Category: Uncategorized

  • Cleary Gottlieb Successful in ICSID Arbitration for Greece

    Cleary Gottlieb has successfully secured the dismissal of claims against the Hellenic Republic in an ICSID arbitration initiated by the Slovak bank, Postova banka, and its former Cypriot shareholder under the bilateral investment treaties between the Hellenic Republic and the Slovak Republic and Cyprus, respectively.

    The claimants sought to recover compensation based on the face value of the bank’s interests in Greek government bonds that were subject to the Hellenic Republic’s 2012 sovereign debt exchange. Postova banka reportedly held interests in Greek government bonds with a face value of over EUR 500 million prior to the Hellenic Republic’s 2012 restructuring.  

    In an award published on April 13, 2015, the ICSID arbitral tribunal composed of Eduardo Zuleta (president), John M. Townsend, and Brigitte Stern, dismissed all claims against the Hellenic Republic for lack of jurisdiction. The tribunal held that interests in Greek government bonds do not qualify as protected investments under the Slovakia-Greece bilateral investment treaty and that Postova banka’s former shareholder, Istrokapital, could not base jurisdiction on Postova banka’s assets. The majority held that interests in Greek government bonds are also not protected under the ICSID Convention, because they do not involve a contribution to an economic venture or operational risk.  

    Claudia Annacker, Partner of Cleary Gottlieb, comments that “this award will remain a landmark in investment treaty case-law, an ICSID tribunal having for the first time declined jurisdiction over interests in sovereign bonds.” Partner Christopher Moore explains, “this is a critically important award for sovereigns around the world that are faced with making difficult financial decisions in connection with managing unsustainable debt loads, as creditors have increasingly sought to challenge those decisions before international arbitral tribunals.” 

     

  • FWP Advises Creditors Affected by FMA Moratorium on HETA Debt

    Fellner Wratzfeld & Partner has advised HYPO NOE, the association of mortgage banks of the Austrian Provinces, and Pfandbriefbank on how to ensure the timely payment of principal and interest to bondholders of Pfandbriefbank, which was affected by the Austrian Financial Market Authority’s moratorium set on March 1, 2015.

    As the FWP press release explained, the Financial Market Authority (FMA) — the authority managing the winding down of HETA Asset Resolution (formerly Hypo Alpe-Adria Bank International) — imposed a debt moratorium from March 1, 2015 until May 31, 2016, during which time any debts that HETA has to creditors, with only certain exceptions, need not be repaid. The moratorium this affects payment obligations in the amount of approximately EUR 1.25 billion to Pfandbriefbank attributable to bond issues made for HETA. Since all mortgage banks of the Austrian Provinces and all Austrian Provinces (excluding Vienna) are subject to unrestricted liability for the amounts payable by Pfandbriefbank, in order to ensure the stability of the mortgage bank sector, despite the temporary default of one of its members, the member institutions had to reach agreements on fund-raising and payment handling within a very short time.

    FWP Partner Markus Fellner, said: “We are happy that our concept helped to stabilise Pfandbriefbank and was swiftly structured and implemented after FMA had ordered new measures.”

    The FWP team was led by Fellner and included Attorney-at-Law Christian Thaler and Associate Benedikt Kessler.

     

     

  • BDK Advises Mylan on Acquisition of Abbott Established Products Business

    BDK has advised generic drugmaker Mylan in relation to its acquisition of Abbott Laboratories’ established products business in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as part of its USD 5.3 billion global acquisition of Abbott’s non-U.S. developed markets specialty and branded generics business.

    BDK team was led by Partners Vladimir Dasic and Mirjana Mladenovic on the corporate law and transactional side and by Partner Ana Jankov on employment aspects and management relations.

    Baker & McKenzie advised Abbott Laboratories on the deal, but declined to comment.

    Image source: 360b / Shutterstock.com

     

  • BBH Advises PPF Group on Lease to Rostelekom

    BBH has successfully represented the PPF Group regarding its lease of premises to Rostelekom in the modern office park Comcity, southwest of Moscow.

    Rostelekom is one of the largest national telecommunication companies in Russia and Europe. On the Russian market, it is a leader in the field of broadband Internet connection and subscribed TV broadcasting.

