Category: Uncategorized

  • Moral Advises on Romatem Share Acquisition

    Moral Advises on Romatem Share Acquisition

    Moral Law Firm has advised Koksal Hologlu and other Turkish existing shareholders of the Romatem Group in acquiring PearlBridge stake in Romatem. Paksoy advised the sellers.

    The Romatem Group is a leading health services provider in Turkey with several hospitals and health facilities in the field of physiotherapy. PearlBridge, which as part of the deal, transferred its 50% shares in Romatem, is a private equity company based in the Netherlands which is an affiliate of US-based PineBridge Investment. 

    The Moral team working on the deal was led by Managing Partner Resat Moral, assisted by Serkan Pamukkale, Asli Pamukkale, and Karaca Kacar. 

    Paksoy did not provide a confirmation and details. PSS Denetim acted as the exclusive financial adviser to the buyers.

  • Site Seeing: Hidden Functionalities and Secrets on the CEE Legal Matters Website

    Site Seeing: Hidden Functionalities and Secrets on the CEE Legal Matters Website

    Many of the 40,000+ people who visit to the CEE Legal Matters website each day know it to be more than simply the best source of information about the deals, transactions, promotions, hires, and lateral moves involving lawyers in Central and Eastern Europe. In fact, the site functions as a key resource for market research and analysis, competitive intelligence, and important hiring/recruiting decisions. Here’s a quick primer to bring you up to speed on some of the site’s key functionalities you may have missed.

    An Ideal Source of Competitive Intelligence

    In almost every one of the 1300+ deals and disputes that have been described on the CEE Legal Matters website since its launch in December 2013, the individual lawyers advising on the deals have been identified and credited. As a result, thousands of lawyers have been named on the site, associated with the deals and cases they guided to successful completion.

    Thus, the site functions as an excellent and easily searchable database, showing quickly which lawyers and what law firms have worked on what matters and for what clients. For example, a simple search shows that Muhsin Keskin, a Partner at the Esin Attorney Partnership in Istanbul, appears in 24 stories on the CEE Legal Matters website, 21 of which involve deals he has worked on.

    You get the idea. With judicious use of the search function on the CEE Legal Matters website, readers wishing to learn more about the experience of firms and lawyers in the region – whether general counsel researching external counsel, managing partners considering candidates for lateral hire, legal recruiters preparing for interviews, or lawyers wanting to scope out their counterparts across the table – can obtain that knowledge quickly, easily, and free of charge. If you need to know who has worked on what, the search function on the CEE Legal Matters website is your friend.

    The Deal List Puts That Information in One Place

    The Deal List on the website is another way of getting information about which firms worked on what deals … and is much more than that.

    Readers of the CEE Legal Matters magazine know that each issue of this magazine contains a multi-page summary of all deals and disputes reported on the CEE Legal Matters website in the preceding two months (pages 6-13, in this issue). What they may not know is that last year’s complete deal list – consisting of all the deals that were reported on the website, supplemented at year’s end with many that firms did not publicize earlier – is available under the Deal List tab on the menu bar.

    The list is simple and user-friendly, and it can be organized by firm, country, client, practice area, industry, or date. 

    In other words, readers wishing to see a complete list of deals that a particular law firm participated in last year can do that. Readers wishing to see a complete list of deals involving leading law firms in the agri-business sector (or any other) can do that. Readers wishing to see a complete list of deals involving major law firms in Russia, Slovenia, or any other CEE country, can do that. And so on.

    Legal Analysis and Firm-Branded Landing Pages

    The information available on the website is not limited to news about deals, promotions, and lateral moves. Instead, simply by clicking on the Thought Leadership tab on the CEE Legal Matters website menu bar, visitors can access a dynamic and ever-growing library of legal analysis articles, easily searchable by country using the list of the 24 CEE countries on the right-hand side of the page. 

    In addition, above that list of countries visitors will find a listing of firms which have arranged for special branded landing pages, providing easy access both to the articles written by their legal experts and to a complete collection of all client matters or other news stories involving that firm that have appeared on the website. Firms such as Karanovic & Nikolic, Varul, Wolf Theiss, and JPM Jankovic Popovic Mitic have taken the extra step to ensure that visitors to the website can easily access examples of and information about their capabilities.

    In addition, once a firm’s landing page has been created, all news stories involving that firm will be hyper-linked directly to it, making it even easier for readers to learn more about the firms involved on particular deals. For General Counsel considering a retainer, among others, this constitutes a complete and valuable resource.

    Putting Our Contacts, Skills, and Experience to Work for You

    In July 2015 a new tab – CEELM Services – appeared on the website menu bar, directing visitors to a summary of special services offered by the founders of CEE Legal Matters.

    With CEELM Services, law firms and others in the CEE legal community can benefit from the contacts, expertise, market knowledge, and writing skills that have become so closely associated with the CEE Legal Matters brand. Law firms interested in making sure their submissions to ranking services are polished, professional, and complete can find assistance. Partners interested in hosting Round Tables or one-on-one sit-downs with General Counsel from a particular industry can ask us to arrange them. And Managing Partners and Marketing Directors interested in obtaining a professionally-conducted, efficient, and useful competitive-intelligence or client-feedback report now have a way of doing so.

    For all of these services, and many others, a simple click on the CEE Legal Matters website is a good place to start. 

    What, Where, and When

    Right there on the right-hand side of the website, midway down, is our Events Calendar, containing an updated list of conferences, seminars, and other events for lawyers, across CEE. Marketers wanting to promote their events, and lawyers wanting to learn about what events are coming up in the region, should be aware of this valuable resource.

    The Best is Yet to Come

    In the 20 months since the CEE Legal Matters website was launched, it has transformed from a simple summary of deals, promotions, and hires in the legal profession into what it is now: The go-to source of news, analysis, thought leadership, and other information involving lawyers in the 24 countries of Central and Eastern Europe. 

    And the site continues to grow. Readers should expect to see a new Jobs section, where firms and legal recruiters alike can post open roles and opportunities for lawyers interested in moving to a new home. In addition, the Thought Leadership and Events Calendar sections of the website will be re-organized and expanded to become even more user-friendly. A current and searchable deal list for this year will appear for subscribers. And the popular Five Questions feature will be expanded.

