Category: Slovakia

  • Igor Augustinic Named Equity Partner at BPV Braun Partners

    Igor Augustinic Named Equity Partner at BPV Braun Partners

    Bratislava-based lawyer Igor Augustinic has been named equity partner at BPV Braun Partners.

    Augustinic heads the firm’s Bratislava office, where his expertise, according to BPV, “has given the office an excellent reputation in the business community.”

    “Igor’s advancement is a positive reflection on his abilities as a manager, his professional expertise and impeccable work ethic,” comments Arthur Braun, Managing Partner at BPV Braun Partners. “Our office now has its first Slovak equity partner, highlighting our faith in the potential of the Slovak market and the international character of our firm. We trust that this step will help strengthen our already successful position on the Slovak market.”

    Igor Augustinic focuses primarily on banking and financial law, real estate law, and companies law. He also handles mergers and acquisitions and competition law. As equity partner, he will continue leading the Bratislava office, where he has worked as partner since April 2014.

    Augustinic came to BPV Braun Partners after previously working with Gleiss Lutz and CHSH in Prague and Bratislava. He has worked on several major transactions for domestic and international companies, especially in real estate, finance, and the automotive industry. He studied law at Comenius University in Bratislava, Karl-Franzens-Universitat in Graz, Charles University in Prague, and the University of Vienna. 

     

  • Wilsons Represents Reico in Slovakia Logistics Park Acquisition

    Wilsons Represents Reico in Slovakia Logistics Park Acquisition

    Wilsons has represented Reico in its CZK 990 million acquisition of a newly built logistics park in Dubnica nad Vahom, Slovakia, from Invest4See.

    The major tenants of the logistics park are Continental, Lidl, and Heineken.

    The Wilsons team included Partners Alan Spanvirt and Peter Gruca and Senior Lawyers Monika Kajankova, Zuzana Bury, and Juraj Piatka.

    Wilsons did not reply to an inquiry on the matter. 

     

  • E&H and Noerr Advise Vienna House on Acquisition of Vienna House Easy Bratislava

    E&H and Noerr Advise Vienna House on Acquisition of Vienna House Easy Bratislava

    Eisenberger & Herzog and Noerr Bratislava have advised Vienna House on the March 1, 2018 acquisition of Vienna House Easy Bratislava as part of an asset deal from Strabag Real Estate GmbH, which was advised by Havel & Partners Bratislava. Financial details wre not disclosed.

    The Vienna House Easy Bratislava hotel, which has been under the management of Vienna House for the past nine years, is planned to be renovated and remodeled during the third and fourth quarters of 2018.

    The Eisenberger & Herzog team was led by Partners Alric Ofenheimer and Clemens Lanschutzer. The team also included Partner Marcus Benes, and Associates Ladislav Bulajcsik, Krzysztof Nowak, and Karoline Hofmann.

    A Noerr Bratislava team consisting of Partner Pavol Rak and Senior Associate Martin Tupek served as Local Counsel to the buyer.

    Havel & Partners did not reply to an inquiry about the deal.

    Image Source: viennahouse.com

     

  • Amending the Slovak Commercial Code: Wielding a Double-Edged Sword to Protect Creditors

    In Slovakia, the purposeful avoidance of insolvency and liquidation proceedings by failed companies (including VAT carrousel fraudsters) has developed into a common market standard.

    After the wild abuse of restructuring proceedings was shut off in 2016, evasive tactics focused mainly on the use of illicit mergers involving multiple companies – in some cases dozens or even hundreds of insolvent companies – being merged into another specially-created or acquired company, which was then deleted from the Commercial Register.

    Diverse Act Amendments to Eliminate Loopholes

    The government chose to react with an amendment to the Commercial Code (and other acts, including the Criminal Code and Insolvency Act). Attorneys from Taylor Wessing Bratislava participated in the process leading to the adoption of the Commercial Code amendment (the “Amendment”), which will enter into force on January 1, 2018 (the newly-amended merger rules and criminal law provisions became effective on November 8, 2017).

    The aim of the Amendment is to tackle the misuse of mergers and to tighten the liability of actors who are involved in illicit practices. Therefore, besides new procedural rules that render mergers of insolvent companies next to impossible, the Amendment also introduces elements of corporate group law that were missing from Slovak corporate law. 

