manasijevski and Legal Trainee Marko Perovic.

While the world continues its endless battle against the COVID-19 consequences that are affecting all aspects of our social, economic, and political life, Serbian legislation is experiencing a revolution in the energy field. In April 2021, the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia adopted two new laws – the Law on the Use of Renewable Energy Sources and the Law on Energy Efficiency and Rational Use of Energy, as well as amendments to the Energy Law and the Law on Mining and Geological Research.

The most significant novelty is the adoption of the Law on the Use of Renewable Energy Sources, which is an indication of Serbia’s determination to achieve the green energy standards that have already come to life in EU countries. In relation to the Energy Law, which has previously regulated this area very superficially, the Law on the Use of Renewable Energy Sources marks a milestone and navigates Serbia towards the goals it promised to fulfill as a member of the Energy Community and, if implemented as predicted, may certainly advance the country’s EU candidate status. The three main goals set by the Law on the Use of Renewable Energy Sources are (1) a decrease in the utilization of fossil fuels and an increase in the utilization of renewable energy sources in order to protect the environment, (2) the long-term decrease of dependence on energy-generating products, and (3) the creation of new workplaces and development of entrepreneurship in the renewable energy sources sector. It also introduces a new incentive for potential investors in the form of market premiums, which is expected to stimulate investments in renewable energy sources, from both domestic and foreign investors, and thus lead to a continuous increase in the share of renewable energy sources in Serbia’s total gross energy consumption.

In February 2022, the Ministry of Mining and Energy of the Republic of Serbia (Ministry) published a document titled Energy Security of the Republic of Serbia. The document cites short-term and long-term plans and tactics for the improvement of the energy sector, including the establishment of a company called Green Energy of Serbia, as well as achieving decarbonization by the end of 2050. The document criticizes current power engineering, noting that Public Enterprise Elektroprivreda Srbije (PE EPS) has not built a new power plant in the last three decades. Its thermal production blocks are outdated and in bad condition, which often leads to power outages, not to mention that its management is subject to political currents and interests. Still, PE EPS is the most reliable support of Serbia’s energy sector – its thermal power plants produce about 70% of the electricity in Serbia, while about 30% is obtained from hydroelectric power plants. In its document, the Ministry suggests building new, green power plants, installing solar panels in households and industries, and building pumped-storage hydropower plants and energy storage batteries, which would all eventually lead to a shutdown of coal power plants.

The global energy crisis is further fueled by the war in Ukraine. In this sense, it is important to mention that Serbia is almost completely dependent, with 90% of its natural gas being imported from Russia through the Russia-Ukraine-Hungary-Serbia interconnection. In January 2021, Serbia diversified its natural gas supply and is additionally supplied from Bulgaria through the Balkan Stream gas pipeline. The further diversification of routes and suppliers through interconnection with neighboring countries would help Serbia avoid a potential crisis.

Since there is great potential for renewable energy sources in Serbia in water and wind, more than half of a new investment plan drafted by the Ministry (EUR 35 billion) is planned for projects relating to hydropower plants and wind farms. PE EPS currently has 16 hydropower plants with many projects announced, including the construction of two reversible hydropower plants (Djerdap 3 and Bistrica) that could play a big role in the further development of wind parks and solar power plants. The construction of small hydropower plants is mostly obstructed but remains an important issue, much like in neighboring countries.

The energy consumption of Serbia is four times as high as the EU average, caused by a decaying and inefficient energy sector. If the new laws are implemented properly, increased green investments will bring economic development, new jobs, opportunities for new innovations, and an energy-efficient future. The transition to a green economy is also a chance for the recovery of the Serbian economy, and the new laws certainly point out the country’s dedication to achieving these goals.

By Igor Zivkovski, Partner, Zivkovic Samardzic

This Article was originally published in Issue 9.6 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

During the first half of 2022 the Commission for Protection of Competition of the Republic of Serbia (“Commission“) has been very proactive with respect to prevention of competition infringements. As a result of these efforts, in May the Commission also adopted a new Instruction for detecting bid rigging in public procurement procedures (“Instruction“) thereby updating the older version of the Instruction from 2011.

The Instruction aims to prevent bid rigging by helping market participants recognize bid rigging, encouraging market participants to report potential bid rigging and advising market participants on how to reduce the risk of bid rigging in public procurement procedures. The Instruction relies heavily on the ОECD’s Guidelines for fighting bid rigging in public procurement.

1. Introduction

Bid rigging is one of the most flagrant violations of competition law which occurs when competing market participants secretly and jointly coordinate their actions in public procurement procedures. It can take different forms, most commonly manifesting in an agreement of the bidders on who would be the tender winner. Bid rigging deals however do not have to be made in a specific form to represent competition infringements – bid rigging may stem from an oral agreement, from informal contacts or information exchange between competitors too.