    BBH prepared all contractual documentation and assistance in negotiating the terms and conditions of the lease. The firm’s team was led by Partner Jiri Sterba, and included lawyers Sergei Shevchenko, Mark Kuznetsov, and Evgenya Matveeva. 

  • BDK Advises Ziraat on Establishment of Bank in Montenegro

    BDK has advised Turkiye Cumhuriyeti Ziraat Bankasi (the Agricultural Bank of the Republic of Turkey), commonly known as Ziraat Bankasi, on the establishment of a bank in Montenegro.  

    Ziraat — the Turkish state-owned bank founded in 1863 — is the second biggest bank in Turkey. 

    The BDK team was led by the Managing Senior Associate Luka Popovic from the firm’s Podgorica office.

    Image source: 360b / Shutterstock.com

     

  • M&A in Slovenia: Tax Considerations

    M&A in Slovenia: Tax Considerations

    When contemplating any M&A in Slovenia, income tax considerations are an important factor to assess. Neglecting tax implications may, at minimum, lead to “unpleasant” surprises in the course of the transaction.

    In the worst case, however, it may lead to turning what first seemed to be a profitable opportunity into a costly mistake. The aim of this short analysis is to present guidance on the most important income tax considerations of M&A in Slovenia and how they should be addressed.

    Slovenian Companies Act distinguishes among different types of M&A transactions: merger by absorption or by formation of a new company and various types of divisions (spin-offs, split-ups and split-offs; either by absorption or by formation of a new company). In the following, as a case study, tax considerations of merger by absorption as one of the most basic types of M&A in Slovenia will be analysed. Such considerations will be presented separately from the point of view of each of the participating subjects: (1) the transferring company, (2) the receiving company and the shareholders of (3) the transferring and of (4) the receiving company. It should be noted, however, that analogical (mutatis mutandis) conclusions apply also to other types of M&A in Slovenia.

    CASE STUDY: TAX CONSIDERATIONS OF MERGER BY ABSORPTION

    Merger by absorption (see a diagram of the transaction above) is a type of M&A in Slovenia, whereas a limited company (transferring company – A Co) transfers all of its assets and liabilities to another public limited company (receiving company – B Co) by means of universal succession. The transferring company is dissolved without going into liquidation, while its shareholders (shareholders A) are attributed shares of the receiving company. Consequently, the percentage share of the existing shareholders of the receiving company (shareholders B) in the capital of that company is reduced accordingly.

    • Tax considerations of the transferring company (“A Co”):

    Pursuant to the provisions of Slovenian Corporate Income Tax Act (CITA) the transferring company is exempt from the tax relating to hidden reserves and/or profits. Additionally, losses that can be attributed to the transferred assets and liabilities are also exempt from taxation. Such exemption, however, is recognized only on the basis of notification of the transaction to the Tax Administration, subject to the requirements of the Tax Procedure Act (TPA). Notification needs to be submitted by the transferring or the receiving company which is the resident of the Republic of Slovenia. If both companies are Slovenian residents, transferring company needs to submit the notification; while in case none of the companies is Slovenian resident, receiving company needs to submit it. The notification is to be submitted before the intended date of the transaction.

    As provided by Article 49 of the CITA, the transferring company is required to calculate its profit or loss as the difference between the fair value and the tax value of the assets and liabilities as at the cut-off date of the merger (as if the assets and liabilities were disposed to non-associated enterprises against payment). Consequently, the profit is calculated, but not taxed (provided that the tax benefits under Article 49 of the CITA have been granted by the Tax Administration upon notification).

    It should also be noted that neutrality entitlements provided by Article 49 of the CITA are only the possibility the transferring company may opt to pursue by submitting notification to the Tax Administration; while it may as well choose not to exercise these rights.

    • Tax considerations of the receiving company (“B Co”):

    As a general rule, the receiving company assumes liability for the entire tax history of the transferring company. Thus, it could end up having to pay back taxes for the acquired entity, the amount of which could in practice be very significant. Consequently, tax due diligence needs to be carried out and should include not only the company’s entire tax history but also inquiries about matters such as open audits and notices of audits.

