Category: Uncategorized

Soltysinski Kawecki & Szlezak had advised UPS on its acquisition of shares in Poltraf, a pharmaceutical logistics company, from the Poland-based ORTIE investment fund.

UPS announced the execution of the agreement on December 18, 2014. UPS expects to complete the transaction in the first half of 2015, subject to customary closing conditions. Terms of the deal were not disclosed.

Poltraf is based in Blonie, near Warsaw, and has been providing healthcare logistics services for nine years. The company’s portfolio includes temperature-sensitive warehousing and transport. The company claims to make more than 76,000 deliveries each month, for more than 180 manufacturers and distributors of medicines, medical devices, dietary supplements and cosmetics.

“This acquisition brings greater capability to our global healthcare network,” said Cindy Miller, President, UPS Europe. “Poltraf complements our mainland Europe expansion plan and we are now able to provide healthcare companies access to a single source for logistics solutions across the continent, helping to achieve greater supply chain efficiencies and compliance with relevant guidelines.”

Piotr Krol, the CEO of Poltraf, was similarly enthusiastic. “This is a very positive development for our company, our employees, and our customers. Joining forces with UPS will allow us to continue to provide high-quality logistics services to our customers and broaden our reach by leveraging UPS’s global distribution network. We look forward to creating even greater value for our customers.”

According to a statement by UPS, “the acquisition will add three facilities with advanced warehousing management systems, full quality assurance services, and an experienced workforce to UPS’s existing European healthcare network, now totaling 14 healthcare facilities. UPS’s healthcare reach and expertise in Europe now includes dedicated healthcare distribution centers in the Benelux area, Eastern Europe, Central Europe, Southern Europe, the Iberian Peninsula and the United Kingdom, effectively covering Europe’s most vital geographies.”

The SK&S team advising UPS included Partner Slawomir Uss and Senior Associate Jan Jarmul, both supported by Associate Anna Grzywinska-Okon. In addition, healthcare and transportation regulatory issues were handled by Partner Agata Szeliga, supported by Katarzyna Bieliszczuk. 

Lavrynovych & Partners has successfully defended the rights and interests of Silski Tradytsiyi in a 13 million UAH lawsuit against the State Ecological Inspection of the Poltava region of Ukraine, represented during the process by prosecution authorities.

Silski Tradytsiyi had been accused of using water resources without the necessary special permit for subsoil use.

Silski Tradytsiyi is a procurement and meat processing company, and Lavrynovych & Partners describes it as “one of the largest agricultural enterprises in Ukraine.”

As a result of the firm’s work the penalties levied by Poltava Regional Economic Court were overturned by the Kharkiv Economic Court of Appeal. According to a summary provided by the firm, Lavrynovych & Partners  managed to convince the Court of Appeal that the regulations Silski Tradytsiyi was charged with violating with “irregular” and that insufficient evidence had been presented by the prosecution at trial. As a result, according to the firm, “the panel of judges agreed … that there were no violations of environmental legislation of Ukraine in [Silski Tradytsiyi’s] activity,” and consequently that the award of damages to the state was improper.

The Lavrynovych team was led by Senior Associate Arthur Kiyan, who was supervised by Partner Stanislav Skrypnyck.

Wierzbowski Eversheds has announced that it advised Perma-Fix Medical on its reverse merger with CEE Opportunity Partners Poland in the summer of 2014. As part of the transaction, the company conducted a capital increase and listed its new shares on the NewConnect market, a process which was completed in December 2014.

Perma-Fix Medical Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of NASDAQ-listed Perma-Fix Environmental Services, Inc., announced plans in March 2014 for a reverse merger with CEE Opportunity Partners Poland. As a result, Perma-Fix Medical is now listed on the NewConnect market of the Warsaw Stock Exchange. The company plans to develop its operations in the field of nuclear medicine, including production of Technetium-99m (Tc-99m), an isotope used for medical purposes.

Under the agreements signed in the transaction, the shareholders of CEE Opportunity Partners Poland voted at the general meeting to change the company name to Perma-Fix Medical and elected new members of the supervisory board. The next step was a private offering of new shares, followed by registration of the shares and admission of the shares to trading on NewConnect. The total value of the newly issued shares was PLN 8.25 million.

The Wierzbowski Eversheds team was led by Ewa Szlacheta, the head of the firm’s M&A practice, and included Krzysztof Feluch, Renata Patoka, and Natalia Burchardt.