To achieve their plans, bidders may agree to take turns in submitting the lowest bid, they may choose participants who will not submit the bid at all or will intentionally submit an uncompetitive bid, etc. The effects of bid rigging are harmful both to the contracting entity and to final consumers as they result in higher prices and lower quality of products or services. Rigging of bids is also detrimental to the public budget and in turn harms all taxpayers.

Sanctions for bid rigging can be very radical. Competition law rules allow for fines in the amount of up to 10% of the total annual revenue the infringing party generated in Serbia, as well as a prohibition to participate in public procurements for two years. Bid rigging is also a criminal offence.

Bid rigging is very high on the Commission’s list of enforcement priorities. Together with resale price maintenance cases, bid rigging is the most common type of restrictive agreement investigated by the Commission. Complaints that trigger the opening of investigations by the Commissions often come directly from the contracting entities that are, by the looks of it, well equipped to recognize the rigging, especially when it takes some of the less sophisticated forms.

One of the Commission’s most notable bid rigging case involved eight participants, including Konica Minolta and Birotehnika and lead to fines of a total of around EUR 500,000, ranging from 3.21% to 7.55% of the annual turnover of the parties. The parties coordinated their participation in public and private procurement procedures for office equipment and provision of office machine repairs with the goal of Konica Minolta’s equipment always winning the bid. To do this, they typically used the bid suppression strategy whereby some of the parties refrained from bidding or withdrew their bids to make Konica Minolta’s bid the winning one. This case was triggered by the first leniency application in a cartel case – the bid rigging scheme was made known to the Commission by Birotehnika for which Birotehnika received a full immunity from the fine.

With the improved Instruction, an uptick of bid rigging related complaints and investigations could be expected in the upcoming period.

2. Typical forms of bid rigging

Strategies for bid rigging are numerous and are often developed in a subtle way to make the contracting entities believe that it is really purchasing the products/services at the lowest price. These strategies usually also uncover the motives behind the competitors’ willingness to take part in bid rigging – they involve mechanisms which guarantee that non-winning bidders also profit from the scheme. For example, competitors who agree not to bid or to submit a losing bid may be selected as the winning bidder’s subcontractor, splitting the profit made from the selected bid.

Some of the most common techniques of bid rigging are the following:

1. simulated / fictitious bid is the most common form of bid rigging; it is designed to give the appearance of genuine competition and it occurs when bidders agree to submit bids which have one of the following characteristics:

a bid is higher than the bid of the designated winner;

• a bid which is unjustifiably high and therefore will certainly not be accepted; or
• a bid contains special terms that are known to be unacceptable to the contracting entity;

2. bid suppression involves agreements among competitors in which one or more competitors agree to refrain from bidding or to withdraw a previously submitted bid so that the designated winner’s bid is accepted; 

3. bid rotation means that competitors participate in the tenders, but they agree that each time some other competitor will be the winner; and 

4. market allocation is a situation where competitors share the market and agree not to compete for certain customers or in certain geographic areas.

3. Bid rigging indicators

During the previous years, the Commission has concluded that certain industries are more likely to be exposed to bid rigging due to their characteristics. Having this in mind, contracting entities active on markets with the following features should be wary of an increased risk of potential bid rigging:

• small number of bidders means that there is a higher chance of competitors making a bid-rigging deal;
• barriers to entry help companies which are already in the market as they are protected from potential new competitive pressure and can stick to their bid-rigging agreements;
• predictable demand / supply conditions are convenient for concluding bid-rigging agreements;
• economic disturbances / uncertainties elevate the risk of bid-rigging agreements, since companies tend to cover their losses by concluding bid-rigging agreements (hence, the contracting entities should be careful in the months or even years following the disturbance);
• trade associations can be used by their members to meet and discuss about concluding bid-rigging agreements;
• repetitive bidding increases the risk of bid-rigging agreements since it helps conspirators allocate the agreements between them and punish the conspirator who does not comply with the bid-rigging agreement; in addition, they establishes predictable behaviour patterns which facilitates collusion; 

• identical or similar products or services help competitors to agree on a rigged price more easily;
• few possible substitutes is a market feature that can benefit a bid rigging scheme in the same way as barriers to entry; and
• little or no technological change helps competitors make a successful long-term bid-rigging strategy.

4. Detecting bid rigging

The aforementioned indicators serve only as a first step in helping identify potential bid rigging. Therefore, in the Instruction the Commission has also listed concrete practices which represent signs of probable bid rigging. These practices have to do with (i) unusual activities during a public procurement, (ii) suspicious documents, (iii) suspicious prices, (iv) suspicious statements and (v) suspicious behaviour. The Commission has instructed contracting entities to notify the Commission whenever they notice the following odd patterns.