    Pursuant to the provisions of Article 49 of the CITA, the receiving company (B Co) is entitled to the following tax benefits:

    • the right to carry over provisions created by the transferring company and assume its rights and obligations related to these provisions;
    • the right to take over tax losses of the transferring company;
    • it is not liable to taxation relating to any gains accruing on the cancellation of its holding in the capital of the transferring company (A Co).

    Again, entitlement to these benefits is not an automatic consequence of the transaction. Rather, tax benefits may only be granted by Tax Administration upon submission of a relevant notification (pursuant to the provisions of Article 381 of the TPA).

    In addition, the receiving company as a universal successor may in practice also benefit from the use of tax incentives or tax reliefs of the transferred company.

    The receiving company is required, however, to value the acquired assets and liabilities, to depreciate the acquired assets and calculate the profits and losses related to the transferred assets and liabilities by taking into account their tax values at the transferring company as at the cut off date of the merger as if the operation had not taken place. Therefore, for the tax purposes, individual assets retain their character, bases and holding periods; there is no »step-up« in basis. Thus, in case the transferring company has a substantial amount of depreciable assets that have been fully depreciated, mentioned issue may be a negative factor in assessing the transaction.

    • Tax considerations of the shareholders of the transferring company (“Shareholders A”):

    Pursuant to the provision of Article 49 of the CITA, the allotment of securities representing the capital of the receiving company (B Co) in exchange for securities representing the capital of the transferring company (A Co) in itself does not give rise to any taxation of the profits or losses of the shareholder. This benefit, however, may only be granted, if the shareholder is a resident of Slovenia or if he holds securities of the transferring company and of the receiving company through a business unit located in Slovenia. In addition to this, this benefit applies only in case no additional cash-payments have been made. In case of additional cash payments the shareholder is subject to tax in proportion to such payments; while the pro rata profit or loss is added to the cash payment and the fair value of the securities of the receiving company.

    As further specified by Article 94 of the Personal Income Tax Act (PITA) in case of mergers the taxation of capital gains of the individuals may also be deferred. In such case, the date of acquisition of exchanged shares of the transferring company (A Co) is considered to be the time of acquisition of the newly acquired capital (for the tax purposes).  Practical importance of such legal presumption may be substantial, since it may amount to longer holding period and subsequently to lower taxation of capital gains of individuals. Deferral may be granted on the basis of the notification of the Tax Administration. The notification needs to be submitted for the shareholder (individuals) by the transferring or receiving company.

    It may also be noted that due to the exchange rate, the overall percentage share of individual shareholder in the capital of the receiving company may be reduced as a consequence of the merger. While this fact in itself does not have any direct tax consequences, it may in some particular cases result in important tax considerations in the sphere of application of the provisions of national taxation legislation or Double Taxation Treaties that require ownership of the qualified share in the capital as a pre-condition to granting certain benefits under such provisions (e.g. rules on hidden profits distribution, international aspects of taxation of dividends etc.).

    • Tax considerations of the shareholders of the receiving company (“Shareholders B”):

    As a consequence of the transaction, the overall percentage share of existing shareholders in the capital of the receiving company will usually be reduced. As is the case with the shareholders of the transferring company, this in itself does not have any direct tax consequences. However, the reduced share in the capital of the company may lead to not satisfying the required thresholds under the relevant provisions of national legislation or particular Double Taxation Agreements (in order to be eligible for certain benefits, e.g. reduced tax rate).

    Conclusion

    As it has been shown, M&A in Slovenia have important tax implications. Relevant tax considerations may also differ depending on the perspective of each of the participants of the transaction (each of the companies or their shareholders). In order to avoid any subsequent “unpleasant surprises” or unnecessary additional costs, it is recommended that such tax considerations are taken into account and thoroughly analysed when deciding on whether to proceed with any proposed corporate transaction, especially M&A.

    Written by Ivo Grlica, Associate, ODI Law Firm

  • Schoenherr and Dorda Advise on Divestment of bauMax’s Hungarian Operations

    Dorda and Szecsenyi & Partners have advised the DIY chain bauMax on the sale of its 13 Hungarian stores and 3 additional properties to Mobelix — a member of the XXXLutz group. Schoenherr advised bauMax’s financial creditors on the matter, and XXXLutz was advised by Hungary’s Arato & Mousa law firm.

