Category: Uncategorized

  • Jeantet Trumpets New Moscow Office

    Jeantet Trumpets New Moscow Office

    Jeantet — the French firm that took over Gide Loyrette Nouel’s offices in Budapest and Kyiv in October 2015 (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on November 3, 2015), has now opened an office in Moscow as well. Jeantet now has a presence in 7 countries worldwide, and it claims that, as a result of its Moscow opening, it “is now the most dynamic French law firm in Eastern Europe.”

    The new Moscow office is run by former Gide Moscow MP David Lasfargue and employs 15 people — including 10 lawyers and legal experts. Lasfargue began his career at the Prague office of Gide in 1995, before joining the Economic Law department in Paris. In 2001, he was appointed Head of Gide’s Moscow office and became Partner in 2006. He was a member of Gide’s Executive Committee from 2012 to 2015. According to Jeantet, at Gide, Lasfargue “advised many international investors, from France in particular, during their establishment and operations in Russia and in the CIS.” The firm describes Lasfargue as “highly active in the business community (notably through his role as President of the Russian section of the French Foreign Trade Advisors),” and says that he is “recognized as one of the top experts in his market.”

    Lasfargue’s team consists of “ten legal experts including two Counsels, Vladimir Comte (M&A-Corporate-Real Estate) and Maria Yadykina (Corporate & M&A), [and] two senior legal experts, Stanislav Bondarenko (Competition & Litigation) and Ivetta Tchistiakova (Corporate, commercial & pharmaceutical).

    “I am delighted to join Jeantet and to offer my experience to its dynamic and smart international development strategy,” said Lasfargue. “Both my team and I are highly motivated to share our vast knowledge of this market with our clients, in a spirit of excellence and with the necessary flexibility to meet their needs.”

    “The opening of the Moscow office is a major step in the international development of Jeantet, which is now the most dynamic French law firm in Central and Eastern Europe,” said Loraine Donnedieu de Vabres-Tranie, a member of Jeantet’s managing partners board. “Despite the crisis, we have confidence in the Russian market where France is one of the top foreign investors and we are very proud to open an office, with David Lasfargue and his team of seasoned Russian and international lawyers.”

    Just last month, Gide announced that it had handed over management of its Moscow office to Partner Tim Theroux (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on April 18, 2016)

  • Proposed amendments to the Czech Labour Code – Are they really important?

    Proposed amendments to the Czech Labour Code – Are they really important?

    The Czech Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (the “MLSA”) recently submitted a new proposal for interdepartmental comment, that will modify the current Labour Code[1].

    The latest proposal to reduce the use of “agency employees” was (fortunately) cancelled for now[2] . According to the MLSA, this new proposal aims to eliminate several problematic aspects caused by the application of the current Labour Code, and to ensure the compliance of Czech legislation with the decisions of the European Court of Justice.

    This article summarises the most important modifications that the MSLA is proposing. 

    Details of the proposed modifications

    (i) Definition of managing executives (in Czech: vrcholoví zamestnanci)

    In accordance with Directive No. 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003, on certain aspects of the organisation of working time, the MSLA proposes to add a definition of managing executives into the Labour Code. Although this idea is undoubtedly positive, we believe that the proposed definition itself is not appropriate. Among other things, the managing executives shall be measured by their average earnings. Employees will be considered managing executives only if the remuneration is agreed in their employment contract and is higher than CZK 100,000 per month.

    Despite the positive aspects of this idea, the limiting amount is, however, too high, especially for employment outside Prague. Moreover, under the proposed definition, the employee’s remuneration shall be agreed on between the contractual parties in the employment contract, meaning that it cannot be unilaterally determined by the employer within a wage assessment. Such a condition is unfounded and limits the powers of the employer. Finally, it is unclear whether the status of the managing executive may vary with time, ie, based on their average earnings determined for the period of a calendar quarter. For these reasons, we believe that the definition of managing executives is not accurate and should be altered.      

    (ii) Modifications regarding trade unions, transfer to different work, working hours and annual leave, and protection of employer’s property 

    The MLSA proposes to modify several provisions on trade unions, transfer to different work, working hours and annual leave, and protection of employer’s property. In our opinion, all these proposals are unnecessary. The current wording of this provision is appropriate and works well in practice. In case the proposed modifications regarding annual leave are approved, the employers will have to replace existing systems, which also means additional costs on their side. We therefore highly recommend keeping the existing provisions and avoiding pointless changes that bring nothing but higher costs for the employer.     