Sorainen has acted as local counsel for International Personal Finance on its intended acquisition of the entire share capital of MCB Finance Group, including control over its subsidiaries in the Baltics (operating under the name “Credit24”).

In addition to those subsidiaries, International Personal Finance — a leading international home credit business serving 2.6 million customers — operates in Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Mexico, Romania, Lithuania, and Bulgaria,

The intended acquisition values the share capital of MCB Finance Group at approximately EUR 30 million. 

The Sorainen team was led by Partners Tomas Kontautas and Rudolfs Engelis, and included Senior Associates Augustas Klezys, Mantas Petkevicius, Santa Rubina, Piret Lappert, and Vyte Danileviciute, and Associates Jurgita Nikita, Edvins Draba, and Gerly Lohmus. 

Lawin has advised the Prosperus Real Estate Fund I on its December 17, 2014 acquisition of the North Star Office Building from a company managed by the MG Baltic group.

Prosperus Real Estate Fund I is a real estate investment fund for professional and informed investors established by Investiciju Valdymas Prosperus holding in 2014. The Fund’s strategy is to invest into commercial real estate for lease in the Baltic countries to generate income. The target size of the fund is EUR 15-25 million (LTL 52-86 million), and the target annual return on investment is 15-18%.

North Star Office Building, built in 2009, is the first investment of Prosperus Real Estate Fund I resulting in the acquisition of 100% of shares from BCU2 — a company controlled by the MG Baltic Group. The 7-floor property consists of 19,750 square meters, including 370 parking spaces. The value of the acquired asset amounts to approximately LTL 65 million (approximately EUR 18.8 million)   

Prosperus was advised on acquisition and financing issues by LAWIN Partner Tomas Milasauskas and lawyers Robertas Ciocys, Donata Montvydaite, and Agne Jonaityte. 

Earlier this year, Lawn has advised the shareholders of Alita, one of the largest alcohol producing groups of companies in Lithuania), in the sale of all their shares to Mineraliniai vandenys, a company controlled by the MG Baltic Group (reported on by CEE Legal Matters on October 8, 2014).

Dogan Cosgun has become the new Chief Legal Officer at the Turk Telekom Group, the former state-owned Turkish telecommunications company.

Turk Telekom owns 99.9% of the shares of TTNET, Argela, Innova, Sebit, and AssisTT, and 81% of the shares of Avea, one of the three GSM operators in Turkey. Cosgun moves over from Avea, where he was Chief Legal Officer for the past three and a half years. Before that he was Chief Legal Officer at Turkuvaz Radyo Televizyon Haberlesme ve Yayincilik.

At TTG Cosgun will directly oversee a team of 70 lawyers, along with an additional 130 lawyers in the regional offices around Turkey. He describes his new position as “a big challenge.” 

Cosgun obtained his law degree from Istanbul University in 1996.

Willibald Plesser is a Partner in the Vienna office of Freshfields and also acts as one of the Co-Heads of the CEE/CIS region, a Country Partner for Turkey, and the Head of the Energy Sector Group in Vienna.

He joined the firm in 1981 and was made a partner in 1987.

W.P.: I believe it comes down to our history. We are the only Magic Circle firm present in Vienna and probably also the only top tier international full service firm in this market. We were one of the two top firms in Austria as Heller Loeber Bahn & Partners when we merged on January 1, 1998 with Bruckhaus Westrick Stegemann. This was the first cross-border merger between an Austrian and a German law firm – not an easy task due to certain Austrian bar restrictions. Based on EU law we were able to convince the Austrian bar to complete the merger, thus creating Bruckhaus Westrick Heller Loeber. 

Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer came into existence as a result of the merger effective August 1, 2000 between us and UK-based Freshfields, which had just merged with Germany-based Deringer Tessin Herrmann & Sedemund into Freshfields Deringer. In the view of many outside observers, and very much our own view, this has been an extremely successful merger.

I think what played a considerable part was that we were pioneers in the region as the first Austrian firm to start branching out into CEE. In 1989 we opened our Budapest office, in 1991 we set up an office in Bratislava, and in 1992 we established a presence in Prague. I still remember being asked by peers at the time in the market: “Why are you taking this uphill battle? Do you not have enough good work at home in Austria?” 