    The deal was signed in January and closed in April, 2015. The purchase price was not disclosed.

    The deal was made in the course of the overall restructuring of the bauMax group, which DBJ is closely involved with. (Originally reported by CEE Legal Matters on October 3rd, 2014

    The 16 properties consist of 13 stores in the Hungarian communities of Budaors, Nyiregyhaza, Pecs, Debrecen, Szeged, Kecskemet, Budapest Csepel, Sopron, Gyor, Miskolc, and the 3rd, 9th, and 17th districts of Budapest, that total approximately 350,000 square meters, with an available retail space of approximately 60,000 square meters. The transaction also involved 3 additional properties in Veszprem, Szombathely, and Bekescsaba,

    The XXXLutz group the second largest furniture retailer worldwide, with 224 furniture stores in 8 countries. The group turnover is EUR 3.3 billion. Mobelix has been active in Hungary since 2008 and currently operates a total of 3 stores in Budapest, Dunakeszi, and Miskolc. According to Thomas Saliger, spokesman for XXXLut group, “our goal is to become the market leader in the Hungarian furniture market.”

    The DBJ team on the matter was led by Partners Felix Horlsberger and Martin Brodey, joined by attorney Christian Ritschka. Other DBJ members on the team included Senior Associate Gunnar Pick and Associate Laura Weissel. The Szecsenyi & Partners team was led by Managing Partner Laszlo Szecsenyi, and included Attorneys Balazs Vagvolgyi and Miklos Molnar and Associate Tibor Szabo. 

    Schoenherr also supported the financial creditors on the sale of the Romanian and Bulgarian operations of bauMax last year, and is continuing to advise on the overall restructuring of the bauMax group. The core team advising the financial creditors consists of Vienna-based Partner Wolfgang Holler and Attorney Miriam Simsa. Vienna-based Partner Alexander Popp and Budapest-based attorneys Tamas Balogh, Gergeley Szaloki, and Gabor Spitz were also involved in the Hungarian transaction.

    Partner Gyorgy Arato from Arato & Mousa led his firm’s team advising XXXLutz on the deal, with the assistance of Partner Attila Mousa Delal.

     

  • Norton Rose Fulbright and Dentons Advise on Krakow Shopping Center Refinancing

    Norton Rose Fulbright has advised ING Bank Slaski, ING Bank N.V., and ING Bank N.V. London Branch, on a EUR 193 million facility made available to TriGranit to refinance the existing indebtedness of the Bonarka City Center shopping mall in Krakow. Dentons advised TriGranit on the matter.

    TriGranit Development Corporation is one of the largest privately owned development corporations in Europe. The Bonarka City Center shopping gallery opened in 2009 with a total area of approximately 92,500 square meters. It is the biggest shopping center in Krakow. 

    The Norton Rose Fulbright team on this transaction was led by Banking Partner Grzegorz Dyczkowski, and included Senior Associate Tomasz Rogalski, and Associates Joanna Braciszewska-Szarapa and Konrad Leszko. Partner Agnieszka Stankiewicz and Associate Dobroslaw Plaska advised on the real estate aspects of the transaction.

    The Dentons team was led by Senior Associate Anna Hergottova, under the supervision of Partner Mateusz Toczyski, the Head of Denton’s European Banking and Finance Practice.

    Image source: Wayne0216 / Shutterstock.com
  • KSB Wins Defamation Case for Client

    The High Court in Prague has ruled that a representative of the Czech Landmark Association (CLA) must issue an apology to Allesandro Pasquale, the CEO of Karlovy Vary Mineral Waters (KMV), for language it used when referring to him in a letter it sent to the Commission for Administrative Delicts (CAD).

    Karlovy Vary Mineral Waters is the largest producer of mineral and spring waters in the Czech Republic. The company, established in 1873 by Karlovy Vary native Heinrich Mattoni, produces and distributes the Mattoni, Magnesia, and Aquila brands of mineral and spring waters, exporting them to 20 countries. 

