Quantcast
Channel: White & Case LLP International Law Firm, Global Law Practice - Western Europe
Viewing all 557 articles
Browse latest View live

Important changes to listed companies' and shareholders' disclosure requirements

$
0
0

A new law modifies the existing disclosure requirements applicable to companies trading on an Italian regulated market and companies trading on other EU markets that have elected Italy as a home Member State ("Listed Companies").The key provisions of this new law are summarized below.

  • The term for the publication of six-months financial statements is extended from 60 calendar days to 3 months.
  • Listed Companies are no longer required to prepare first and third quarter financial statements.
  • The shareholding disclosure threshold is increased from 2% to 3%.

Overview
The new law (the "Decree"), which came into force on March 18th, is designed, inter alia, to reduce the compliance costs of Listed Companies.

Six-month financial statements
The Decree aligns the Italian rules on financial disclosure with existing EU market practice regarding the publication of six-month financial statements, which is extended from 60 calendar days to three months from the end of the preceding reporting period.

Quarterly financial statements
The Decree's objective is to decrease the compliance costs of Listed Companies. Consistent with this goal, the Decree provides that Listed Companies are no longer required to prepare first and third quarter financial statements. This approach is consistent with the current trend in other European countries, where the obligation to disclose quarterly financial information is being eliminated. However, CONSOB retains the right under the Decree to regulate and require Listed Companies to prepare such quarterly financial statements.

Shareholding disclosure
The Decree provides for an increase of the shareholding disclosure threshold applicable to Listed Companies, other than SMEs, from 2% to 3%, in line with other jurisdictions (such as the UK, Spain, Ireland, the Netherlands and Germany). The purpose of this increase is to reduce the jurisdictional discrepancies that could discourage foreign investors.

Higher Fines
The Decree also increases the applicable fines for breach of the transparency obligations on corporate governance. In particular, the maximum administrative fine to Listed Companies for violation of the requirement to disclose their adherence to the corporate governance code of conduct increased to Euro 10,000,000 or, if higher, up to 5% of annual revenue, compared to Euro 300,000 under the previous regime.

 

This publication is provided for your convenience and does not constitute legal advice. This publication is protected by copyright.
© 2016 White & Case LLP

English
Publication Type: 
Authors: 
Paul Alexander
Iacopo Canino
Ferigo Foscari
Leonardo Graffi
Michael Immordino
Nicholas Lasagna
Paola Leocani
Date: 
01 Apr 2016
Related Offices: 
Milan

White & Case Ranks #1 in the United States, in Europe and Globally for M&A in Q1 2016

$
0
0

White & Case ranked Number 1 in value for global M&A in the first quarter of 2016 for advising on 56 announced deals totaling more than US$150 billion, according to Bloomberg M&A Advisory League Tables published April 1.

Bloomberg also ranked White & Case:

  • Number 1 in the United States by value for advising on 35 announced deals with an aggregate value of more than US$103 billion
  • Number 1 in Europe by value for advising on 35 announced deals with an aggregate value of more than US$98 billion
  • Number 1 for cross-border M&A by value for advising on 45 deals with an aggregate value of more than US$139 billion

We share this recognition with our valued clients and friends of the Firm and thank you for entrusting us as your legal counsel on M&A and other complex transactions around the world.

Undefined
01 Apr 2016
Award Type: 
Ranking

White & Case Wins "Matter of the Year" from Global Competition Review

$
0
0

At its sixth annual GCR Awards, competition law journal Global Competition Review (GCR) has honored White & Case for advising on the "Matter of the Year." White & Case won for its representation of SAS before the EU General Court, which annulled a European Commission decision accusing SAS of being one of 11 air cargo companies in an alleged cartel.

The GCR Matter of the Year is selected from among merger control, cartel, unilateral conduct, litigation or any other competition matter worldwide that best features "creative, strategic and innovative work by teams of in-house and external lawyers and economists." The winner is selected by reader poll.

In addition to winning Matter of the Year, White & Case was nominated by GCR for three more awards:

• Merger control matter of the year, Europe: Zimmer/Biomet

• Litigation of the Year, Non-cartel Defense: Warner Chilcott–In re Doryx (alleged product hopping)

• Litigator of the Year: Jack Pace (New York)

Undefined
06 Apr 2016
Award Type: 
Award
Source: 

Global Competition Review

Related Offices: 
Brussels
New York

White & Case Lawyers Win Top Honors for Legal Writing in April 2016

$
0
0

Four White & Case lawyers have won 2015 Antitrust Writing Awards, conferred by the Institute of Competition Law and announced in its journal, Concurrences.

J. Mark Gidley and Max Hyman (Washington, DC) were awarded Best Procedure Academic Article for "The Emergence of Due Process Following the Growth of International Antitrust Enforcement," published in Antitrust in Developing and Emerging Countries-Conference Papers, 2nd Edition.

Mark Powell (Brussels) and Stratigoula Sakellariou-Witt (Brussels/Frankfurt) were awarded Best Cross-Border Business Article for "Lessons to keep in mind for your next complex global deal," published by White & Case and by Transaction Advisors.

Organized by Concurrences and George Washington University Law School Competition Law Center, the annual Antitrust Writing Awards promote competition scholarship and contribute to competition advocacy, according to Concurrences.

Gidley chairs the White & Case Global Antitrust/Competition practice, which is the only such practice to have been named Competition Group of the Year for the past five years by Law360. His practice focuses on mergers and acquisitions, cartel cases, class actions, and pharmaceutical antitrust cases, with an emphasis on trying antitrust cases.

Powell has been advising clients on competition law issues for more than 25 years. His practice has a particular focus on the interface between competition law and sector-specific regulatory requirements, in such areas as telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, energy, the media and transport.

Sakellariou-Witt advises on European competition law and general European Union law questions. She represents clients in merger control reviews, abuse of dominance and cartel proceedings, and has advised companies active in a broad range of industries, including IT, telecommunications, consumer goods, consumer electronics, pharmaceuticals, energy, chemicals, oil & gas and transport.

Hyman specializes in complex trial and appellate litigation before federal courts. His practice focuses on defending foreign sovereigns and international organizations in US litigations and representing companies in antitrust cartel investigations.

