Category: Interviews

  • The Cutting Edge: The Technology Team at Kochanski & Partners

    Blockchain, Cloud Computing, and Artificial Intelligence are more than buzzwords – they are concepts critical to the rapid technological development occurring across all industries. We spoke to Partners Piotr Galka, Piotr Kaniewski, and Szymon Ciach in Kochanski & Partners’ Technology team to learn more.

    CEELM: Szymon, let’s start with you. What it is the current cloud computing market status in Poland/CEE?

    Szymon: It is growing dynamically. According to the Computerworld TOP200 report, in 2019, companies interviewed for the study reported an almost 30% increase in net revenue from the sale of cloud services. In the same report, 51% of those surveyed associated the future of their company with cloud technologies. We also notice a strong focus on adopting cloud technologies within the financial sector, as business needs and regulatory frameworks mature. Cloud datacentres are also on a rising tide in Poland. In 2019 Google announced a plan to invest up to USD 2 billion in a Polish data center, and Microsoft followed suit in 2020 by announcing a new cloud data center outside Warsaw. As data residency is a sensitive compliance topic, especially in the financial sector, we expect the new CEE cloud regions of leading suppliers to provide strong incentive for wider cloud adoption.

    CEELM: What are the typical cloud projects you work on?

    Piotr Galka: The Coronavirus pandemic has greatly accelerated the need to adopt cloud computing technology. In line with this, our main role is to help our clients adopt cloud technology in a secure way.

    Our experience of working with clients from regulated industries has allowed us to help large financial organizations, which operate in a regulated environment. This past year we helped financial organizations to implement Microsoft365 and AWS services, and we are now in the process of helping a large international financial group build a European marketplace based on cloud services.   

    CEELM: What are the key obstacles to cloud computing adoption?

    Piotr Galka: In my view, a major call is now sounding the need for rapid adoption of cloud technologies. On the other hand, there are still very few specialists on the market who are familiar with cloud technology, which causes significant challenges for organizations wishing to implement it.

    CEELM: What are the legal challenges for an enterprise in Poland to use cloud?

    Piotr Kaniewski: We are seeing two major legal challenges concerning cloud computing. The first is data protection – in particular, personal data protection. Although most of these problems are covered by cloud providers (they’re quite common across the EU), fires break out from time to time. I’m thinking, for example, about the recent CJEU judgement in the Schrems II case, which made it very difficult to transfer personal data to the USA.

    The second and even greater challenge is sectoral regulation, especially banking regulation. Polish legislation regarding liability and subcontracting chains is quite unique in Europe and requires cloud providers to take a specific approach to Polish banks. Moreover, ensuring the compliance of cloud contracts with regulatory requirements continues to pose an intellectual challenge. The Polish Financial Supervisory Authority still shows little sensitivity to the specifics of highly standardized cloud contracts. But we’re not complaining; it’s much better than it was two or three years ago, and the future looks very positive.

    CEELM: What is the future regulatory landscape for cloud computing in Europe?

    Szymon: We can expect a tsunami of regulations to arrive in the near future, as cloud computing is considered fundamental to the development of the EU’s data Digital Single Market. The European Commission is working intensively to execute its Data Strategy, aiming to ensure a more secure and interoperable cloud infrastructure and services for European businesses. The idea is to set up a framework for access, transparency, and compliance for cloud services within the EU. To this end, it is planned, among other things, to facilitate European marketplaces for cloud services, where users can access EU-compliant services. Interestingly, the European Commission expects a shift by 2025 from centralized computing to 80% of all data being processed in smart devices closer to the user (edge computing). This is strongly related to the incoming new generation of telecommunication technologies – 5G – which will multiply the computing power of small devices. Regulatory attention will be paid to the free flow of non-personal data, cybersecurity, and cloud use by the financial sector.

    The financial sector and its IT suppliers should be especially vigilant, as the European Commission has recently formulated a Proposal for a Regulation on digital operational resilience for the financial sector, together with an associated directive. These regulations will set up new, common, GDPR-like rules for mitigating ICT risks by financial institutions. This regulation will certainly have a knock-on effect on cloud services within the EU as well.

    CEELM: Are the problems of cloud computing relevant to the adoption of other technologies?

    Piotr Kaniewski: They’re key to the adoption of artificial intelligence solutions. Many of them are being offered by cloud providers as part of cloud services. Even if not, AI solutions need the cloud, which is not only an environment for AI development and training but also a source of computing power and storage for datasets analysis to be carried out by AI.

    It’s hard to imagine the widespread use of AI in Poland without the necessary supporting cloud infrastructure, which can mean a critical risk for the Polish economy. If participants in the market do not respond to competitors’ rapid adoption of cloud and AI, they may simply be left behind as competitors gain an unreachable market advantage. So you can see how significant it is that these changes are adopted as quickly as possible.

    This Article was originally published in Issue 7.12 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • Inside Out: Wordline’s Acquisition of GoPay

    On September 24, 2020, CEE Legal Matters reported that Baker McKenzie’s Prague office had advised Worldline SA/NV on its acquisition of a 53% of stake in GoPay. JSK and Urban & Hejduk advised the sellers on the deal, Pavel Schwarz Jr. and BUDEX Direct.

    The Players:

    Counsel for Worldline SA/NV: Libor Basl, Partner, Baker McKenzie

    Counsel for Pavel Schwarz Jr. and BUDEX Direct: Katerina Mala, Partner, Urban & Hejduk; and Tomas Dolezil, Partner, JSK

    CEELM: Libor, how did you and Baker McKenzie become involved in this matter? Why and when were you selected by Worldline as external counsel initially?

    Libor: Worldline is a subsidiary of Atos, which is a global leader in digital services. Atos is one of our valued clients, and we have assisted them on a number of transactions over the last few years, including the merchant-acquiring alliance between Worldline and Komercni Banka in 2016. Within the Atos group, Worldline is responsible for the delivery of technologically advanced payment services. So when Worldline was searching for legal representation in the Czech Republic for this transaction at the beginning of 2019, they selected us, in no small part due to our experience with M&A in the payment services industry.

    CEELM: Katerina, what about you? How did Urban & Hejduk get involved?

    Katerina: Urban & Hejduk represented both sellers – Pavel Schwarz Jr. (holding a 55% share in GoPay) and BUDEX Direct (a company owned by the Schwarz family, holding a 45% share in GoPay). We were originally contacted by Pavel Schwarz Sr., the father of Pavel Schwarz, the founder of the company. Mr. Schwarz Sr. was on the sell-side in a previous acquisition, where our law firm represented the buyer. When looking for legal counsel for this deal, Mr. Schwarz Sr., decided to contact us since he liked the manner in which we handled the negotiations on that previous deal, even though we were standing on the opposite side.      

    CEELM: And Tomas, what about you and JSK?

    Tomas: We jumped in in the middle of the negotiations based on a recommendation from Radek Musil of Vienna Capital Partners (now Raiffeisenbank). Radek was also new in the process and because we work with him regularly, he believed that we all – including the original legal counsel, Urban & Hejduk – would have a better chance of moving the deal ahead and completing it. My understanding was that the discussions with the potential bidders at that time were not progressing well for various reasons and that a new impulse was needed.

    CEELM: What, exactly, was the initial mandate when you were each retained for this project, at the very beginning?

    Libor: We initially focused on in-depth legal due diligence of GoPay, the Czech payment solutions provider which Worldline sought to acquire. We looked into various issues ranging from existing contracts, IP rights, financial regulatory approvals, HR, corporate matters, outsourcing and data protection. We were also involved in the structuring of the transaction and helped negotiate the terms of the transaction with the counterparty. This may sound simple, but GoPay is a heavily regulated Czech issuer of electronic money with very technical aspects to its business, so the legal advice involved some rather complex legal issues.

    Katerina: We were engaged to provide legal advice to both sellers. Vienna Capital Partners as the transaction advisor has historically cooperated closely with JSK, who thus became responsible for the regulatory part of the deal.

    Tomas: This is a good question. We were hired by the seller as the second legal counsel to support Urban & Hejduk and Radek Musil to help find solutions, overcome showstoppers, consult legal and business issues, and increase bargaining power. The lawyers at Urban & Hejduk were in charge of the actual execution from start to finish. Over time we obviously become more involved, in particular on the regulatory side, including notifications to the Czech National Bank.

    As we are known for our constructive, pragmatic and commercial approach, this was not the first time we were invited by a party or advisor to a transaction to help reach an agreement. In particular, M&A advisors know that we can greatly help them with their deals, offer outside-the-box solutions and get along well with the other parties and advisors.

    But please do not get the impression that we were the lead counsel on the sell-side. We had a great collaboration with Urban & Hejduk; each of us had a slightly different role, and Urban & Hejduk deserves full credit.

    CEELM: Who were the members of your teams, and what were their individual responsibilities?

    Libor: I was responsible for overseeing the legal advice provided to Worldline while the day-to-day management of the legal advice vested in Baker McKenzie Prague Partner Pavel Fekar, and subsequently Associate Dusan Hlavaty. Apart from managing the transaction, Dusan Hlavaty was also responsible for commercial, IP/IT, and data protection aspects of the deal.

    A number of other Baker McKenzie Prague lawyers and specialists were involved, including Associate Slavomir Slavik, who was responsible for the corporate issues, and Associate Jan Kolar, who focused on financial regulatory issues and the Czech National Bank clearance.

    Katerina: Our team consisted of me, Partner Jan Urban, Senior Associate Michala Kedzior, and Junior Associate Vojtech Jirasky. The negotiations were led by the senior members of the team and Michala, with Vojtech providing support in terms of documentation drafting.

    Tomas: I was primarily involved in the negotiations and discussions. My colleagues Helena Hailichova and Sebastian Speta supported me the whole time and became more engaged when the regulatory aspects started playing an important role.

    CEELM: Please describe the deal in as much detail as possible, including your (and your firms’) role in helping make it happen.

    Libor: The final deal was the purchase of a 53% majority share in GoPay by Worldline in 2020, with a subsequent purchase of the remaining 47% minority share in GoPay in 2022 from Pavel Schwarz, the founder of GoPay. Pavel Schwarz retained a minority share in GoPay for an interim period and agreed to participate in business operations of GoPay until at least 2022.

    So we had a fairly complex transaction in which we needed to legally underpin not only the terms for the purchase of GoPay by Worldline, but also the conditions of the future cooperation of the majority and minority shareholder of GoPay, including the parameters for the operation of GoPay during their joint venture. Our role was to make sure that all the legal challenges were addressed and that the business cooperation had a solid and working legal basis in the relevant documents.

    Katerina: The deal was negotiated between our client and Worldline for quite a long time. Our role was to reflect the business terms into documents and make sure that the cooperation between the shareholders works smoothly until the final exit of the sellers. Taking into account the significance of the deal and the extraordinary circumstances of year 2020, we tried to be as cooperative as possible, while ensuring the interests and position of our client at the same time.   

    CEELM: What’s the current status of the deal?

    Libor: The acquisition of the 53% majority share in GoPay by Worldline successfully closed in September 2020 and Gopay is currently being integrated into the Worldline group, including Worldline Czech Republic, the Czech provider of merchant acquiring, with a view to looking for synergies. The current management of GoPay continues to be responsible for the company’s operations in cooperation with Worldline’s management. Pavel Schwarz is closely involved in shaping the strategy of GOP GoPay AY for the upcoming years as well as developing new GoPay products in the context of the Worldline product portfolio.

    The deal will be continued in 2022 when Worldline is supposed to purchase the remaining 47% minority share in GoPay, thus allowing Pavel Schwarz to fully exit from the company.

    Katerina: The transaction closed on September 4, 2020, with Worldline becoming a majority (53%) shareholder of GoPay. Mr. Schwarz Jr. remained in the company as its CEO, responsible for daily operations. Worldline has a right to purchase the remaining shares in year 2022.

    CEELM: What was the most challenging or frustrating part of the process?

    Libor: Many parts of this deal were challenging as we needed to move the transaction forward. Surprises and unexpected situations came up quite regularly.

    In particular, it was quite challenging to clear the joint venture structure with the Czech National Bank and address all its requirements. However, our previous extensive experience with clearing such transactions with regulators and effective cooperation from Worldline and GoPay made the process quite smooth. In the end, we were happy to see that the Czech National Bank demonstrated a very rational and flexible approach to the clearance process, allowing us to meet our internal deadlines for the transaction.

