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.

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.

Peri Lynne Johnson is the Legal Adviser and Director of the Office of Legal Affairs of the International Atomic Energy Agency. She has previously served as the Director of the Legal Support Office, Bureau of Management, of the United Nations Development Programme. Johnson earned her B.A. in French Literature (with a focus in Government and International Relations), with distinction in all subjects, from Cornell University in the United States, and she obtained her Juris Doctor from Harvard Law School in 1991. She is based in the IAEA’s Vienna office.

P.L.J.: After graduating from Harvard Law School in 1991, I served as a legal associate at Arnold & Porter, a leading Washington, D.C. law firm, handling litigation and international matters. In 1993, I joined the United Nations system and have stayed in the system, in four different capacities, since then: First, I joined the UN High Commissioner of Refugees in Conakry, Guinea, working with political refugees, primarily from Liberia and Sierra Leone; then, from 1995 until 2000, I was a legal officer with the UN Office of Legal Affairs in New York; that led to my joining the United Nations Development Program legal office where I stayed for ten years, becoming legal advisor in 2007; finally, I was recruited for my current position at the IAEA. 

P.L.J.: I had been in New York since 1995, and I had worked in the most rewarding legal positions in New York – the Office of Legal Affairs and the UNDP legal office (as the UNDP manages the Resident Coordinator program of the UN, the UNDP legal office handles many legal issues facing the UN system, not just UNDP-specific legal issues; this made the work very exciting). I was ready for new challenges and applied for this position, as I thought it would be a great opportunity at that stage of my career to specialize in a particular area of international law – nuclear law.  I also understood that Director General Amano, who had started his term a year before my arrival, sought to highlight the development aspects of the work of the Agency, work that was not as well-known as the nuclear verification work. Coming from the UNDP, with substantial experience in this area, I was confident that I could play a role in this regard. Furthermore Director General Amano was seeking to increase the number of female staff. During his tenure that figure has increased from 22.5% to 28.4%.

P.L.J.: I serve as the Director General’s Legal Advisor, reporting to him directly. The Office of Legal Affairs has 3 sections with a total of 23 lawyers, 9 assistants, 1 knowledge management specialist, and 3 to 4 legal interns year round. The General Legal Section deals with typical in-house counseling legal work – agreements, contracts/procurement, personnel, and finance. The Non-Proliferation and Policy Making Organs Section deals with safeguards/verification issues and support to our governing bodies: the Board of Governors and the General Conference. The Nuclear and Treaty Law Section deals with nuclear safety, security, civil liability for nuclear damage, technical cooperation, and nuclear power related matters. 

In all of our work, our mission is to provide the highest standard of legal services to the Director General, the Secretariat (the departments and staff that make up the Secretariat), and the Policy Making Organs, as well as our Member States, in the development and implementation of Agency activities.

P.L.J.: Although I have never served as the Head of Legal for a private company, I am sure that in some respects it is similar – managing a staff of lawyers and assistants, ensuring sufficient budget for our activities, providing high quality services for clients. But there are differences. As a public international intergovernmental organization, we are not driven from the perspective of making profit. Our priorities are set by our Member States. Our mission as described above is to provide the best advice possible to support the development and implementation of Agency activities. 

P.L.J.: Actually, in view of our status as an international organization, we are not dealing with domestic laws and courts of our 162 Member States or only exceptionally. When we get involved, that would be to advise national authorities, upon request, on how they might choose to adjust their legal frameworks to be in line with international treaties or standards where our Organization has competences.

P.L.J.: Just about all of the work of the Office of Legal Affairs is managed directly by the staff of the Office. However, when necessary, we do use specialized expertise – in national and regional workshops on issues related to nuclear safety and security, for example.

P.L.J.: The Office primarily engages with regulatory bodies in connection with our legislative assistance program, during which we advise our Member States on their national nuclear laws. Also, we do engage with regulators in the context of the review meetings for the Convention on Nuclear Safety, which we support together with the Department of Nuclear Safety and Security.

P.L.J.: I can’t really comment on how Austria compares to other CEE jurisdictions, however, the Director General always refers to Austria as a model Host Country. It is generally very supportive of the Agency and its activities, including in connection with the ongoing renovation of our laboratories at Seibersdorf.

P.L.J.: Well, it is hard to consider this, as I am very honored to be here at the IAEA, involved in such important work! Notwithstanding, given my over 20 years in the UN system, it is safe to say that I would imagine myself somewhere in the UN system. After so many years in the UN system, working in the private sector is not really appealing to me. It is really great to work to support the goals of the UN Charter and the Agency Statute, working for peace, security and development of our Member States.

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.

