Category: Uncategorized

  • Biris Goran Successfully Defends Aversa in AAAS Dispute

    Biris Goran has successfully defended Aversa Manufacturing against charges brought by the Romanian Authority for State Assets Management (A.A.A.S.) regarding the alleged unlawfulness of the adjudication of Aversa assets in a September 11, 2013 auction.

    On November 28, 2013, the Bucharest Tribunal had dismissed the claims made by Aversa Manufacturing that A.A.A.S.’s charges were time barred and forced the parties to go to trial, before — on April 17, 2014 — finding that the sale of Aversa SA assets had indeed been made in full compliance with all legal requirements. Both parties appealed: Aversa Manufacturing on the ground that the claim should have been time barred, and A.A.A.S. against the ruling on the merits. 

    On September 22, 2014 the Bucharest Court of Appeal found that Aversa Manufacturing’s appeal was justified and ruled that A.A.A.S. had failed to submit its claim contesting the adjudication of the assets of Aversa SA within the legally required term. As a result, the Court of Appeal compelled A.A.A.S. to reimburse Aversa Manufacturing for its legal costs. According to Biris Goran, “the decision rendered by the Bucharest Court of Appeal is irrevocable.”

    Biris Goran Partner Raluca Nastase, lead counsel for Aversa Manufacturing, said of the court’s ruling that: ”We are delighted to have obtained this second success, both on the merits and from the procedural point of view, for our client and for this successful project which, a year after the privatization, grew to 251 employees and significant investments are planned for the coming year, including new hires.”

    The Biris Goran team was coordinated by Nastase and Partners Victor Constantinescu and Mihai Nusca and Associate Andra ?urariu, along with the assistance of several unnamed other law firms. 

  • Editorial: Insights on Legal Recruitment

    Editorial: Insights on Legal Recruitment

    Prior to launching CEE Legal Matters, I spent a little over 3 years in a legal recruitment company. Knowing my background, over a recent casual cup of coffee a partner from a law firm in Budapest told me that he noticed a job advert posted by a recruiter looking for a senior banking lawyer. “Who in God’s name would be looking for senior banking lawyer in this economy?!”, he asked me, shocked.

    I explained to him a bit about how the recruiting industry works, and the reasons many recruiters may have for posting job descriptions that do not, in fact, relate to specific mandates from employers. In other words, I explained, it’s quite possible that in reality nobody is actively looking to add a senior banking lawyer — but by sending out the bait, the recruiter may land a prize nonetheless. 

    Disclaimer

    First, let me clarify that I do not mean to criticize or belittle the recruitment industry as a whole. Having worked within that dynamic industry, I know that quality recruiters can be of real value to clients and candidates alike. As one Polish legal recruiter working noted in a recent CEELM article (“Hunting Legal Heads” — accessible only for subscribers until October): “If you think it’s expensive to hire a professional, wait until you hire an amateur.” 

    However … not all recruiters are of such high quality, and all recruiters are pressured to be aggressive — which can, sometimes, cause them to act in ways potentially detrimental to the lawyers they’re representing. Thus, smart job seekers would do well to understand the priorities and practices of legal recruiters before entrusting them with their CVs and the authority to contact firms on their behalf.

    Much of a recruiter’s work tends to be speculative

    First, a brief introduction to the three broad types of engagement under which most recruiters usually work is instructive:

    • Retained: Under this model, a potential employer (Firm X) pays a recruiter (Recruiter Y) a small fee in advance to start researching the market and sourcing for the right candidates. Once those candidates are identified and Firm X makes the hires, Recruiter Y is paid its full fee (either a flat fee agreed with the firm or a percentage of the compensation package of the hired candidates)
    • Contingent: Under this model, a firm or company engages a recruiter (or multiple recruiters) on a purely success-fee basis (i.e., payment is due only if the right candidate is found and hired)
    • Speculative: Under this model, the recruiter takes the initiative to forward a candidate’s CV to a potential employer in the absence of any specific instruction or request, under the assumption that great talent will always be attractive to potential employers. Many times firms resent this kind of aggressive selling — though others appreciate the help — and this type of work is often frowned upon in the recruitment industry, with many recruiters referring to those competitors who specialize in it as “CV pushers.” 

    You often hear recruiters claiming that they tend to focus on “real searches” only (that is, categories a or b), and, indeed — as efforts on such assignments have a much higher chance of yielding fees — all prefer them. Nonetheless, despite this preference, much if not most of recruitment work is actually done on a speculative basis.