And it ended up working to our benefit. Interest in CEE started in the mid-90s, shortly after the fall of the Iron Curtain. At the time, Austria itself was investing heavily in CEE, and it also was a regional economic hub – meaning it was an excellent platform from which to launch operations in CEE. In our view it was a must to follow our clients into the region. Our CEE offering made us attractive for non-Austrian clients and of course also for foreign law firms. German law firms like Bruckhaus had kept busy in the early days dealing with the challenges in East Germany, but they soon realized that the CEE region was an even more interesting market on their very doorsteps. It therefore made absolute sense for a top German law firm like Bruckhaus to merge with an Austrian law firm, which was already a very strong player in CEE, and it made absolute sense for us to merge with a firm in Germany, the most important economy for Austria. As a result, I would say we benefited greatly from leveraging a perfect window of opportunity in the market. This window, however, closed soon and other Magic Circle firms started opening offices directly in the major CEE countries rather than pursuing a Vienna hub strategy. 

W.P.: Soon after the merger with Freshfields we looked at the region and realized that we could not have offices in all markets that were booming at the time. For example, Poland was a huge market, but was already flooded in terms of legal services. We also reached the conclusion that it was not realistic to expect to successfully grow what we believed to be a “real Freshfields” office in each of these markets. It would have also implied a lot of handholding of the local teams, which we did not feel worked with our overall strategy. 

Furthermore, the realities in the local markets played a role. With the quality level of local lawyers improving over time, with many of them receiving training abroad, there was an implicit expectation to become a partner within the firm. Because of our lockstep system, it would have been difficult for more than just a few lawyers in these markets to achieve this. Because of that, and because of quality control concerns, we decided to turn our CEE offices over to those local partners who wanted to continue as a group. Oppenheim, for example, a firm that we still work a lot with in Hungary, is our former Budapest office. We were, by the way, not the only international firm to take this approach. A number of Linklaters offices, for example, have become the Kinstellar of today, and other firms have withdrawn altogether.

W.P.: I believe it was the right approach rather than struggling to run offices in each jurisdiction especially in terms of servicing your client. If you work on a major deal, for example, such as the sale of a major participation in the Slovak gas company SPP, a multi-billion US dollar deal, you need to address a great number of aspects, including, for example, regulatory work. If you are tied to your own local office of 5 or 10 lawyers you cannot truly offer a full service to your client and you stand to lose out on work, or, if you do win the mandate, you run the risk of under-delivering, which would be a disaster to your brand. Instead, we were free to create a powerful network around us of strong local practices together with which we have been working to great results. Having experienced both models first-hand, I can comfortably say that we are far better off under our current framework, and our practice across the region has grown considerably over the years, both in volume and complexity, without the headache of micro-management.

There is another positive to that equation to keep in mind: Local firms are also willing to reach out to us and to develop new business together with us. For example, if a local firm is advising on a large PPP project locally, they can comfortably reach out to us to complement them on that specific type of advice as opposed to a situation in which we’d be perceived as competing for work in their local market. 

There are downsides, with the standard reflex of clients to first ask “do you have an office there,” but sophisticated clients understand that this is less and less important, and they rather choose to focus on whether we “have the right expertise and know the right people on the ground.” And yes, I can easily say this approach has paid off. At the moment, already a third of our global revenue is generated from jurisdictions where we do not have an office, and we expect this percentage to grow in the future.

W.P.: We have developed and implemented a dedicated program in this direction, called “Stronger Together,” in which we try to identify not one but 2 or 3 local firms that we can work with on a regular basis. This program is implemented worldwide because we decided to push the firm towards a strategy which would allow us to legitimately claim that we are prepared to serve our clients in any jurisdiction at any point.  

What we focus on in our “Stronger Together” program is both making sure that we connect all these local firms with us and that we meet regularly but also create channels to exchange know-how and business opportunities. Of course, if a mandate warrants it, we will identify local firms that can support on niche areas outside of the program – but our main drive strategically at the moment is to build up this existing network and develop ways to leverage it to its full potential. 

W.P.: For Turkey, we have a group of approximately 10 Partners across the firm that act as Country Partners, based for instance in Dubai, Germany, London, Moscow, and Vienna. The Country Partners are those partners that historically have done a lot of work in the country, or that take a special interest in Turkey. Personally, I’ve been active in this market for more than 20 years, working especially in the energy sector. We worked for instance on the asset-swap agreement between E.ON and Sabanci. Other partners working on major Turkey deals are Alan Rae Smith, based in London, and Pervez Akhtar, based in Dubai. As Country Partners, we have regular strategic meetings to figure out the best way forward in the market. Greece is another market where we have a similar set-up.