    (iii) Home office

    We believe that the existing provisions on home office do not reflect the needs of both parties within the employment relationship. However, the proposed modification is incomplete and in our view certain aspects are simply inappropriate. Based on the proposal, employers will be encumbered by duties that they do not even have towards employees who work at the employer’s workplace (for instance information duties regarding usage of technical and software equipment). On the other hand, we believe that it is crucial to establish that the employer is not responsible for the employee’s workplace in case of home office, something that the proposal ignores.

    (iv) Automatic transfer of employees

    It is widely known that the Czech legal provisions on automatic transfer of employees do not completely reflect European legislation and decisions of the European Court of Justice. In accordance with the current Czech provisions, automatic transfer occurs in any case where the activities or tasks (or a part thereof) of an employer are transferred to another employer, that is also in case of a change of supplier, etc. The rights and obligations under an employment relationship may be transferred only in cases stipulated by the legal provisions. Our laws are therefore very strict.

    The MLSA proposes modifications in order to comply with European legislation and decisions of the European Court of Justice. However, these modifications are not entirely suitable. For some reason, the MLSA does not adopt the exact wording of the respective Directive[3]  (which would be completely appropriate) and introduces five new conditions regarding automatic transfer, ie:

    • identical or similar performance of the activity in question (before and after the transfer);
    • the activity does not rest exclusively in delivery of goods; 
    • the activity is performed by an organised group of employees; 
    • the activity is not of a short-term/one-off nature; and 
    • a property (connected to the activity in question) must be transferred as well.

    For comparison, the Directive defines the transfer as “a transfer of an economic entity which retains its identity, meaning an organised grouping of resources which has the objective of pursuing an economic activity, whether or not that activity is central or ancillary.” According to decisions of the European Court of Justice, the following conditions shall be considered in case of automatic transfer of employees:

    • the kind of transferred business; 
    • transfer of tangible goods and their value;
    • transfer of intangibles and their value;
    • takeover of the majority of employees;
    • takeover of customers;
    • interruption of a business activity and its length.

    The differences between the MLSA proposal on the one hand and the EU Directive and the decisions of the European Court of Justice on the other are obvious. The MLSA effort is evidently positive, but the final proposal does not correspond to the existing needs and legal certainty. Therefore the final proposal shall be re-evaluated one more time. We also recommend considering the possibility of legally stipulating the option of contractual transfer of employees.  

    Summary

    The MLSA’s ideas and efforts are a step in the right direction, but the final proposal is incomplete, unclear and in some cases unnecessary. In most cases it replaces systems that work well in practice, which also means additional costs on the side of employers. We therefore recommend reconsidering the modifications and limiting them only to the most important (and currently problematic) fields, being:

    • traineeships; 
    • home office;
    • transfer of employees (including the option of contractual transfer of employees); and
    • payment of wages in foreign currency.

    [1] Act No. 262/2006 Coll., as amended.

    [2] Please refer to Legal Insight 7/2015, Zezulka D., Limiting the number of agency employees – a plausible reality?

    [3] Directive No. 2001/23/EC of the European Parliament of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights, in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses, or parts of undertakings or businesses.

    By Denisa Zezulka, Attorney at Law, Schoenherr

  • CMS, Greenberg Traurig, and Weil Gotshal Advise on XTB IPO in Poland, and CMS Advises on i2 IPO As Well

    CMS, Greenberg Traurig, and Weil Gotshal Advise on XTB IPO in Poland, and CMS Advises on i2 IPO As Well

    CMS has announced that it is acting as sole legal advisor for the Warsaw Stock Exchange debut of developer i2 Development, planned for the second half of May, and that it advised on the initial public offering of Dom Maklerski X-Trade Brokers S.A. (XTB), which debuted on the WSE on May 6 this year. Weil Gotshal advised XTB as the issuer’s counsel on the IPO, while Greenberg Traurig advised investment banks J.P. Morgan, Pekao Investment Banking S.A., UniCredit Bank AG, London Branch, and IPOPEMA Securities S.A on the XTB offering.

    The total value of the IPO of i2 Development is expected to reach PLN 34 million, with 1.7 million shares to allocated to investors at a final price of PLN 20 each. In turn, the value of the debut of X-Trade Brokers amounted to PLN 188.6 million, with 1.6 million shares offered to individual investors and 14.8 million to institutional investors.