    And firms often encourage recruiters to work speculatively by hinting at the possibility of a hire — while simultaneously carefully instructing the recruiter not to reveal their identity in any advertisement or message. Unfortunately for both recruiters and job-seekers alike, these instructions may or not be genuine — sometimes clients hint they are interested in receiving CVs simply because they know that recruiters searching a market are unlikely to risk damaging a client relationship by simultaneously headhunting out of that client on behalf of someone else. Accordingly, firms are incentivized to encourage recruiters to believe that scenarios (1)-(3) below are far more serious and probable than they are in reality — and recruiters may thus unwittingly pass that false belief on to candidates who respond to their ads.

    In other words, the sad truth is that many job ads posted by recruiters do not reflect searches by firms to fill actual needs, but rather — at most — fishing expeditions for superstars. At best, they come from one of the following messages by clients to recruiters, which can refer to actual searches — though ones extremely unlikely to be filled:

    (1) Well sure, if you find someone great in …”

    This is the base message recruiters want to hear from their (actual or potential) clients. It suggests that, for the right candidate — meeting whatever standard of academic and professional qualifications the firm requires — the firm could potentially be open to hiring. For firms there’s almost no reason not to work with recruiters on this basis — there’s little for the firms to lose, and it means the recruiter has incentive to work on their behalf at no obligation. For the recruiters, however, it can be a mixed bag — there’s no way of ensuring that the client is actually serious, and in some cases what they really mean is, “of course, if the best lawyer in the market with the most portable business is available, we’d like to know about it.” The great majority of the time, however, the recruiters’ time and efforts here are wasted. Result: a job description with an anonymous client is advertised by the recruiter. 

    (2) “Yeah, we’re thinking about growing in …”:

    A Managing Partner from a law firm may casually mention a practice area the firm hopes to “grow strategically” in the near future. Recruiters may react to this information in a variety of ways, but that information is, in the minds of many, a clear sign already that if a great candidate is found for that practice area he or she has a good chance to be hired. Result: a job description with an anonymous client is advertised by the recruiter. 

    (3) The “If I found a rain-maker in …” talk:

    Especially in dire economic times, where work is at a minimum, this familiar refrain often leads recruiters into a classic wild-goose chase. It is true that Managing Partners will most likely hire “rain-makers” at any point, especially if they bring considerable portfolios of portable business with them (because who would ever pass on someone bringing in more money than he/she would cost). Many times, however, finding the rain-maker at the standards that the partner envisions is as likely as catching as unicorn, and the work rarely pays off. Result: a job description with an anonymous client is advertised by the recruiter.

    On the other hand, of course, because recruiters have their own internal incentives to find good candidates even without any encouragement from their clients, sometimes job ads are posted without any instruction from clients at all:

    (4) Second Place is First … Among Losers

    While many times a recruiter will be engaged exclusively for a search, clients often have multiple recruitment companies working on the same role, putting recruiters in direct competition with one another as to who gets a candidate’s CV on the employer’s desk first. Because of this, it is critical for recruiters to build their candidate databases proactively, so they can be prepared to act quickly when actual searches do arise. And recruiters know that candidates are much more likely to send their CVs in response to what appears to be an actual job ad than they are otherwise. Result: a job description with an anonymous client is advertised by the recruiter.

    (5) More Candidates in Our Database Than Stars in the Sky

    If you look at any recruiter’s website, more often than not, you will find that recruiter advertising its network or existing database of “active candidates.” Recruiters need to build up their database both due to the efficiency needed to address point (4) but also because it is one of the most important unique selling points in a recruiter’s pitch for a role. Many times, it is also serves as an excellent business development tool. There is no easier way for recruiters to demonstrate their reach, reputation, and capability than by pointing to its existing database of high-quality candidates. Result again: a job description with an anonymous client is advertised by the recruiter.

    What you should do as a jobseeker

    Recruiters believe that there is no real harm in luring potential candidates even in the absence of specific mandates from employers — and they may be right. If, however, you want to make sure you’re fully informed about what’s happening, and do not wish to have yourself identified as looking for a new job to firms that may not actually be hiring, there are some things you can do and some flags you should be looking for:

    (a) First, it’s worth knowing that no reputable and professional recruiter will ever send your CV to a client without your permission — but not all recruiters are so ethical. Make sure to clarify their approach to this, and you can even ask for it in writing if you wish. At the very least this demonstrates to recruiters that you take your career and job search seriously and are a professional and careful person.