Undefined
06 Apr 2016
Award Type: 
Award
Source: 

Concurrences

Related Offices: 
Washington, DC
Brussels
Frankfurt

White & Case Advises Eurazeo on Entry Into Exclusive Negotiations to Acquire Mondelez European Chocolate and Confectionery Brands

$
0
0

Global law firm White & Case LLP has advised Eurazeo, one of the leading listed investment companies in Europe, on its entry into exclusive negotiations to acquire from Mondelez International more than ten iconic European chocolate and confectionery brands including Poulain, Carambar, Krema, La Pie Qui Chante and Terry’s as well as the licences of Pastilles Vichy, Rochers Suchard and Malabar.

The brands acquired by Eurazeo would form a new group. The deal also includes the transfer of five manufacturing plants in France. The transaction is due to be completed within the course of 2017 following consultation with staff representatives from Mondelez and clearances from the relevant antitrust authorities.

The White & Case team in Paris which advised on the transaction was led by partner Guillaume Vallat with support from associates Jean Paszkudzki, François Bohuon, Alexandre Giacobbi and Julien Etchegaray. Partner Alexandre Jaurett, with support from counsel Valérie Ménard, advised on labor aspects. Counsel Clara Hainsdorf, with support from associates Caroline Lyannaz and Alexis Tandeau, advised on intellectual property aspects. Partner Norbert Majerholc, with support from counsel Emmanuelle Pontnau-Faure and associate Charline Schmit, advised on tax aspects. Counsel Orion Berg, with support from associate Jérôme Schall, advised on competition aspects. Counsel Anne Petitjean advised on real estate aspects. London partner Allan Taylor advised on matters of English law.

Press contact
For more information please speak to your local media contact.

English
08 Apr 2016
Press Release
Related Offices: 
Paris
London

White & Case Advises Bank Syndicate on Vallourec's €480 Million Rights Issue

$
0
0

Global law firm White & Case LLP has acted as international legal counsel to the syndicate of banks on Vallourec's €480 million rights issue. The syndicate comprised Banco Santander, BNP Paribas, Crédit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Goldman Sachs International, J.P Morgan, Natixis and Société Générale Corporate & Investment Banking as Global Coordinators.

Vallourec is a world leader in premium tubular solutions primarily serving the energy markets. With over 20,000 employees in more than 20 countries, Vallourec generated revenue of € 3.8 billion during 2015. The proceeds of the rights issue will be used to implement the group's strategy, specifically a global industrial reorganization including, in particular, the development of competitive production hubs in Brazil and China, the rationalization of its European production operations and the strengthening of its balance sheet and financial flexibility.

Bpifrance, which holds 10.32 percent of the company's share capital, and Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation, which holds 1.45 percent of its share capital, have undertaken together to subscribe to the rights issue prorata to their respective current shareholding.

The White & Case team in Paris which advised on the transaction was led by partners Thomas Le Vert and Colin Chang with support from counsel Max Turner and associate Isabelle Touré-Farah.

Press contact

For more information please speak to your local media contact.

English
11 Apr 2016
Press Release
Related Offices: 
Paris

White & Case Advises Deutsche Bank on Transfer of €240 Million NPL Portfolio

$
0
0

Global law firm White & Case LLP has advised Deutsche Bank on the transfer of a €240 million non-performing loan to Banca IFIS.

The White & Case team which advised Deutsche Bank was led by partner Iacopo Canino and included associate Riccardo Maggi Novaretti (both Milan).

Press Contact
For more information please speak to your local media contact.

Undefined
11 Apr 2016
Press Release
Related Offices: 
Milan

White & Case Advises Banks on Ninth BTP Italia Bond Issue

$
0
0

Global law firm White & Case LLP has advised Banca IMI and UniCredit, as dealers, and Banca Akros and Banca Sella Holding as co-dealers, on the issuance by the Republic of Italy of approximately €8 billion nine-year BTP Italia bonds that are linked to Italian inflation.

The offering was carried out over two separate periods. The first was targeted at retail investors and the second focused on institutional investors.

The White & Case team which advised on the transaction was led by partner Paola Leocani with support from associate Pietro Magnaghi.

Press contact
For more information please speak to your local media contact.

English
11 Apr 2016
Press Release
Related Offices: 
Milan

Law360 Celebrates Four "Rising Star" Under-40 Lawyers at White & Case

$
0
0

From more than 1,100 nominees all less than 40 years old, Law360 has named four White & Case lawyers among its "Rising Stars" for 2016. The magazine selects Rising Stars based on its evaluation of the young lawyers' career accomplishments in their respective practice areas, according to Law360.

The White & Case Rising Stars are:

• Francisco Garcia-Naranjo (Mexico City), Banking
• Brody K. Greenwald (Washington, DC), International Arbitration
• Rafael Llano-Oddone (Mexico City), International Arbitration
• Alison Weal (London), Transportation

Over the next few weeks, Law360 will print profiles of the new Rising Stars.

Garcia-Naranjo advises on corporate law, mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures and banking. Clients also seek his knowledge and experience in foreign investment transactions, project finance, public biddings, debt restructurings and bankruptcy proceedings.

Greenwald focuses on investment treaty arbitration, representing investors and sovereign states in high-stakes, complex cases. Among other significant victories, he helped develop the winning corruption defense in Metal-Tech Ltd. v. Republic of Uzbekistan—the only investment treaty case ever dismissed as a result of corruption.

Llano-Oddone is a seasoned international arbitrator and litigator who has led many of the Firm's most high-profile disputes in Latin America in recent years. Clients value his track record in large-scale commercial disputes and arbitrations, his counsel on investment-related disputes in Latin America, and his guidance on the drafting of dispute resolution clauses for complex international transactions.

Weal advises domestic and international clients on complex leasing and financing arrangements. Weal's wide-ranging transactional experience has made her a valued resource for clients seeking to execute complex, international financings. Adept at navigating the legal intricacies of major cross-border deals, she is noted for her ability to provide shrewd advice on a broad spectrum of financing issues.

 

Undefined
30 Mar 2016
Award Type: 
Award
Source: 

Law360

Related Offices: 
Mexico City
London
Washington, DC

White & Case Advises Bank Syndicate on Mediawan IPO

$
0
0

First SPAC listing in France

Global law firm White & Case LLP has advised the bank syndicate comprising Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan and Société Générale on the initial public offering of Mediawan on Euronext Paris.

The transaction is the first ever French listing of a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), a well-established practice in the United States as well as in several European countries.