    And much, much more. We encourage our readers to visit the website, play around, and make sure they know all its features and functionalities. The CEE Legal Matters website was designed for our readers – the lawyers living, working, and/or interested in CEE – and we are committed to making sure it remains useful and responsive to their needs. 

    This Article was originally published in Issue 2.4. of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • Cyber Barbarians at the Gate: Do We Have Effective Tools to Fight Cyber Crime?

    Cyber Barbarians at the Gate: Do We Have Effective Tools to Fight Cyber Crime?

    The Czech Government has long been aware of the threats of cyber attacks that financial institutions, corporations, and commerce are facing. It has answered the call for action to fight cyber crime, and the Czech Republic has thus become one of the few countries to have cyber security laws in place.

    This article discusses the legal framework laid down by the Cyber Security Act (Act No. 181/2014 Coll., or “the Act”), effective since January 1, 2015, and discusses its potential to help fight cyber crime until the pan-European cyber security rules, currently still in proposal phase, are enacted. 

    Who is Concerned?

    The Act sets out obligations only to individuals, legal entities, or public authorities in the field of cyber security which either provide communication services, operate communication networks, or administer important networks, information systems, or communication systems. End-users and content transmitted using electronic communications networks and services fall outside of the scope of the Act.

    To meet the objectives laid down by the Act, two Computer Emergency Response Teams (CERT) were established – the governmental CERT and the national CERT. While the former is a part of the Czech National Security Authority (CNSA) and thus a state institution, the latter is operated by a private entity on the basis of a public-law contract with the CNSA. The role of both CERTs is to share important information and provide a coordinated response to Internet security incidents. 

    Obligations Under the Act

    The scope of obligations under the Act varies depending on the services provided, the importance and systemic character of the information infrastructure, and the character of the service provider. 

    Providers of electronic communication services, operators of electronic communication networks, and entities operating important networks generally have only notification and general precautionary obligations, such as providing contact details to the national CERT or adopting reactive measures with regards to the cybernetic risks in a “state of cyber emergency” (to be declared by the Director of the CNSA). In addition, entities operating important networks are also obliged to report cyber security incidents to the national CERT and to detect cyber security events.

    Administrators of critical information infrastructures, information systems, communication systems, or important information systems have a broader range of obligations, including providing contact details to the CNSA, adopting reactive and proactive security measures, detecting cyber security events, and reporting cyber security incidents to the CNSA.

    What obligations under the Act apply depends on whether or not a particular entity operates a “critical information infrastructure.” This term is only vaguely defined by the Act (and to some extent in secondary legislation). In addition to public entities, which by their nature operate critical information infrastructure, certain private entities such as power plants, hospitals, airports, and financial institutions would also be considered to operate critical information infrastructure.

    Whether an entity is a critical information infrastructure operator depends on the criteria (e.g., quantitative thresholds) laid down by secondary legislation. The determination of the specific objects of critical information infrastructure is carried out by public authorities according to their particular competence (e.g. the Ministry of Industry and Trade, the Ministry of Health, or the CNSA).

    Implementation and Penalties

    Businesses are advised to carefully analyze whether the regulation applies to them and to conduct their affairs accordingly. Should they fail to ensure compliance with their obligations or fail to fulfill the reactive measures, the NSA and the Ministry of the Interior, which carry out surveillance and monitoring, may impose a penalty of up to CZK 100,000 (approximately EUR 3,700) for each separate violation. 

    The imminent danger of penalties amounts to a sufficient impetus for businesses to put their operations in line with the legislation. It has been observed that while large businesses falling into the second category of obliged entities are generally well prepared for the implementation of the Act, small businesses may find themselves in need of external consultancy for the complicated process of implementation. 

    Conclusion

    Understanding whether and to what extent the Act applies is key in determining how to ensure compliance. To whom the Act applies has been one of the most discussed topics so far, as the Act has only been interpreted in limited instances. It is recommended that entities seek technological as well as legal advice in determining the applicability of the Act. 

    Even though somewhat opaque in its applicability, the Act is no doubt a good way forward in fighting cyber crime. Whether the Act will provide for an effective response to cyber attacks is yet to be seen.

    By Jan Kotous, Counsel, and Katerina Kulhankova, Associate, Wolf Theiss

    This Article was originally published in Issue 2.4. of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • IT Industry In Ukraine

    IT Industry In Ukraine

    Ukraine has been one of the leading providers of software development and IT outsourcing services in Central and Eastern Europe for the last several years.

    Despite the general recession in the Ukrainian economy and a sharp decline in other indus-tries, the IT industry continues to demonstrate steady growth. If the legislative changes to deregulate the industry and create a more favorable tax regime are adopted, IT stands a chance of becoming the most promising industry in Ukraine.

    Current Industry Support Program

    On April 8, 2015, the Ukrainian Government adopted a long-awaited 2015 action plan to support the country’s IT industry. Among other things, the action plan provides for the development of bills to: (1) include definitions of “software,” “supply of software,” and “online service” in the Tax Code of Ukraine; (2) simplify the regulatory procedures for provision of IT services to non-residents; and (3) improve the provisions for allocation of intellectual property rights in computer programs and data bases created by Ukrainian employees and contractors.

    It is important for the Ukrainian IT industry that these and other legislative changes are adopted.

    Amending the Tax Code for VAT Exemption purposes

    Back in 2012, the Parliament of Ukraine adopted some important tax incentives for the IT industry. Such incentives included: (1) a reduction of the corporate profit tax rate from 21% to 5% for IT companies that meet eligibility criteria and have registered with the tax authorities under a special procedure; and (2) the exemption of software supply from Ukrainian VAT. 

    The first incentive was abolished as of January 1, 2015 (though IT market players continue to lobby for its renewal), but the latter remains valid until January 1, 2023. The major issue with the VAT exemption is that the tax authorities and tax payers sometimes have different understandings of what qualifies as “software” and as “supply of software.” The Tax Code of Ukraine is not totally clear about these matters, and the clarifications issued by the tax authorities have been of little help. It is expected that the changes to the Tax Code of Ukraine (i.e., to define the relevant terms in the code) will set the record straight.