Unusual activities during a public procurement:

• the same bidder is always the lowest bidder;
• some bidders are active only in certain geographic areas;
• regular bidder fails to bid on a tender it would normally be expected to bid for;
• some bidders unexpectedly and suddenly withdraw from bidding;
• certain bidders always submit bids but never win;
• two or more bidders submit a joint bid even though at least one of them could have bid on its own;
• the winning bidder subcontracts work to unsuccessful bidders without reporting this;
• the winning bidder does not accept the contract and is later found to be a subcontractor; and
• competitors regularly hold meetings shortly before the deadline for bid submission.

Suspicious documents: 

• identical technical mistakes (typos, etc.) in the documents submitted by different bidders;
• documents of different bidders submitted from the same IP address; and
• bids from different bidders contain a significant number of identical estimates of costs or identical calculation mistakes.

Suspicious prices:

• sudden or identical increases in price by bidders that cannot be explained by cost increases;
• anticipated discounts or rebates are unexpectedly retracted;
• a large difference between the price of a winning bid and other bids;
• a certain bid contains a price that is much higher than the price for the same or similar contract;
• a bid from a new bidder or infrequent bidder contains a significantly reduced price;
• local bidders are bidding higher prices for local delivery than for distant locations; and
• similar transportation costs are specified by local and non-local companies.

In addition to this, identical prices are especially alarming in the following cases:

• bidders’ prices were the same for a long period of time;
• bidders’ prices were previously different from one another;
• bidders’ increased price is not justified by increased costs; and
• bidders eliminated discounts, especially in a market where discounts were historically given.

Suspicious statements: 

• bidders justify their prices by stating that they reflect the recommended market price or that they are standard market price;
• indications that certain companies do not sell in a particular area or to particular customers;
• indications that an area or a customer belongs to another bidder;
• indications that a bidder submitted a courtesy, cover or a symbolic bid; and
• usage of the same terminology by various bidders when explaining price increases.

 Suspicious behaviour:

• bidders meet privately before submitting bids, sometimes even at the location where bids are to be submitted;
• bidders participate in the same event;
• a bidder submits accompanying documentation for a number of bidders;
• a bidder is a market participant from whom it cannot be reasonably expected to successfully complete the contract; and
• a potential bidder brings multiple bids to a bid opening and chooses which bid to submit after determining or assuming who else is bidding.

5. Reducing the risk of bid rigging

In order to promote fruitful and competition-oriented public procurement, the Instruction also contains a number of Commission’s suggestions aimed at contracting entities for designing public procurement procedures that alleviate the risk of bid rigging. The most important and interesting ones are listed below.

First and foremost, contracting entities should be well informed on the types of products/services available on the relevant market and potential suppliers (ie, bidders) before designing public procurement procedures. They should be familiar with prices and recent changes of prices, characteristics of the market, previous similar public procurements, etc.

Contracting entities should tend to organize the tender in a way that attracts as much bidders as possible. Small number of bidders means that there is a higher chance of competitors making a bid-rigging deal. To make this happen, they should not set up strict limitations and requirements for taking part in the tender. Instead, they should lower the costs of bid preparation and, if possible, let smaller companies compete for some parts of the contract too.

Contracting entities should explain in detail what they aim to get from the public procurement and should define the conditions and requirements for participation as clearly as possible. The reason is that the Commission concluded that detailed requirements and explanations make public procurements seem more legitimate and attractive to potential bidders.

The criteria for evaluating and awarding the contract should also be defined in a clear and careful way. This has a positive effect on intensity and efficiency of competition and it attracts credible bidders.

Contracting entities should also aim to reduce communication among bidders. In this respect, they should have meetings with potential bidders separately and use electronic bidding instead of in-person bid submission. When publishing tender results, contracting entities should carefully consider which information is published and should avoid disclosing competitively sensitive information as this can aid the conclusion of bid-rigging agreements in the future. In addition, contracting entities should be wary when engaging consultants to conduct a public procurement procedure, as they may have established working relationships with some of the other bidders.

Last but not the least, contracting entities should raise awareness among employees about the risks of bid rigging. This can be done by implementing a regular training program on bid rigging and cartel detection, appointing a person responsible for receiving complaints regarding public procurement procedures, establishing internal procedures that encourage or require officials to report suspicious statements and behaviour to the Commission, etc.

6. Notes for bidders

The Instruction’s primary function is to assist contracting entities recognize bid rigging and flag any suspicious behaviour to the Commission, but bidders should also pay careful attention to them.