    According to CMS, the firm’s Warsaw office “coordinated legal analyses of XTB’s subsidiaries and affiliates undertaken by CMS offices in Spain, Portugal, the Czech Republic, and Turkey for the purpose of the IPO. At the same time, the CMS office in Turkey provided regulatory advice in connection with the project. Additionally, CMS issued legal opinions to the consortium of offering managers.”

    Michal Pawlowski, Partner and Head of the CMS Capital Markets Team, said: “The success of recent public offerings will hopefully result in more activity on the Polish capital market. The success of the two tenders that we advised on is a good signal for the coming months. It is also the best proof that companies with high potential and consistently implemented business strategies can count on investor confidence and successful development through the stock exchange.”

    “The growing interest of businesses and private equity funds in the so-called dual-track, i.e. simultaneous M&A and IPO, is of great importance for the Warsaw Stock Exchange,” added CMS Counsel Rafal Wozniak.

    In addition to Pawlowski and Wozniak, CMS Associate Magdalena Trzepizur worked on both debuts. CMS’s team on the XTB transaction included Prague-based Partner Helen Rodwell, Istanbul-based Partner Alican Babalioglu, Madrid-based Partner Luis Miguel De Dios, and Lisbon-based Partner Francisco Almeida.

    The Weil Gotshal team consisted of Warsaw-based Partners Marcin Chylinski and Anna Frankowska, Senior Associate Jacek Zawadzki, and Associates Barbara Sobowska and Krzysztof Jagiello, as well as London-based Partner Peter King, who advised on English law.

    The Greenberg Traurig team was led by Partners Rafal Sienski and Federico Salinas, supported by Local Partner Pawel Piotrowski and Associate Agata Wisniewska.

  • Spenser & Kauffmann Opens Private Clients Practice

    Spenser & Kauffmann Opens Private Clients Practice

    Spenser & Kauffmann has announced the opening of a Private Clients Practice, headed by Counsel Tetyana Ivanovych, who joins the firm from Vasil Kisil & Partners.

    According to Spenser & Kauffmann, “Tetyana Ivanovych specializes in providing the full range of services to high-net-worth individuals. She has substantial expertise in both private client and family work that makes her one of the very best of the small number of practitioners who provide these specialized services in Ukraine.”

    The firm reports that Ivanovych, who has been at Vasil Kisil since 2007, specializes in “advising wealthy Ukrainian individuals, including shareholders of private and family owned businesses, on domestic and international wealth structuring, management and succession using, inter alia, such vehicles as trusts and foundations as well as other financial structures,” and that she “helps families in developing effective wealth protection and wealth preservation strategies that is a number one priority for Ukrainian high-net-worth businessmen.”

    “Ukrainian first-generation businessmen are now paying much attention on the issues of wealth management and succession,” commented Spenser & Kauffmann Managing Partner Valentyn Zagariya. “Wealthy Ukrainians are more and more concerned with ensuring that their wealth is professionally managed and will be safely transferred through generations. That is why I am deeply convinced that Tetyana’s experience and skills in matters of private wealth structuring as well as family and inheritance work will certainly be high in demand in the Ukrainian legal market.”

  • CMS Advises PJSC Uralkali on Pre-Export Finance Facility

    CMS Advises PJSC Uralkali on Pre-Export Finance Facility

    CMS has advised PJSC Uralkali on its new USD 1.2 billion pre-export finance facility arranged by, among others, ING Bank N.V., Natixis, AO Unicredit Bank, Sberbank Europe AG, Societe Generale, and Public Joint-Stock Company Rosbank. The lenders were represented by Moscow and London offices of Hogan Lovells. The syndicated loan is the largest in Uralkali history.

    PSJC Uralkali is one of the world largest producers and exporters of potash. The company’s 11,000 or so personnel operates 5 mines and 7 ore-treatment mills in the Perm Region of Russia. The new financing will be used for general corporate purposes, including refinancing of existing debt.

    CMS’s joint Moscow and London team was led by Counsel Elena Tchoubykina, who commented: “It is very reassuring to see the deal of this size and with such impressive lender syndicate of 16 banks close in fairly turbulent times for Russian economy.” 

    Other CMS team members included London-based Partner Patrick Donegan and Moscow-based Associate Nikolay Kosminskiy.    