    Pasquale bought the Mattoni bottling factory in Kyselka in the 1990s, and has long been criticized by the Czech Landmark Association and other preservationists for his alleged negligence to the historic buildings related to the town’s spa. In a letter the CLA sent to the  CAD, the CLA described Pasquale as “a contemptible and condemnable person suffering from personality disorder and a culturally ignorant man” and used unspecific vulgarity when referring to him. (Pasquale has previously rejected the suggestion that he should be responsible for the preservation or restoration of the Kyselka spa, which has been decaying since 1945, and has never been his firm’s property). 

    According to the High Court in Prague (sitting as the appellate court) statements made by the Czech Landmark Association regarding the condition of buildings in Kyselka were “grossly insulting and defamatory to Mr. Pasquale,” rather than fair criticism. The Court ordered the Association’s representative to apologize and to refrain from making further defamatory public statements against Pasquale (including not to repeat or disseminate its assertion that “in any other country such a hustler would be driven out with a whip”), pay Pasquale a symbolic one-crown compensation for other-than-proprietary harm, and cover his court costs of 11,000 crowns.

  • Obtaining a Qualified Electronic Signature

    Obtaining a Qualified Electronic Signature

    On 24 July 2013 new Act on Accounting (’’Official Gazette of RS’’, no.62/2013) entered into force (hereinafter referred to as: the Law) and introduced numerous innovations in accounting practice, including an obligation of delivering financial report in the form of an electronic document signed with qualified electronic signature of legal representative to Serbian Business Registers Agency (hereinafter referred to as: CBRA).

    Electronic signing and delivering were due to become applicable on financial reports drafted on 31 December 2014 and thereafter. That means, financial reports delivered after 01 January 2015 have to be signed by qualified electronic signature of legal representative and delivered to CBRA in the form of an electronic document on 30 June the latest for the previous year. Legal entities are obliged to deliver reports for statistical purposes to the CBRA on 28 February the latest for the previous year.

    The Issue of Qualified Electronic Signature when Legal Representative is not Citizen of Republic of Serbia

    In accordance with the Regulation on technical and technological procedures for creating a qualified electronic signature and criteria to be met by devices for creating a qualified electronic signature (’’Official Gazette of RS’’, no. 26/2008, 13/2010, 23/2015) (hereinafter referred to as: the Regulation) to make qualified electronic signature valid for signing a financial reports and reports for statistical purposes, qualified electronic certificate was supposed to contain personal identification number (hereinafter referred to as: PIN) of the signatory, legal representative. Fulfillment of this requirement for most of the legal representatives of legal entities in Serbia who are foreign citizens or have no permanent residence in Serbia was not possible, because they were unable to obtain PIN in Serbia.

    Regarding this problem Ministry of financial affairs of Serbia came with the Opinion no. 011-00-1336/2014-16, dated 17 December 2014, by which there were two possible solutions for legal entities which have foreign legal representative:

    • Foreign legal representatives may apply for the permanent residence and provide temporary PIN in Republic of Serbia or
    • Legal entities may appoint a Serbian citizen, who already has PIN, as a legal representative.

    As both of these solutions had certain deficiencies and were not easy to be carries out, on 4 February 2015, CBRA extended the deadline for submission of reports for statistical purposes till 31 March 2015. Deadline for submission of financial reports is still 30 June 2015 for business or calendar year of 2014.

    Permanent Solution of the Issue of Qualified Electronic Signature when Legal Representative is not Citizen of Republic of Serbia

    Permanent solution was found in the form of amendments to the Regulation (hereinafter referred to as: Amendments), which entered into force on 10 March 2015 and allows foreigners who are legal representatives of legal entities in Serbia, to get valid qualified electronic signature without PIN in Serbia, which will be valid for signing reports for statistical purposes and financial reports. Qualified electronic signature issued to the foreigner legal representative without PIN, except for signing financial reports and reports for statistical purposes, may be applicable in few more occasions determine by the Law.

    Upon the Amendments entered into force, to obtain qualified electronic signature foreigner legal representative of a legal entity in Serbia needs to provide: 

    • Excerpt from the CBRA for the legal entity;
    • Copy of the legal representative passport;
    • Notarized signature of authorized person (legal representative) (OP form) – copy;

    Procedure for obtaining qualified electronic signature takes around 7 working days and costs are in the amount of approximately EUR 30. 

    By Milos Curovic, Partner, and Aleksa Andelkovic, Senior Associate, ODI Law Firm