Mediawan has been established by Xavier Niel, founder of the Iliad Group, one of the leading French telecom operators, Matthieu Pigasse, Global Head of M&A and Government Advisory of Lazard Group, and Pierre-Antoine Capton, founder of 3ème Oeil Productions, the largest French independent media producer. The three founders will hold 20 percent of Mediawan's capital and voting rights. Mediawan aims to acquire a target in the traditional and digital media content or entertainment industries in Europe, valued at up to $1.5 billion, within 24 months of the IPO.

Mediawan's shares will be listed on the professional segment (compartiment professionnel) of the regulated market of Euronext Paris. The offering will consist of an international private placement of €250 million in new shares, which may be increased up to €300 million if the extension clause is exercised in full.  The prospectus received the visa from the French financial markets authority (Autorité des marchés financiers) on April 11, 2016 and the first listing is planned on April 22, 2016.

The White & Case team in Paris which advised on the transaction was led by partner Thomas Le Vert with support from associates Tatiana Uskova, Jean Paszkudzki, Isabelle Touré-Farah and Delphin Boucher. Partner Colin Chang and counsel Max Turner advised on matters of US law and partner Alexandre Ippolito, with support from associate Estelle Philippi, advised on tax aspects.

Press contact
For more information please speak to your local media contact.

Undefined
14 Apr 2016
Press Release
Related Offices: 
Paris

European Parliament approves new EU data protection law

$
0
0

White & Case Technology Newsflash

The European Parliament has voted on the General Data Protection Regulation (the "GDPR"). The vote marks the end of a four-year legislative process and makes the GDPR a reality.

Timeline

On Thursday, 14 April 2016, the European Parliament voted to adopt the draft text of the GDPR. The vote completed the legislative process for adoption of the GDPR. This latest development follows the compromise agreed between the Council and the European Parliament in December 2015 and, more recently, a vote by the Council of the EU under an expedited written procedure and a vote by the Parliament's Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee, which has been influential in the development of the GDPR.

The GDPR will now be published in the Official Journal of the European Union by the Secretaries-General of the Parliament and of the Council. 20 days after publication, the GDPR will come into force (i.e., likely in May 2016). However, organisations will not be subject to enforcement under the GDPR at that stage. Instead, there will be a two-year grace period, after which the GDPR's provisions will become enforceable (i.e., likely in May 2018).

During this period, the existing collection of national data protection laws, based on EU Directive 95/46/EC, will continue to apply. However, organisations will need to use the two-year window wisely. It is important for organisations to allocate sufficient time and resources to ensure that they are compliant with the GDPR by May 2018. Failure to meet this deadline may result in enforcement action under the GDPR, including possible fines up to the greater of €20 million or 4% of annual global turnover. France is already in the process of introducing legislation to implement fines at these levels immediately, rather than waiting for the GDPR to become enforceable. It is not yet clear whether other Member States will follow suit.

Wider context

The European Parliament's adoption of the GDPR marks the end of a long journey. The first draft of the GDPR, setting out a comprehensive reform package of the EU's data protection rules, was published by the European Commission in January 2012. It has since been through numerous rounds of revisions, committees and votes, which have taken significantly longer than many commentators originally anticipated.

In parallel to the GDPR, the EU has also been in the process of agreeing a new Police and Criminal Justice Directive, which will govern the processing of personal data for the purposes of prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of criminal offences, and related judicial activities. The UK has effectively opted out of this Directive, meaning that the processing of personal data for policing and criminal justice purposes in the UK may be governed by a different set of rules from the rest of the EU. The practical impact of the UK's decision on this issue remains to be seen.

Next steps

Once the GDPR comes into force, two further key developments are expected. First, EU Data Protection Authorities will, individually and collectively, begin to issue guidance on the application and interpretation of the GDPR, with the aim of helping organisations to achieve compliance with the requirements of the GDPR. This guidance is expected to offer detail on certain issues in the GDPR that are not totally clear from the current text (e.g., several of the new data transfer mechanisms set out in the GDPR require significant further explanation before they can be used in practice).

Second, the European Commission is expected to begin a process of revising Directive 2002/58/EC (the "ePrivacy Directive"). The potential for overlap between the GDPR and the ePrivacy Directive has been the subject of much discussion in recent months. For example, that overlap could result in controllers that suffer a data breach being obliged to report that same breach twice – once under the GDPR and once under the ePrivacy Directive. It is hoped that the Commission's efforts will resolve these issues before enforcement of the GDPR begins.

 

This publication is provided for your convenience and does not constitute legal advice. This publication is protected by copyright.
© 2016 White & Case LLP

English
Publication Type: 
Authors: 
Detlev Gabel
Tim Hickman
Robert Blamires
Date: 
14 Apr 2016
Related Offices: 
London
Silicon Valley
Frankfurt
Source: 

White & Case Technology Newsflash

White & Case Named "Cross-Border M&A Law Firm of the Year"

$
0
0

White & Case was named "Cross-Border M&A Law Firm of the Year" at The M&A Advisor's 8th Annual International M&A Awards ceremony on April 12. The Firm also scooped the award for "Cross-Border Healthcare and Life Sciences M&A Deal of the Year" for advising CVC Capital Partners in leading a consortium that acquired a controlling stake in generic pharmaceuticals company Alvogen.

The Annual International M&A Awards recognize the top international deals, dealmakers and firms conducting important transactions in the Americas, Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Australia. From among 250 finalists, a panel of 19 independent judges chosen for their international industry expertise selected the winners.

These awards follow Bloomberg's first-quarter M&A league table results, which placed White & Case as Number 1 for cross-border M&A by value, having advised on 45 announced deals with an aggregate value of more than US$139 billion.

Undefined
14 Apr 2016
Award Type: 
Award
Source: 

M&A Advisor

Related Offices: 
Boston
Los Angeles
Mexico City
Miami
New York
São Paulo
Silicon Valley
Washington, DC
Abu Dhabi
Almaty
Ankara
Astana
Berlin
Bratislava
Brussels
Doha
Dubai
Düsseldorf
Frankfurt
Geneva
Hamburg
Helsinki
Istanbul
Johannesburg
London
Madrid
Milan
Moscow
Paris
Stockholm
Warsaw
Beijing
Hong Kong
Jakarta
Seoul
Shanghai
Singapore
Tokyo

Trade in the balance: Europe's new Union Customs Code

$
0
0
Trade in the balance: Europe's new Union Customs Code

The European Union—the world's largest trader of manufactured goods and services—is adopting a new framework of customs rules, the Union Customs Code (UCC).

From cutting-edge California mobile devices and Chinese manufactured products sold throughout Europe to French luxury items and German automobiles exported around the world, companies that can move their goods efficiently and cost-effectively across the European Union (EU)'s borders gain advantages in time and money.