In terms of why we do not have an office in Turkey, we did look thoroughly at the country and came to the conclusion that it is a crazy market. It is heavily over-lawyered (it reminds me of Poland in this regard) and with a lot of new market players, including international ones, firms are racing to build up their track record – leading to a considerable price dump. At the same time, the local firms have grown considerably in the last few years, with players like Herguner having 70 lawyers or more. Lastly, similar to China, the idea of Turkish clients paying for external counsel was not traditionally the norm. Because of these factors, among others, we decided not to build a local physical presence. I do have to say though, that Turkey is a very exciting market and we have a number of on-going projects there and whenever I go to Turkey I too get excited and at times get carried away in thinking we should do more – but I am happy focusing only on the type of very high complexity work like we are doing now.

W.P.: I spoke already about the “Stronger Together” project. In terms of strategic approaches, we always position ourselves towards, and aim for, the truly complex deals. In that direction, being proactive is critical so, for example, in the energy sector, what I try to do is to constantly monitor the latest potential projects, investments disputes, bonds bought, etc. This is an exercise that the firm as a whole carries out in other sectors as well such as financial institutions, media, etc.

This Article was originally published in Issue 5 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine.

Christoph Lindinger is a Partner with Schoenherr in Vienna, where he heads the firm’s Dispute Resolution practice. His practice focuses on arbitration and corporate litigation matters, including post-M&A arbitrations according to a variety of arbitration rules. Lindinger has also been the Managing Partner of the firm since 2001. Under his leadership, Schoenherr has expanded into one of the top law firms in Central and Eastern Europe, covering the region with a network of offices in 13 CEE jurisdictions, plus one in Brussels.

C.L.: We were once referred to in one of the Austrian weeklies as “high level understatement,” as opposed to another firm, which they described as “new kids on the block.” And I think that describes us quite well and gives you a sense of the flavor, instead of just saying “the culture” – every firm has a culture.” Also, I think that our geographic coverage is unique. There is no other firm with this kind of coverage. 

C.L.: I’ve been with Schoenherr for nearly three decades and have been its managing partner since 2001, so I think it’s safe to say that some of my personality has rubbed off on the firm’s overall culture. What once might have been a pretty traditional law firm culture has developed into an environment in which people are open-minded, dynamic, and dedicated to moving things ahead – and having fun while doing so! 

I think I also happened to be lucky in the sense of being at the right place at the right time – the firm was open for changes, the Iron Curtain fell, the CEE markets beckoned, a new, more internationally-oriented generation of lawyers was rising, and so on.

C.L.: I think both. If I say it was only a deliberate choice, that would be too flattering of my capabilities, but I truly believe that works need to be fun, because whatever you do, you spend most of your time working. More than sleeping, more than anything else. It had better be fun.

C.L.: No, we are set. That’s an easy one. No.

C.L.: Actually, this year I just fully jumped back into client work by taking up the role as the Head of Dispute Resolution at the firm. And the reason why I can combine both roles is because we appointed Gudrun Stangl Lutz as Chief Operating Officer about a year and a half ago. Basically, Gudrun takes a lot of work off my shoulders. And not only day-to-day operational tasks, but also strategic tasks, because she used to be an M&A lawyer in Christian Herbst’s team, so she knows the shop inside out. She also used to run our Bratislava office as office Managing Partner. Because of Gudrun, I’ve regained 70% of my capacity for client-related work.

C.L.: Well I do mainly arbitration, so I also appear before tribunals, but yes.

C.L.: I can give the same answer to both questions. The most challenging part is to keep this bunch of egos together – and that is also the most rewarding. Why is that challenging? Because they are all egos. My partners and fellow-lawyers in the firm have quite unique personalities, each of them, and each of them has a more or less distinct view of what we should do and what we should not do. And those views rarely overlap. So that’s the challenge. And the reward is what you see: we are the top firm in the region.

C.L.: Currently, the Dispute Resolution practice in Vienna has 3 ongoing investment arbitrations, and 5 quite substantial commercial arbitrations, so we are handling about 8 a year – and here I’m talking about the substantial ones. There are more that start with the request for arbitration, and then get settled, but those 8 involve the ongoing, substantial, work-creating matters. 