    Furthermore, we had to make sure that the terms and conditions of the joint venture between Worldline and Pavel Schwarz worked, both legally and from a business perspective. As you can imagine, especially given the different and sometimes completely opposite business drivers of your counterparty, this is not always that easy to combine. However, as the whole transaction team was constantly discussing all aspects of the deal, we were able to brainstorm and come up with a workable solution very quickly.

    Katerina: The most challenging part was definitely the pre-signing phase, which took place in the middle of the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic and the full lockdown in the Czech Republic. All the final negotiations had to be done online, and the contract was signed on April 8, 2020 without the personal presence of the contractual parties. 

    Tomas: The details regarding the calculation of the purchase price, in particular in respect of the second phase of the transaction, are really complex. This is due to the nature of the GoPay business as a payment institution and the expected regulatory and technical development. We all spent a lot of time to get it right.

    CEELM: Was there any part of the process that was unusually or unexpectedly smooth or easy?

    Libor: Given the complexity of the deal, I wouldn’t say that any part was unusually or unexpectedly smooth or easy. However, excellent cooperation with Worldline and a rational approach from the counterparty allowed us to find solutions to the various issues we faced quite effectively.

    Katerina: The transaction was very complex and went on in a standard manner.

    Tomas: Not really. But it seems that the pandemic helped finalize the deal as the buyer was eager to present positive news to its investors.

    CEELM: Did the final result match your initial mandate, or did it change/transform somehow from what was initially anticipated?

    Libor: The basic parameters of the transaction which were outlined at the very beginning did not change. Obviously there were many more or less important matters which had to be negotiated along the way, especially with respect to the joint venture element of the transaction.

    Katerina: Our mandate was to provide legal assistance, which did not change, except for excluding the regulatory part of the deal under the responsibility of JSK.

    Tomas: Yes and no. Yes, in respect of our role regarding the consultancy of the key aspects of the transaction, and no in respect of the regulatory work which we assumed as we went along.

    CEELM: Libor, what specific individuals at Worldline instructed you, and how did you interact with them?

    Libor: We were involved with a lot of colleagues from Worldline. Given our attorney confidentiality, we would prefer not to mention any names here. However, we can definitely say that it’s been a real pleasure working with them. And we hope the client enjoyed our cooperation, too.

    We organized weekly conference calls and were in daily separate communication flows with all the involved parties to address the issues. We all had relatively small teams involved in the transaction from each party, which allowed us to be very efficient.

    CEELM: What about you, Katerina and Tomas? Which specific individuals instructed your firms, and how did you interact with them?

    Katerina: Pavel Schwarz, Jr. was engaged in most of the negotiations. We were instructed mainly by him, or by Vienna Capital Partners as the transaction advisor. We were in close contact with the sellers, and the strategic points were always discussed in person.

    Tomas: We were ultimately instructed by the owner and seller, Pavel Schwarz. We cooperated intensively with the whole transaction team, including the key managers of the target company. Regular meetings, calls, and exchanges of ideas happened as in most other transactions.

    CEELM: How would you describe the working relationship with the other firms on the deal?

    Libor: In short, professional and productive. Both parties were driven to find reasonable compromise for the purchase terms and in their efforts to lay the groundwork for their cooperation during the interim period, until Worldline fully takes over GoPay in 2022. We were happy to see that legal negotiations with Urban & Hejduk and JSK were more flexible than is normally seen in straightforward acquisitions.

    Just like us, our colleagues from Urban & Hejduk and JSK were commercially driven and I believe that no party felt any need to start any major legal battles. Of course, we had some situations of disagreement but we were all able to come up with workable compromises fairly quickly.

    Katerina: The due diligence process was handled by the client internally and we stepped into the negotiations when the commercial points of the deal started to be discussed. At all times, the cooperation with other advisors were very professional and business-oriented. The final stage prior to closing was influenced by the COVID-19 outbreak and related limitations imposed in most of the European countries. This required an extreme effort on both sides as it was impossible to travel across the borders or obtain certain documents from public authorities. Unlike usual transactions, all the final negotiations had to be done via telephone or email, but all the participants were very reasonable and willing to close the deal even under such unprecedented circumstances.       

    Tomas: The finalization of the transaction was already affected by the pandemic and the signing occurred remotely. Before that, it was a standard process, taking into account that Worldline is a foreign entity.

    CEELM: How would you describe the significance of the deal?

    Libor: We believe that the transaction was significant not only for Worldline and Pavel Schwarz, but also from the perspective of the fast-growing online payment market, where GoPay holds a unique position due to both its market share as well as the depth of its offering. The entry of Worldline will expand its online payment capabilities in this market, while GoPay will grow through synergies with Worldline.

    Worldline is growing organically and through acquisitions not only in our region. With the successful completion of its recent acquisition of Ingenico Group, Worldline will become one of the five largest companies in this market segment in the world. We are very happy that we could contribute to Worldline’s success and we very much look forward to future cooperation with them.

    Katerina: The acquisition of GoPay by Worldline was our largest transaction that closed in 2020. It was exciting for the team to see the story of the success of an extremely talented person who started his business by introducing a unique idea to investors in a TV show and ended up by selling this system to the European leader in the area of payment services.

    Tomas: I think the deal has attracted attention in the market for two reasons: as one of the few deals executed during the pandemic, and because the sector is exciting. These are the types of deals we like at JSK, ones that are notable, challenging, and enjoyable.

    This Article was originally published in Issue 7.11 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • Connected To CEE

    An Interview with Partners Jonathan Marks and Richard Jones from Slaughter and May’s Dedicated CEE Partner Group

    CEELM: Tell us about the CEE team at Slaughter and May. How does the firm cover the region?

    Jonathan: My personal connection with the CEE region began when I was an associate in the mid-1990s and I did some work with the then-recently-formed Czech firm, PRK Partners, on a number of syndicated loans, as that market developed in the post-communist era. I am still in touch with the partners there, and my interest in this country eventually spanned out to the wider CEE region, where I’ve got to know and work with law firms and clients across the region for a number of decades. I have always enjoyed my visits to CEE — to fascinating cities like Prague, Warsaw, Budapest, Istanbul, and so on, being struck by the generosity of my hosts as well as the dynamics and hard work of the people that I have met.

    Richard Jones, Gareth Miles, James Stacey and I have the pleasure of focusing on the region, both from a business development point of view and working on matters for clients who either come from the region or have business interests there. This means that we have a good understanding of what’s happening in the region, and it has helped us develop close relationships with lawyers across CEE, which we, as a group, have spent a number of years (in some cases, decades) developing. Therefore, it is always particularly rewarding when we have the opportunity to collaborate with such firms.

    In addition to the dedicated partner group, we also have a team of business development professionals in our International Relations Team focused on managing our relationships with lawyers in the region as well as providing advice on ongoing business development opportunities.

    Richard: I’ve worked on a variety of matters involving countries in the CEE region over the years, often where the use of English law is the only connection with the UK. I’ve also been one of the partners in the firm who focuses on CEE since shortly after I became a partner, working closely with Jonathan and the others, so I’ve had an opportunity to get to know a lot of the lawyers working in the region, including some who have been on secondment to our firm.

    CEELM: What was your first personal experience of CEE, and what did you take away from it?

    Richard: My first experiences of CEE were all based on trips for holidays or (in one case) a friend’s wedding, but I’ve now visited many of the jurisdictions for business and, of course, we’ve been lucky to have many interactions relevant to the region in London (everywhere from our offices to an embassy) or via telephone or video conference. I think the main impression I have is of a region that, despite the various challenges that some of the countries in the CEE face, is continuing to move forward at a rapid pace, and is increasingly producing the sort of interesting and complex transactions that were once the preserve of the world’s global financial centers. As a result, it’s a very exciting time to be involved with CEE.

    CEELM: How does Central and Eastern Europe fit into Slaughter and May’s overall strategy?

    Jonathan: As a leading international law firm with clients around the globe (including, of course, in CEE), a key part of our international strategy is to work in partnership with these clients by supporting their business activities, wherever they’re conducted. It’s important to us that, although we don’t advise on the law of any jurisdiction in CEE, we’re able to assist our clients in obtaining the right legal advice in any jurisdiction in the region.

    In doing this, we work closely with leading law firms based in the region, either firms that we choose or recommend (based on our connections and experience in the region) or the client’s own choice.

    As with all the jurisdictions where we do not have our own office, a key part of our international strategy is to maintain strong relationships with the leading law firms in CEE, which allows us to advise the client on the best firms to use for a particular matter.

    This is really important, as it allows us to provide our clients with a truly global service, working in a collaborative way with the market leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. 

    CEELM: How does Slaughter and May promote and market its capabilities in the region?

    Richard: One of the most effective ways of promoting our CEE practice has been via trips; meeting with existing and prospective clients, as well as renewing old bonds, and forming new ones, with lawyers from the region.

    We have also found that attending conferences with a focus on the region both in the UK and locally is a useful way of raising our profile to a larger audience. We’ve been attending CEE Legal Matters’ GC Summit for a number of years, which we’ve found to be a great source of information, as well as an opportunity to meet existing and potential clients. Additionally, the Law Society and the Department for International Trade host a number of roundtable discussions which provide a great forum to connect with those with an interest in the region.

    We are also fortunate that many of the lawyers from the region make frequent trips to London, which often present the perfect opportunity for a meeting at our offices. We have found this regular contact a good means of staying on top of what is happening on the ground and ensuring we are focusing our business development efforts on the right jurisdictions and types of work.

    Although, given the present circumstances, we’ve had to replace physical meetings with video calls for most of this year, we’ve still found these to be very useful and have had virtual meetings with a number of law firms over the last few months. 

    CEELM: Do you have best friends you work with in the region? How do you maintain/strengthen those relationships?

    Richard: Although we have very deep connections with a number of firms around the globe (some of which go back many decades), we pride ourselves by not having exclusive relationships with law firms anywhere in the world. This allows us to think of our clients’ needs first, and also means that we can be truly flexible when working with law firms and ensure we work with the right firm on the right transaction/matter.

    It also allows us to accommodate a client’s preference. Often our clients have worked with a local law firm (sometimes for many years, sometimes just on one or two previous occasions), which means they wish to work with them again. We approach each matter on a case-by-case basis, and never seek to impose our choice of local law firm on a client. Where a local firm has the key client relationship or is dealing with the main substance of the matter, we’re always happy to liaise with the client through that firm, if that’s preferred.

    In terms of how we maintain and strengthen our relationships with law firms in the region, a large part of it is the regular dialogue and other activities mentioned above. However, nothing really beats working with another firm on a job, which allows both firms to get to know each other and our working styles, and hopefully leads to future opportunities to win, and carry out, work together.

    CEELM: Which specific deals in the region that you and your colleagues have worked on did you find most interesting/significant?

    Jonathan: This is a tough question, but here are a few in no particular order:

    In May 2018, we advised Vodafone on the acquisition of certain operations of Liberty Global. As part of this, Vodafone agreed to acquire Unitymedia in Germany and certain of Liberty Global’s operations in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Romania for a total enterprise value of EUR 18.4 billion. This was a particularly exciting deal for us because, as a result of the acquisition, Vodafone completed its transformation into Europe’s leading converged operator. Not only was Vodafone able to reshape its business, but it also became the owner of the largest gigabit-capable next generation network infrastructure in the CEE region. To top it all off, the transaction also won CEE Legal Matters’ 2018 CEE Deal of the Year Award, which was an incredible recognition of the work we did.

    In March 2019, we advised Marsh & McLennan on the sale of the global aerospace insurance broking business of Jardine Lloyd Thompson to Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. This deal covered a large number of European countries, including Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Romania, among other CEE countries. This matter was of great significance as it was a high-profile cross-border deal which transferred more than 10,000 employees to Marsh & McLennan, providing deeper industry expertise in every part of the organisation. As part of this transaction, we had the pleasure of working with a number of our independent relationship law firms in CEE and other countries.

    In December 2019, we advised Cineworld on its all-cash acquisition of the entire issued and to-be-issued share capital of Cineplex at a price of 34 Canadian dollars per share, valuing the fully diluted equity of Cineplex at CAN 2.18 billion, with an implied enterprise value of CAN 2.8 billion.

    Cineworld is one of the world’s leading cinema groups, operating 9,498 screens across 786 sites in the US, UK, Ireland, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Israel. This deal was of great significance, as it not only expanded Cineworld’s business in North America, but also increased its presence in the CEE. We were also able to work collaboratively with the local law firms in the region.

    In November 2016, we advised GE Capital on the sale of its remaining stake in Moneta Money Bank, which raised gross proceeds of approximately CZK 7.5 billion.