    Focus on Liabilities of Directors

    The concept of de facto directorship targets natural and legal person(s) who factually exercise powers of a director without being formally appointed. De facto directors may be held liable just like appointed directors for breaches of the obligation to act with due care in the interests of the company and all its shareholders. This may also trigger liability of a parent company that interferes in the affairs of its subsidiary beyond its shareholders’ rights. 

    The corporate veil is also pierced by the introduction of another group law element inspired by the German case law called “Existenzvernichtender Eingriff,” which allows controlling shareholders to be held liable for damages when they significantly contribute to the bankruptcy of the controlled person.

    The Amendment also increases directors’ liability for failing to file for bankruptcy when the company’s assets do not cover its liabilities (i.e., “over-indebtedness”). In addition to the capped statutory penalty for late filing directors may now face damages claims from individual creditors not satisfied by the insolvency proceedings. Successful prosecution of such claims will result in the disqualification of the director for three years.

    New liabilities of directors and shareholders are formulated as liabilities to creditors, not towards the company. The bankruptcy will then no longer be a final collective resort for creditor satisfaction. Individual creditors may be more motivated to pursue claims than bankruptcy trustees. However, there is a risk of “vindictive” damages claims that may unfairly affect diligent directors and liability is – in terms of satisfaction – never more effective than well-drafted clawback regulation.

    The introduction of criminal liability in the Amendment for directors who fail to file for bankruptcy was added late in the legislative process and is actually a step too far. Though it resembles the German concept of Insolvenzverschleppung, the sentences are far more draconian, and, as it immediately makes the directors of the tens of thousands of companies which fell “dormant” in previous years potentially criminally liable, its retroactive application is unfair. Worse yet, viable companies with negative equity may become victims of bullying criminal charges. 

    Any analysis of the Amendment requires an understanding of the underlying reasons for the existence of the loopholes it aims to fill: In general, these reasons include the weakness of institutional actors, an overly-formalistic approach, and the inability of courts to develop case-law principles that would curb the conflicts of interests typical for companies with concentrated ownership. As institutional improvement is a long-term task, the legislator was forced to explicitly formulate such principles and coupled stricter liability with granting more enforcement initiative to individual private creditors. This approach cannot be subtle and the result is inevitably a blunt yet double-edged sword; it prevents certain illicit practices, but will also negatively affect diligent debtors. The amendment should be welcomed as a “handbrake,” providing immediate relief, but in no way should it be seen as the end of the road towards a fairer business environment.

    By Radovan Pala and Juraj Frindrich, Partners, Taylor Wessing Slovakia 

    This Article was originally published in Issue 4.12 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • Dentons Secures Acquittal in Controversial Glance House Case in Slovakia

    Dentons Secures Acquittal in Controversial Glance House Case in Slovakia

    Dentons has secured an acquittal for businessman Robert Ciz and his spouse Adriana Cizova, who were accused of large-scale fraud involving the Glance House apartment building, located in the Slovakian village of Bernolakovo, near Bratislava.

    The defendants were accused of fraudulently attempting to acquire the company that constructed and owned the Glance House building. The couple claimed that the company belonged to their family and accused the prosecution of being manipulated by a well-known criminal syndicate trying to possess the disputed property. 

    On January 29, 2018, the Bratislava II District Court ruled that no fraud was committed and acquitted the Ciz family of all charges. According to the presiding judge, the company’s ownership remains unclear.

    Prosecutor Dobroslav Trnka has appealed the judgment. 

    Dentons Counsel Daniel Lipsic represented Robert Ciz and Adriana Cizova in court.

    According to Dentons, the firm is also acting in four other civil cases before the Bratislava II District Court arising from the Glance House case which are directly related to these criminal proceedings. Slovakia Managing Partner Peter Kubina is leading on these matters.

     

  • Proposal for Temporary Approach to Taxation of Virtual Currencies in Slovakia

    In 2008 Satoshi Nakamoto published a white-paper outlining electronic cash peer-to-peer transactions known as Bitcoin, the first virtual currency based on a technology known as blockchain. Virtual currencies present a new digital asset class that is still in a grey area in terms of defining the actual asset. This creates difficulties and uncertainty in the area of taxation of profits arising from the owning, holding, or disposing of the given assets. 