And I think this workload will increase in the coming years, because our profile is growing, we are better exploiting opportunities on the market, and the opportunities on the market are growing.

C.L.: Well, each arbitration has an international angle. There are usually Austrian parties involved – but not always. Commercial arbitrations mainly result from international transactions, and investment arbitrations are international matters by definition. We advise both Austrian and international parties.

C.L.: I think on the commercial side it mainly comes from the firm’s activity, because we are known as the Corporate powerhouse in the region. This means we do a lot of Corporate transactions, which in turn means that in those where there is a subsequent dispute, we are the natural choice of the client involved. So that’s the Commercial part of it. In the Investment arbitration part, I think the reason why we do many of those cases compared to the size of our firm is that we have a strong footprint in a region in which you find jurisdictions that are quite prone to many kinds of investment arbitration. Think about Turkey, and from Turkey to the east, including all the ‘stans –  that is quite a fruitful area in which to find unhappy investors.

C.L.: Well, I think we are known in the community, and we also market ourselves.

C.L.: We are particularly proud of our post-M&A dispute resolution capabilities. We have a fairly unique experience in M&A transactions, and that gives us a distinct advantage over other dispute resolution practitioners. I’m also particularly proud of our Investment arbitration practice, because if you look at the number of cases that are newly filed with the fora that  normally see these kind of cases, you’ll see that our peers are Freshfields, King & Spalding, Weil Gotshal, and those big shots, mainly from the UK and the US. In this sort of community, we’re a bit of a newcomer, and for a newcomer, we’re quite successful.

C.L.: Exactly. That’s also true if we are disputing a post-M&A transaction which we did not structure immediately.  We still know how it should have been structured, or how it likely was structured, and what routes of attack you can find into those not-always immediately visible structures.

C.L.: Yes. We plan to grow the team. The team is fairly sizable already, because we look at it as a completely international and integrated team over our 13 CEE jurisdictions. So there’s been growth and there still is growth potential, including in Vienna.

C.L.: Yes, absolutely.

C.L.: First of all, I think that although it’s been 8 years now, it’s still early to tell. People in the arbitration community are very happy that there’s now a one-stop shop for annulment procedures. But believe it or not, in the last 8 years there have been only 3 annulment cases in Austria – and those have involved quite low amounts in dispute. And out of those three cases, one was withdrawn. So the 2006 changes have not really been something that has triggered an avalanche of cases coming in. Secondly, the court fee structure is still a bit on the high side. From a competitive viewpoint in this respect, Austria is probably not as good as – for instance – Switzerland, because there is no cap on court fees for annulment procedures for arbitrations, while in Switzerland there is such a cap. 

Finally, there are couple of smaller things we have wanted to see rectified for years and years, and they are still there. For instance, there is a fairly old-fashioned provision in our Civil Code that specifies the need to have a special power of attorney that also encompass the submission for arbitration or election of an arbitrator. If you don’t get that right in this power of attorney, then you are left in the dark. So that should be removed. But other than that, we are fairly happy with how the arbitration environment in Austria has developed.

This Article was originally published in Issue 5 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine.

The CEE region is registering a growing interest from renowned private equity firms and an increase in large transactions involving reputable market participants. We sat down with Peter Huber, the Managing Partner and Head of the International Transactions Team at CMS in Austria. His team was recently involved in the Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co (KKR) acquisition of the SBB/Telemach Group, one of the leading Internet and cable operators in south-eastern Europe (i.e., Serbia, Slovenia, Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro and Macedonia) with more than 100 million customers. Coordinated by CMS Vienna and Belgrade, this transaction was the first investment of KKR in the region.

P.H.: I believe there are a multitude of factors at play. Certainly, a lack of attractive investments in more established PE markets is a big driving force towards this region. At the same time, pricing in the region remains relatively attractive. The bottom line is that PE firms are always looking for markets that hold the promise of attractive returns, and I believe CEE holds this promise. 

Another aspect is that these markets are now offering an increase in the supply of secondary situations, where PE firms that invested in the region 5-6 years ago and who are not reaching the end of their investment cycle are now looking to sell. 

Lastly, I would say that there is also a changing attitude towards risk that can be observed among the major PE players. Having major US and UK equity houses turn towards CEE will have a strong impact on making these markets more established on the PE global landscape. In light of this, the Telemach deal is in many ways an icebreaker for the region. 