Now, for the first time in more than 20 years, the UCC is changing the rules on the cross-border movement of goods in the EU—the world's largest trading block.

On the surface, the UCC may appear to be yet another set of prosaic regulatory updates. In fact, some of these changes affect basic principles of international trade and create challenges and opportunities for every business that imports or exports goods in or out of the EU.

With that in mind, here is a practical analysis of the EU's new customs rules.

For the first time in more than 20 years, the world's largest trading block is substantially revising the rules on how to access a market of 500 million consumers.

 

The New Customs Rules in Context

The UCC, which takes effect on 1 May 2016, replaces the EU's previous customs code. The EU codified its customs rules for the first time as the Community Customs Code (CCC) in 1992. A longstanding process to modernize EU customs rules led to the adoption of the UCC in late 2013 and key implementing rules in December 2015.

Although the UCC will apply starting 1 May 2016, it may likely take until the end of 2020 to put in place all of the IT systems necessary to implement all UCC provisions. Transitional rules will apply in the interim.

The UCC is intended to achieve greater consistency among EU Member States on key customs issues and to create a fully interoperable electronic customs system linking the Member States' national systems through a single interface. The UCC should reduce customs compliance costs for certain "trustworthy" EU businesses, in an attempt to improve the balance between heightened security (through measures introduced following the 9/11 attacks) and easier international trade. At the same time, it will make the customs process more difficult for businesses that do not have this "trustworthy" status.

So this is a story of both added benefits and increased burdens.

 

Obstacles to a True Customs Union

The EU is a customs union, which means that all 28 EU Member States count as one territory—and that all Member States supposedly apply the same external tariffs to all non-EU imports and follow the same EU customs rules. In practice, the way companies clear goods through customs and the amount of import duties they ultimately pay can vary considerably, depending on the Member State in which they operate.

Despite a history of continuous revisions to the CCC and the replacement of the CCC with the UCC, the EU remains far from a true customs union. Building this type of union has been—and, under the UCC, will likely remain—a gradual process for several key reasons:

No central EU customs agency—In the United States (for example), US Customs and Border Protection enforces and interprets all US customs rules for all 50 states. The EU, by contrast, leaves each of the 28 Member States' national customs administrations largely in charge, inevitably leading to different decisions—even though they operate within the same framework. Insufficient political support for a powerful central EU customs agency reflects the tensions between EU-level institutions seeking broad consistency and most EU countries, which are reluctant to give up sovereignty in this area. This creates several hurdles for companies seeking to ensure that their EU competitors do not receive more favourable treatment than they do.

Broad discretion among Member States to implement certain rules—The EU grants Member States considerable leeway to decide how they will interpret and implement certain rules. As a result, varying national preferences have led to different enforcement cultures. For example, because Member States were allowed to develop electronic customs systems at their own pace (depending on their available resources and political will) and in their own way, companies now face 28 different electronic customs systems that are not linked together. In addition, some Member States currently allow companies to use certain simplified procedures without requiring a financial guarantee to cover potential customs duties, while others do not.

No consistent penalties for infringement—There are no consistent EU penalties for companies that infringe customs rules. This means an identical infringement (such as classifying a shipment under the wrong tariff heading) can create vastly different consequences in different Member States. Assuming that customs authorities discover an infringement in the first place (since their levels of audit and enforcement also differ), a company's penalty could range from simply self-disclosing the error and paying the unpaid duties (without a financial penalty) to possible severe criminal penalties and seizure of goods. A 2013 European Commission proposal for more consistent rules is progressing extremely slowly, and no revolutionary EU legislation should be expected in the short term on this topic.

Despite these obstacles to eventually building a true customs union, each EU Member State will have to implement the new UCC rules immediately. This will have far-reaching effects on global businesses.

US companies should bear in mind more than ever that the EU customs rules may differ in important respects from US customs rules.

 

New Benefits from the UCC

By simplifying and consolidating certain customs rules, the UCC will likely create several new opportunities for EU importers and exporters. Some highlights include:

Simplifications for "trustworthy" EU companies

Currently, companies that meet EU criteria to be designated an Authorized Economic Operator (AEO) benefit from several "simplifications" (such as easier customs declarations and fewer customs controls on their operations) that increase the speed and lower the costs of the customs process for them.

Under the UCC, additional simplifications for companies that are AEOs for customs simplification (AEOCs) should over time lead to important savings in three key areas:

1) Centralized clearance—Once the necessary supporting IT systems are in place (planned for 2020), AEOCs will be able to handle all customs formalities for all Member States through a single customs office.

2) Entry in the declarant's records—AEOCs will be able to make their customs declarations in the form of entries in their own records (EIDR), rather than through normal customs declarations, and without having to present the goods physically to customs, as long as the supervising customs office has access to all information necessary to examine the goods, if it wishes.

3) Self-assessment—AEOCs with authorization to use the EIDR procedure may also be allowed to determine the amount of import or export duties payable and to carry out certain controls—tasks normally handled by customs authorities. These companies must then pay duties and submit details at regular intervals so that the customs authorities can check how the duties were calculated.

More uniform classifications of goods

The UCC will introduce more efficient procedures to define EU customs classifications. If Member States diverge on how to classify identical or similar goods, those Member States' experts and the European Commission will work within the special EU-level Tariff and Statistical Nomenclature Committee to determine uniform tariff headings. The UCC will improve the rules to foster more rapid discussions under strict deadlines. This should allow the European Commission and Member States to decide a common EU approach more swiftly in the future.

More flexible and user-friendly special procedures

Under the UCC, authorizations for customs procedures that suspend the payment of duties will last longer. Internet retail sales will be possible from customs warehouses. And other procedures will become more flexible.

For example, to obtain "inward processing" authorization (relief from customs duties and other charges for goods that are imported into the EU, processed and then exported outside the EU), companies will no longer need to show a clear intent to export the processed goods. They also will no longer owe compensatory interest if the processed goods are later cleared for free circulation within the EU. In addition, the customs duties calculated on imports after "outward processing" (which lets companies temporarily export goods from the EU for processing and then claim full or partial duty relief when they reimport the goods) will be based on the cost of the processing outside the EU, rather than the previous calculation (which was the amount of customs duties on the exported products minus the amount of customs duties on the reimported goods).

Vast quantities of goods flow between Asia and the EU, making it critical for Asia-based exporters to understand how the UCC will affect them.