    In January 2016, we advised RWE, a leading European utility group, in its successful defense of a USD 1.4 billion damages claim brought by the Russian Sintez Group, owned by Russian Senator Leonid Lebedev. This matter was particularly interesting as the claim was governed by Russian law and arose out of RWE’s withdrawal from negotiations for a joint venture to buy a controlling interest in one of Russia’s regional power generation companies, TGK-2. The case also involved extensive expert evidence on Russian law. We also advised on associated litigation in multiple jurisdictions.

    Finally, we have been advising a number of financial institutions (including Aviva, Prudential, Standard Life, and Zurich) on their Brexit planning. For example, in June 2020, we advised in connection with proposed Part VII transfer of Polish branch of The Prudential Assurance Company Limited to a newly established branch of PAC’s Irish subsidiary, Prudential International Assurance plc.

    This Article was originally published in Issue 7.10 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • Expat(s) on the Market: An Update

    Over the course of our seven years, CEE Legal Matters has interviewed most of the British lawyers working on the ground in Central and Eastern Europe as part of our recurring “Expat on the Market” feature. We reached out to them recently and asked them to bring us up to speed on what they’re doing and/or share their thoughts on the ramifications of Brexit or the ongoing COVID-19 crisis.

    How has Brexit impacted your practice, if at all?

    Christian Blatchford, General Counsel, Energo-Pro (in the Czech Republic): Well, Brexit might just destroy my practice. Lawyers qualified in England and Wales (and other parts of the UK) who are now practicing law in the Czech Republic on the basis of the EU Withdrawal Agreement and a specific Czech law on Brexit will lose that right from January 1, 2021, unless the UK and EU agree otherwise. This now seems unlikely, given the shortness of time and relativity niche market involved. The Czech Law on Advocacy does, however, permit those who have been practicing here for at least three years to apply for admission to the Czech Bar. The catch? You have to have been providing Czech law advice during that time. But how, you may ask, would that have been possible as a UK-qualified lawyer? The solution to this additional problem is that a three-person panel from the Czech Bar Association could, based on an interview, waive the requirement in whole or part if the applicant demonstrates a sufficient knowledge of Czech law and professional rules. What is that standard? As I write this, I have no idea!

    Nick Fletcher, Partner, Clifford Chance (Poland): No significant impact. English law remains as popular as ever for any complex commercial transaction with a cross-border component. Perhaps greater reluctance to use English courts so more use of international arbitration. On a personal level, Brexit has led me to obtain Polish citizenship, which I have had for nearly two years now.

    Virginia Murray, Partner, Watson Farley & Williams (Greece): As a qualified Greek lawyer, Brexit affects me less on a professional basis as most of my work concerns Greek energy and infrastructure projects. I do however see an increasing willingness of international investors to transact with Greek-law governed acquisition and financing agreements, drafted in English. Brexit has of course affected all of us practicing English law; we see a concern about using English law and courts for international contracts with regards to enforceability and recognition of judgments. In terms of influence on international regulations, in the energy sector and elsewhere, I see that Britain has lost significant ground as it withdraws from Europe.

    On a wider level, I am particularly worried about the many bright young Greeks who are studying law in the UK, and how their degrees and professional qualifications will be recognized when they return to their homeland, and what the increase in university fees for EU students will mean for the loss of talent and diversity in Britain’s universities. Personally, I have taken the precaution of finally applying for Greek citizenship (after nearly 24 years’ residence).

    How has COVID-19 impacted your practice in CEE?

    Graham Conlon, Partner, CMS (Ukraine): I personally have remained just as busy in the last six months as I was prior to the crisis, working on deals throughout the region and beyond. The pipeline also remains positive, and – touch wood – it will remain that way. But the nature of the deals has changed. Some clients who might have found it difficult to exit investments a year ago (because everyone was worried that a financial crisis might be on its way, and with buyers not knowing how to price that in) have all a sudden found themselves sitting on gold-mines, with targets shooting-up in value. This is especially the case with respect to those in the e-commerce and logistics space. Others have not been so lucky, and we are starting to see some assets come to market in more distressed circumstances. The international financial institutions (such as the EBRD) have also become more active in crisis times – so that is also a source of M&A deal activity in all sorts of countries around.

    Mark Harrison, Partner, Harrisons (Serbia): COVID-19 has had a positive impact on our practice in Serbia and Montenegro.

    We closed our offices on March 16 and only re-opened on October 1. We worked remotely. However, COVID-19 brought us closer together as a team because our firm is based on a highly personal and friendly relationship between everyone, and working from a distance is no substitute. Every week we had a Zoom phone call and they were fun. We talked openly about our firm and we realized how much we were all one family.

    Second, it gave us all time to think about how a post-COVID-19 law firm would operate and how we would look after our clients and work together. Clearly personal meetings face to face with clients were going to be rare and everything was going to move more to an electronic interface. Our marketing strategy evolved substantially. When times are tough, you must adapt – be pro-active or go backwards.

    Nobody left the firm. Our motto is “No matter what the work situation we always want the best lawyers.” So, we hired!

    Finally, as the IFI’s have pumped money into our region post COVID-19 to help their clients, we have had a successful year to date.

    Christopher Noblet, Partner, Hogan Lovells (Hungary): COVID-19 has certainly impacted our practice, both with regards to the support needed by our clients and how we carry on our business.

    As regards to clients, this was particularly marked in March and April where many experienced the challenges of operating businesses amid the various restrictions from social distancing to travel restrictions. It appears with the renewed increase in cases, companies are again having to look at similar issues and how to deal with them, although with an increased level of preparedness compared to the spring.

    In respect of our own business, we have, since March, seen the changes that working from home has brought to our operations and how it is possible to keep contact with all our colleagues through electronic means. We have also seen, increasingly, how technology can assist in matters which people previously were certain could only be done face to face, such as remote closings and the like. Of course, we miss the personal contact.

    Dan Cocker, Partner, Allen & Overy (Poland): Almost the first I heard of COVID-19 was when I received requests for advice on force majeure notices. A major part of my practice is projects, energy, and infrastructure. In the early days of COVID-19 project developers and lenders asked us for advice on whether contractors could effectively claim force majeure for supply chain issues, for example in China.

    The next new stream of work was liquidity facilities. Our international financial institution and commercial bank clients have been very quick and effective in supporting their clients with liquidity facilities. For example, we acted for the EBRD on its first Covid19-related Solidarity Package project in Poland and for the ADB and the EBRD on liquidity facilities for an Armenian energy sector client.

    In the meantime, other major transactions in the energy and infrastructure sectors have continued. There’s a strong pipeline of new projects across the CEE region. We and our clients have had to learn some new ways of working. Locking all of the parties in a meeting room until the transaction documents are finalized no longer happens. But project finance has always been about overcoming obstacles to get the deal done. COVID-19 is another obstacle that, together, we will overcome.

    Simon Dayes, Partner, Dentons (Romania): COVID-19 has had an enormous adverse impact on many businesses. The pandemic is providing our specialist financial restructuring teams with mandates that would not otherwise have existed. We have been supporting banks and sponsors in managing their relationships during the loan payment moratoria in CEE, and preparing for the end dates of these moratoria which are fast coming towards us. While the focus has been on positive restructurings during these last few months, the indications are that problems will emerge that will result in more post-insolvency activity as we get into 2021.

    On the personal side, new working practices (and technology) often brings our colleagues in international offices closer together these days; we speak, and even see each other, more frequently. It is different within the office, and we give more thought now to keeping news, know-how, and culture circulating around the team as they work from home. We also make a point of getting together once a week, typically in a more informal context, to swap stories and plan.

    Nick Fletcher, Partner, Clifford Chance (Poland): I am sure my experience is the same as everyone else’s, in terms of working practice, very limited travel, and very few physical meetings. In terms of types of work, a lot of interest in infrastructure (e.g., windfarms and photovoltaic projects) and tech. Oh, and a noticeable increase in client fatigue with multiple briefings on the obvious issues arising out of the virus.

    Hugh Owen, Go2 Law (Slovakia): I have already been working from home for three years, so in one sense there has not really been any impact. I had already decided to take a step back from travelling so much, so in a way having everyone quickly get used to doing deals online without unnecessary travel, and without locking everyone in those horrible all-nighters, was a welcome change. Obviously, you lose a lot from not having personal negotiations, but we are still able to do pretty much the same job through virtual meetings. I have not had any negotiations in any sense fail because they were conducted online. If anything, things get done quicker because there seems to be a subconscious reluctance to sit online all night. The timings of calls are more structured, and people do actually have a home to go to – they are frequently sitting in them.

    Otherwise, the deal flow temporarily paused for a month or two, but in the end the deals are still being done, just in different sectors. I can’t personally claim to have a crystal ball on this (yet), but obviously not all businesses suffer from current conditions – some even benefit – and there is plenty of that proverbial dry powder still waiting to be spent.”

    Are there any significant career updates you’d like to share with us?

    Doran Doeh, Arbitrator, 36 Stone (England): What a great interview, in the June 2014 issue! At the time I was a Senior Partner in Dentons Moscow and at one of the highest points in my career. It continued going from strength to strength, including some of the biggest oil and gas M&A deals in Russia in 2015 and 2016.

    However, by March 2019 it was time to retire, and I made three big changes. I moved back to London, reverted to my original profession as a barrister, and joined a distinguished set of chambers – 36 Stone – as an arbitrator. In the intervening time, I developed my international arbitration practice, including qualification as a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.

    Despite COVID-19, international arbitration remains an exciting practice area, with rapid adaptation currently taking place to embrace the technology. Russia/CIS and the international oil and gas industry remain at the focus of many of the largest arbitrations. My chambers is based in London and Singapore, so I am well-placed for appointments – and the clerking team is excellent!

    This Article was originally published in Issue 7.10 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • Expat on the (English) Market: Interview with Pawel Szaja of Shearman & Sterling

    Interview with Pawel Szaja of Shearman & Sterling.

    CEELM: Run us through your background, and how you ended up in your current role with Shearman & Sterling in the UK.    

    Pawel: I was born and raised in Chelm, a small town in East Poland, 25 kilometers from the Ukrainian border, where I went to high school. I moved to study German Literature and Law at the Warsaw University, and I graduated in 2005. During my university time I spent three years in exchange programs at the Goethe University in Frankfurt, the Freie University in Berlin, Universite de Geneve in Switzerland, and Universite de Paris II in France. In 2004 I went on a three-month secondment to the legal department at Deutsche Bank in Frankfurt where I came across Capital Markets, International M&A, and ABS Financing Structures for the first time. I thought it was quite interesting and worth focusing my career on. What followed was a Masters in Law & Finance from the Institute for Law and Finance in Frankfurt in 2006 and an LL.M. from Columbia Law School in 2008, allowing me to pursue this plan and a career in Capital Markets. I took the NY bar after my LL.M., started in Capital Markets at Davis Polk in New York in 2008 and moved to London in 2009 because of my family. I continued at Davis Polk in London, went on secondment to the ECM execution team at Credit Suisse London in 2014 and switched to Shearman & Sterling at the end of that year. I made Partner at Shearman & Sterling in January 2018.

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

    Pawel: I would not say that it was my goal from the beginning. As with everything in life, it is a function of circumstances, luck (stars need to align!), and personal decisions. I did want to study abroad, which I did through exchange programs, and which helped me decide about my professional career.

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

    Pawel: Since making Partner at Shearman & Sterling in January 2018 I have covered Emerging Markets and DACH (Germany, Austria, and Switzerland). Although equity and debt capital markets is my core practice, I have also done quite a lot of M&A and bank finance work in the region. Prior to COVID I would travel quite a lot to build and maintain contacts in the region. Right now it all happens online.

    CEELM: How would clients describe your style?    

    Pawel: I like to think that I know how people think in the Emerging Markets and what drives them. I try to use my background and language skills as my assets and am quite conscious of cultural sensitivities. I view is this as key to being a successful emerging markets lawyer.

    CEELM: There are obviously many differences between the Polish and English judicial systems and legal markets. What idiosyncrasies or differences stand out the most?

    Pawel: While I was educated in Poland and other European civil law countries, I am only admitted to practice in certain common law countries. The general principle of law – either what is not prohibited is allowed or, alternatively, only what is explicitly enumerated is allowed – causes the main differences and often-times interesting discussions among lawyers. On the other hand, the importance of English law, in particular in Emerging Markets, is significant, and it often results in changes to how local lawyers perceive certain aspects. Seeing in person how the law and application of law changes is the exciting part of my job.