P.H.: I’d say that to some extent, both apply. On the one hand, it is surely the case that the perceived risk levels have generally decreased, especially for investments in the EU member state regions – but also in those markets bidding for accession. At the same time, I also believe that these firms have put in place more effective processes to identify, price, and manage existing risk, including very rigorous due diligence exercises.

P.H.: Poland and the Czech Republic are perceived as the most stable markets for various reasons: their finances, the size of their respective markets, EU membership, etc. When we look further afield, Slovakia, although a smaller market, is potentially attractive; however it does raise the question as to whether there are enough potential targets in the country simply due to its size. Romania is another market that is relatively attractive. 

Serbia and some other Balkan countries also have significant potential at this point in time. Serbia still possesses the legacy of a former industrial hub for the region. It also has quite a few “secondaries” taking place, but it needs to manage the perception towards them, especially in terms of financing. I believe – and this view is shared by other market observers – that the KKR investment in SBB/Telemach, which apart from Serbia involved several other markets in the SEE region, will in many respects act as an icebreaker transaction.

P.H.: Telecom and media will definitely continue to grow since there are quite a few promising companies in these industries. PE will likely pick-up companies in these areas and strategic investors here will likely represent a spearhead for PE companies in the region, depending, of course, on the flexibility of regulators in allowing them to branch out. 

Other high potentials can be found in the food and drinks industry, and it is likely we’ll see some movement in the retail space as well, all of which are relatively lagging behind but are, for the most part, undergoing consolidation in many markets in the region. PE firms could act as a catalyst in this process. 

P.H.: To some extent, these markets have always had a high profile of risk, meaning they have always been viewed as problematic from a PE perspective. Interestingly, if you look at most statistics, the Russian market has led – and still is leading – the charts in terms of PE investments. But that does not always present the most accurate image, since the boundaries between PE investments and private investments as well as investments by corporations controlled by high net worth individuals are rather blurry. 

What I can say is that, based on what I am hearing from my colleagues in Russia, international PE investors are sitting on the sidelines at the moment and waiting to see how things unfold. We have seen some exits from these markets from both international and regional PE houses but I have a hard time imagining that the ones who are still on the ground will pull out in the mid-term. Naturally, in terms of new investments, there is a significant slowdown.

P.H.: You do need to differentiate between EU members, including those markets negotiating their accession, and other markets. For the most part, the typical emerging market’s risk factors come into play: foreign exchange risk, repatriation of profits concerns, risks of nationalization or quasi-nationalizations, risks of asset freezes, the general risk of enforceability of legal contracts, and general corporate governance, compliance, tax, and merger control risks. What I notice is that players who become committed to the region have developed very effective tools to assess, manage, and price these risks.

One of the biggest factual barriers is therefore the investment required for a PE house to familiarize itself and become comfortable with the peculiarities of the markets in the region. But for a second investment, things are much easier. What I would expect is that the houses which have recently made a significant investment in the region will likely continue to remain active in these markets in the future.

P.H.: We might see more investments from Asia, i.e. from markets such as China, and maybe Singapore – if we include direct investments of sovereign wealth funds in our definition of PE – but I can’t really point for sure towards systematic efforts in the CEE/SEE region to attract such investments.

P.H.: Naturally, we always try to react to market changes and increased demand. One recent example of this is the fact that we now have a team in place in Turkey that is well equipped to advise on PE transactions. They are our youngest office in the region but have already been quite active in the PE field. We have also dedicated resources to increasing our team in the Balkans and will likely continue along these lines as the market develops.

P.H.: In both the recent and not so recent past, we have more often advised PE houses, co-investing supra-nationals, or corporates buying from PE. Occasionally we have also advised local companies or to a lesser extent the management of local companies. Overall, we do tend to focus strategically on advising PE houses or international corporates buying from PE as we feel that this type of work allows us to apply our expertise in the best way possible.

This Article was originally published in Issue 5 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

Roswitha Reisinger has been working for Eli Lilly in Vienna since December 2004. During her time with the company she acted as a legal counsel for over 3 years, then was appointed the Head of Legal for Central and Eastern Europe, a position which she occupied for 4 years and 4 months before transitioning to her current role as General Counsel in Emerging Markets. Prior to Eli Lilly, she worked for both Graf Maxl Pitkowitz and Wolf Theiss.