    

A "POSITIVE STARTING POINT" FOR A LONG MARATHON

Dirk Jensen, Manager of Trade Compliance in EMEA for Celanese Corporation, a global technology and specialty materials company, shared some perspectives on how his complex, multinational corporation will navigate the UCC's new rules:

Q: Do you think most companies are prepared to comply with the UCC in 2016?

Jensen: It's an enormous challenge for nearly all of us. The EU finally published detailed implementing regulations for the UCC only in December 2015. That left us just four months to understand the specific rules, alert our senior management to the likely impact of the impending changes and begin to adjust our internal processes.

Companies tend to plan annual budgets and other programs much more than four months in advance. The delayed regulations made it extremely challenging to identify the internal technological, financial and other resources we would need to adapt in time to request them for 2016. It also meant that external training providers are only now starting to offer UCC training programs to help prepare our in-house compliance teams.

Starting next year, it should be easier to plan and budget for internal systems adjustments, training programs, authorization applications and the many other steps we will need to take. At the moment, though, we are working as hard as we can to adapt our global business to the UCC's requirements.

Q: What aspect of the UCC is most likely to have a positive impact on your operations?

Jensen: Currently, the EU includes multiple, separate customs systems. The UCC's goal of a central customs clearance process at each point of entry into Europe could streamline our transport timeline significantly and strengthen our supply chain security.

For example, a container ship full of goods delivered to Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and destined for one of our facilities in Germany could arrive as much as two days earlier if it only needs to clear one European customs process. Having large amounts of materials more immediately available for our operations would be so beneficial that our internal team is already starting to get our systems and processes ready to present the proper electronic customs data as soon as this option becomes available and national customs systems can share information with each other.

Q: What is your view of the UCC's new approach to classifying goods?

Jensen: From our perspective, a more uniform classification approach throughout Europe would provide greater confidence in predicting the amounts of customs duties. Knowing that customs officials in (for example) Germany, the UK and Spain all will use the same classifications for goods will give us a more solid, reliable basis for future decision making.

Q: Not all of your legal entities in Europe have become Authorized Economic Operators yet. Might that change once the UCC takes effect?

Jensen: The UCC has made applying for AEO status more appealing and necessary but also more challenging. Although AEO criteria will be more difficult to meet (including demonstrating a record of customs and tax compliance as well as in-house knowledge of customs matters), we will need AEO status to use certain simplified customs procedures. Applying for AEO status could also drive us to build more documented "trustworthy" internal processes. For us, these benefits may likely outweigh the costs and time involved in applying for AEO status.

Q: How do you feel overall about the UCC?

Jensen: This feels like starting a long marathon, where we have not had enough information until now to begin preparing to run. Adapting to the UCC and making full use of its opportunities in 2016 will be challenging for us in many ways.

At the same time, the UCC should over time improve several of Europe's customs processes and create more stability for the import/export community. So this is a positive starting point.

   
    

Key Challenges under the UCC

The UCC will pose several challenges for businesses as well. Some particular issues include:

Guarantees generally required

Under the previous CCC, Member States had the discretion not to require companies to provide a financial "guarantee" (either as a cash deposit or a written agreement to pay) in order to ensure payment of any customs duties that might be incurred later (for example, after full details about specific goods and their final destinations become clear).

Under the UCC, all customs procedures generally will require companies to provide a guarantee covering existing or potential amounts they might later owe to a customs authority, including for example: placing goods in temporary storage. This will require companies to tie up more money in guarantees in certain Member States. For example, the United Kingdom will now require a guarantee for new inward processing authorizations.

Companies that meet AEO criteria may benefit in several ways, including being able to provide a comprehensive guarantee that covers more transactions or receiving waivers or reductions of the guarantee amount normally due. If no guarantee was required under pre-UCC authorizations, this will remain the case until these authorizations are reassessed.

More demanding AEO criteria

Under the UCC, AEOs will have to demonstrate a good record of compliance with both tax and customs rules and a sufficient level of relevant in-house practical expertise to handle customs matters.

Generally speaking, EU companies seeking to become or remain AEOs will have to strengthen their internal compliance policies and procedures and ensure appropriate training of key staff. Because certain customs simplifications under the UCC will require compliance with AEO criteria, companies that have not yet gone through the AEO process will need to assess whether to do so now.

New valuation rules and likely higher duties

EU importers will no longer be able to use the "first sale rule" as the basis for a customs valuation. The first sale rule previously allowed importers to pay customs duties based on the (usually lower) price paid by a middleman (an intermediary vendor) to a manufacturer of goods instead of the (usually higher) price paid to that middleman by an EU importer. Instead, the "last sale price" before goods are released for free circulation in the EU now must be the basis for a customs valuation, unless the import was based on a valid contract concluded before 18 January 2016 (in that case, the contract can be relied on until the end of 2017). This will increase customs duties for current first sale rule users and create a competitive disadvantage compared to US importers, for example, which may still use the first sale rule. See "How the UCC increases customs duties for first sale rule users."

In addition, an ambiguously phrased UCC implementing provision could lead to sales from EU customs warehouses serving as the basis for customs valuations, which could affect companies that traditionally operate from warehouses.

The UCC may also require companies to pay customs duties on all royalties and license fees. Under the CCC, in line with international trade law, these were only included when they were related to the goods and their payment was a condition of the sale. Under the UCC, this condition is less likely to be checked systematically.

In addition, the UCC will require companies to comply with additional criteria when they seek authorization to use a simplified valuation process (for example, if all elements necessary to calculate a customs value are not available at the time of import and a customs authority agrees to determine the customs value for particular goods based on specific criteria).

Binding Tariff Information requests create greater risk

Companies looking for increased legal certainty about their products' classifications upon import into the EU can seek Binding Tariff Information (BTI) from a national customs authority. A BTI permits the relevant EU customs authority to decide the appropriate tariff heading, and then all other customs authorities in the EU must respect this decision when the BTI holder's goods are imported into their territories. Under the CCC, when a BTI dictated a different tariff heading than the one suggested by the applicant, the BTI holder could easily ignore a "bad" BTI if it resulted in a higher duty rate. However, under the UCC, existing and new BTIs will become binding on BTI holders, which must explicitly declare them in their import declarations.

Different origin rules apply

For various reasons (such as to determine whether or not commercial policy measures apply, for possible origin labelling or for statistical purposes), a "non-preferential" origin must be determined for all goods imported into the EU. Under the CCC, this origin was (with few exceptions) considered to be that of the country in which the "last substantial transformation" of the product occurred. The UCC replaces that vague origin concept with more precise criteria by product category.