    Simplifying the Provision of IT Services to Non-Residents

    Until recently, in order to be able to receive payments for IT services provided to foreign clients, a Ukrainian IT freelancer needed to present its servicing bank with a service agreement with the foreign client and a document signed by the client and the freelancer confirming that the services have been provided. This requirement was burdensome and impeded the provision of IT services, in particular those provided via the Internet. 

    On July 7, 2015, the National Bank of Ukraine clarified that an offer made by a Ukrainian freelancer together with an invoice (payment under which is an acceptance of such offer) would be sufficient for the banks to transfer funds.

    Allocating Economic Intellectual Property Rights

    Currently, if an employment agreement with a Ukrainian IT developer (or a service agreement with a Ukrainian independent contractor) does not clearly provide for an assignment of the intellectual property rights in a computer program or a database created under the agreement, there may be an issue with determining the owner of such rights. This is due to discrepancies in the Ukrainian intellectual property laws. The Civil Code of Ukraine provides that the economic intellectual property rights jointly belong to both parties, while the Copyright and Related Rights Law provides that they belong to the employer only. 

    It is expected that the laws will be amended to provide for the automatic transfer of economic intellectual property rights to employers or customers, unless otherwise agreed with employees or independent contractors. Such legislative change will be in line with provisions of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement signed in March 2014.

    Resolving the Key Issue of the IT Industry

    We expect that these legislative changes will have a positive impact on the Ukrainian IT industry – but they will not resolve the key issue facing the industry. 

    Due to rather high payroll tax rates, the majority of IT companies operating in Ukraine are hiring individual IT developers not as employees but as independent contractors. This is because the tax treatment of the independent contractor structure is financially much more favorable for both the companies and the independent contractors and makes the Ukrainian IT industry more competitive worldwide. At the same time, this structure gives rise to the risk that the Ukrainian authorities may reclassify these relations as employment relations, and therefore impose large fines and demand payment of additional taxes and social contributions. 

    This issue may only be resolved if payroll tax rates are decreased to a level where the independent contractor structure does not offer any material benefits for IT market players.

    By Dmytro Fedoruk, Counsel, and Iryna Yelisyeyeva, Lawyer, Clifford Chance

    This Article was originally published in Issue 2.4. of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • Romanian Data Protection Authority intensifies inspections to protect personal data

    Romanian Data Protection Authority intensifies inspections to protect personal data

    Much to the benefit of individual privacy rights, the last couple of years have seen a strengthening of the Romanian Data Protection Authority’s (RDPA) role in ensuring protection of personal data.

    This year the RDPA has intensified its inspections to ensure that technologies implemented by employers comply with the Romanian Data Protection Law (Law No. 677/2001), with particular emphasis on ensuring that employers’ use of video surveillance complies with the RDPA’s 2012 decision on the processing of personal data by video means (Decision No. 52/2012).

    In April of this year, the RDPA issued a landmark decision declaring that an electronic system that both video monitored employees and scanned employees’ fingerprints when they entered and left the employer’s premises (implemented to monitor working hours) violated the Romanian Data Protection Law. Further, the RDPA held that video monitoring employee activities at work was a violation of the RDPA’s 2012 video data decision, as the employer failed to ensure adequate protection of the employees’ right to privacy because it did not demonstrate that the video was a necessary and a proportionate intrusion.

    Additionally, the RDPA has issued a number of high fines this year, ranging from RON 8,000 (approx. EUR 1,800) to RON 11,000 (approx. EUR 2,500), for companies that failed to obtain RDPA authorization before implementing video systems to monitor the activity of their employees and/or customers. In its reasoning, which was upheld by Romanian courts, the RDPA stated that the implementation of video systems to monitor the activity of employees and/or customers fails to meet both the test of necessity and the test of proportionality, as video cameras installed in offices or customer areas process personal data on a scale larger than necessary. According to the RDPA this intrusion is not proportionate with the intrusion on the employees’ and customers’ rights to privacy. 

    Along this same line of Romanian authorities becoming more involved in protecting personal data, the new Romanian Criminal Code contains two new criminal offenses related to personal data protection: violation of private life (the unauthorized audio or video recording of an individual), and disclosure of a professional secret (the unauthorized disclosure of information related to another person’s private life by a professional).   

    History of the RDPA

    Romania’s modern data protection law is fairly recent and can be traced back to 2001, when, as part of its accession to the EU, Romania ratified the EU’s Personal Data Directive and transposed it into Law No. 677/2001 – the Romanian Data Protection Law. It was under this law that, in 2002, the Romanian Data Protection Authority was established to oversee compliance with the data protection law in the processing and transferring of personal data. 

    In a nutshell, the cornerstone of the Romanian Data Protection Law is the principle of safeguarding the private life of individuals – requiring that all processing of personal data must be based on the data owner’s prior and explicit informed consent and subject to a proportional, specific, and limited scope of processing.  

    After a new RDPA chairman was appointed in 2013, the RDPA commenced a full-scale offensive to ensure compliance with the Romanian Data Protection Law. Shortly thereafter the RDPA issued two notable decisions. 

    In the first decision, the RDPA issued its biggest fine to date, amounting to RON 20,000 (approx. EUR 4,500), levied upon a notary office which had failed to protect the personal data of a wide spectrum of individuals, including customers, employees, and collaborators, when it published the personal data on the Internet without ensuring its confidentiality. In addition to the fine, the RDPA asked the notary office to enact a plan aimed at securing, in the future, any personal data of customers, employees, or collaborators, against any unauthorized disclosure or processing. Along this line, in 2015, the RDPA organized a training session with the Romanian Notaries Union, aimed at improving notaries’ knowledge regarding the lawful processing of personal data. 

    In the other notable decision, the RDPA fined the Bucharest Sector 1 Prosecution Office RON 5,000 (approx. EUR 1,100) for the failure of its spokesperson to protect the personal data of a victim of a sexual offense, when the spokesperson revealed in a press conference the victim’s full name without that person’s consent.

    Clearly data protection in Romania has come a long way over the last 15 years with the role of the RDPA becoming more and more valuable – a development which in the end will benefit all individuals whose personal data is processed under Romanian Data Protection Law. 

    By Marius Petroiu, Senior Associate, CMS 

    This Article was originally published in Issue 2.4. of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • The Buzz: June – August

    “The Buzz” is a short summary of the major and relevant topics of interest in Central and Eastern Europe, provided by those best positioned to know: law firm partners and legal journalists/commentators on the ground in each CEE country.