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

    Pawel: Looking at Europe’s Emerging Markets in particular, the history in the past 30 years is definitely critical to the understanding of how people in those countries think and act. Some of the most important decisions in living history (such as the fall of communism, accession to the European Union, NATO, and various global crises) have happened during this time. My personal view is that the countries are still catching up with Western Europe, not only economically but also from a cultural and social perspective, but the youngest generation of people – such as, for example, my Polish cousins in high school – view themselves as European citizens first, and I do not really see many differences between them and, for example, British teenagers. This is a major change compared to my generation or the generation of my parents.

    CEELM: What particular value do you think a senior expatriate lawyer in your role adds – both to a firm and to its clients?

    Pawel: It is the understanding of the culture and language skills that in my opinion make the difference. It happens quite often in this part of the world that transactions are executed solely in a local or regional language and having someone from London who can pick up the phone and just make the discussion easier for the client means a lot.

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

    Pawel: I do not exclude it as an option in 10/15 years although other countries, such as Spain or Portugal, are equally strong candidates!

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

    Pawel: Recently I have been spending quite some time in Turkey and started reading more about their culture and history. It is a fascinating country, with great history and, more importantly, some of the best food in the world!

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

    Pawel: A little-known family-run Italian trattoria in Chelsea, Tate Modern, and Richmond Park (deers!).

    This Article was originally published in Issue 7.10 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • Special Interview: Queritius is a New Form of Dispute Boutique

    Queritius claims to be something new on the market: A CEE-focused arbitration boutique emphasizing geographic flexibility and significant international experience. To learn more about this new presence in CEE, we reached out to Queritius Partners Veronika Korom, Wojciech Sadowski, and Daniel Dozsa.

    CEELM: First, tell us a bit about your personal backgrounds, and how you decided to work together to launch Queritius.

    Veronika: Wojciech and I met playing basketball at a European law summer course in Leuven, Belgium, some 20 years ago. Wojciech was unbeatable on the basketball court then, just as he is unbeatable in the real courts today! We became real friends. The famous saying “Pole and Hungarian, two good friends” is definitely true for us.

    Wojciech: Harper Lee began her famous book To Kill a Mockingbird with an epigraph borrowed from Charles Lamb: “Lawyers, I suppose, were children once.” Veronika and I became friends before we started our professional careers. We spent long hours discussing life, philosophy, religion, the challenges our countries were facing before EU accession, and much more. We played basketball, too, and spoke of our plans, dream, and aspirations. Fast forward 20 years: This is a great basis to build a common professional venture on.

    Veronika: Although our lives took different paths, we both ended up working in arbitration. I am a French-Hungarian national admitted to practice in England & Wales, France, and Hungary. I started my career with Clifford Chance in banking and finance in London. My heart lay with arbitration, however, ever since I represented Hungary in the Philip C. Jessup moot court competition, where we came in 10th in the international finals. So when the opportunity arose, I moved to the international arbitration team of Shearman & Sterling in Paris, where I spent six years and worked on some of the most prominent and complex investment arbitrations involving Central and Eastern European states – the Yukos arbitrations, the Micula v Romania arbitration, and the EDF International v Hungary arbitration. It is on this latter case that I met our third partner, Daniel Dozsa, who was acting for Hungary and who became a good friend. I then moved to a French arbitration firm, Bredin Prat, but when I was appointed professor at the prestigious ESSEC Business School in Paris I left Big Law – although I continued to act as a solo arbitration practitioner. At around the same time, Wojciech and Daniel began to contemplate leaving their firms, and this is when the idea came to team up to build a CEE-focused boutique firm. 

    Wojciech: My career was with Hogan & Hartson and K&L Gates, in Warsaw and London. I am a challenge-seeking person, so I quickly became drawn to dispute resolution. International arbitration was not a part of the academic curriculum in Poland, and generally Big Law thought back then that it did not make sense to invest in dispute resolution. I had a different vision. Fortunately, my seniors were great professionals with open minds, who gave me a lot of freedom and supported my efforts to develop this field. I had a unique opportunity to act as lead counsel for Poland in an investment treaty arbitration when I was only 25, and then had the honor of being a part of the team that took over Poland’s representation in the arbitration with Eureko, which we managed to settle. Then I started to work routinely on matters with colleagues from Frankfurt, London, and the US. Over time I managed to climb all the way up the corporate ladder and became a London-based equity partner at K&L Gates.

    Along the lines, though, I started to understand that I could not remain a partner in a Big Law firm, as I was increasingly disagreeing with many aspects of that business model. This is how the idea of Queritius began and matured. Through Veronika, at some point, I met Daniel, and we started talking about a CEE international arbitration boutique.

    Daniel: I came to know Veronika when we sat in opposing teams in the Hague in the international EdF v Hungary arbitration. Veronika and her team were formidable opponents and I remember that sometimes the arguments got heated, but it never crossed the line, and we became good friends. We have been discussing starting our own disputes firm for a few years, so I was very happy to join Veronika and Wojciech just a couple of months after the launch of Queritius. Before joining Queritius, I was counsel in Dechert’s global international arbitration group in London, and prior to joining Dechert, I worked for Weil in Washington, D.C. and Budapest. So I think we all have similar backgrounds, in that we have all trained and worked at some of the best firms in the international arbitration market.

    CEELM: So what exactly is Queritius? What is it, when did it open, how big is it, and how is it structured?

    Wojciech: We often refer to Queritius as the CEE legal startup and like to think about it this way. Its name comes from the Latin „seek” and the Spanish „love/want,” and obviously the Latin word „ius,” meaning the law. Queritius is not just a fancy name, but a value proposition. We anticipate that with the arrival of AI, blockchain, and the ongoing automation and standarization of things and services, the legal industry as we now know it may be gone sooner than one thinks. The seeking part of Queritius is about finding the best way to adapt quickly and continue doing the work we love and want to do.

    Veronika: Queritius opened in April 2020, but the official launch was in September when our website went live and the Global Arbitration Review published a great article about the firm. We currently operate from three locations – Warsaw, Budapest, and Paris – with a team of five lawyers spread over the three different offices.

    Wojciech: At the same time, we are a single team operating together on major international cases. Oftentimes, when people ask me where we are based, I say: I am based online, same as you. And this is the philosophy that is driving our growth. All our team-members are internationally-minded people, who often live between various countries and are professional digital nomads.

    CEELM: How will it separate itself from the large, multi-jurisdictional international and regional law firms, and from other local arbitration/litigation boutiques?

    Wojciech: We are indeed different from each of these categories of firms, in different ways.

    Veronika: We have a unique team composed of CEE lawyers who have studied in both Eastern and Western Europe, who have multiple bar admissions in both Eastern and Western Europe, and who have worked for top arbitration brands in DC, London, and Paris for many years. We have a thorough understanding of the legal, political, economic, and social realities of the CEE region, and at the same time we understand how business is done and what the expectations are in Western Europe. We are uniquely placed to build a bridge between East and West and to deliver Western-quality work to our clients in the CEE region. Neither the international nor the regional firms present on the CEE market can boast lawyers with such rich profiles and experience.

    Daniel: Indeed, no-one east of London and Paris has the depth of experience that our team members have combined in settling investor-state and big ticket commercial disputes. The aggregate value of the claims our team members have been involved in to date exceeds USD 120 billion. International arbitration and litigation really is in our DNA. This distinguishes us from the local offices of international law firms, among others, who don’t have the kind of experience that our team members have.

    Wojciech: We are also very deliberate about our market positioning. We know exactly what type of work we want to do and what we do not want to do. We also work across offices, building multinational teams like you would see in Western European boutiques. Yet we are more affordable. Finally, we are a true post-Covid business organization, which means we do not believe in fancy and spacy offices. But we believe in secure IT infrastructure.

    CEELM: What is your opinion of the choices available to clients in CEE currently, in your field?

    Wojciech: CEE has a wealth of extremely skilled and hard-working lawyers who are often very entrepreneurial and innovative. This is exactly the resource we would like to grow upon. When it comes to international dispute resolution, the traditional model for big ticket instructions was to refer them directly to London, Paris, or New York. This was partially done because the decisions were made outside the region, and partially because there was little know-how in Central and Eastern Europe.

    The problem with that approach was that the cost of outsourcing of such representation to any of these jurisdictions is prohibitive for most CEE-based clients. Moreover, business reality and culture in the West is simply different, so there has been an inherent communication gap between these two worlds. Our ambition is to bridge that gap.

    Another issue is that international dispute resolution know-how in Central and Eastern Europe is dispersed. There are simply too few cases to justify the development of a strong international arbitration team in most law firms. So we would like to be a very specialized provider of international dispute resolution services in the region, both to businesses and to other law firms, who could work with us on an ad hoc basis. And because we do not have the ambition of doing any other type of legal work, we can be regarded as a safe partner to work with. This is actually the model under which we already operate.

    Daniel: CEE indeed has a wealth of hard-working lawyers and we fully intend to build on them to grow Queritius. We want Queritius to be a center of excellence where lawyers from diverse backgrounds deal with the most complex disputes in a collegial fashion and in a very open, non-discriminative and collegial environment. We will create a company culture and legal service that is different from what is available on the market. We will not send memos when an e-mail is sufficient. We will avoid using Latin and over-complicating things because we know this is what clients want.

    CEELM: What sorts of plans do you have for Queritius’ growth?

    Veronika: We do want to grow, but we want to grow organically and cohesively, bringing in the right people at the right time. We want to build the muscle necessary to accompany our clients in their toughest battles while remaining a lean, flexible, and adaptable organization.

    Wojciech: We are limited by our focus and the relative depth of the market. Ideally, in the medium run, we would like to grow to be present in four to five locations with the range of 15 to 20 professionals with diverse nationalities, qualifications, and backgrounds. We want to build an international and diverse team. We truly believe that the more diverse our team, the more resourceful we become. At the same time, we feel that the law firm of the future will no longer be composed mostly of lawyers. Information technologies, proprietary legal tech solutions, business intelligence, and other related areas will also be areas we need to look at.

    Daniel: It is important how we define growth. Our aim is first to obtain brand recognition for Queritius, so that sophisticated clients in the CEE region trust us to work with them on their disputes, when it matters most. If we are able to deliver on our promise to clients of consistent, sound judgment, expansion and growth will come naturally.

    CEELM: Well, congratulations. We look forward to reporting on your success and growth in the months and years to come!

    Veronika: Thank you. We are truly excited to be part of this dynamic region and look forward to working with our clients, colleagues, and peers. 

    Wojciech: Thank you.

    Daniel: Thank you.

  • Inside Out: Privatization of Komercijalna Banka

    On March 5, 2020, CEE Legal Matters reported that Kinstellar had advised Nova Ljubljanska Banka d.d. on the conclusion of a share purchase agreement with the Republic of Serbia for the acquisition of an 83.23% ordinary shareholding in Komercijalna Banka a.d. Beograd. Serbia’s AP Legal and Prica & Partners advised the Government of the Republic of Serbia on the privatization.

    The Players:

    Counsel for Nova Lubljanska Banka d.d.: Denise Hamer, Head of C/SEE Asset Solutions, Kinstellar, and Branislav Maric, Managing Partner, Kinstellar Belgrade

    Counsel for the Republic of Serbia: Aleksandar Preradovic, Managing Partner, AP Legal

    CEELM: Denise, let’s start with you. Why and when were you selected by Nova Lubljanska Banka to advise it on this deal?

    Denise: I have had a long-standing relationship with Nova Ljubljanska Banka, having advised or cooperated with the bank and many of its managers and employees on a number of high profile restructuring matters in Slovenia and the region, including Istrabenz, Pivo Lasko, and Mercator, as well as ongoing finance matters. I first worked with Blaz Brodnjak, now the CEO of NLB, as colleagues at Austria’s Bawag PSK, winding up the bank’s Slovenian operations following the acquisition of the bank by Cerberus Capital. In addition, NLB Serbia is located next door to Kinstellar’s Belgrade office and although this was the first NLB mandate for Kinstellar, NLB Serbia was well aware of the firm and Branislav, Kinstellar’s Serbia Managing Partner.

    CEELM: What about you, Aleksandar? Why did the Republic of Serbia reach out to you and your firm?

    Aleksandar: We became involved in the Komercijalna Banka transaction as part of advisory consortium led by Lazard Freres. The advisory consortium also included KPMG and Prica & Partners. The consortium was selected as the highest-ranking bidder in the tender for the provision of advisory services in the privatization process of Komercijalna Banka that was organized by Serbian Ministry of Finance.