Some companies may prefer this more objective approach, since it provides greater legal certainty. For others, it could result in origin changes and possibly anti-dumping duties on certain products. Companies will need to assess their particular products against the new rules to determine possible implications.

Existing authorizations reassessed

Certain types of customs warehouses will no longer exist under the UCC. This means companies will have to apply for new authorizations to use the remaining warehouse options.

Existing CCC authorizations will remain in place until the earlier of their expiration date or 30 April 2019. By 1 May 2019, all existing authorizations will be reassessed, which may, for example, entail different duty calculation rules for goods covered by "inward" or "outward" processing rules.

EU importers will no longer be able to use the "first sale rule" as the basis for a customs valuation.

    

FIVE TIPS FOR ASIA-BASED EXPORTERS TO EUROPE

Click here to download the
Chinese-language version

Vast quantities of goods flow between Asia and the EU each year, linking these two regions in powerful trade relationships.

China, Japan and Korea all rank among the EU's top ten trading partners, while Singapore is the EU's largest trading partner in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). China, which contributed only 7 percent of the EU's total trade in goods in 2002, quickly rose to become the EU's second-largest trade partner by 2014.

These and other Asia-EU trade relationships are likely to remain robust and grow even further. This makes it critical for Asia-based exporters to understand how the UCC will affect them.

The EU's new rules are complex. The UCC's impact on Asian exporters also may vary, depending on each exporter's country of origin, industry sector and other business specifics. Nonetheless, some key tips apply for Asian exporters to the EU:

1. Remember: the "first sale rule" is no longer an option

Asia-based exporters often assume that the "first sale rule" (which previously allowed businesses to base their EU customs duties for imported goods on the first price paid in a chain of sale by a middleman to a manufacturer) is a normal business practice to be factored into the overall transaction cost. But now, the UCC's "last sale rule" requires customs duties to be based on the last price paid before goods are released for free circulation in the EU. Based on this, Asia-based exporters may wish to review their existing transaction structures with EU-based importers and decide whether to lower invoice prices for their EU importers.

 
See "How the UCC increases customs duties for first sale rule users."

2. Prepare to provide customs guarantees

The UCC's new provisions require businesses to provide guarantees to ensure payment of any customs duties. This means Asia-based companies exporting to the EU will need to take stock of inventory and plan ahead—both in terms of available cash on hand and for annual budgetary planning.

3. Consider becoming an AEO

Under the UCC, companies that meet Authorized Economic Operator (AEO) criteria can provide lower guarantees and receive several other benefits. Obtaining AEO status becomes even more important for Asian businesses with subsidiaries or branches in the EU. Asian businesses that have not yet applied for AEO status should now give serious thought to the process. They also should establish in-house internal compliance training programs or seek external assistance to ensure they benefit from all possible trade facilitative simplifications under the UCC.

4. Plan carefully before requesting Binding Tariff Information  

Binding Tariff Information (BTI) is a useful tool to know in advance the tariff classification of goods and, accordingly, the amount of the customs duty. A BTI may be obtained from the customs authority of any EU Member State and will be binding for three years. However, Asian exporters now must be more careful when requesting a BTI and, in particular, when constructing classification arguments and selecting a customs authority. This is because the UCC will no longer permit businesses to "forum-shop" and ignore a BTI if it is unfavorable to them.

5. Be ready to show proof of origin

Asia-based companies that use the EU's Generalized Scheme of Preferences (a program that makes it easier for developing countries to export their products to the EU by letting them pay lower customs duties) should also note the UCC's new requirements to provide proof of preferential origin for imports. While this additional requirement is not overly burdensome, internal awareness and preparation could save time and money in the customs clearance process.

    
    

How the UCC increases customs duties for first sale rule users

View full infographic

 

The Limits of Change

Many companies will see little or no UCC-related changes when using certain duty-saving opportunities or trying to protect certain interests.

For example, the EU's duty suspension and tariff quota rules remain available for EU companies unable to source sufficient amounts of components or intermediate materials within the EU for their EU production sites. In these cases, companies can apply for temporary suspensions of normal duties for "input" materials. If a suspension could damage planned or existing EU production of these input materials, the affected EU companies can oppose it. The EU list of suspensions and tariff quotas is updated twice per year, which means companies still have regular opportunities to apply for or oppose a suspension.

The UCC generally does not change any preferential tariff arrangements. One limited exception is new requirements to deliver proof of preferential origin for imports under the EU's Generalized Scheme of Preferences (which allows developing countries to pay lower customs fees when exporting to the EU) starting 1 January 2017.

Companies can continue, in certain cases, to obtain a downward revision of the value of goods or import duty amounts or a refund (for example, if goods are defective or if tariff preferences were not claimed at initial import but proof of origin can be supplied later).

Companies also will remain able to invoke the "good faith clause" in certain circumstances—though meeting the precise conditions will remain a challenge. For example, this could be an option to avoid payment of full customs duties when a company has claimed preferential tariff treatment for an imported product that later turns out not to have satisfied the relevant preferential origin rules.

Finally, the UCC will not affect the EU's current customs laws protecting intellectual property rights. Companies fearing that others are importing counterfeit goods into the EU can still ask customs authorities to stop those goods at the border so that court actions can be filed against an alleged infringer.

   

AIMING FOR COMPATIBLE CUSTOMS RULES, BUT DIFFERENCES REMAIN

The EU and the United States (US) form the world's largest bilateral trade relationship. So the introduction of new customs rules in the EU will significantly affect US traders.

Post-UCC, US companies trading globally must bear in mind more than ever that the EU customs rules may differ in important respects from US customs rules.

While the US and the EU continue to strive for compatible customs rules through various negotiations and arrangements, the UCC will result in important new differences in the customs treatment of goods while retaining some key differences already in place. A few important examples include:

"First sale rule"—The removal of the ability to use an earlier sale price as the basis for a customs valuation in the EU is likely the most important change from a US perspective, as the "first sale rule" remains firmly in place in the US. In the future, the basis for valuation in the EU may differ considerably from the basis in the US, including for royalties and license fees. US traders will need to prepare for this change.

C-TPAT v. AEO—Under a current bilateral customs cooperation agreement, the EU and the US mutually recognize each other's trade partnership programs (the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism [C-TPAT] in the US and AEO in the EU) to reduce administrative efforts and time required for customs clearance.