    Albania

    “Searching for strategic investors”

    Albania is making headway with a renewed push by Albanian legislators to promote local production and attract foreign direct investment into the country, according to Ekflodia Leskaj, Partner at Drakopoulos. Leskaj explains that one of the biggest legislative packages enacted recently addressed “some concerns of foreign investors such as the bureaucratic processes they face.”

    In addition to several new fiscal incentives and a revised law of public private partnerships, the new Law on Strategic Investments, Leskaj reports, contains one big novelty for Albania, as the Albanian Investment Development Agency (AIDA) will now act as a one-stop-shop for investors that achieve “strategic investor” status – covering the full process from gaining the status to concluding specific agreements in the country. 

    Several sectors were defined as “strategic” for this purpose, including energy, oil and mines, transportation, tourism, agriculture, and technical and economic development areas (several more are likely to be added as well). The “strategic investor” status will be based on a minimum investment in one of these sectors ranging from between EUR 1 million to EUR 100 million (depending on the sector), combined with a minimum amount of created jobs, and will result in the offer of an assisted procedure or a special procedure by the AIDA, which Leskaj describes as “a unification of procedures in case the project involves applications with different institutions under normal circumstances.” 

    While it sounds good in theory, Leskaj says that there are still several issues which need to be worked out. Specifically, there are concerns over the lack of input by the Competition Authority during the drafting and discussion of the law. According to the law, the Competition Authority’s opinion may be requested on a case-by-case basis – which Leskaj says is considerably less ideal than having included the authority in the original discussions and factoring in its opinions beforehand. 

    Another point of excitement within the Albanian legal world relates to a pending reform of the justice system, which, according to Leskaj, is intended to make the judiciary more independent from the political world. Leskaj says that this will necessitate several constitutional changes, meaning that its potential implementation is still a bit further down the line. 

    Croatia

    “Bankruptcy and Tax at the top of the agenda”

    According to Mario Krka, Partner with Divjak, Topic & Bahtijarevic, one of the significant bits of news from Croatia is the new Bankruptcy Act that was adopted recently and will come into force on September 1. Furthermore, there are talks in the country about bankruptcy for physical persons, a concept that, while present in most EU countries, does not exist in Croatia.

    Another exciting development is related to the tax system. Krka explains that, as a result of the updated General Tax Act, taxpayers are empowered to request a “formal opinion” from tax administration agencies to clarify uncertainties which they will be able to rely on should a tax agency attempt to apply tax laws differently than is stated in that opinion. Lawyers in the market are still waiting to see the bylaws and how this will work in practice, but Krka believes it will likely fill a gap in terms of addressing what he describes as the “grey areas,” and will likely provide an added level of certainty for economic agents.

    Other areas of recent interest in Croatia, according to Krka, include renewable energy and capital markets, with “an increased movement for mid-sized IPOs and SPOs in the country in the last 2-3 months.”

    Estonia

    “Attracting investors and Estonian Airlines’ future”

    The first half of the year in Estonian M&A “stayed fairly active,” Marina Tolmatshova, Partner at Cobalt, says, though she points out that the deals closing, both in terms of value and volume, were not as many as in the previous year. The main thing that has Estonian lawyers excited is the interest expressed by investors, primarily from Scandinavian countries and Poland.

    In terms of recent legislation, the new Commercial Code amendments were passed earlier in the year and came into effect on July 1, bringing increased flexibility (e.g., convertible bonds and different classes of shares are now possible for private limited companies) and transparency for potential investors, particularly in the start-up scene, according to Tolmatshova. The Cobalt Partner explains that the general hope is that these changes will make the jurisdiction substantially more attractive.

    At the same time, Tolmatshova says, the Estonian legal community is buzzing over the “extensive work going into establishing and developing a new Investment Act meant to increase investment attractiveness – essentially driven by the Alternative Investment Fund Directive’s implementation.” Tolmatshova explains that this primarily aims to introduce new and more flexible types of investment funds and collective investment structures – such as those common in Luxembourg or the Netherlands. 

    The last noteworthy point on the agenda has a bit of a political flavor. Specifically, the National Airline of Estonia is “undergoing difficulties” and is expecting a final decision from the EU as to whether the loans and equity injections from the state constitute unfair state aid. The future of the airline has been discussed for the last three years, but now that an EU decision is expected in early fall, it has once again been pushed up the agenda.

    Latvia

    “No pinch felt in Latvia”

    The geopolitical issues of Ukraine and Greece are at the top of the list in terms of discussion points in Latvia, but Filip Klavins, Managing Partner of Klavins Ellex, reports that the country has yet to feel a significant pinch from either. Last year, he explains, Latvian business took a hit because of Ukraine, but the impact is felt considerably less now (with the small exception of some local producers who were focused on Russian exports and are now re-orienting towards Western clients). 

    At the same time, Latvia seems determined to get up to speed in terms of its NATO obligations with regards to GDP percentage dedicated to military spending, which will likely create more defense contract work in the country – something that Klavins says is reflected across the Baltics. “Even if it will come down to simple hardware purchases, it’s going to be good work next year,” he says. 

    Klavins also points towards projected market consolidations in some key industries such as timber and food product as well as new procurement work as a pipeline of work that has the market excited at the moment. 

    One last hot topic among lawyers in Latvia that the Klavins Ellex Managing Partner identifies are the ongoing discussions related to the actual legal form of law firms. He explains that Latvian firms are “not exactly a limited partnership or a limited liability company,” but rather a peculiar form created by special law. There is a concrete movement for a modernizing “mini-revolution” within the Bar, Klavins claims, and it has stirred a heated debate over potentially allowing firms to become LLPs and/or LLCs. The timeline and likelihood of this is still uncertain, as well as how taxing the profession will work as a result, but discussions are progressing gradually within the Latvian Bar Association, with the Ministry of Justice and tax revenue service being eager to push them along.

    Lithuania

    “Trending in Lithuania”

    While there have not been any major legislative updates in Lithuania in the last couple of months, according to Zilvinas Zinkevicius, Partner with Valiunas Ellex, several interesting trends have started to surface in the country. The first identified by Zinkevicius exists in the M&A market, where more and more investments are done using collective investment undertakings. “There are several likely reasons for this, Zinkevicius explains, “but it basically comes down to it being a good instrument to raise funds.”