    CEELM: What, exactly, was the initial mandate when you were each retained for this project, at the very beginning? Denise?

    Branislav: The initial mandate was for the comprehensive representation of NLB as a bidder for and potential acquirer of Komercijalna Banka.  The initial mandate did not change materially, although as could be expected, it expanded to address ad hoc issues that arose from time to time, as in all transactions.

    CEELM: What about you, Aleksandar? What was your initial mandate?

    Aleksandar: The initial mandate involved providing legal advisory services in connection with the sale of the shareholding of the Republic of Serbia in the bank via a tender process. The initial mandate (as defined in the Request for Proposals) generally involved a more-or-less standard set of legal services in a privatization process, such as, for example, a full-scope legal due diligence of Komercijalna Banka and its subsidiaries in Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro, assistance with the structuring of the sales process, drafting the tender documentation (including requests for expressions of interest and public invitations, the information memorandum, NDAs, the SPA, and other ancillary transaction documents), and negotiating the SPA with short-listed bidders and then with NLB as the winning bidder in the tender.

    However, at the very outset of our engagement, the scope of services expanded to involve assistance with the exit of the international finance institutions – the EBRD, IFC, DEG, and Sweedfund – from the shareholding structure of Komercijalna Banka, which was a pre-requisite for the selling of a controlling interest in the bank in a privatization process. The fact that the Komercijalna Banka Group operates in three different markets as well as under a dual regulatory regime in the territory of Kosovo added additional level of complexity during the preparation for and implementation of the transaction.

    CEELM: Who were the members of your teams, and what were their individual responsibilities?

    Denise: I led Kinstellar’s team along with Branislav. In addition, the team included Belgrade colleagues Tijana Arsenijevic, Nikola Stojiljkovic, Dragana Bajic, Petar Grozdanovic, Milan Radonic, Andreja Vrazalic, Selma Mujezinovic, Una Draganic, and Ksenija Sorajic.

    Aleksandar: I was the leader of legal team in this transaction, in charge of key legal work streams during the entire process. In addition to myself, my colleague Dusan Preradovic was involved mainly during due diligence phase of the process (for real estate matters). During the entire process, we worked closely and in full co-ordination with a great team from Prica & Partners led by Partner Danica Gligorijevic.

    CEELM: Denise, can you please describe the deal in as much detail as possible, including your (and Kinstellar’s) role in helping make it happen.

    Branislav: The transaction entails the acquisition by NLB, Slovenia’s largest bank group and the only regional financial institution listed on the London Stock Exchange, of Komercijalna Banka, including its subsidiaries in Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as branches of the bank in the territory of Kosovo, through the purchase of 83.23% of its shares. Although on its face this is a straightforward corporate share deal, it is actually a quite complex undertaking.  Both parties are regulated financial entities located in multiple jurisdictions, and therefore the acquisition involves substantial regulatory input from all relevant jurisdictions’ (and EU) Central Banks and Competition Authorities (and consideration of UK Securities law). As well as corporate and regulatory support, the acquisition and integration of a going concern requires labor, technology, real estate, finance, securities, restructuring, and tax advisory. Finally, there are added complications involving Covid-19, including the imposition of Central Bank emergency measures. As a full service regional law firm, Kinstellar’s team supported all of the above legal aspects of the transaction, both internally and through project management of 3rd party local law counsel.   

    CEELM: And now you, Aleksandar. What was your role?

    Aleksandar: I believe that the client’s team is best placed to provide an objective view as to our role in helping the deal happen.

    CEELM: What’s is the current status of the deal?

    Branislav: The transaction currently is proceeding through the requisite regulatory approval and integration processes.

    Aleksandar: The SPA was signed on February 26, 2020. Irrespective of challenges posed by COVID-19 the parties have managed to meet all relevant transaction milestones thus far. Currently we are in the process of fulfilling the last set of regulatory related conditions precedent – obtaining clearance from the CEB and NBS – so I would say that we are running the last 100 meters of this marathon. If everything goes as planned closing of the transaction is expected to happen in the last quarter of this year.

    CEELM: What would you each say was the most challenging or frustrating part of the process?

    Denise: As Tolstoy sort of said, all happy transactions are challenging in their own way. The Share and Purchase Agreement was executed on February 26, and by the second week of March most of the C/SEE region and Western Europe were in COVID-19 lockdown.  As can be imagined, this led to some unanticipated and unique challenges. That being said, all parties on both the seller’s and the buyer’s side have been extremely professional and accommodating. In addition, the relevant authorities have been quite creative in working around COVID-19 obstacles. 

    Aleksandar: Each privatization process is by its very nature challenging. In this particular case, this was even more true than usual, taking into consideration a number of different factors, such as the significance of Komercijalna Banka in Serbia’s banking sector, the number of stakeholders involved, the regulatory aspects of the Komercijalna Banka group’s operations in a number of jurisdictions, and so on. All these factors required a lot of time and careful structuring. In addition, the fact that three bidders submitted binding bids required a lot of work (and steady nerves) during the preparation of the final draft of the SPA based on mark-ups received during the first stage of the tender process.    

    CEELM: Was there any part of the process that was unusually or unexpectedly smooth/easy?

    Branislav: All things considered – (a) the inherent complexity of transaction, (b) the multitude of jurisdictions and authorities that were involved, and (c) the COVID-19 crisis – the transaction proceeded in a remarkably smooth manner. As noted above, all parties on both the seller’s and the buyer’s side have been united in achieving a single objective. We were fortunate to have spent quite a lot of time together in Belgrade during January and February in face-to-face negotiations so we could work effectively remotely.   

    Aleksandar: My overall impression is that entire process – although it was very challenging – went more smoothly than I had expected. I guess it has to do something with my innate pessimism. If I were to choose a part that exceeded my expectations, it would be the overall co-operation with our client’s and the NLB’s team during the transaction.

    CEELM: Did the final result match your initial mandate, or did it change/transform somehow from what was initially anticipated?

    Denise: The final result exceeded our initial anticipation as our client NLB won the auction. Accordingly, the initial mandate has been extended to encompass the integration of the banks. And naturally, with this transaction creating an NLB regional powerhouse presence, we look forward to ongoing future cooperation.

    Aleksandar: To be perfectly honest the final result – that is, the fact that SPA has been signed and that the transaction is going to happen – exceeded my initially low expectations based on experience from the past (for example, failed attempts to privatize the state-owned incumbent telecom operator). In that context participation in a successful privatization of this scale in the present context is really rewarding, irrespective of the increased scope of work in comparison with the one anticipated at the outset of the process.   

    CEELM: Denise, what specific individuals at NLB instructed you, and how did you interact with them?

    Denise: This is a bit like the Oscars; we do not have room or time to name all of the terrific people at NLB with whom we have worked. Briefly, however, we have been very fortunate to work day to day with a stellar NLB team led on the legal side by Marko Jeric, the General Counsel, and led on the commercial side, by Managing Director Ursula Kovacic Kosak, and Guy Stevens, formerly of UBS, who joined NLB as consultant financial advisor on this transaction. From management, we have been steered primarily by Blac Brodnjak, the CEO of NLB, and Archibald Kremser, the COO. Our interactions with the core team have been hourly by phone, text, WhatsApp, and email (if there is an untapped method of communication, I am sure we will soon find it). We probably speak with each other more than with our spouses or children, which is saying quite a lot considering that everyone has been housebound for months.

    CEELM: And you, Aleksandar? What specific individuals at Serbia’s Ministry of Finance instructed you, and how did you interact with them?

    Aleksandar: During the entire transaction we and colleagues from Prica & Partners have been in direct daily communication with Filip Sanovic, the Deputy State Secretary in the Ministry of Finance in charge of the financial sector, Vuk Delibasic, Special Advisor to the Minister of Finance, and Olivera Zdravkovic, special advisor in the Ministry of Finance. The co-operation with the seasoned team of Ministry of Finance went smoothly notwithstanding various challenges we all faced during the privatization process. I genuinely enjoyed working with our client’s teams as well as with other members of the advisory consortium and dare to say that our relationship evolved over the last 18 months from a purely professional one into a real friendship.

    CEELM: How would you describe the working relationship with each other on the deal?

    Denise: Kinstellar has enjoyed an excellent working relationship with the seller’s advisors. Aleksander Prerodovic of Prica Partners combines legal acumen with commercial pragmatism and is a master of client management. In addition, we work closely with the seller’s financial advisors, Lazard and KPMG. As noted, we all spent quite a lot of time together in Belgrade directly after NLB’s successful bid, negotiating the SPA and ancillary documentation. The negotiations transpired through weekly several day meetings over the period from January 9th until the execution of the Sale and Purchase Agreement on February 26th. The time period was relatively condensed and efficient as all parties shared a single objective (we also shared Sacher Torte from Vienna and Macarrons from Paris, due to our international teams). We have now shifted to other modes of communication, but they are continuous.     

    Aleksandar: Co-operation with Kinstellar was combination of personal meetings (mainly during negotiations of the SPA), e-mails, and phone calls. The final negotiations took a couple of weeks, which I believe is nothing unusual in transactions of this level of complexity.

    The overall co-operation with Kinstellar and all other advisors involved in the transaction was very good and constructive which at the end of the day enabled us and our respective clients to overcome the various challenges and complexities that we all faced during transaction.   

    CEELM: How would you describe the significance of the deal?

    Branislav: The acquisition of Komercijalna Banka by NLB creates the third largest bank in Serbia and a regional juggernaut. Quoting NLB CEO Blaz Brodnjak: “NLB’s operations in Serbia will be by far the largest outside of Slovenia, underlining the meaning of the respective transaction for the regional systemic financial institution.” Prior to COVID-19, this was already a marquee transaction. With the consolidation of the financial sector that is likely to follow the COVID-19 crisis, this transaction gives NLB a strong platform for continued strategic growth.     

    Aleksandar: The privatization of Komercijalna Banka is the largest-ever privatization in the Serbian financial sector, both in terms of transaction value and the strategic importance of Komercijalna Banka for the Serbian system. It is a transaction that will significantly change the Serbian banking system in the years to come.

    This Article was originally published in Issue 7.9 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • Inside Out: Turkey’s First Unicorn

    On June 3, 2020, CEE Legal Matters reported that White & Case and its associated Turkish firm, GKC Partners, had advised interactive entertainment company Zynga Inc. on its USD 1.8 billion acquisition of Istanbul-based mobile gaming company Peak Oyun Yazilim ve Pazarlama, A.S. Baker McKenzie, working with its Turkish affiliate, the Esin Attorney Partnership, advised Peak on the transaction, which represented the largest acquisition of a start-up in Turkey to date, and makes Peak the country’s first “unicorn.” Dentons, along with its affiliate Balcioglu Selcuk Ardiyok Keki Avukatlik Ortakligi, advised selling shareholder Hummingbird Ventures CVA, Abcoo advised Peak Founder and CEO Sidar Sahin, the Verdi Law Firm advised selling shareholders Earlybird Verwaltungs GmbH, Evren Ucok, and Demet Suzan Mutlu Ucok, and BTS & Partners advised selling shareholder Endeavour Catalyst.

    The Players:

    Counsel for Peak: Eren Kursun, Partner, Esin Attorney Partnership

    Counsel for Zynga, Inc: Asli Basgoz, Partner, White & Case

    Counsel for Hummingbird Ventures: Selahattin Kaya, Counsel, BASEAK

    Counsel for Sidar Sahin: Murat Aygun, Partner, Abcoo

    CEELM: How did you each become involved in this matter? Let’s start with you, Eren.

    Eren: We first represented Peak Oyun Yazilim ve Pazarlama Anonim Sirketi – “Peak” – in 2017, when they sold their card-and-board-games studio to Zynga Turkey Oyun A.S. Our team had assisted Peak in that initial card-and-board-games sale, and we had also represented some of the sellers in various transactions, so we were familiar with the company and most of its shareholders. We were appointed by Peak and its shareholders in March for this matter.

    CEELM: What about you, Asli?

    Asli: We represented Zynga in its first Turkish acquisition, of Gram Games, for USD 250 million in 2018 and in its acquisition of the Finnish gaming company Small Giant Games for USD 560 million, also in 2018. So Zynga knows us very well and works with us on their international acquisitions.  Very recently, once again we represented Zynga in the acquisition of 80% (and later of the balance) of Istanbul-based Rollic, a fast-growing hyper-casual mobile game company.  That acquisition represented Zynga’s entrance into the hyper-casual game market, one of the fastest-growing gaming categories.