However, while the UCC's more demanding criteria for trusted traders may bring the EU AEO program more in line with US expectations that companies have a strong compliance program, there are still important differences between the two programs. For example, additional simplifications introduced under the UCC are only available for companies that are AEOs for customs simplification (AEOCs), which fall outside the mutual recognition arrangement with the US (which only covers AEOFs and AEOSs [AEOs with a security and safety certificate]). Companies should be careful not to assume that qualifying as an AEOC in the EU entitles them automatically to receive C-TPAT benefits in the US—and vice versa.

Penalties and prior disclosure procedures—In both the EU and the US, an importer that discloses a customs violation to the authorities before they have initiated an investigation can sometimes thereby reduce the amount of any penalty assessed against it (though not the amount of any duties it owes). The UCC does not change the EU's framework for penalties or potential prior disclosure procedures, which continue to be largely determined by the individual EU Member States. Considerable differences will remain between US and EU approaches in this regard, with the additional complexity that enforcement rules in the EU may differ to a large extent from one Member State to another. So if there is a potential customs violation, a US trader cannot approach an EU Member State customs authority and rely on the strategy it follows with US Customs and Border Protection. While the US rules are relatively clear-cut in this context, there is still considerable uncertainty in many EU Member States.

The EU and the US are currently negotiating a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) Agreement, which will contain a chapter on customs and trade facilitation. The overarching aims of this chapter will be to streamline customs rules and controls, facilitate trade between the EU and the US and generally make the procedures more efficient for all stakeholders.

To adopt simple and effective bilateral rules under TTIP, the EU and US customs authorities will need to continue to work together closely. The introduction of the UCC makes this prospect more complex, as it will take the EU some time to get the full UCC apparatus up and running and ready for potential streamlining with the US customs framework (especially the necessary IT systems).

  
    

Click here to download the full report.

 

This publication is provided for your convenience and does not constitute legal advice. This publication is protected by copyright.
© 2016 White & Case LLP

English
Hero Image: 
Trade in the balance: Europe's new Union Customs Code
Publication Type: 
Authors: 
Gregory Spak
Jacquelyn MacLennan
Sara Nordin
Fabienne Vermeeren
Osamu Umejima
Samuel David Scoles
Dean A. Barclay
Date: 
19 Apr 2016
Related Insight: 
Card Image: 
Trade in the balance: Europe's new Union Customs Code

White & Case Advises Eni S.p.A. on €400 Million Non-dilutive Equity-linked Bonds Issuance

$
0
0

Global law firm White & Case LLP has advised Eni S.p.A. on the issue of €400 million non-dilutive equity-linked bonds which do not give rights to holders of the bonds in relation to Eni shares.

The transaction also provides for the purchase by Eni of cash-settled call options relating to Eni shares from one or more Joint Bookrunners, to hedge its exposure to the exercise of the 'conversion' rights under the bonds. The transaction represents the first ever equity-linked synthetic bond deal launched in Italy.

Morgan Stanley, BNP Paribas SA and HSBC acted as Joint Bookrunners on the offering.

The White & Case team which advised on the transaction included partners Paola Leocani (Milan), Michael Doran, Ingrid York (both London), Séverin Robillard (Paris) and David Barwise (Singapore), local partner Paul Alexander (Milan) and associates  Baldassarre Battista (Milan), Melissa Ashdown (London) and Grégoire Karila (Paris).

Press contact
For more information please speak to your local media contact.

English
18 Apr 2016
Press Release
Related Offices: 
Milan
London
Paris
Singapore

Significant concerns from EU Data Protection Authorities may delay the EU-US Privacy Shield

$
0
0

White & Case Technology Newsflash

EU Data Protection Authorities met in Brussels last week to deliver their eagerly anticipated opinion on the proposed EU-US Privacy Shield. They set out significant criticisms of the current proposals, dealing a blow to those who had hoped that the difficulties affecting trans-Atlantic data transfers would be resolved quickly.

Background

On 6 October 2015, the European Court of Justice ("ECJ") issued a decision that effectively invalidated the US-EU Safe Harbor (which had provided a lawful means of transferring personal data from the EU to the US). Following the ECJ's decision, there was significant uncertainty as to whether a replacement mechanism could be agreed and, if so, how it would work.

On 2 February 2016, the European Commission (the "Commission") announced an agreement with the US government on a new transatlantic data transfer mechanism intended to replace Safe Harbor: the "Privacy Shield". Since its announcement and the release of full details, there have been areas of significant disagreement between the Commission, the European Parliament, privacy activists and businesses over the proposals for the Privacy Shield.

EU Data Protection Authorities, which collectively meet as the Article 29 Working Party ("WP29"), have been reviewing the Commission's proposals on the Privacy Shield and have now released their opinion.

"Significant improvements" welcomed by the WP29

Overall, the WP29 welcomed a number of improvements that the Privacy Shield would bring in comparison to Safe Harbor. The WP29 acknowledged that many of the shortcomings of Safe Harbour that it had previously identified have been addressed in the Privacy Shield proposals. In particular, the WP29 noted that the insertion of key definitions, the increased transparency around access to transferred data, the creation of new oversight mechanisms, and the mandatory external and internal reviews of compliance, are all positive steps.

"Strong concerns" remain

Despite the progress noted above, the WP29 expressed strong concerns about commercial aspects of the Privacy Shield, and about the access by US authorities to data transferred under the Privacy Shield.

Regarding the commercial aspects of the Privacy Shield, the WP29 found that:

• the Data Retention Principle (which limits the ability of organisations to store personal data beyond the period necessary for their original purpose) is not sufficiently addressed in the Privacy Shield;
• EU citizens are not afforded sufficient protections against automated decisions that significantly affect them and that are based solely on automated processing;
• the Purpose Limitation Principle (which limits the ability of organisations to use personal data for purposes other than their original intended purpose) is not sufficiently clearly set out in the proposals;
• there are insufficient restrictions on the ability of US organisations that receive personal data under the Privacy Shield to transfer those data onward to third parties; and
• the new redress mechanism (which is designed to give EU citizens the power to enforce their rights against US organisations that process their personal data) may prove too complex and difficult to use, and may therefore be ineffective.

Regarding access by US authorities under the Privacy Shield, the WP29 found that:

• the representations of the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence do not rule out the possibility of large-scale, indiscriminate collection of personal data originating from the EU. The WP29's long-held view is that this approach to surveillance of individuals can never be considered proportionate and necessary in a democratic society; and
• the WP29 is concerned that the new Ombudsperson proposed under the Privacy Shield will not be sufficiently independent, will not have adequate powers, and does not guarantee a satisfactory remedy that will protect EU citizens.