    The other trend relates to litigation, in which more and more cases have appeared that involve professional liability issues for auditors, construction designers, and fund managers. While the source of the trend is unclear in Zinkevicius’ view, clients, he says, do seem to be increasingly aware of professional advisors’ duties.

    Also in the litigation world, another trend relates to cases involving piercing of the corporate veil. The Valiunas Ellex Partner explains that while many companies in Lithuania are limited liability companies, some claimants are trying to employ this strategy because in many cases there are simply not enough assets to be recovered otherwise.

    In terms of the legal market itself, the recent Ellex/Cobalt alliance reshuffling remains the major talking point in Lithuania and the region. Apart from that, Zinkevicius points to the relatively old trend of the claims by the Big Four that they are strengthening their legal teams in Lithuania. Aside from tax advisory, Zinkevicius feels that this remains more at the level of declarations than anything else. 

    Poland

    “Financial institutions under scrutiny in Poland”

    There are a couple of developments that lawyers are talking about in Poland, according to Malgorzata Surdek, Partner at CMS – both involving a combination of new legislation and ongoing investigations of various watchdogs in Poland. While they address two different problems they both relate to increased activity of regulators and general scrutiny of financial institutions.

    The first involves insurance companies, which, according to Surdek, have been active in recent years in selling unit-linked life insurances – a type of investment insurance product. Surdek explained that these are structured such that, if a person wanted to exit the product before the 10th anniversary of the policy, he or she would have to pay a considerable surrender fee, which “is so high that even if you resign in year 1 or 2, you stand to lose all the premiums paid.” While some commentators argue that this amounts to a form of consumer trap, these policies are structured in such a way so as to cover the costs incurred in setting up the policy – a big part of which involves commissions for agents.

    There are several ongoing class actions started by various groups of policyholders (with Axa, Skandia, Generali, Aegon, and OpenLife, among others, as defendants), with several pending actions in preparation stages. At the same time, there is an ongoing investigation by the Office for Competition and Consumer Protection, an agency which, Surdek explains, has the ability to impose fines of up to 10% of the yearly revenue of a company. In light of all of these, the Financial Services Authority ran a series of stress tests recently to determine how insurers would cope with a drop in the surrender fees, which revealed that four or five of them would end up with negative equity, meaning that either bankruptcy or immediate capital injections from shareholders would be needed. A few more companies would have a hard time achieving the solvency margin levels that meet statutory requirements.

    To make matters even more complicated, according to Surdek, a new draft insurance law looks like it will regulate unit-linked insurance products in more detail, including a lowering of the surrender charge to the levels tested by the FSA – a discussion that is also influenced to a great extent by the fact that it is all taking place right before the October 25 general elections.

    Similar patterns were highlighted by the CMS Partner related to the continuing fallout of the drop in Swiss francs and the challenges posed by it to banks which were granting mortgage loans denominated in or indexed to CHF. Pending class action suits, investigations from authorities, and draft legislation influenced by the same elections are looming, making it a particularly interesting period for lawyers working in the financial services sector. 

    Romania

    “NPLs – an Austrian recipe in the Romanian market”

    Nonperforming loan portfolios is the name of the game in Romania, according to Bryan Jardine, the Managing Partner in Bucharest of Wolf Theiss. The main example he identifies was the so-called Project Neptune, a portfolio put out by BCR that had all firms in the local market scrambling to get involved, with a number of international consortia initially expressing an interest to acquire it as well. Local media are using the EUR 3.5 billion heading when reporting on the portfolio (though Jardine believes that some skepticism should be applied to that evaluation), but it is definitely a project that has the market excited. The Wolf Theiss Managing Partner points out that it is not the only such project ongoing in the market, with even more activity in the area being anticipated, primarily as a result of both regulatory pressure to clean up balance sheets and banks looking to rationalize portfolios. 

    According to Jardine, similar trends can be observed in other CEE jurisdictions, with noticeable activity in Slovenia, Croatia, the Czech Republic, and, recently, Poland. What sets the Romanian market a bit apart is the fact that the Romanian banking sector tends to be dominated by Austrian banks, meaning that they benefit from an “advantage of scale” when it comes to such matters. He explains that while there are definitely some local nuances to be considered, it helps these Austrian banks that they can transfer a great deal of manpower and know-how from Vienna in terms of packaging and marketing loans and negotiating with potential buyers. He points out that, in many instances, portfolio cross-border transactional documents also tend to be drafted under Austrian law, which makes it a particularly exciting period for a regional CEE firm such as his.

    Russia

    “Making sense of deoffshorization (still) and new Civil Code concepts”

    Deoffshorization continues to be on the tip of the tongue for lawyers in Russia, according to Mikhail Kazantsev, Partner at Egorov Puginsky Afanasiev & Partners. According to Kazantsev, a third iteration of the deoffshorization law was passed a month ago, and the business world is still trying to figure out how to best comply with the new amendments – i.e., through their existing corporate structures or by developing new ones. He reports that while many clients have already made changes internally, others are still waiting, betting on future amendments and wishing to avoid incurring more restructuring costs than necessary. While some expect further updates in the law, the general feeling seems to be that no other “huge changes” are realistic.

    Another big development that has the legal community buzzing are the recent updates to the civil code, which, according to Kazantsev, have introduced many “nice things that Russian law did not have” – primarily drawing from common law. Kazantsev explains that many are familiar concepts – especially for those who have operated with common law for a few years – but that there are still pending questions revolving around a few provisions, since some of the new concepts do not represent a 100% adaptation of English law. Kazantsev says that he expects it will take up to a year for the Russian market to get accustomed to it all, especially since it is a matter not just of adapting these new concepts into business agreements, but also of developing court practices to provide predictability for lawyers. 

    Slovenia

    “NPLs with a (Slovenian) twist”

    Like Bryan Jardine in Romania, Uros Ilic, the Managing Partner of the ODI Law Firm, points towards Nonperforming Loans as the big topic of conversation in Slovenia. According to Ilic, the trend developing in Slovenia is that traditional claim holders (banks) are now moving away from “Plan A” – restructuring – and contemplating “Plan B”: selling their non-performing loan portfolios to the highest bidder. Ilic points to the Hypo Group (through its internal bad bank HETA) and BAMC (the Slovenian bad bank) as the two financial institutions that started this type of deal, only to be followed by two banks in liquidation. Ilic explains that they were successfully selling not only claims towards one company, but also bigger portfolios. Other banks have started following suit, including the biggest national banks, such as NLB. 