    Unbundling the Term

    Blockchain is a distributed ledger technology for peer-to-peer transactions using decentralized storage of transaction data. This has been proposed as a viable alternative for trusted transaction mechanisms and promises efficiency gains such as faster processes, safe execution, and records immutability, and the advantages of no central point of failure. Market capitalization of virtual currencies has skyrocketed in recent months from below USD 10 billion to above USD 150 billion. 

    Broadly speaking, there are generally two types of virtual currencies: (1) Cryptocurrencies, including digital assets such as Bitcoin or Litecoin, representing an autonomous monetary regime of digital currencies in which encryption techniques are used to regulate the generation of units of currency and verify the transactions of funds; and (2) Utility tokens, representing a license to use a particular service, which work as an essential element of a self-sustaining system acting as a common good such as Ethereum. 

    Virtual Currencies and Tax in Practice

    From a legal perspective, transactions based on blockchain can be classified as property, barter, currency, or a financial instrument. Although the value of virtual currencies can increase over time, because of their unclear classification and varying characteristics and uses there is no answer on taxation of capital gains arising from their disposal. Any objective increase in the value of assets in realization generally triggers capital gain tax under Slovak law. In case of exit taxes, a tax is even imposed on gains deemed to have arisen on assets that were transferred to another jurisdiction due to change of tax residency, although there is no realization of capital gain. It follows from this that a taxable event should occur.  

    If a capital gain tax is applicable, how is the tax base calculated when the value cannot be effectively measured in traditional currency? Is virtual currency a security? Would a loss from such a transaction be included into the tax base of a taxpayer? Is the deemed income from the disposal of virtual currency considered ordinary income or capital gain? Is trading with virtual currencies an entrepreneurship? If there is a cross-border aspect, where is the source of income? Which country has taxing rights? Should a tax be imposed only on a factual disposal of the virtual currency or even in cases of latent gain? In the absence of harmonization, how would a regulator avoid the risk of juridical double taxation?  

    Given these many technical considerations, there are some reasons to believe that scrutinizing gains from blockchain transactions would not be in line with the principle of legal certainty, which is embodied in the very first article of the Slovak constitution and is common in EU jurisprudence. It is a fundamental principle, which requires that legal provisions be clear and precise and that the way in which certain economic relationships are governed be foreseeable. 

    There are also practical challenges, as disposal of the digital asset is hardly trackable, especially if there is no exit from the digital area. In the absence of a global platform on automatic exchange of information, it appears quite unlikely that Slovak administrators would be active in engaging treaty partners with the aim to receive data about customer account information from platforms such as Coinbase, Kraken, etc. Also, the existence of decentralized exchanges such as EtherDelta with no third-party administrator minimizes the ability to conduct compliance.

    Temporary Solution and Learning Curve

    In the current environment it could be reasonably argued that potential capital gains arising from disposal of virtual currencies should not trigger any taxation until regulators reach a full understanding of the underlying complexities associated with this emerging asset class. In this respect, we encourage regulators reaching out to experts in the field to accelerate their learning curve, as virtual currencies may become commonly used for tax evasion or money laundering.

    By Peter Varga, CEO, Carpathian Advisory Group, and Mattia Gagliardi, Co-Founder, Scytale Ventures

    This Article was originally published in Issue 4.11 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • Dispute Resolution in Slovakia

    So far, 2017 has been a very challenging year for dispute resolution in Slovakia, as several new laws changing the current approach to court proceedings and arbitration have entered into force. Practitioners as well as the courts need, therefore, to balance the old rules (which are to some extent still applicable to ongoing proceedings) with the new rules.   

    Mandatory Activation of Electronic Mailboxes and Mandatory Electronic Communication: As part of the introduction of e-government in Slovakia, on July 1, 2017 electronic mailboxes (“e-boxes”) established by the state for all legal entities to provide electronic communication with public authorities were automatically activated. 

    Many courts started to communicate with parties exclusively via these now-activated e-boxes. According to the procedural rules, delivery to an e-box is considered successful even where the e-box is not checked by the owner. The exceptions to this rule are few and ignoring the e-box can have significant consequences (e.g., in the form of adverse court rulings). 

    Company executives such as executive directors, members of the boards of directors, and administrators of foundations are identified as “users” of the companies´ e-boxes by default under Slovak law, and other natural persons can be added by a special authorization form. A user needs to own a special identification card or an alternative form of identification issued by the Slovak Police. This has led to problems for users who are non-Slovak and do not live in Slovakia, but in practice this problem is usually resolved by authorizing an additional employee or external advisor (e.g., a law firm). 