    (b) Second, be confident and ask questions. Remember that a recruiter should act as much of an agent or consultant for the jobseeker as he/she does for the employer. Following a brief introduction of your profile, therefore, you should ask directly, and even before you send your CV through, what client they are working for. They may say that the client has asked them to keep their identity confidential (which happens often), but often that instruction ends once a quality candidate expresses interest. There may of course be exceptions — or the recruiter may find a middle ground by saying, “it’s a Magic Circle firm”, or “it’s an American firm”, or “it’s an international firm.” Feel free to ask for as much clarification as you need, until the recruiter finally says no more is available.

    (c) Ask the recruiter what type of an engagement their relationship with the client for this search is (retained, contingent, etc). Not only does this demonstrate that you understand how the process works, but it should also give you a feel of how committed their client is to making a hire. I cannot imagine any reputable recruiter lying about this if he/she is asked directly. If they don’t answer, you may want to contact another recruiter.

    (d) Responses by recruiters such as “the role has just been closed but we can explore other opportunities,” or “you do not fulfill the specific criteria for this role but there are other options” may of course be genuine — but they may also simply mean that there *is* no actual role, and the job ad was for a speculative search all along rather than a retained or contingent search.

    (e) If the recruiter offers those “other opportunities” and you do decide to pursue them, ask them which clients they work closely with in your market. Remember that a recruiter cannot realistically work with all potential firms as some need to be (pardon the harsh term) poaching grounds for them. Get a complete list of which firms you will be presented to, and know that while recruiters may attempt to dissuade you from contacting them yourself or using another recruiter by suggesting that “they’re not hiring at the moment,” this may simply mean that they’re unable to present you. You can then contact another recruiter for those firms or contact the firms yourself. (Do not, however, contact firms or authorize other recruiters to contact firms the first recruiter has agreed to contact. This causes real confusion about priority, makes you look unethical, and is simply unprofessional. If you expect recruiters to be transparent and above-board with you, it’s appropriate to extend the same courtesy to them).

    (f) Avoid the overarching “exclusive representation” clause. Some recruiters will ask their candidates to agree to be only represented by that specific recruiter. That is fine if it applies to the scope of the handful of close clients identified in point (d), but you should avoid agreeing to this across the board. 

    (g) Finally, and perhaps the most important message of all to job-seekers, is that speculative inquiries are almost inevitably as successful for independent contacts by the job-seekers as they are when made via recruiters. Recruiters may encourage you to believe that they have “inside contacts” or that communications they make for candidates are somehow given special consideration, but the truth is, law firms are almost always prepared to give full consideration to those candidates who contact them directly. Indeed, they usually prefer it, since any hire they make on that basis saves them the money they would otherwise have to give to the recruiter for a fee.

    As I mentioned above, recruiters can be valuable and effective agents. And many candidates are happy to engage recruiters even for speculative searches, both to save time and to take advantage of the recruiters’ knowledge about who to best contact and how to make the most effective inquiries possible. But as professional lawyers are as careful about their own interests as they are about their clients’, those considering using recruiters to aid them in a job search should make sure they understand how the process truly works.

    Next week, I’ll discuss in more depth the value recruiters add for job seekers.

  • Lawyr.it Launches Issue 6

    Lawyr.it Launches Issue 6

    Our friends at Lawyr.it, a peer-reviewed legal journal in English powered entirely by students, take pride in announcing the launch of their sixth issue!

    The end of the summer brings a fresh new issue, containing the usual sections, now better than ever, plus several surprises. Thanks to the Briefing section, law students can now stay better connected to the law students’ academic life and find out about opportunities to do internships, go to summer schools or conferences, or participate at competitions.

    The articles they have prepared tackle various topics, such as the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil under English Common Law, the US model used for assets recovery, or whether there is such thing as a right to marriage universally recognised to same sex couples, given Court jurisprudence and the different regulations existing in world’s countries.

    For this edition’s debate, they have invited two prolific students to offer arguments pro and against the usefulness of the International Criminal Court, given its current record and the activity it had so far in its endeavour to render justice. 

    They have also prepared two interviews – one with the Managing Partner of a Romanian law firm associated with one of the Big Four companies, and one with a respectable member of Academia, also a reputable judge at Cluj Court of Appeal. 

    Last but not least, for this edition’s ‘Question of the issue’, they have invited several young lawyers from the region to answer the question: what skill helped them most get a job, and why. For the next issue, they challenge students coming from Central and Eastern European law schools to tell them what is their favourite law practice and why. The most interesting responses will be published in the next issue which will come up in September.