    CEELM: And you, Selahattin?

    Selahattin: Hummingbird contacted us in Q4 2019 for the purposes of assisting them on corporate matters with respect to their Peak Games investment and also for a potential sale process.

    CEELM: And you, Murat?

    Murat: In 2011, we provided legal services to Alpha Investment LLC with respect to the acquisition of 16% shares in Peak. We then represented Alpha in its exit from Peak in 2017. Following the closing of that deal, we met with the management of Peak. They informed me that Peak would have liked to retain us as external counsel.

    After obtaining the consent of Alpha in order to avoid any conflict of interest, we started rendering our services to Peak. As such, since 2018, we have been providing legal services to Peak with respect to its daily operations (e.g., the preparation/negotiation of contracts with third parties, providing legal advice in various aspects of law, including advising on the data protection compliance arrangements, etc.) as well as managing certain claims and lawsuits involving Peak.

    When Zynga became interested in Peak, we were naturally involved in the matter from the outset and asked by Sidar to represent him in this deal.

    CEELM: What, exactly, was the initial mandate when you were each retained for this project, at the very beginning?

    Eren: Our initial mandate was representing all shareholders and Peak in relation to the sale of Peak.

    Asli: We were retained for the entire M&A transaction at the outset. Zynga’s legal team, including GC Phuong Philips, Assistant GC Matt Tolland, and Senior Counsel Samir Najam (working closely with their specialist teams) team up with their external counsel early and integrate them into the deal team.  That is one of the many reasons it is such a pleasure to work with Zynga.

    Selahattin: Our initial mandate was handling corporate law matters, including representing Hummingbird on the Peak Games board. For this purpose, our Managing Partner, Galip Selcuk, was appointed to the board as the representative of Hummingbird, one of the board member of Peak Games.

    Murat: The representation of Peak was discussed among the shareholders prior to the kick-off of the project and it was eventually agreed upon by them that it would be best if (i) Peak were represented by a law firm that was not representing Peak and/or any of the shareholders at that time; and (ii) each shareholder appointed his/its own counsel for the project.

    It was contemplated by the parties that all the shares of Peak (including those held by Sidar Sahin) would be acquired by Zynga with the current management team remaining in place and Peak continuing to operate in Turkey. In this context, Sidar asked us to represent him to conduct and conclude on his behalf all negotiations with respect to the relevant acquisition. The initial scope of our assignment was completely in alignment with the final product. We represented the management throughout the whole process, as Peak will continue to be managed by the management team. 

    CEELM: Please describe the deal in as much detail as possible, including your roles in helping make it happen.

    Eren: This deal is a landmark in the Turkish startup ecosystem and is Zynga’s biggest transaction since its incorporation. Both sides were very enthusiastic about the transaction and excited to make this partnership happen. Within the scope of this transaction, Zynga paid half of the total purchase price in cash and the other half in Zynga stocks, so the sellers, as the former shareholders of Peak, became shareholders of Zynga as well.

    The transaction involved seven sellers and four different law firms. We arranged all communication between the sellers and their counsels, and acted as the point of contact for Zynga and their counsel, as the lead counsel for the sellers and Peak. Combining all of the comments from the sellers and our colleagues in different time zones was very challenging, considering the time pressure. However, we managed to complete our drafts and mark-ups, including all parties’ comments, in less than a week, as our Istanbul, London, Washington, Chicago, and Dusseldorf teams acted as a single unit and were able to provide fast and accurate advice to Peak. Further, as Peak’s legal representatives, we worked hard to align all parties and find solutions that work for everyone.

    Asli: Here is some background on the parties: Zynga is a global leader in its sector, founded in 2007 with the mission of “connecting the world through games.” Its games, such as Words with Friends, FarmVille, and Zynga Poker are played by hundreds of millions of players each month. Peak, a globally successful mobile gaming company, has two forever franchises, Toon Blast and Toy Blast, that have consistently ranked in the top 20 in US IPhone grossing games and are played all over the world. It was founded in 2010 by Turkish entrepreneur Sidar Sahin.

    As for the structure of the deal, this basic information (which has been well-publicized) is summarized from Zynga’s own disclosures and filings. Zynga, Inc., (a Delaware Corporation) purchased all of the issued share capital of Peak from the sellers in exchange for consideration of approximately USD 1.8 billion, of which (a) USD 900 million was paid in cash, subject to adjustments set forth in the Share Sale and Purchase Agreement and (b) the remaining USD 900 million was satisfied by the issuance of shares of Zynga Class A common stock, based on the volume-weighted average closing price of the Zynga common stock during the 30 consecutive trading days immediately preceding the date of the Share Sale and Purchase Agreement, subject to adjustments as set forth in that agreement.

    The challenges included: (i) Several different groups of selling shareholders (founder, different classes of investors) with sometimes competing interests, priorities and approaches to the transaction and to the transaction agreements, requiring extra coordination and agreement among themselves and with Zynga; (ii) Important agreements to be reached with Mr. Sidar Sahin and the management team of Peak for the post-closing period; (iii) Spin-off of a unit of Peak as part of the transaction; and (iv) Merger clearances needed in the US and Germany during a pandemic.

    Peak Games and Mr. Sidar Sahin and Zynga knew each other from when Zynga acquired the mobile card game studio of Peak Games a few years ago.  That helped make the deal happen more quickly than it might otherwise have.

    Selahattin: We were representing one of the early investors to the PEAK Games, a Brussels-based private equity house, Hummingbird. We assisted our client on Turkish law matters with respect to handling their investment in their portfolio company as well as acting as the transaction counsel to Hummingbird during the sale process.

    Murat: The project involved the acquisition of Peak’s shares by Zynga in their entirety under the terms and conditions set forth in the SPA. Well, it was agreed by the parties that the closing of the deal would be an “exit” for all the shareholders, except Sidar Sahin, who would remain as the CEO of the company thereafter.

    As I mentioned, the management team including Sidar agreed to remain in their then-current positions in Peak after the closing of the deal. This of course affected our level of responsibility and we had to be concerned not only about the completion of the share transfer at the closing but also the status of Peak and the management team at the post-closing stage. It was therefore important for us to close the deal smoothly and consider each and every detail for the Peak team to continue operating at its best following the acquisition. [In the process], we also had to balance the respective interests of Peak’s management team and the other parties to the SPA and come up with solutions that satisfies each of them to a certain extent.

    Throughout the project, we worked exceptionally closely with the management team. Whenever a document was circulated, the management team members, Beril, and I would review it individually, then have a video call to discuss our comments, and then revise it accordingly and send it to the attention of Baker McKenzie. Since we had already been working with those individuals during the years, it enabled us to truly understand their (and Sidar’s) needs and concerns, which we believe accelerated the negotiation process.

    CEELM: What is the current status of the deal?

    Asli: The share purchase agreement was signed on May 31, 2020, and closing took place on July 1, 2020. 

    CEELM: What was the most challenging or frustrating part of the process?

    Eren: This deal was exceptionally complex, for the following reasons, among others: there was warranty insurance and escrow, the purchase price was paid in cash and Zynga stocks, there were multiple sellers, there were anti-trust filings in multiple jurisdictions, and the governing law of the documentation was UK law with US and Turkish laws applying due to the home jurisdictions of the buyer and the target. Along with us, Baker McKenzie’s London, Washington, Chicago, and Dusseldorf teams acted as a single unit and were able to provide fast and accurate advice to Peak, despite the time crunch and various time zones in play.

    Another challenging part was managing the communications and negotiations between the sellers. Although everyone cooperated, it was not always easy to get aligned on all legal and commercial points.

    Asli: This was a complex, multi-jurisdictional, fast-moving transaction with a US public-company buyer (which brings it with its own requirements) and sellers from Turkey and other jurisdictions. It wasn’t frustrating, but it was challenging and required all parties to handle a range of legal issues to reach agreement.

    Selahattin: There were multiple sellers in the transaction with different priorities, as can be expected in such transactions. Managing those priorities and finding mutual understandings when the parties were negotiating against the purchaser was challenging. It was also a complex transaction, including an escrow mechanism, W&I Insurance, and partial consideration in stocks, and it was subject to multiple jurisdictions (US, English, Turkish, etc.).

    Murat: The most challenging part of the process was to adapt to the significant changes that we had to make in our professional and personal lives due to coronavirus, while at the same time working intensively on the project. All negotiations in this project had to be conducted and concluded in an electronic environment since all the parties involved had to adjust to today’s pandemic circumstances. I must confess that it was not as hard as I thought, considering that the working from home system has its own benefits, such as being able to be reachable at all times, managing your time more efficiently, etc.      

    Other than that, as in most of the M&A deals, there was huge time pressure on all the parties; yet this was one of those times where it came with a ten-hour time difference between the purchaser (Zynga) and the sellers.

    It was also challenging that we had to wear two hats in this deal: We were representing a seller, who agreed to transfer all of his shares in Peak, and an executive, who would continue to serve as Peak’s CEO, at the same time.

    Since the shareholders of Peak then consisted of four investment funds and three individuals (including Sidar Sahin), there were a lot of different interests and priorities at the table for this project.

    CEELM: Was there any part of the process that was unusually or unexpectedly smooth/easy?

    Eren: Peak and the sellers mandated us in March, and due to the COVID-19 pandemic, that was the only meeting we held physically until the closing meeting. All communications, negotiations and everything other than our kick-off meeting were done over the phone, Zoom, and e-mail. The share purchase agreement was signed on May 31, and the deal closed on July 1, 2020. In such a short period of time, without holding physical meetings, we were able to close the deal in line with expectations and the schedule. I literally did the deal out of a ten-square-meter hut. This was unexpectedly smooth and easy. When governments initially implemented lockdown measures, we were concerned about how to coordinate this deal, but everything went really well.

    Asli: The desire to do the deal was there.

    Selahattin: The transaction was relatively fast despite the pandemic given that the parties were active in the same market and had a great knowledge about each other. Zynga acquired the board games of Peak earlier so there was lot of rapport between the sellers and Zynga. This helped the process move smoothly.

    Murat: After an intensive negotiation process, the SPA was about to be signed in two days. While we were expecting that the tension would increase as we got closer to the end, the parties instead agreed on the outstanding issues more swiftly than we thought. This was unexpected; yet welcomed, since it showed that all the parties were comfortable with their respective positions under the SPA.   

    CEELM: Did the final result match your initial mandates, or did it change/transform somehow from what was initially anticipated?

    Eren: The final result matched our initial mandate. Our initial mandate was in March and the deal was signed at the end of May. The entire process was very quick, despite multiple party negotiations, multiple jurisdiction analyses, and COVID-19 social distancing measures.

    Asli: It matched our initial mandate, which was to assist Zynga from the term sheet stage all the way through closing of the transaction, putting in place of post-closing arrangements and the like. We were involved throughout and worked closely with the Zynga team.

    Selahattin: Yes, it matched our initial mandate.

    Murat: The final result did match the initial mandate of the parties: It was contemplated that all the shares of Peak would be acquired by Zynga, while the management team, including Sidar Sahin, would continue to manage the company thereafter. Upon closing of the deal, this mandate was realized. The final result also matched the initial mandate of our client, Sidar Sahin. His priorities were to ensure a smooth transition process for the Peak team and the successful continuation of Peak’s operations in Turkey with the same team.

    CEELM: What specific individuals from your clients instructed each of you, and how did you interact with them?

    Eren: We were instructed by the Peak management team. The Peak and Esin teams acted as one team, communicating on the phone, WhatsApp, and Zoom, basically 24/7. Due to the time pressure and the teams’ desire to close the deal as quickly as possible, the Peak management team worked with us every day – they were very capable and transparent, and not once did we face any difficulty in receiving information or feedback from Peak.

    Asli: Ms. Phuong Philips, GC at Zynga, and Mr. Matt Tolland, Assistant GC

    Selahattin: We were instructed by Lukas Decoster and Fırat Ileri of Hummingbird and we worked very closely with them.

    Murat: As I mentioned before, we worked exceptionally closely with the management team. Considering the time pressure, and the time difference between the parties, every day we spent countless hours having conference calls and working through the project documents together. Well, we already had an established bond with the management team but I think this project took our relationship to a whole other level! Every day and almost every minute, we were either having video calls or messaging each other. Such a busy schedule could have been overwhelming; yet we were lucky to have worked with the management team. We were all excited about the project and trying to enjoy it as much as we could and that created a great harmony among us. We knew that the management team, including Sidar Sahin, had played a significant role in Peak’s success, but with this project, we had the chance to clearly understand why their roles had a great impact on the company. As an effective visionary leader, Sidar has formed a team with extensive knowledge and well-earned experience that is passionate about the company’s business and their contributions to its success. During the project, we were highly impressed by their work ethic and ability to make the right decisions swiftly, even after having spent restless days and nights. Sidar and the team’s energy made this experience unique for us.      