    New Procedure for Payment Orders: As of February 1, 2017, a new court procedure can be used for payments orders. The main goals of this new procedure are to speed up and simplify the issuing of payment orders – and it seems they have been achieved. 

    The Banska Bystrica District Court is provided with exclusive jurisdiction over this new procedure for payment orders. Petitions are to be filed solely by electronic means, and the court fee has been reduced to 50% (i.e., in general 3% of the claimed amount). The court is obliged to issue its decision within ten working days following the submission of the petition and payment of the court fee. 

    New Enforcement Rules: In connection with the introduction of e-government, a change of the enforcement procedure (i.e., executions) also became effective on April 1, 2017. As of that date, any communication involving the enforcement procedure can be made solely via electronic means.

    In addition, the Banska Bystrica District Court was given exclusive jurisdiction for enforcement procedures.

    New Civil Dispute Order: New procedural rules entered into force on July 1, 2016, and the first year of their use has involved many challenges for both the parties to proceedings and the courts themselves. 

    The most significant issue tackled by the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic so far, in this context, involved the specific grounds for an extraordinary appeal. The new Civil Dispute Order contains two separate provisions with two separate sets of grounds for extraordinary appeal. In practice, the two legal provisions have usually been combined, with several appeal grounds stated in the extraordinary appeal. The Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic has decided that such a combination is not allowed – extraordinary appeals can only list a ground from one of the two legal provisions – and that extraordinary appeals with combinations of grounds from both provisions are to be dismissed. 

    Commercial Arbitration: Due to some negative experience with local arbitration courts, a set of strict rules has been adopted. The final change, which entered into force on January 1, 2017, stipulates that only the National Sports Federation or a chamber established under a special law (for example, the Slovak Bar Association or Chamber of Commerce) can establish a permanent arbitration court in the Slovak Republic.

    Permanent arbitration courts that do not satisfy these criteria cannot try and decide cases, and arbitration proceedings that were ongoing before such arbitration courts were stopped as of December 31, 2016 (unless the parties expressly authorized their continuation) and arbitration clauses involving such arbitration courts need no longer be honored for proceedings not yet commenced.

    By Jana Cernakova, Partner and Miroslav Zatko, Associate, Cechova & Partners

    This Article was originally published in Issue 4.8 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • The Buzz in Slovakia: Interview with Adrian Barger of Barger Prekop

    The Buzz in Slovakia: Interview with Adrian Barger of Barger Prekop

    “Basically Slovakia is doing quite well in terms of macro-economic data,” says Adrian Barger, Partner at Slovakia’s Barger Prekop law firm.

    “The economy is among the fastest-growing in the EU and Eurozone, with GDP growth steady at about three percent. And it is expected to grow even faster in 2018 and 19, exceeding four percent.” Barger says that “the main driving force behind the growth is exports — Slovakia is a heavily export-oriented economy — driven by automative engineering, and in the past few years by private consumption, meaning Slovakian private individuals are spending more money, because salaries have been growing, and the general environment is very optimistic, so people are willing to spend more money both on consumer goods and on investments.” Barger says that mortgage market is “particularly strong, with really low interests and a high ratio of financing. People are willing to invest in real estate, not just for their own circumstances, but also for investment.”

    Barger says he and his colleagues are keeping an eye on the growing real estate bubble. “Prices,” he says “especially in Bratislava, but also in other cities like Nitra (where the Jaguar/Land Rover construction facility is being constructed), are growing. People are moving to those cities to work, and real estate prices are going up as a result. There are signs that the bubble will burst, though nobody knows exactly when that will happen. Growth is really high — in some regions and categories about 10% per annum — and we are seeing the same signs we saw in the previous crisis in 2007 and 8, when people were buying apartments without even seeing them, and buying real estate purely as investments.” According to the Barger, “the National Bank is already cautious about it and is taking some precautionary measures, such as putting pressure on the commercial banks to decrease the amount of mortgage financing. Until recently it was common for banks to pay 100% of the purchase price. Now that percentage is decreasing, so that fewer people will be able to afford financing.” He pauses. “Whether this will suffice is still a question.”