    Hogan Lovells also advised the lenders on a USD 450 million unsecured club loan facility to Uralkali in 2014 (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on July 1, 2014), and Debevoise & Plimpton advised Uralkali on another pre-export finance facility with a syndicate of eight international banks last year (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on May 4, 2015).

  • EU Market Abuse Regulation Countdown – Are you ready? Part III: Sanctions – Austria Publishes Draft Implementing Bill

    EU Market Abuse Regulation Countdown – Are you ready? Part III: Sanctions – Austria Publishes Draft Implementing Bill

    The new EU market abuse regime will take effect across EU member states from 3 July 2016 onwards. It will not only harmonise and enhance the EU regime on market abuse and extend it to trading venues beyond EU regulated markets, but will also increase the scope of existing offences and will provide for harsh sanctions.

    Directive 2014/57/EU of 16 April 2014 on criminal sanctions for market abuse (“CSMAD”)[1], requires Member States to implement legislation to ensure that market abuse is a criminal offence which can be effectively punished. On 20 April 2016 Austria published a draft bill implementing the sanctions regime under the new EU market abuse regulation (“MAR”)[2]  and CSMAD (the “Draft Bill”), cornerstones of which are set out be-low.

    1. The Draft Bill 

    On 20 April 2016 Austria published a draft bill implementing the sanctions regime under MAR and CSMAD.[3]  In accordance with MAR and CSMAD, the Draft Bill fore-sees certain maximum administrative pecuniary and criminal sanctions, criminal liability for legal entities, certain procedural requirements as well as special pro-tection for whistleblowers. MAR and CSMAD do not limit Member States to provide for more stringent sanctions and Austria is likely to make use of such discretion (see at 1.2 and 1.4 below).

    Austrian criminal law distinguishes between administrative criminal law and judicial criminal law. The Draft Bill follows this “dual-track system” which is also rec-ommended by MAR and CSMAD and provides for both administrative[4]  and judicial criminal sanctions[5].These sanctions apply to both natural and legal persons, as is required by MAR and CSMAD.

    1.1. Territorial application 

    As the Draft Bill does not provide for any specific rules regarding jurisdiction, but rather provides for a general commitment to ensure the application of the MAR in Austria, the general rules of the Austrian Criminal Code (“ACC”) on jurisdiction will apply. The ACC applies to all offences committed in Austria. Pursuant to the ACC, an offence is committed (i) wherever the perpetrator has acted (ii) or should have acted or (iii) where a result required by the definition of the criminal act ensued (iv) or should have ensued according to the perpetrator’s intentions. Therefore, it is not necessary that all elements of an offence, or the majority of the elements, are committed in Austria in order to establish Austrian jurisdiction. Even a minor nexus of the offence linking it to Austria would be sufficient. Further, the ACC provides jurisdiction to prosecute Austrian nationals for offences committed abroad, if the offence is punishable in the country where it was committed.

    Austrian administrative penal law essentially provides for the same rules on jurisdiction, with the minor exception that the result of the criminal act actually has to occur in Austria. In practice this distinction will not be particularly relevant, since the place where the offence was committed (rather than the place where the result occurred) is relevant to establish jurisdiction under the offences pursuant to Art 3, Art 4 and Art 5 CSMAD (insider dealings, disclosure of inside information and market manipulation). Therefore, the Austrian authorities will generally only prosecute offences which are committed in Austria or which are committed abroad by an Austrian citizen.

    1.2 Criminal Sanctions under the Draft Bill

    1.2.1 Pursuant to the Draft Bill only serious cases of insider trading or unlawful disclosure of inside information shall constitute a criminal offence going forward. Under the current Austrian rules, every violation of insider rules constitutes a criminal offence.

    1.2.2 Pursuant to the Draft Bill serious cases of market manipulation shall constitute a criminal offence going forward. Currently market manipulation constitutes an administrative offence only. Under the Draft Bill, cases shall be deemed serious if either

    (i) the volume of a transaction exceeds EUR 1m (in case of insider trading, market manipulation or use of inside information by cancelling / amending orders or by submitting/modifying or withdrawing a bid of emission allowances or other auctioned products), or

    (ii) the price of the respective financial instrument on the most relevant market (in terms of liquidity), fluctuates by at least 35 % and the aggregate turnover of such instrument exceeds EUR 10m, within five consecutive trading days from the inside information becoming public (in the case of recommendations or inducements to engage another person in insider dealings and unlawful disclosure of inside information);

    Remarkably, the above criteria depart from the criterion typically triggering higher penalties under Austrian criminal law which is reference to the financial advantage gained. Pursuant to the legislator’s intent, this shall ensure a clear split of responsibilities between the prosecutor / court (in case of criminal offences) and the FMA (in case of administrative offences) from the outset of an investigation.