    CEELM: How would you describe the working relationship with each other on the deal?

    Eren: All the communications between the firms were done over e-mail, phone, and Zoom. We had no physical meetings other than the kick-off meeting we held with the Peak management team and the closing meeting held at our offices in Istanbul. We led the negotiations on behalf of Peak and all the sellers. Since we have good relationships with White & Case/GKC Partners and the law firms involved in this transaction, we worked in harmony, trying to accommodate each other’s requests.

    Selahattin: All the work among counsel for all parties (each investor had its own counsel and Esin/Bakers represented the company and coordinated all the various counsel) was done remotely primarily via Zoom calls. The working relationship among counsel was good, [as] many of us have worked together a lot over the years.

    In the busy weeks leading up to signing, there were round-the-clock meetings and calls, negotiations, exchange of drafts and different work streams, some legal, some business, all working at the same time to get there. 

    Selcuk: Given the number of parties involved in the process, we worked with other law firms, both on the same and opposite sides.  It was a pleasure to work with all the law firms involved.  We believe all firms did a great job to focus and finalize the transaction in the targeted manner and deadlines.  Even though each seller had its own legal representation, given the different priorities involved, all of them used one law firm to negotiate against the purchaser, which eased the process of negotiation and communication with respect to dealing with the purchaser and its legal counsels.

    Murat: Since the project had been kicked off during the coronavirus pandemic, all the communication between the parties and the law firms was made over email and phone. No in-person meeting was held on our side, except for the closing ceremony where there had been a physical meeting held with all the parties involved.

    Throughout the deal, we worked closely with Baker McKenzie, as the other firms did as well, since Baker McKenzie represented all the sellers. Especially when negotiating the SPA, almost every day we exchanged emails with Baker McKenzie back and forth and had numerous calls to resolve matters as quickly as possible. We were happy that the Baker McKenzie team members always gave quick responses and were reachable at all times. We thank them for all their hard work to make this deal happen.       

    CEELM: Finally, how would you each describe the significance of the deal?

    Eren: Turkey has a young population full of talent and eagerness. However, the startup ecosystem is not as advanced and supportive as it is in countries like the US. These young people who are ambitious to follow their dreams sometimes have questions about whether they should do so in their homeland, or somewhere else where they can have access to better financing and mentoring. Despite the young talent, Turkey had never grown a unicorn. But now the Turkish youth has Peak to look up to – a Turkish start-up becoming a global brand. It is an inspiring story. It is a reason for the youth to stay home and follow their dreams. That’s why although in most M&A transactions where the buyer is not Turkish there is a lot of nationalist criticism about Turkish assets being sold to foreign investors, in the case of Peak, they became national heroes. I have never seen a transaction that received so much publicity and lifted spirit of every single Turkish citizen. Even the politicians combined around Peak’s success. The closest thing I know to the Peak transaction is Turkish national football team winning third place in the World Cup in 2002!

    Asli: This transaction was significant for the sector, for Turkey, for Zynga and of course for us.

    As you know, this transaction represents the largest acquisition of a Turkish start-up company ever and makes Peak Turkey’s first technology “unicorn.” According to Zynga, Peak is one of the world’s best puzzle game makers and Zynga considered it a good opportunity to Peak’s creative and passionate talent to its portfolio. With the addition of Toon Blast and Toy Blast, in particular, Zynga is expanding its live services portfolio to eight forever franchises, meaningfully increasing its global audience base and adding to its exciting new game pipeline.

    This transaction and other Zynga deals that proceeded (Gram Games and, most recently, the signing of Rollic Games) demonstrate that Turkey is a successful worldwide hub for game development, attracting attention from major strategic players who want to add to their portfolios and grow their business and user bases.

    For White & Case and GKC Partners, this transaction really played to our strengths.  Here, we were able to cover all of the relevant jurisdictions and specialties that played an important role in the transaction, from US capital markets, to M&A, to the critical IT/IP and data privacy components, multijurisdictional tax analysis, competition filing assessment across many jurisdictions. We worked seamlessly across a large multijurisdictional team, worked effectively with many counterparties (the sellers), all coordinated by Baker McKenzie but having their own counsel. We were asked by Zynga’s legal team to take responsibility for many critical aspects of the transaction and to work closely alongside them and their business team to drive this deal to signing very quickly given its size and complexity.

    It is always a pleasure to work with Zynga because of the quality of their people and how well they function as a team and appreciate the contributions of their counsel. This made the transaction, and others we have done with them, even more important and fun.

    Selahattin: It is great to be a part of the first unicorn exit of the Turkish market. It is the biggest transaction in the Turkish market so far and most probably it will stay that way for quite some time.  It gives a great message about the Turkish market with respect to the potentials of the start-ups, tech companies, innovative and open minded business models and shows that if supported, we are very well equipped and have the talent and a great potential to create and manage unicorns and companies capable of globally competing in different and new areas. 

    Murat: Since the coronavirus pandemic, people have been experiencing a slow-down in the world’s economy and in most business sectors. Unfortunately, the number and the volume of foreign investments (and therefore of M&A deals) in Turkey also decreased in the past few years. This project, on the other hand, has been conducted and completed during the pandemic and, with a deal worth USD 1.8 billion, makes Peak the first “unicorn” in the technology sector of Turkey and one of the most valuable companies in Turkey’s history.

    We believe that the project had a great influence on the pessimistic atmosphere in the world and in Turkey and reminded potential investors that Turkey might be the right choice for them. Also the international news on the project showed the world the success of a Turkish start-up company and that there are indeed big and serious Turkish players in the global gaming sector. The project is also promising for the young entrepreneurs in Turkey since they now know for sure that anything can be done with dedicated hard work and a visionary mind.

    Finally, we would like to point out that it was highly crucial for the management team that Peak continued its operations in Turkey because Sidar Sahin was always willing to keep contributing to the growth of the Turkish economy. With a vision to change the world, he emphasized from the beginning of the project that this was “just the beginning” .

    We feel lucky to have the chance to work with such a leader and his impressive management team, and we are proud to have been a part of this project.

    This Article was originally published in Issue 7.8 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • Inside Out: Sabev & Partners Advises the Government of Bulgaria on the Tender for the Sofia Airport Concession in Bulgaria

    On July 28, 2020, CEE Legal Matters reported that Bulgaria’s Sabev & Partners law firm, working alongside DLA Piper, had advised the Government of Bulgaria on the tender procedure for the 35-year concession agreement for the Sofia Airport in Bulgaria, which was ultimately awarded to SOF Connect Consortium, led by Meridiam and including Munich Airport and Strabag, on its successful bid. We spoke to Sabev & Partners Iskra Neycheva and Boryana Boteva about the firm’s work on the project.

    CEELM: First, congratulations on the impressive project!

    Boryana: Thank you! It was really challenging and exciting for us to work on such an important project. In fact, this is the most significant project in Bulgaria in recent years in the air transport infrastructure industry, as Sofia Airport is the largest airport for public use in the country. Moreover, this is the first project for a concession with cross-border interest under Bulgaria’s new Concessions Act (which came into force on January 2nd, 2018, transposing Directive 2014/23/EU on the award of concession contracts). It is a mixed concession – including both construction and operations – and it was awarded via an open tender procedure – which is the most transparent type of procedure, although very difficult to prepare and administer. The result justified all the efforts – there were five excellent offers submitted by highly experienced and reputable investors!

    CEELM: Who was on the Sabev & Partners team?

    Boryana: I led our firm’s team, and I was directly involved in all phases of the project and all tasks performed by the team. My colleague Iskra Neycheva carried out the review of the relevant legal framework and participated in the initial discussions on the structure of the transaction, the tender documents, and the draft concession agreement. Two other partners of the law firm were also involved with different roles: Nevena Stoeva actively participated in the legal due diligence, while Managing Partner George Sabev acted mostly as liaison with the interested governmental bodies.

    CEELM: What were the terms of the winning bid? What is the agreement, going forward?

    Boryana: In terms of specific undertakings, the following can be outlined: the concession period is thirty-five years, with an option to be extended for up to one third of the initial period; there is an upfront concession fee of BGN 550 million (about EUR 281 million) and annual concession fees (the higher of EUR 24.5 million and 32% of the aggregate concession revenues per year); there is an investment program of EUR 608 million to be implemented by the concessionaire throughout the concession period, which includes building a new terminal – Terminal 3 – by the end of the tenth concession year. More importantly, it is expected – and we believe – that the signing of this concession agreement sets the start of a promising long-term public-private partnership, which will not only be beneficial for the parties to the agreement, but will also contribute to the development of Bulgaria’s economy.

    CEELM: Can you tell us how and why the project was initiated? Why a new concession was necessary for the airport?

    Iskra: Actually, this is the first concession award procedure for Sofia Airport that reached a successful end. Over the past few years, there were a lot of discussions regarding the most appropriate way of acting – including possible privatization (quickly rejected as an option), a simple service concession (covering only the operation of the airport), or keeping the status as it is, with the airport continuing to be managed and operated by a state-owned company. There were also a couple of attempts to initiate concession procedures, which failed. In any case, it was obvious that the airport needed fresh funds and premium quality management to stay competitive and develop further – and the previous example of Bulgaria’s sea-side airports in Varna and Burgas showed that this can be best achieved through a public-private partnership.

    CEELM: How exactly did Sabev & Partners get involved in this matter?

    Boryana: The main consultant engaged by the Bulgarian Government through the Ministry of Transport, Information Technology and Communications – the concession grantor – was the International Finance Corporation, which then engaged Sabev & Partners as local legal consultants. And, with the support of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, DLA Piper was engaged as international legal consultant.

    CEELM: What work did Sabev & Partners do on the project, exactly?

    Iskra: We did a lot, actually. The main tasks we performed included overviewing and analyzing the relevant legal framework, providing legal due diligence of Sofia Airport (focussing primarily on real estate, contractual and employment matters), advising and assisting in the development of the transaction structure, reviewing drafts of the tender documents (including instructions to bidders and a draft of the concession agreement) to ensure compliance with Bulgarian law, providing advice during intensive Q&A sessions, assisting during the launch and carrying-out of the concession procedure, providing post-award assistance, including consulting on specific issues during the appeal proceedings, and, following the confirmation of the award by the court, providing assistance with the commercial close of the transaction (i.e., the signing of the concession agreement).

    CEELM: What was the relationship between your firm and DLA Piper like on this matter?

    Boryana: Formally, the two firms had separate independent engagements. However, the nature of the work required that we coordinate closely – as the aim was to set up the procedural rules and compile the tender documents in a way that not only ensures compliance with Bulgarian legislation but also with best international practices for such projects. It was even more important that the concession agreement be structured and drafted as closely as possible to a model that is well-known and acceptable to international investors and financial institutions. To achieve this, the two firms worked together on a daily basis – in particular during the extremely busy Q&A sessions (there were more than 3,000 Q&As processed in two languages!). We are really happy to say that the two teams managed to establish effective collaboration, based on a high level of partner involvement, personal dedication, and friendly atmosphere! In addition, although we already have more than 20 years of legal experience, we gained valuable experience from our joint work with Jasna Zwitter-Tehovnik from DLA Piper Vienna and Francesco Ferrari from DLA Piper Milan.    

    CEELM: Did the COVID-19 crisis impact the process in any way?

    Iskra: The concession award decision was announced in July 2019. Then a review process followed, based on appeals filed by all other bidders. The award decision was finally confirmed by the Supreme Administrative Court of Bulgaria on June 5th, 2020 and the concession agreement was signed on July 22. Unfortunately, the outbreak of the COVID-19 crisis happened in the period immediately before the finalization of the procedure and the signing of the concession agreement. Although the crisis seriously affected the air transport industry, the winning bidder did not step back, and it signed the agreement – a difficult and courageous decision, for which it should be congratulated. Moreover, in view of the type of the award procedure, there was no possibility to negotiate any amendments to the agreement before its signing! However, it has to be noted that there is a transition period of up to 12 months following the signing, during which a lot of conditions precedent are to be fulfilled to complete the financial close of the transaction and the concession commencement date to occur. We do hope that the parties will manage to find solutions to deal with any COVID-19 related issues, and that they are able to successfully complete this phase of the transaction as well.