    One Slovenian-specific aspect (NPLs are a hot discussion topic in many CEE jurisdictions) is that banks with claims towards the same company are these days making consortium sales in order for the best bidder to buy majority claims which – as Ilic explains – provides them with a broader scope of options. He clarifies that if a bidder were to buy only a minority of a company’s exposure, legal advisors to the bidders would not have a lot of options in terms of strategy. Enforcement of security rights could be limited, since a majority of creditors in the restructuring agreement is often required. Such a buyer would also not be able to block all decisions made by other creditors from the restructuring agreement if the buyer did not agree with them (usually the agreement envisages 2/3 majority to pass a decision). “When 75% of the exposure is owned, however, there are a lot of other options that become available, such as compulsory settlement (since you have the quorum not only to start those proceedings but also to confirm them),” Ilic explains. “In the process you can convert part or whole of that loan to equity without shareholder consent and simultaneously delete present shareholders, which means you are becoming not only economic but also legal owner of the company.” This translates in a higher purchase price, which in turn means lower losses incurred on the bank side. Ilic points to the recently reported York Capital acquisition of Istrabenz Bank claims as an example of such deals in the country. [As reported by the CEE Legal Matters website on June 16, 2015, ODI advised an affiliate of York Capital Management and Elements Capital Partners on the purchase of receivables and obligations against Istrabenz in the amount of EUR 46.7 million from BAWAG and banks in the Erste Group, while the sellers were being advised by Wolf Theiss and Houlihan Lokey].

    In terms of who is looking to make purchases in the NPL world in Slovenia, Ilic points towards (primarily US-based) private equity funds and hedge funds as the likely suspects, while also pointing out that there is an increasing tendency for local-international joint venture efforts to put together strong bids. 

    Ukraine

    “On leaving or surviving in Ukraine”

    The big news in Kyiv these past two months is Clifford Chance’s announcement that it intends to close its Ukrainian office, according to Andriy Stelmashchuk, Managing Partner of Vasil, Kisil & Partners. His impression is that, in contrast with the other internationals that have been “surviving in the market,” Clifford Chance was not that active in Ukraine. Stelmashchuk argues that the firm’s decision was also likely because its main areas of focus tended to be antitrust and M&A work, but the latter has dried up in Ukraine in recent months. The Vasil Kisil Managing Partner points out that Clifford Chance did not have a dispute resolution team, unlike the international firms that have managed to survive in the country, which worked hard to build up such teams, especially in the financial, insurance, and real estate sectors that feed many of the lawyers in Ukraine at the moment. 

    On dispute resolution, on top of the sectors already mentioned, Stelmashchuk says that law firms are also actively pitching for work from Ukrainian companies potentially suing Russia for losses incurred as a result of Crimea’s annexation.

    Thank you!

    We thank the following for sharing their opinions and analysis on the news:

    • Andriy Stelmashchuk, Managing Partner, Vasil, Kisil & Partners
    • Bryan Jardine, Managing Partner – Bucharest, Wolf Theiss
    • Ekflodia Leskaj, Partner, Drakopoulos
    • Filip Klavins, Managing Partner, Klavins Ellex
    • Malgorzata Surdek, Partner, CMS
    • Marina Tolmatshova, Partner, Cobalt
    • Mario Krka, Partner, Divjak, Topic & Bahtijarevic
    • Mikhail Kazantsev, Partner, Egorov Puginsky Afanasiev & Partners
    • Uros Ilic, Managing Partner, ODI Law Firm
    • Zilvinas Zinkevicius, Partner, Valiunas Ellex

    This Article was originally published in Issue 2.4. of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • Amendment to the Polish Act on the Protection of Personal Data

    Amendment to the Polish Act on the Protection of Personal Data

    On January 1, 2015, the amendments to the Polish Act on the Protection of Personal Data (the “PPD”) came into force.

    The main aim of the new law was to relieve companies of some regulatory obligations concerning, among other things, the processing of personal data. However, when reading the new law one can get the impression that, at least with respect to some of the new regulations, the intended business benefits were not achieved in practice.

    Obligatory Data Protection Audits

    One of the most significant changes introduced in the PPD concerns obligatory internal data protection audits. Audits must be performed on a regular basis and are aimed at verifying the compliance of personal data processing with the provisions of the PPD. This obligation applies to data controllers who have appointed a data protection officer (the “DPO”). Please note that at the same time the recent changes to the PPD removed the mandatory requirement to appoint a DPO. 

    The detailed rules concerning auditing obligations are set out in separate executory provisions to the PPD, which became effective on May 30, 2015. Pursuant to these provisions, the DPO must carry out internal audits in a scheduled or unscheduled manner. In addition, the DPO is obliged to perform similar audits at the request of the Polish Data Protection Authority (the “GIODO“). The latest rules, however, do not exclude the possibility of an independent inspection carried out by the GIODO itself.

    Scheduled audits are to be carried out in accordance with a previously prepared audits plan, which specifies the date of an audit and the subject matter thereof, as well as the scope of activities undertaken during the audit. Unscheduled audits must be performed without delay after the DPO receives information of a personal data breach or there is a reasonable suspicion of such a breach.

    Once the audit is complete, the DPO must prepare a report, covering among other things the actions planned or taken to satisfy the requirements of the PPD. Reports on audits carried out at the request of the GIODO must be provided to the GIODO.

    Limiting the Obligation to Register Personal Data Filing Systems

    The PPD stipulates that the appointment of the DPO by a data controller is voluntary. However, it comes with some benefits. The PPD stipulates that data controllers who appoint a DPO and notify the GIODO of such an appointment are exempted from the obligation to register their personal data filing systems. The GIODO keeps a register of DPOs for that purpose. However, the PPD stipulates that the DPO is obliged to maintain a register of personal data filing systems processed by a data controller, which in practice may turn out to be quite a demanding requirement. The PPD requires that the register of personal data filing systems kept by the DPO should be publicly available. In the case of keeping registers in electronic form, such a register should be accessible either via the website of the data controller or through the use of a computer located in the premises of the data controller or in printed form. In the case of keeping the register in paper form the DPO should permit any interested person to review the contents of the register at the office of the data controller.