    You are invited to discover more in the magazine and share with them your opinions at editors@lawyr.it. 

    You can find the sixth issue here.

    {simplepopup name=”000” cookie=”30″} If you would like to receive regular updates on CEE cases, deals, lateral moves and promotions, and legal awards or if you want to sign up to receive a hard copy of our upcoming magazine please subscribe here. {/simplepopup}

  • GESSEL Advises PBKM on Acquisition of Diagnostyka Banku Komorek Macierzystych

    GESSEL Advises PBKM on Acquisition of Diagnostyka Banku Komorek Macierzystych

    GESSEL has advised Polski Bank Komorek Macierzystych on the execution of an agreement pursuant to which PBKM has acquired a 100% stake in Diagnostyka Bank Komorek Macierzystych (which had Diagnostyka as its majority shareholder) while Diagnostyka acquired a small stake in PBKM.

    According to GESSEL, “the goals of this transaction include expansion of PBKM’s offer beyond services associated strictly with stem cells, development of new products and services by DIAGNOSTYKA, and benefiting from the synergies generated by PBKM and DIAGNOSTYKA between them to reach new customers.”

    GESSEL provided comprehensive legal services for the transaction on the PBKM side, including a due diligence study and drafting and negotiation of the investment agreement regulating the entire transaction.

    The GESSEL lawyers involved in this project included Managing Associate Maciej Kozuchowski, Trainee Attorney Barbara Lagiewka, and Trainee Advocates Magdalena Szeplik and Bartlomiej Wozniak.

     

  • Linklaters Closes the Sale-Leaseback with W. P. Carey for Property in Krakow

    Linklaters Closes the Sale-Leaseback with W. P. Carey for Property in Krakow

    Linklaters has acted for one of W. P. Carey’s managed non-traded REITs on the EUR 9.7 million sale-leaseback of an office/R&D facility with Nokia Solutions and Networks.

    The transaction represents W. P. Carey’s second deal in Poland this year, as the firm also advised the company on its March acquisition of the Lipowy Office Park (which serves as Bank Pekao’s headquarters), in Warsaw.

    The 5,508 square metres facility currently employs approximately 300 staff, which work within Nokia’s network and telecom infrastructure division.

    Linklaters Warsaw was involved in and advised on all aspects of the transaction, from due diligence, through drafting and negotiating the transaction documents, up to the successful signing and closing.

    Managing Associate Janusz Dzianachowski and Senior Associate Michal Matera ran the process on the firm’s end in close co-operation with Reed Smith, W. P. Carey’s US counsel.

     

  • GA&P Promotes New Partner in Estonia

    Glikman Alvin & Partnerid has promoted Planning and Public Procurement specialist Veiko Viisileht to partner, making him the firm’s ninth.

       

    Veiko Viisileht (blslawfirm.com)

    Viisileht joined the firm in 2007 and heads the Planning and Public Procurement practice. He graduated from the University of Tartu in 2009 and became a member of the Estonian Bar Association in 2010.

    In addition to his primary practice areas, Veiko also advises clients in Civil and Administrative Litigation and in Administrative Proceedings. 

     

  • AstapovLawyers Successfully Represents Delta Bank

    AstapovLawyers Successfully Represents Delta Bank

    AstapovLawyers reports that it has successfully represented Delta Bank in a USD 71 million dispute against an unnamed “Ukrainian tycoon,” who, according to the firm, owns a “significant” group of agricultural companies in Ukraine.

    According to AstapovLawyers, the dispute involved a breach by the tycoon of contractual obligations under an umbrella contract with Delta Bank and the subsequent discovery that he had also siphoned the Bank’s money from his companies using, “various, sometimes rather creative schemes.” 

    Pursuant to a contractual arbitration clause, proceedings were initiated under the Rules of the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), applying English law, and AstapovLawyers simultaneously applied to the English High Court of Justice for a Mareva injunction (“Worldwide Freezing Order”), which was granted in May 2012 and prohibited the tycoon from removing any of his assets up to the value of USD 51 million. 

    The single-arbitrator tribunal heard arguments in Kiev in January 2013.  In its September 2013 award, the LCIA Tribunal granted the Bank’s claim in full and awarded it approximately USD 71 million. The Bank then applied to the Rivne City and Regional Appellate courts for recognition and enforcement of the LCIA award. The Rivne City court granted the Bank’s application and enforced the award in June 2014.  