    1.2.3 Pursuant to the Draft Bill the maximum term of imprisonment will be more stringent than under CSMAD: it will be up to five years (in the case of insider dealing and market manipulation) or up to three years (in the case of unlawful disclosure of inside information).

    1.3 Administrative sanctions and measures under the Draft Bill

    1.3.1 The administrative sanctions set forth under the Draft Bill do not go beyond those set out in Art 30 para 2 lit h-j MAR.

    1.3.2 Administrative measures that the regulator may impose (such as eg withdrawal or suspension of a firm’s authorisation) pursuant to the Draft Bill do not go beyond those set out in Art 30 para 2 lit a-g MAR.

    1.4 Illustrative overview of (planned) implementation

    Please click here to view a table which provides a short overview over the main MAR/CSMAD provisions and their (planned) implementation into Austrian law.

    2. Next Steps

    The Draft Bill is now subject to consultation, with the consultation period ending on 13 May 2016. We will monitor the legislative process and will provide updates on any significant developments. In the meantime, please contact us for further details.

    [1] Find here.

    [2]Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on market abuse (market abuse regulation) and repealing Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directives 2003/124/EC, 2003/125/EC and 2004/72/EC, here

    [3] Available in German only here

    [4]Sec 48a – 48j Austrian Stock Exchange Act (Börsegesetz, “BörseG”).

    [5] Sec 48k – 48w BörseG.

    By Ursula Rath, Partner, Klara Jaros, Attorney at Law, and Michael Lindtner, Associate, Schoenherr

  • Gecic | Law Advises on Sale of Zelezara Smederevo Assets

    Gecic | Law Advises on Sale of Zelezara Smederevo Assets

    Gecic | Law has advised Zelezara Smederevo and the Government of Serbia on EU, regulatory, and corporate matters in connection with the EUR 46 million (USD 52 million) sale of Zelezara Smederevo assets through a public tender procedure to China’s Hebei Iron and Steel Company (HBIS). As reported previously, BDK & Asociatii advised HBIS on the deal (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on April 18, 2016), working in association with China’s JT&N Law Firm.

    Speaking of the transaction, Bogdan Gecic — who led his firm’s work on the deal — stated that “the investment and revitalization of the steel mill will have a huge economic impact on Serbia in terms of exports and overall GDP.” The Gecic firm reports that “Zelezara Smederevo is Serbia’s leading producer of steel and is the second largest Serbian exporter and is currently responsible for nearly 1% of Serbia’s GDP,” and says that, “the company, which was formerly owned by US Steel, having been acquired through the privatization process, was sold back to the Government of Serbia in 2012, marking the exit of US Steel from the country.”

    In addition to Gecic himself, the Gecic | Law team included Partner Nikola Aksic, Special Counsel Jelena Adamovic, and Senior Associate Marija Papic, who worked in close cooperation with the legal team at KPMG Serbia led by Mladen Marjanovic. Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton Brussels provided international counsel on the deal, with a team led by Till Muller-Ibold and Francesco Maria Salerno.

    Gecic commented: “We wish to congratulate HBIS on this precedent setting transaction.  We enjoyed the opportunity to work closely with their team, the Government of Serbia, the team at Zelezara Smederevo and our co-counsel on this transaction.  This collaboration will be tremendously beneficial for Serbia and we hope will open the doors for other Chinese investors in Serbia and the region.”

  • Eight CEE Lawyers Promoted to Partner in CMS Global Round

    Eight CEE Lawyers Promoted to Partner in CMS Global Round

    CMS has announced the addition of 32 new partners around the world — including 8 in CEE.  

    In CEE, the firm announced that lawyers Sofia-based lawyers Elitsa Ivanova and Darina Baltadjieva, Belgrade-based Marija Tesic and Rasko Radovanovic, Tirana-based Mirko Daidone, Kyiv-based Olga Belyakova, Vienna-based Jens Winter, and Warsaw-based Piotr Ciolkowski have joined the CMS partnership. The promotions of Jens Winter, Darina Baltidjieva, and Rasko Radovanovic has been announced previously (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on December 9, 2015 and January 19, 2016).