    Barger, whose firm has a strong real estate practice, says that he and his colleagues are busy at the moment with development and investment projects, “especially in the retail and industrial sectors.” He sees a significant amount of interest in construction of industrial parks around Bratislava and the principal industrial hubs where the car manufacturers are located, but he says “there’s not enough land. There’s enough money, and interest, but available land for development is scarce.”

    “There’s also a lot of Corporate/M&A in the market,” Barger reports. “I would break this down into two main areas: The first is traditional Corporate/M&A, involving foreign investors coming in to buy businesses or set up their own branches. The other area where we see a lot of activity is the result of the change of generations, where the founding fathers of small and medium enterprises are slowly exiting and are trying to find successors to take over their businesses.” Barger says, “that’s not a new phenomenon, but there’s a lot of activity on the mid-market segment of between EUR 5 and 20 million as a result.”

    Moving to the topic of significant legislation, Barger describes “a lot of pressure on transparency and AML legislation.” According to him, “in February of this year a new Act on Public Sector Partners came into effect, which forces businesses dealing with the public sector to disclose ownership structure up to the level of ultimate beneficial owners. What it does is basically force the businesses to hire external parties — either an attorney or a tax advisor or an auditor or a bank — to verify their ownership structures.” This, of course, entails significant responsibility for those experts. “These advisors are liable for the completeness and accuracy of the date disclosed,” Barger says, “so there’s a lot of pressure to do it correctly, and the data disclosed in the publicly-available and online register is more complete than in the past.” According to him, “the law has been accepted by the business community, generally, and it’s producing some fruit already in terms of bringing some transparency and the ability to work with the data and disclose the connections between various stakeholders.”

    Barger says that this new requirement “represents a new revenue stream for law firms,” especially because “there’s an obligation ot update the data on at least an annual basis, which requires the companies to undergo the same exercise every year.” He says, “not everybody is doing the work, because it involves increased liability, and the law firms do not have all the data that is being supplied under control, but many law firms have found new revenue in the process. Especially because banks have not been active in the verification process at all. So most of it has been done by attorneys or tax accountants or auditors.”

    “Also connected to the push for transparency and recent AML legislation is the amendment to the Commercial Code that was adopted by the Parliament in October 2017,” Barger says. “The amendment is designed to fight tax evasion and tax fraud and creditor fraud by making it more difficult for companies to disappear leaving large debt behind either to debtors or the state. It imposes an obligation on merging companies to run an audit and to determine the value of assets and liabilities even where the companies, before the merger, where not obliged to retain an auditor.” He says, “so this is making mergers and spin-offs more difficult than in the past. Also persons who have debts with social insurance companies or the tax office will not be able to set up new companies.” The amended law, which is currently awaiting the President’s signature, is scheduled to come into force on January 1, 2018.

    Looking back on these two new pieces of legislation, Barger says, shows that both represent “the effort to increase transparency.” He says, “there is a lot of focus on compliance, and we see rules on corporate governance and position of compliance officers in companies getting more and more important.” The significance for the legal industry is difficult to miss. According to Barger, “this side of business will generate a lot of potential for legal business in this area.”

    “The last bit,” Barger says, “are the new Procedural Codes that came into force in July 2016, but really, 2017 was the first year when we saw full application of these codes in the Slovak courts. These are completely new Civil Procedure rules and Administrative Procedural rules that are aimed to make the process more efficient by introducing certain new institutions which were previously not available, including various interim injunctions.” In addition, he says, “evidence collection and gathering of proof and evaluation of evidence has changed significantly.” He is encouraged by the changes. “I think in general this was a step forward. The previous codes originated in the 1960s, and although they were amended many times in the 90s and 2000s, those codes were not able to cope with the new situations, and the number of cases in the courts, so the time was right to adopt replacements. We are already seeing that the procedure in courts is more effective and less rigid, and these new codes allow us to communicate better with the courts during proceedings.”

    Finally, Barger speaks positively of the Slovakian state’s commitment to moving towards an “e-government.” He explains that “since July of this year, all businesses must communicate with the state and the public sector electronically, and the public sector is communicating with businesses only in electronic form. This represents an enormous effort by the state. It is quite new, but from my personal experience I approve of it. It saves us and clients substantial time, although there are many practical problems with the system.” He reports the recent discovery that by researchers at the University of Brno that the electronic certificates in state identification cards are badly encrypted, leading the Slovakian Ministry of the Interior to cancel the certificates in all (the hundreds of thousands) issued ID cards as a precaution, meaning that card holders are no longer able to sign the documents electronically. “There is big uncertainty about what’s going to happen in the coming weeks,” he says, as the Ministry has to engage a new supplier to prepare new encryption, which should take 5-7 weeks, leaving communication channels severely limited in the interim. Still, he expresses confidence that this will, ultimately, be a small blip in an otherwise successful roll-out. “Eventually the e-government will move forward, and this is a good step.”