Companies that take part in public tenders should be wary of the types of behaviour and practices that may be suspicious to contracting entities and should aim to avoid them as even the behaviour that is in essence benign can prima facie raise concerns and lead to scrutiny of the authorities. This is especially important in case of contacts with other bidders or discussions on bid related information.

Companies can also use the Instruction to educate their employees and encourage them to learn more about the risks of bid rigging, its typical forms, indicators, etc, as part of internal compliance processes.

By Anja Tasic, Partner, Radovanovic Stojanovic & Partners

The Regional (Labour) Court in Schleswig-Holstein (Germany) has recently passed a judgement ordering the personal data controller to pay EUR 2,000 in compensation of non-material damage for the violation of personal data, as a result of publishing a promotional video featuring the employee without its informed and written consent.

Facts

Namely, the plaintiff in this case was employed with the controller, and – when making a video for the purposes of advertising of the subject employer (which was then published on YouTube) – it verbally agreed to be filmed in his work environment, on which occasion, however, the respective data subject was not informed in detail about the purpose of this filming and its rights in that regard.

The plaintiff subsequently objected to the use of the subject video and claimed damages, following which the controller removed it from YouTube.

Holding

According to the judgement, the operator violated the provisions of the GDPR by making a video of the plaintiff and publishing it without the plaintiff’s written consent and notification on the purpose of personal data processing, and the right to withdraw the given consent.

In addition to the above, the court took the position that the plaintiff does not need to prove that the damage occurred, given that, according to the provision 82(1) of the GDPR, a breach of the GDPR itself constitutes non-material damage.

The court also confirmed that the damage endured in this case can amount to a maximum of EUR 2,000, since the controller did not film the employee in private situation, nor did it discriminate the said data subject, as well as given that there was prior verbal consent of the employee. Additionally, the damage was mitigated by removing the disputed video immediately upon receiving the employee’s request.

The right to the compensation of damages according to the Law on Personal Data Protection

Provisions of Article 86 of the Law on Personal Data Protection (Official Gazette of RS no. 87/2018) stipulate that a person who suffered material or non-material damage due to the violation of provisions of this piece of regulation is entitled to the monetary compensation from the controller, i.e., processor who caused such damage. The controller is responsible for damage, while the processor shall be held accountable only provided that it did not act in accordance with the obligations prescribed by this law which directly apply to it, or in case it acted outside or contrary to the instructions of the controller, issued in accordance with the law.

If material or non-material damage is caused by illegal processing carried out by competent authority for special purposes, i.e., by violation of provisions of the law relating to the processing of such data, a person who endured damage shall be entitled to the compensation from the controller or another competent authority against whom a claim for damages can be filed, in accordance with the law.

Controller, i.e., processor shall be released from responsibility for damage if it proves that it is in no way responsible for its occurrence.

If the processing is carried out by several controllers, i.e., processors, or jointly by the controller and the processor, provided that they are responsible for the damage, each controller, i.e., processor shall be responsible for the entire amount of damages. If the controller or processor pays the entire amount of compensation of damages, it shall be entitled to claim return of a part of the paid amount from other controllers, i.e., processors, which corresponds to their responsibility for the occurrence of damage.

This article is to be considered as exclusively informative, with no intention to provide legal advice. If you should need additional information, please contact us directly.

By Lara Maksimovic, Senior Associate, PR Legal

BDK Advokati, working with Kirkland & Ellis, has advised Francisco Partners on its acquisition of SAP Litmos from SAP.

Closing is expected in the fourth quarter of 2022, pending regulatory approval.

Litmos develops e-learning solutions for companies, including the SAP Litmos Training learning management system and the SAP Litmos Training Content, a course library.

Francisco Partners is a global investment firm that focuses on technology and technology-enabled businesses.

SAP is a German company specializing in enterprise application software.

“We are tremendously excited to partner with Litmos to further unlock its growth potential and deliver even more to its customers and partners,” FP Partners Jason Brein and Christine Wang commented. “As an independent company partnering with Francisco Partners, Litmos will have more flexibility to focus all of its investments and operations on customer success and increase its customer happiness by augmenting platform capabilities, proprietary content library, and third-party integrations.”

Karanovic & Partners has advised the Green for Growth Fund on extending a EUR 10 million loan facility to UniCredit Bank Serbia.

According to the firm, the loan is part of GGF’s efforts to provide finance for energy efficiency and renewable energy investments in the Southeast Europe region.

Earlier this year, Karanovic & Partners advised GGF on extending a RSD 1.7 billion loan facility to UniCredit Bank Serbia for the same purposes (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on January 17, 2022).

The Karanovic & Partners team was led by Partner Maja Jovancevic Setka and Associate Dimitrije Ilic.