    Elitsa Ivanova is the Head of the Banking & Finance team in Bulgaria. She has, according to the firm, “particular expertise in trade & commodity finance, syndicated & corporate finance, project finance and leveraged finance. She regularly advises leading financial institutions active in the CEE and CIS regions on cross-border transactions.” She has spent her entire career at CMS, joining legacy Hayhurst Robinson in 2005, after completing her Master of Laws program at Sofia University St. Kliment Ohridski. Among the recent deals she has worked on are UniCredit’s financing to Ambienta for its recent acquisition of the Calucem Group from Argus Capital Partners (reported by CEE Legal Matters on May 2, 2016), and a USD 65 million credit facility provided by a syndicate of banks to a subsidiary of Kernel Holding S.A., the Ukrainian agricultural conglomerate (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on August 11, 2015).

    Marija Tesic joined CMS Belgrade in 2006 after graduating from Belgrade University Law School. She specializes in corporate/M&A and employment law, and CMS reports that “she has participated in as well as led her own legal team in advising clients in some of the most significant cross-border transactions in Serbia and Montenegro, in the retail, telecommunications and manufacturing sector.” Among the recent matters she’s worked on is CMS’s advice to Innova Capital on its acquisition of Slovenia’s Trimo Group from nine banks (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on December 17, 2015).

    Mirko Daidone, in Albania, is a corporate and commercial specialist, who joined CMS in 2011 following the firm’s takeover of Eversheds’ entire Tirana office of Eversheds’ Italian alliance firm.

    Olga Belakova, in Kyiv, advises clients on M&A, corporate, competition and general commercial issues with a special focus on the technology, media and communication sector, where, according to CMS, she “regularly advises multinational and local telecommunication, IT and other companies on regulatory issues, inter-operator relations, television related issues, acquisitions of telecommunication and technology companies, and the sale and purchase of telecom and technical facilities.” She graduated from the Kyiv National Economic University in 2001, and obtained a Postgraduate Diploma in EU Competition Law from King’s College London in 2011. She began her career with almost six years in-house with Golden Telecom, then spent a little more than a year as an Associate with Baker & McKenzie before moving to CMS in the fall of 2007. Among the recent matters she’s worked on is the sale by Horizon Capital and Zubr Capital of their stake in MTBank, the largest private bank in Belarus, to a local investor (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on April 1, 2015).

    Piotr Ciolkowski, based in Warsaw, has spent his entire legal career at CMS, where is a legal advisor and partner in the Energy Department, and heads the Regulatory Practice. According to the firm, “he advises on regulatory issues as well as those related to fuel and energy trading. In the course of his practice he prepared and negotiated electricity and fuel sales contracts. He also advised companies involved in trading in electricity in terms of contracts of sale based on EFET standards, as well as electricity producers in connection with the replacement of PPA contracts for the sale of electricity. [He] also advised clients on CO2 emissions as well as in connection with purchases of oil, gas and fuel, and trade in green, red and yellow certificates, [and] he advised on the creation of the gas exchange in Poland.” The firm also reports that, “he has participated in acquisition transactions in the energy sector, including the acquisition of a network of petrol stations by a fuel company and the acquisition of wind farms. He also participated in Polish power plant privatization projects. His experience also includes advising on corporate law for companies in the energy sector and issues relating to dispute resolution proceedings.” He graduated from the Faculty of Law and Administration at the University of A. Mickiewicz in Poznan, in 2004. Among the recent matters he’s worked on at CMS is financing provided by ING Bank Slaski SA to Unimot SA to purchase and store diesel fuel as required by the Polish Act on mandatory reserves of fuel (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on April 18, 2016), PGNiG’s obtaining of USD 400 million in financing from Societe Generale, BNP Paribas, ING, HSBC, Citibank, CACIB, SEB and Natixis (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on August 28, 2015), and CVC Capital Partners’s acquisition of PKP Energetyka from Polish National Railways (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on July 28, 2015).

    Speaking about the firm’s new partners around the world, CMS Executive Chairman Cornelius Brandi noted, “Expanding and deepening our expertise so that we can deliver a first-class client service is key to CMS’s future success. With the naming of 32 new partners in 23 offices, we continue to ensure that our clients receive the support they need, both in their own jurisdictions and across borders.”  