Originally from Colorado, US, Christopher Fischer is currently based in Vienna, where he works for Western Union as its Vice-President, Associate General Counsel, and Head of Legal EU Region. He first joined the company in 2004 as a Counsel and held various positions within the company over the years: Senior Counsel, Head of Legal EMEA-SA (2006-2008); Assistant General Counsel Europe & CIS (2009); Associate General Counsel The Americas (2010); and Associate General Counsel Europe, Middle East and Africa (2010-2013). His previous experience includes working for IBM, Oesterreichische Kontrollbank, UNCITRAL, and Wolf Theiss.

C.F.: As is often the case with expats, love brought me to Vienna. While studying in Germany for my LL.M., I took a language course north of Barcelona to refresh my Spanish. I met my wife at that course and moved to Vienna after completing my studies. 

C.F.: Becoming fluent in German was the key to my professional beginnings. At one point I was the “Austria” lawyer for IBM – although I never studied Austrian law. That forced me to hone my skills in negotiation and learn to negotiate in a language other than my mother tongue. Now most of my work is in English, but I also have a greater appreciation for my counterparts negotiating in a language other than their mother tongue. So with English, German, and the odd word or phrase in other languages, I have learned to be effective as a foreign lawyer in Central Europe. Empathy also plays a big role in that.

C.F.: Being able to look at things from the other side and using that insight to create solutions is a must. In every negotiation, both sides have things that are important to them. It may be a specific issue or it may just be “winning” a point. For example, I have to train my junior lawyers that succeeding on maintaining our template wording is not necessarily important. If the other side wants to re-write 90% of a contract just to be seen as being strong negotiators, I can accept that so long as the meaning doesn’t change for the points that are important to me. The goal is reaching a deal. If I can make the lawyer on the other side succeed while still getting what I want, that is truly a success. So at least half of a negotiation is about listening and understanding what is important for the other side.

C.F.: That shops closed so early. Shopping hours have since become longer, but still nothing like the US, England, or in fact many Central European countries. I no longer have to but it’s still good to know that I can drive an hour to Slovakia or Hungary and find a 24-hour supermarket if needed. 

C.F.: I’m not sure that my American personality is either an asset or an obstacle. I have had good and bad managers or seen good and bad managers of many nationalities. In the end it comes down to the person. Lawyers as people managers are difficult to begin with. Our training and most of our initial work experiences are as lawyers in law firms. The partner is the boss and he or she has to put the client first. I can remember a number of young associates put in tears by partners. It wasn’t about people management, but getting the work done by a deadline. That’s certainly part of the reason I enjoy working in-house. I have the ability to manage deadlines and thus manage the stress levels of my team. As for my own personality, I also believe that humor is important in life and work. So having a laugh, even if the work is hard or dull, is important.

C.F.: Communication is key and I try to over-communicate. Finding the connection between your everyday work and the bigger picture isn’t always easy. By giving my team insight into the bigger picture I see helps motivate them. I also see communication as a two way street or, better yet, a spider web. While there have to be certain hierarchies of who reports to whom and the appropriate level for decision making, when it comes to communication, seeking advice, or socializing I don’t believe in hierarchies. Everyone in my team can come to me for anything and I encourage my team to reach out across the team. I even schedule ad hoc skip level conversations so that I have a feel for everyone’s comfort in the team.

C.F.: I’m seeing a trend towards less travel as a corporate cost-saving effort. While I don’t support unnecessary or excessive travel, some travel (even without a negotiation, etc.) is still valuable. It is important that my lawyers can occasionally meet each other in person. For me personally, most of my travel is now related to regulatory and board meetings and lobbying in Europe.

C.F.: As in many CEE countries, we are physically closer to our external lawyers than is generally the case in the US. We sometimes see our external lawyers on the street or in the fitness center. It is easier to join a law firm sponsored event. This makes our interaction more personal and I believe that helps drive better quality and responsiveness.

C.F.: Difficult jurisdictions seem to change over time. For Western Union, the difficulties are most often driven by regulatory concerns. So it varies depending on when a particular regulator chooses to focus on my industry. This month it might be Bulgaria, next month Spain and the month after that Germany or Ireland. When negotiating with our distribution partners, I can say that – on average – our partners or prospective partners in Poland and Romania seem to be the toughest negotiators. But that is only an average. On the flip side, the UK seems to be one of the easiest jurisdictions to do business. Even if issues arise, there is typically a fair and transparent way to reach an agreement.

C.F.: Vienna is a great city in which to live and work. It is an imperial city in a small country. The infrastructure is very good. So getting around is easy. The airport has great flight connections to most of Europe, in particular within CEE. Vienna is also an international city. My team in Vienna is diverse with colleagues from the US, Scotland, Mexico, and Greece – in addition to Austrians.

C.F.: I almost went to the US on assignment. A new General Counsel came in and asked me to stay in Vienna, which didn’t bother me too much (Vienna really is a great place to live!). As with most professionals, I would relocate for the right position. Moving with a family is a lot trickier, so I would have to see an advantage for the entire family and not just me personally. I guess we’ll see what my future brings.

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.