R.R.: The answer is quite simple. I enjoyed being responsible for the CEE region, but after close to 5 years I wanted a new challenge and the opportunity to expand my horizons beyond Europe. Taking on the responsibility for emerging markets (Africa and the Middle East) presented the challenge I was looking for as it allowed me to get a broader world view and learn about the economies and the opportunities, as well as the risks of emerging markets 

R.R.: The key is to understand the markets that you are supervising and the legal and regulatory trends that present risks for the company. Equally important is the ability to effectively work with and through your team and to prioritize. You also need to have good outside counsels.

R.R.: Ideally the external counsel should have a good understanding of the industry – I feel many of the aspects related to quality of service stem from that. In terms of how to identify the right counsel, especially because several of the markets I am currently responsible for are rather small, I also rely on recommendations from law firms or from colleagues to complement my own research. Another important aspect is that the law firm understands our ethical requirements.

R.R.: First and foremost it comes down to the quality of work that was provided, whether the legal advice was practical, and if risks were identified, whether solutions in line with the objective are being provided. Responsiveness and meeting timelines are other key factors. 

R.R.: Since we are talking about a heavily regulated industry in general it is not surprising that the emerging markets under my responsibility tend to have many laws and regulations in place. The main differences I would identify from the European markets I used to manage relate to the higher level of ambiguity in relevant regulations and a relatively less advanced set of enforcement mechanisms in place. At the same time, the level of IP protections in some of these markets is a challenge and, lastly, in some of the smaller countries it can sometimes be a challenge to identify good quality external help.

R.R.: I really do prefer working in-house. The main reason I moved away from private practice was that I wanted a more global and diverse environment exposure, and I can comfortably say I have found that in my current team, which is very diverse, bringing a lot of experiences and different cultures together. Also, working in-house allows you to get a more comprehensive and holistic understanding of organizations and the business. 

Another aspect is, in private practice a lawyer tends to become a specialist in only one area, whereas in house-counsels generally have to be conversant in a very broad array of laws.

R.R.: In my mind, it is critical to have a good network of external firms in each of the markets you are covering and to have good relationships with colleagues who are on the ground. It is also important to make it a point to be ‘in country’ –   by which I mean taking regular visits to various jurisdictions to get an accurate pulse of what is going on there. I also like subscribing to a multitude of newsletters from law firms. I guess, to sum it up, it really all comes down to building a strong support structure around yourself.

R.R.: I will say that while you definitely need strong technical skills, the additional things to master to be an effective leader are strong communication and interpersonal  skills, and in particular the ability to establish open and trusting relationships. This is what makes the difference between a risk advisor and a strategic business partner within a company. 

I do think lawyers have many skills through their training that help them add value if they engage the company’s leadership strategically. First of all, they have strong logical/analytical thinking and they are trained to objectively prioritize between complex actions. Last, but definitely not least, I think lawyers have – because of their professional ethics – a responsibility to truly make a difference, which helps in seeing beyond the simple ‘bottom line.’ 

Leveraging these strengths in my mind comes down to developing excellent communication skills, especially when it comes to highly complex matters, and communicating them in a manner that is both digestible and understandable to non-lawyers, which requires a great deal of empathy and the ability to see matters not only through a legal lens but also through an economic lens.

R.R.: Communication is definitely not one of those fields that come with a toolbox, and in my view you need to constantly adapt to your audience. It also depends on the goal and content you want to communicate. For compliance trainings, one of the most effective channels in my experience are case-studies relevant to your business partner, so that they can empathize with your message. Emails are a good tool to communicate simple matters. For complex matters such as those which require negotiation or collaboration, or matters where you actively need to seek and draw out other´s views, the phone or, ideally, in-person meetings (and technology these days allows for the latter to happen a lot more often than in the past) are far more effective channels of communication than emails.

R.R.: Austria used historically to be a hub for CEE but I think it is slowly losing that hub function.

R.R.: The makings of a good day for me include waking up early enough to have my morning run. A good morning cup of coffee is also a welcome addition. However, one thing that really motivates me is working with great people and learning new things. I believe in life-long education and have just returned from a great executive leadership program from the Harvard Business School with the mission of educating leaders who make a difference. For me, integrating the learnings in my present and future work and also sharing them with my colleagues is one of the things I find most rewarding.

This Article was originally published in Issue 5 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.