  • Dentons and WKB Advise on GEO Renewables Sale of Shares in Lubartow Wind Farm to IKEA

    Dentons and WKB Advise on GEO Renewables Sale of Shares in Lubartow Wind Farm to IKEA

    Dentons has advised Grupa Energetyki Odnawialnej Renewables (GEO Renewables) on the sale of shares in an SPV operating the Lubartow wind farm in Poland to IKEA, and on an exchange of shares in the Ilza, Jedrzychowice, and Zgorzelec wind farms in Poland with EDP Renewables. WKB Wiercinski, Kwiecinski, Baehr advised IKEA on the first deal, and DLA Piper advised EDP on the second. Both transactions were completed in March 2016.

    In December 2014 Dentons advised GEO Renewables on its sale of shares in a joint venture owning and operating a wind farm in Wroblew to the IKEA Group (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on March 24, 2015). As in that earlier transaction, the Dentons’ team in the Lubartow deal was led by Counsel Agnieszka Kulinska supported by Associate Jan Dubinski, with both again supervised by Arkadiusz Krasnodebski, Poland Managing Partner and Head of the firm’s Energy practice in Poland and Europe.

    The WKB team advising IKEA on its acquisition of the Lubartow Wind Farm consisted of Partners Jakub Jedrzejak and Maciej Szambelanczyk, Senior Associate Magdalena Piszewska, and Associate Krzysztof Sikorski.

    DLA Piper did not respond to inquiries about its work for EDP Renewables in the second deal.

  • Wolf Theiss and Brandl & Talos Advise on Sportradar Acquisition of Core Business of Sportsman Media Group

    Wolf Theiss and Brandl & Talos Advise on Sportradar Acquisition of Core Business of Sportsman Media Group

    Wolf Theiss has advised the Swiss company Sportradar AG in its acquisition of the core business of the Sportsman group from founders Thomas Krohne and Karl Wieseneder. Brandl & Talos advised the sellers. The signing took place on April 19, 2016, and the deal will close pending approval from the relevant competition authorities.  

    Sportradar is a leading provider of innovative data and media solutions for the betting industry and the digital media sector. The Sportsman Group employs over 1,300 people in more than 30 locations worldwide, and according to Wolf Theiss the company “covers the entire value chain of media rights in digital marketing within sport through its digital products and services.” Wolf Theiss reports that: “Business areas range from media rights to sports marketing, production services, digital platforms, digital services and services for sports betting providers.  With this acquisition, Sportradar is clearly broadening its offerings in the sector of audiovisual sport content. Last year, both companies delivered more than 27,000 live broadcasts worldwide to the sports betting and gaming industry. Their combined portfolio will become one of the largest and most compelling audiovisual sports portfolios currently being operated within a single company. This includes premium content such as, in football, the German Bundesliga, the German Cup and the Spanish Copa del Rey, the China Basketball Association, volleyball games from the CEV, games from the International Tennis Federation and ice hockey games from the Russian Kontinental Hockey League as well as some of the most important audiovisual content in the betting industry, from table tennis and badminton to other events and series.”

    “Media and data rights in the sports sector are a fast-growing market,” Wolf Theiss Partner Michael Lind, who led his firm’s team, explained. “We are delighted to have advised Sportradar in this strategically important acquisition.”  In addition to performing the legal due diligence for the Austrian entities of the Sportsman group, Wolf Theiss was also responsible for all transaction documentation (particularly the share purchase agreement).  

    In addition to Lind, the Wolf Theiss team advising Sportradar consisted of Partners Gunter Bauer, Georg Kresbach, and Matthias Unterrieder, Counsel Jochen Anweiler, Senior Associates Wolfram Schachinger, Katrin Stauber, Elisabeth Strobl, and Robert Wagner, as well as Associates Felix Breitwieser, Anja Greiner, Judith Grimm, Anna Schwamberger, Lukas Slameczka, and Wen Wei Xu.  

    The Brandl & Talos team advising the Sportsman group founders was led by Partners Thomas Talos and Stephan Strass. Georg Gutfleisch was a further member of the advisory team. The founders were also advised by Nicole Schlatter of Kirkland & Ellis on questions of German law. 

    Last autumn, Brandl & Talos itself represented Sportradar and primary Sportradar shareholder Carsten Koerl on the acquisition of financing from, among others, Revolution Growth, former NBA star Michael Jordan, and Dallas Mavericks’ owner Mark Cuban (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on November 9, 2015).