  • Juraj Fuska Becomes Partner as Part of White & Case’s Global Promotion Round

    Juraj Fuska Becomes Partner as Part of White & Case’s Global Promotion Round

    Slovakian lawyer Juraj Fuska has been promoted to Partner at White & Case — the only CEE lawyer among the 31 joining the firm’s partnership as part of its global promotion round.

    Fuska is part of White & Case’s Global Mergers & Acquisitions Practice. According to the firm, “his extensive experience includes mergers and acquisitions, corporate matters, employment, greenfield investments, securities offerings and insurance advisory on behalf of a variety of Slovak and European institutions.” Among the clients he has advised are Allianz AG, RWE Gas, and NAY Holding, along with PSA Peugeot Citroen, Visteon Corporation, and Johnson Controls. He has also advised the Slovak Republic on a number of matters, including the issue of two series of Samurai bonds in 2013 and the privatizations of Transpetrol, Vseobecna Uverova Banka, and Slovenska Sporitelna.

    Fuska joined White & Case in 2000 and became a Local Partner in 2012. 

  • Taylor Wessing, Majernik & Mihalikova, and AKF Advise on GA Drilling Investment Round

    Taylor Wessing, Majernik & Mihalikova, and AKF Advise on GA Drilling Investment Round

    Taylor Wessing Bratislava has advised GA Drilling on its recently-closed investment round that saw new significant investors enter the company, including a strong local private equity group (ARKON, a.s.), a venture capital fund (Slovak Venture Fund S.C.A.), and a global multi-asset class fund (InfraPartners Management). Majernik & Mihalikova advised ARKON, AKF Lawyers represented Slovak Venture Fund S.C.A., and Havel, Holasek & Partners represented existing GA Drilling shareholder Schoeller-Bleckmann Oilfield Equipment AG.

    According to Taylor Wessing, its advice included “setting up the terms of the investment round, negotiating contractual/shareholders’ relationships between the current as well as the new shareholders, corporate advice, and assisting the company during due diligence exercises.”  Taylor Wessing’s lawyers provided legal advice to the company GA Drilling, a. s. during its recent multi-million investment round. 

    GA Drilling is a high-tech company developing and commercializing the Plasmabit technology platform, which, according to Taylor Wessing, “enables massive time and cost savings compared to relevant existing drilling technologies and opens up vast new possibilities in oil & gas, geothermal energy, mining, and tunneling. Subscale field prototype and all components of GA Drilling’s core technology have been already demonstrated in drilling and casing milling. The team of 100+ professionals has successfully accomplished the first ever plasma milling underwater and the first ever plasma milling in HP/HT environment.”

    Igor Kocis, the co-founder and CEO of GA Drilling, claimed that “the successful investment round proves the technological progress and high potential of GA Drilling,” and that “it accelerates achieving the next technology readiness level for validation and further prototype demonstration in the oil and gas environment.”

    Radovan Pala, Taylor Wessing Bratislava Managing Partner, commented that: “this investment round was immensely challenging given the fact that not only were new investors entering the company, but there was also a need to negotiate new contractual terms with the existing shareholders. There were several layers of relations between the different groups of shareholders, namely, the founders, seed investors, other existing shareholders and the new investors. This investment round would not have been successfully closed without the drive of all the parties involved and without their commitment to support further development of the GA Drilling company. Speaking on behalf of our team of lawyers involved in this transaction, it was a pleasure to work for one of the most promising technology companies and a possible unicorn.”

    In addition to Pala, Taylor Wessing’s team consisted of Partners Juraj Frindrich and Jan Lazur and Associate Marek Anderle.

    The Majernik & Mihalikova team was led by Partner Katarina Mihalikova, supported by Associate Ivan Kormanik. 

    The AKF team was led by Partner Artur Fried, and included Rudolf Pfeffer and Rebecca Wilson.