    Facilitation of Data Transfers Outside the EEA

    The last significant change to the PPD relates to data transfers. Before January 1, 2015, the prior consent of the GIODO to the transfer of personal data outside the EEA was required in a vast array of circumstances. Now, the GIODO’s consent is not necessary if the company adopts model clauses approved by the European Commission or the Binding Corporate Rules (the “BCR”). However, the BCR can only be applied after they have been prior approved by the GIODO. As part of the BCR approval, the GIODO may conduct consultations with the data protection authorities of those EEA countries where the companies belonging to the relevant corporate group are based. These consultations are only optional, however, and even if the BCR were previously approved in one particular EEA country the GIODO is not bound by this ruling. Thus, the new Polish regulations concerning the approval of the BCR cannot be considered as fully adopting the mutual recognition principle that should apply to the BCR.

    Comment

    Several months into the new law, we already see some doubts and concerns. First of all, the PPD does not indicate the date when the first internal data protection audit should be made. Secondly, the PPD lacks provisions that clearly explain whether data controllers who have not appointed a DPO must also carry out internal data protection audits in accordance with detailed executory provisions to the PPD. Finally, in practice the new law formalizes the obligations of the DPO and indirectly also data controllers who have appointed such a person, while the intended purpose of the new law was different. Summing up, the new law can hardly be considered as facilitating the conduct of business.

    By Ewa Kurowska-Tober, Head of the TMT/IP Department, and Lukasz Czynienik, Associate, Linklaters

    This Article was originally published in Issue 2.4. of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • Editorial: Ode to Kasia

    Editorial: Ode to Kasia

    Strophe:

    Why an Ode to Kasia?

    As I was polishing up some of the final articles for this issue I received an e-mail from one of the law firm marketing representatives in the region – I’ll call her Kasia. Her e-mail read simply, “if you are going to report on deal X, we advised party Y, and I will follow-up with details as soon as I have them” – straight-forward enough! We’ve been telling our readers for years now that we depend greatly on their input if we are to keep track of all that is going on in the region (and there is plenty!), and here was a perfect example of someone listening. Implicit in her e-mail was her recognition that, if a big deal is concluded in one of the markets we cover, we’ll immediately begin trying to identify the firms involved and other details of significance. For articulating that (correct) assumption, which should be shared by all the readers who turn to us regularly to learn who has worked on what legal matters in CEE, Kasia, we salute you!

    Antistrophe:

    But Kasia is not just a person. Kasia is a trend. Receiving an enquiry recently sent out by my Co-Editor David, following up on an item posted on a firm’s website, one of Kasia’s peers wrote: “You are the best spies ever!” We appreciate the compliment, but the trick is really fairly simple: With the help of various technologies, we carefully monitor – as we have from the day we launched CEE Legal Matters – the newswires, websites, press releases, and other sources of information for news and articles of significance. The trend that Kasia represents, however, is the extent to which those sources have shrunk in significance. Instead, Kasias everywhere have been proactively reaching out to us and keeping us apprised of deals in almost real time with calls, e-mails, and (even) SMSes, often well before deals are reflected on firm websites. For this vote of confidence in our reach and diligence of coverage. Kasias, we salute you!

    Epode:

    It is to Kasia, then, that we dedicate this August issue, which contains an Experts Review feature summing up expert analysis from CEE jurisdictions on Technology, Media, and Telecommunications, and Market Spotlights on Austria and Serbia.

    Those Market Spotlights, as always, contain interviews with prominent General Counsel (in the “Inside Insight” section) and reviews of particular industries (in the “Market Snapshot” section). In this issue, for the first time, the Market Spotlights also feature in-depth reviews of recent deals of significance, in our new “Inside Out” section – this time focusing on (for Austria) the financing provided by Bank Austria and pbb Pfandbriefbank to the Immofinanz Group, and (for Serbia) SBB’s acquisition of EUnet.

    But the issue, as always, is hardly limited to the Market Spotlights and Experts Reviews. The Buzz offers an overview of the hot discussion points among lawyers in CEE, while an article on law firm PR best practices and pitfalls in CEE illustrates the particular challenges facing those critical providers of law firm support. Another valuable article highlights some of the lesser-known functionalities of the CEELM website, and we feature an interview with Marie-Anne Birken, General Counsel of the EBRD, who will be the Keynote Speaker at the 2015 CEE GC Summit scheduled for September in Budapest – an event you cannot miss!

    So … Kasia, enjoy the read!

    This Article was originally published in Issue 2.4. of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • TMT Developments in Lithuania

    TMT Developments in Lithuania

    When it comes to Technology, Media, and Telecommunications (TMT), Lithuania is proud of its record of having one of the fastest Internet connections in the world, the best fiber-optic internet network penetration in Europe, and the fastest public Wi-Fi in the world, as well as for producing large numbers of skilled IT specialists.

    So it is no surprise that a number of foreign investors – including Western Union, Barclays, CSC, Intermedix, and many others – have found Lithuania to be an attractive place to establish hubs for regional or global IT service centers. And this trend is expected to continue going forward.

    As for traditional TMT companies, the last few years have seen a small but continuing reduction in the revenues of mobile operators mainly due to the high penetration of the market and the resulting intense competition on price. However, increasing sales of smartphones have resulted in higher demand for data, and, as a result, the opportunity for mobile operators to increase turnover. As a result, all mobile operators report revenue increases as high as 5 to 15% for consecutive quarters when compared to the same quarters last year, a very positive sign for this market.

    The healthy financial results may eventually lead to the long-awaited-and-discussed exit from the market of the Mid Europa Partners fund with the sale of Bite UAB, one of the three leading mobile operators. This may be one of the largest market transactions in Lithuania. 

    Meanwhile, the payTV and Internet market has already experienced a major shift, starting in the beginning of 2015 with the sale of Cgates, the second largest service provider, by Advanced Broadband, SEB Venture Capital, and the SEB pension fund to Motis Shipping Lithuania Limited, the Starman group company which is owned by the East Capital fund. Prior to the sale, Cgates had acquired several regional payTV and Internet service providers. Such market consolidation is starting to look like a trend, particularly as another larger player – Init – is also shopping around, so further market consolidation is expected in the future.