    CEELM: Is Sabev & Partners involved in any way in the ongoing transition period?

    Iskra: Our involvement in the matter is 100% concluded at this point.

    CEELM: Going forward, what is this concession agreement expected to do for the airport, and for the country?

    Iskra: It is expected that the concession will contribute to the more efficient and effective management of the airport based on the concessionaire’s experience and know-how. The concessionaire is required to make significant investments in the development and modernization of the airport infrastructure and to improve the organization and quality of the airport services. The commercial activities of the airport should be expanded and developed further, including by opening new shops, restaurants, and cafeterias. The safety and security of the airport and the flights should be improved through the use of new technologies and the transfer of knowledge and experience. The concessionaire is expected to develop new flight routes from and to Sofia, both for passenger and cargo traffic and enhance the airport’s position as a regional hub for flights within the Middle East, Transcaucasia, and Central Europe. The desired result is to promote the airport’s status as a world-class airport, increase its competitiveness, and attract more traffic. The achievement of these goals should lead to growth of tourism and auxiliary services, foreign investment, and budget revenues.

    This Article was originally published in Issue 7.8 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • Inside Out: RCS & RCS / Digi Communications Bond Issuances

    On February 11, 2020, CEE Legal Matters reported that Filip & Company, working with Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, had advised RCS & RDS / Digi Communications N.V. on its issuance of two series of senior secured bonds with a total value of EUR 850 million. Clifford Chance Badea and Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton advised the lead arrangers, which included Citibank, ING Bank N.V., and UniCredit Bank S.A.

    The Players:

    Counsel for RCS & RDS / Digi Communications N.V.: Alexandru Birsan, Partner, Filip & Co.

    Counsel for Citibank, ING Bank N.V., and UniCredit Bank S.A.: Radu Ropota, Counsel, Clifford Chance Badea

    CEELM: Alexandru, how did you and Filip & Co. become involved in this matter?

    Alexandru: RCS & RDS/Digi is a very old and important client of ours. We have worked for them on their IPO, several international bond issues, large financings, and large acquisitions, as well as major disputes. This mandate is a continuation of that relationship.

    CEELM: What about you, Radu? How did you and Clifford Chance Badea become involved?

    Radu: We acted in the past as Romanian legal counsel for the financial institutions in relation to other important and successful transactions of Digi Communications N.V., namely (i) the issuance of Digi Communications N.V. (at that time Cable Communications Systems N.V.) of EUR 350,000,000 5.0% Senior Secured Notes due 2023, guaranteed on a senior secured basis by RCS & RDS S.A. (in 2016); (ii) the subsequent tap issue of EUR 200,000,000 5.0% Senior Secured Notes due 2023 (in 2019), and the (iii) the initial public offering of shares of Digi Communications N.V and the listing on the Bucharest Stock Exchange (in 2017). In all these transactions, we worked alongside Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, U.S. legal advisers.

    Thus, I think our involvement in this matter was a natural continuation of our previous work and we were approached by the Cleary team to team up once more, which appear to have been favored by both Citigroup (as global coordinator) and RCS & RDS S.A.

    CEELM: What, exactly, was the initial mandate when you were each first retained for this project?

    Alexandru: Well, it was exactly the mandate that we executed – issuing a very large bond out of RCS & RDS rather than Digi Communications – refinancing and “onshoring” their HY debt.

    Radu: The initial mandate was to advise Citigroup and the joint book-runners in relation to a new Rule 144A/Reg S bond to be issued by either Digi Communications or RCS & RDS S.A., intended to launch in January 2020, and mainly to conduct a due diligence review of the Romanian sections of the data room (virtual and physical), to review the offering memorandum, to review the transaction documentation (e.g.,  the indenture governing the notes, the Purchase Agreement, and the Intercreditor Agreement), and to review the security documents and corporate authorizations. As you will note, once the structuring discussions were settled and the decision for the Romanian company – RCS & RDS S.A. – to act as issuer was made, the initial mandate did not suffer any deviations.

    CEELM: Who were the members of your teams, and what were their individual responsibilities?

    Alexandru: We actually had two teams on this deal. One advising the issuer, in which Olga Nita and myself were the principal coordinating lawyers, and we had valuable contributions from Roxana Diaconu, Andreea Banica, Codrina Simionescu, and Anca Badescu; the issuer team had to do everything from transaction structuring, prospectus drafting, contract drafting and negotiation, to listing and dealing with regulators. A second team, led by our colleagues Monica Statescu and Carmen Dutescu, advised the trustee and the agent on this deal.

    Radu: In order to ensure the best and most efficient outcome, we tried to the maximum extent possible to involve the same people that took part in the previous transactions mentioned above. Thus, the core team was comprised of Associate Gabriela Muresan, Partner Madalina Rachieru (who is Head of the Capital Markets team in Bucharest), and myself. Gabriela was in charge of general disclosure in the offering memorandum, while Madalina and I were responsible for the structuring aspects of the transaction, the contractual documentation, and the overall coordination and supervision of the project. The due diligence team consisted mainly of Associate Mihnea Niculescu and Senior Associate Andrei Caloian, who were also responsible for the corresponding disclosure in the offering memorandum. When required, we involved other members from other departments as well – for example colleagues from our Litigation department such as Senior Associate Stefan Dinu –in relation to various punctual legal analyses.

    CEELM: Please describe the bond issuances in as much detail as possible, including your (and your firm’s) role in helping make it happen.

    Alexandru: This was one of the largest bond issuances ever by a Romanian issuer, and due to its size it certainly needed the liquidity provided by international markets. Ultimately this was structured in two series of senior secured bonds, totalizing EUR 850 million. The first bond issue amounted to EUR 450 million with 2.5% interest per year, maturing in 2025, while the second bond issue amounted to EUR 400 million with 3.25% interest per year, maturing in 2028.

    Due to certain quirks of Romanian law we needed to structure a number of things differently than on previous issues by the Digi Group, which were done from the Dutch entity. Also, as this was marketed to international high yield investors, we needed to do things differently than in previous issues by Romanian issuers, which were addressed to the Romanian market, where investors do not perceive the specificities of Romanian law as particularly cumbersome.

    The transaction happened in an extremely alert timeline and took full advantage of the last market opening before the coronavirus crisis hit.

    Radu: While the Group is no stranger to capital markets transactions in general, and to high yield bond transactions specifically, this is the first time the bonds have been issued by RCS & RDS S.A., the Romanian company. Two series of bonds were issued, i.e.,  (i) EUR 450,000,000 2.50% Senior Secured Notes due 2025 and (ii) EUR 400,000,000 3.25% Senior Secured Notes due 2028.

    The bonds benefit from the guarantee of the Dutch parent company – Digi Communications N.V. – and the guarantee of Digi Tavkozlesi es Szolgaltato Korlatolt Felelossegu Tarsasag and Invitel Tavkozlesi Zrt., both from Hungary, as well as Digi Spain Telecom, S.L.U., from Spain.

    Thus, the transaction involved a Romanian issuer and certain Romanian law provisions governing noteholders’ meetings, guarantors from three different jurisdictions, security agreements governed by the laws of four different jurisdictions – Romania, the Netherlands, Hungary, and Spain – an inter-creditor agreement under English law, and a purchase agreement and indenture agreement governed by New York law. This speaks to the complexity of the transaction, with legal counsels on both sides from five jurisdictions being involved.

    Given that the issuer is a Romanian company and that Romania is the core market for the Group, the Romanian-law-related work-streams represented an important part of the transaction. In terms of the transaction structure, we needed to put in place a construct that could integrate English and New York law concepts with Romanian law concepts, with the final aim of making the transaction structure work. We successfully achieved that with the concentrated efforts of our team and the Filip & Co, Cleary, and Freshfields teams. Also, we were able to achieve that while also keeping up with the ambitious timing proposed at the beginning of the transaction.

    CEELM: What is the current status of the issuances?

    Alexandru: The issuance has successfully closed.

    Radu: Currently, the bonds are admitted to trading on the Irish Stock Exchange (operating under the trading name Euronext Dublin).

    CEELM: What was the most challenging or frustrating part of the process?

    Alexandru: This type of transaction is highly complex, and it had many moving parts, in six or seven countries. Managing it all on a very tight timetable is a fairly difficult exercise with no room for error, but I would not say it was frustrating. I would say that it is fun … now that it is over.

    Radu: When a project is successfully finalized it is hard to feel or say that something was frustrating. Challenging? Of course! This is always the case for multijurisdictional projects and this one was no exception. As mentioned above, the most challenging part from a legal perspective was to align Romanian law concepts (some of them regulated by obsolete rules, such as those related to the meetings of noteholders) to US law concepts and international practice in order to develop a construct that would work seamlessly from all perspectives. A significant part of the work was invested to achieve this sometimes in late night calls between the Cleary team, the Filip & Co team, and ourselves.

    CEELM: Was there any part of the process that was unusually or unexpectedly easy?

    Alexandru: There were a number of key technical points that needed to be structured for the international market for the first time and this required all the main lawyer teams on the deal to agree on very fine points, which is never easy and is typically a bit of a nightmare. This time around, however, we were extremely lucky to have excellent colleagues on all sides of the deal, people who had enough intelligence, self-confidence, and commercial spirit to overcome tricky legal issues as a team. I have to say, that was quite a nice experience.

    Radu: Yes, there were parts of the process that seemed smooth, however I would not say they were unexpected. Communications with the Cleary team on one side, and with Filip & Co on the other, were always easy. This is because of the familiarity with RCS & RDS /Digi (from previous transactions), and the familiarity and ease of adaptation to inherent issues of multijurisdictional transactions (as we all have experienced this in the past), as well as the familiarity between the various team members (again, from previous transactions). So it was easy for all us to get on the phone and brainstorm, negotiate, and agree to the most suitable terms in our respective clients’ interests and in the interest of the transaction as a whole.

    CEELM: Did the final result match your initial mandate, or did it change/transform somehow from what was initially anticipated?

    Alexandru: No. The final result was substantially better than the initial mandate as we managed to raise more money, at better prices, on better terms, and quicker than originally anticipated.

    Radu: As mentioned above, our initial mandate did not suffer significant deviations. The timing of the transaction was slightly delayed, the approach to some of the work-streams needed to be adjusted from what we initially contemplated, and more resources needed to be allocated to address this and keep up with the timing, but all in all, the initial mandate was respected.

    CEELM: Radu, what specific individuals at Cleary instructed you, and how did you interact with them?

    Radu: Yes, the Cleary team had a coordination role in this project. Actually, it was pretty much the same team that we have worked with since the 2016 transaction and involved mainly Aseet Dalvi, Andrew Hurwitz, and James Healy. So the interactions via calls or e-mails were smooth and always constructive.

    CEELM: You’ve each been complimentary to each other so far, but here’s a formal opportunity to expand on that. How would you describe the working relationship with each other on the deal?

    Alexandru: We had an excellent relationship with our colleagues at Clifford Chance Badea going into this transaction and this was one of the strong points of the deal – that we managed to resolve almost everything quickly and painlessly. Also, we worked extremely well with Freshfields (on our side) and Cleary Gottlieb on the banks’ side, as the main international counsels on the transaction. The entire group really worked as one team (while protecting the interests of their respective clients, of course) which saved a lot of time, hassle, and, frankly, money for the clients.

    Radu: Our working relationship with Filip & Co goes a long way back and I think I speak for them as well when I say that we have developed a very good working relationship over time and we are always happy to work across from them. Having a similar work ethic, a strong legal background, and a commercially-oriented approach for sure helps. Discussions and negotiations took place over the phone – we have each other’s’ mobile phone numbers and it was very easy to track each other whenever there was the need to settle any points. We worked through the issues this way throughout the entire process and there was nothing major left to settle when the transaction was scheduled for launch.

    CEELM: Finally, looking back, how would you each describe the significance of the issuances?

    Alexandru: The deal was very important in creating a new reference transaction for Romanian issuers, in terms of size and commercial terms, but also in terms of legal structure. Once the waters clear a bit, I am quite certain others will use this transaction to do their own very successful deals.

    Radu: I would say that the issuance of the two series of bonds was an important legal achievement in term of how the transaction was structured, but also a commercial achievement, as it allowed the company to take the benefit of the opportunity window not only to successfully close the transaction but also to borrow funds at a lower interest than previous issuances. Also, this was the first transaction of its kind – a 144A high yield bond – implemented by a Romanian company.

    This Article was originally published in Issue 7.6 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.