    According to Andrey Astapov, AstapovLawyers’ Managing Partner: “For us, this case was important for a number of reasons. First, we were honored to advise Delta Bank in such complex case, involving, inter alia, English substantive law. Second, this case greatly advanced our experience and knowhow in representation the Clients in foreign jurisdictions. Third, in successfully representing a client before LCIA tribunal, AstapovLawyers lawyers gained unique for the Ukrainian legal market experience. I am very proud of my team!” 

    Oleh Beketov, Partner and Head of the firm’s International Litigation Department, expressed similar enthusiasm: “It was a unique experience for us in seeking of Worldwide Freezing Order from English court. On this case, we have observed the strength of WFO as a very effective procedural tool against debtors which is available in English jurisdiction. We will continue using this instrument to defend our client’s rights if we happen to arbitrate or litigate in England.”

    AstapovLawyers reports that the case was handled by Astapov, Beketov, Counsel Ivan Lishchyna, Associates Olena Yakovenko and Igor Mulyarchuk, and Junior Associate Alexander Lugovskyi.

     

  • DLA Piper Advises Blackstone on pan-European Property Acquisition

    DLA Piper Advises Blackstone on pan-European Property Acquisition

    DLA Piper has advised Blackstone on the acquisition of a pan-European portfolio of 18 logistics assets from SEB Investment GmbH (‘SEB’), valued in excess of EUR 275 million.

    According to DLA Piper, the transaction — involving a portfolio of 18 properties spread across eight European countries (Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and the United Kingdom) represents “the most geographically diverse logistics portfolio to ever be sold in Europe.” SEB held the portfolio across various funds, including three in special purpose vehicles. The final phase of the sale of the portfolio completed on September 15, with the two prior closing over two dates in July earlier this year.

    DLA Piper Partner Jo Owen led the cross-border team with assistance from Partner Carsten Loll and Legal Director Vikki McKay. Other members of the team included Partners Oscar Winkler, Antoine Mercier, Rutger Oranje, Anders Bergene, and Orson Alcocer, Of Counsel Clemens Barenthaler, Senior Associates Myriam Mejdoubi, Mark Johnson, Attila Remes, Gabor Hollos, Barbara Rybka, and Associates Ewoud de Vries, Truls Moe Kolstad, Jorge Garcia Carrique, and Trainee Ben Hunt.

    Earlier this year, Blackstone acquired a portfolio of 6 logistics and distribution parks from Pramerica Real Estate Investors in Poland and the Czech Republic (a deal reported on by CEE Legal Matters on July 8, 2014). 

     

  • Baker Welcomes Zumrut Esin Back

    The Esin Attorney Partnership, the Turkish member firm of Baker & McKenzie, has announced that Zumrut Esin has rejoined the firm as a Partner effective September 22, 2014.

    Esin led the Firm’s Competition department from 2000-2012.

     “I am excited to once again be an active member of the Firm, and confident that Hakki Can [Yildiz] and I along with the rest of the team will be able to continue providing clients with the full range of Competition law advice while becoming a more dynamic Competition practice in the Turkish market,” said Esin.

  • DZP Advises on Selection of Contract Engineer for Polish Nuclear Project

    DZP Advises on Selection of Contract Engineer for Polish Nuclear Project

    Domanski Zakrzewski Palinka has advised PGE EJ 1 — the Polish company created to build the first Polish nuclear power plant — on the selection of and September 11 agreement with British firm AMEC Nuclear UK Limited as a technical advisor and contract engineer. 

    According to DZP, “the contract engineer’s task is to support the investor in preparing and carrying out the project to build the nuclear power plant and to provide support in an integrated procedure in which a strategic partner is to be selected for Polish project participants (PGE, Tauron, ENEA and KGHM capital groups) and also a technology supplier and investment contractor.”

    The firm describes AMEC Nuclear UK Limited as, “a global leader in project management services for clients in the energy and fuel sectors. The company was chosen to be contract engineer in the Polish nuclear project in a public procurement-negotiated procedure that lasted over 3 years.” The total net value of the contract concluded was, according to DZP, over PLN 1.3 billion (EUR 311 million). (a deal reported on by CEE Legal Matters on September 5, 2014)

    DZP provided PGE EJ 1 assisted PGE EJ 1 in negotiating with bidders during the public procurement procedure and drew up the contract. The team was led by Partner Pawel Grzejszczak and Counsel Wojciech Hartung from DZP’s Infrastructure and Energy Practice.