    As far as regulatory matters are concerned, the most important was probably the May 21, 2015, amendments adopted by the Lithuanian Parliament to the Law on Provision of Information to the Public (hereinafter “the Law”). The purpose of these amendments is to introduce more effective legal tools to counter disinformation, incitement of hatred, and war propaganda – issues which have become significant in Lithuania’s media sector during the last few years. The problems started when several Russian TV channels broadcast programs which were deemed to have incited war and hatred by Lithuanian media experts. As a consequence, the Lithuanian media watchdog temporarily suspended the broadcasts of Russian TV channels on four separate occasions over the last two years. The last suspension was instituted in April and lasted for three months. It was directed at RTR Planeta, the Russian-language channel retransmitted in Lithuania via cable and satellite. As the broadcaster of this channel is registered within the European Union, this was the first time that a European watchdog had used the suspension procedure established in the Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2010/13/EU. The decision was approved by the European Commission.

    The President of the Republic of Lithuania expressed great concern about the increased amount of disinformation being broadcast to Lithuanian viewers and put forward proposals to amend the Law which were supported by the Parliament. The new rules allow the Lithuanian media watchdog to take faster and more effective measures against media companies which broadcast war propaganda. In addition, significant fines of up to 3% of annual turnover may also be imposed on such companies. The definition of rebroadcasting was expanded to include all forms of rebroadcasting, and rebroadcasters themselves will now be obliged to follow the Lithuanian media authority’s decisions more closely, because failure to follow will result in significant fines. The amendments also established that media companies which publish war propaganda or calls to change Lithuania’s constitutional order will not be eligible for state funding for one year.

    While these initiatives at first were met with certain criticism over potential restriction of free speech and freedom to disseminate information, they are now seen as essential measures in the current geopolitical environment, particularly when the audience size of Russian TV broadcasts that include propaganda is approximately 400,000 Lithuanian residents, or about 15 percent of the country’s population. 

    All these changes to the Law will come into effect on October 1, 2015.

    By Gediminas Lisauskas, Partner, and Darius Miniotas, Senior Associate, Tark Grunte Sutkiene

    This Article was originally published in Issue 2.4. of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • The Incumbent Bulgarian Telecommunication Operator Acquires Two Digital Terrestrial Television Multiplexes

    The Incumbent Bulgarian Telecommunication Operator Acquires Two Digital Terrestrial Television Multiplexes

    The Bulgarian Telecommunication Company EAD (“BTC”) successfully closed the acquisition of two digital terrestrial television platforms (“DDT multiplexes”) in Bulgaria in July 2015.

    The transaction marks yet another attempt by local telecommunication operators, including BTC, to consolidate their activities over the past two years on various Bulgarian markets. This trend appears to be largely driven by the increasing digitalization of telecom offerings to end-consumers and the corresponding need for access to infrastructure and sufficient bandwidth.

    BTC is the largest Bulgarian telecommunications operator in terms of income. For 2014, it reported revenue of USD 454 million (EUR 400 million) and net profit of USD 14.6 million (EUR 13 million). BTC offers customers fixed-line and mobile telephony, as well as television and Internet services. In the last year, BTC was the only telecom on the Bulgarian market that managed to increase its client base in mobile services.

    In 2014, BTC entered into an agreement for the purchase of NURTS Bulgaria EAD and its subsidiary NURTS Digital EAD, which operate the two DDT multiplexes and broadcast the programs of Bulgarian public television and local commercial television channels. In addition, the targeted companies own infrastructure (base stations, etc.) that other telecommunication operators use to install their transmission devices (so-called “colocation”). Some of this infrastructure is located in far-flung places, in national parks, or on protected territories, and it can therefore be difficult and costly to replicate.

    Details around the deal and its financing structure have not been made public. However, corporate and merger filings suggest that this was a share transaction for 100% of the capital of NURTS Bulgaria EAD, as a result of which BTC also acquired indirect sole control over NURTS Digital EAD. The value of the deal is unclear at this point, though the price tag of NURTS Bulgaria EAD in a preceding acquisition was reportedly USD 108.9 million (EUR 100 million).

    The transaction was subject to regulatory clearances in Bulgaria. The merger review took approximately nine months and went through initial and then in-depth screening for competition concerns. The Bulgarian competition watchdog extended its initial review into an in-depth review because of concerns about possible foreclosure of rival telecom companies from access to essential infrastructure for colocation. Those concerns were dismissed on the grounds that local telecom regulations oblige operators of such infrastructure to provide access to competitors. The merger clearance was rendered in early June 2015. Corporate filings indicate that the transaction was closed at the end of June or early July.

    The acquisition comes at an interesting time for both BTC and the targets. BTC itself will likely be up for sale soon. VTB Capital, a subsidiary of the Russian VTB Bank, is expected to launch a sale of 100% of the shares in BTC’s sole shareholder, the Luxembourg-based InterV Investment Sarl, by the end of this year. 

    On the other hand, it is unclear for how long NURTS Bulgaria EAD and NURTS Digital EAD will retain their licenses for operating the multiplexes. In April 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union found that the Bulgarian State breached European rules for electronic communications when staging the tenders for the licenses and, ultimately, awarding them to NURTS Bulgaria EAD and NURTS Digital EAD. The court was most concerned with the way competition on the Bulgarian markets for electronic communication networks and services was (or, rather, was not) ensured. The local legislation in force at the time of the tenders allowed for only two multiplexes to operate in Bulgaria, which stifled competition. In addition, the legislation also excluded television content suppliers that did not broadcast in Bulgaria from participation in the auctions. This obviously ran contrary to the European Union’s free movement rules. 

    The court ruling prescribes no specific measures that the Bulgarian state must take in order to remedy the situation. However, senior state officials have already publicly admitted that a withdrawal of the licenses of NURTS Bulgaria EAD and NURTS Digital EAD is likely. If this happens, new tenders for the rights to operate the multiplexes would have to be opened, and foreign candidates would presumably be admitted to participate in them.

    By Diana Dimova, Partner, and Dessislava Fessenko, Counsel, Kinstellar

    This Article was originally published in Issue 2.4. of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.