The WP29 has urged the Commission to identify appropriate solutions to these concerns, and address the identified areas of uncertainty, in order to ensure the protection offered by the Privacy Shield is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of EU data protection law.

Impact on the proposed timeline and wider context

The WP29's opinion is non-binding, but it is influential because the EU Data Protection Authorities that make up the WP29 can suspend data transfers they are concerned about. Given the number of concerns raised by the WP29, there appears to be a significant risk that the opinion may derail the proposed timeline for implementation of the Privacy Shield. If the Commission pushes ahead with an adequacy decision this June regardless of the WP29's view, it is possible that the Privacy Shield might be challenged before the ECJ.

Meanwhile, the WP29 confirmed that until the Commission issues a formal adequacy decision on the Privacy Shield, EU Model Clauses and Binding Corporate Rules continue to provide a valid alternative transfer mechanism for the time being. The temporary nature of this assurance serves as a reminder that the resolution of the difficulties around the Privacy Shield may result in further, and potentially more significant, problems affecting these other transfer mechanisms.

 

Click here to download PDF.

 

This publication is provided for your convenience and does not constitute legal advice. This publication is protected by copyright.
© 2016 White & Case LLP

English
Publication Type: 
Authors: 
Detlev Gabel
Tim Hickman
Robert Blamires
Date: 
18 Apr 2016
Related Offices: 
London
Silicon Valley
Frankfurt
Source: 

White & Case Technology Newsflash


Yann Utzschneider Joins White & Case as Partner in Paris

$
0
0

Yann Utzschneider has joined global law firm White & Case LLP as a partner in its Global Antitrust Practice in Paris.

Utzschneider, who will lead the Paris office's competition, EU law and economic regulation practice, has extensive experience in competition law and economic law, including notification of mergers, cartels, major distribution and litigations. In addition, his experience on merger control matters will be a valuable addition to the Firm's corporate practice. He has represented both French and international companies before European institutions as well as in the French courts. He joins the Firm from Gide Loyrette Nouel.

"The Paris antitrust team has grown from strength to strength in recent years and the arrival of a partner of Yann's caliber, whose experience is widely acknowledged, perfectly fits with the level of excellence our clients expect," said White & Case partner Jean-Paul Tran Thiet, head of the Paris Antitrust practice. "This move reflects our wish to grow in the French market and aligns with the Firm's strategy to strengthen key practices including disputes."

Utzschneider is admitted to the Paris Bar and formerly a Secrétaire de la Conférence. He received a post Master's degree in European Law and an MA in Management & Law from ESCP Europe. He is also a member of the board of the French Association for Competition Studies (AFEC).

Press contact
For more information, please speak to your local media contact.

English
19 Apr 2016
Press Release
Related Offices: 
Paris

Deal Wrap–Up

$
0
0

With the ever changing financing landscape and the variety of financing solutions and structures growing, White & Case has continued to deliver innovative solutions to our clients. Transactions we have recently advised on include those for TLBs, yankee loans, borrowing base facilities, pre-export financing, HY notes, private placements, a Schuldschein notes issue, ship financing, restructurings and leveraged buy-outs (including a take private). Structuring this broad array of transactions requires an expert understanding and depth of experience, not only of existing products and structures but in developing new ones to deal with regulatory developments, investor base changes and market movements. As can be expected, White & Case has been at the fore of developing solutions to the increasingly complex area of finance. Please see below more details of some recent transactions that White & Case has advised on.

RCF/HY Notes

White & Case advised Cabot Group on a transaction that amended a £200 million English law revolving credit facility agreement (including an accordion and amendments to accommodate Cabot Group's growth in certain other jurisdictions) and issued €310 million in New York law senior secured floating rate notes. The proceeds were partially used to prepay a £90 million acquisition bridge facility. Highlights include:

• the deal was innovative as the revolving credit facility agreement and the senior secured floating rate notes, along with the additional debt issued, are regulated by two intercreditor agreements yet secured by the same security package (with different rankings)

• additionally, the security package includes, amongst other security documents governed by Luxembourg law or Irish law, two separate English law debentures, each subject to a different intercreditor agreement

• following a major acquisition by one of Cabot's subsidiaries of the Marlin Financial Group in February 2014, Cabot did not terminate the existing Marlin intercreditor agreement regulating the debt of the acquired Marlin Financial Group due to the existence of £150 million senior secured fixed rate notes issued by a Marlin company. Instead, Cabot amended it to align with its own conditions, meaning the consolidated group's financial indebtedness has since been regulated by two intercreditor agreements

• this extremely sophisticated deal forged an innovative legal solution for acquiring companies with complex existing debt arrangements.

RCF/Private Placement Structure

White & Case represented the Aliaxis group in respect of an approximately €850 million cross border financing which included financings under English law, New York law and German law. Highlights include:

• a €680 million English law revolving facility agreement and two notes issuances – an approximately €50 million New York law private placement and a €120 million German law Schuldschein

• despite complex competing governing law requirements and the raising of capital via different debt products, White & Case crafted matching or complementary provisions across all of the debt instrument documentation to the satisfaction of all parties.

Mid-cap's Blurred Lines

White & Case's strength in the hybrid mid-cap/large cap market is highlighted by our representation of the Iris Software group (an HgCapital portfolio company) in connection with its GBP430 million refinancing. Notable points include:

• mid-cap deal with a mix of large-cap deal terms highlighting how the lines are becoming blurred between deal terms on offer for mid-cap and large-cap transactions. Certain strong mid-cap credits (such as Iris) have attracted large-cap terms, sometimes more so than large-caps with a more challenging credit history. The traditional approach of looking solely at the value of the deal no longer applies

• a divergent lender group with a mix of credit funds and traditional mid-cap market bank lenders.

White & Case has acted on other deals involving financing arrangements for corporates, which have been structured on the basis of similarly "covenant loose" documentation.

Russian Financing

White & Case's stronghold in Russia has been demonstrated by our representation of a number of Russian clients in recent times including Eurochem. Highlights from the Eurochem transaction include:

• up to $750 million secured hybrid pre-export financing

• one of the biggest pre-export financings in Russia.

Serbian Take Private

The Mid Europa Partners acquisition of Danube Foods Group BV and Clates Holding BV required a rigorous timeline. Highlights include:

• an unusual mix of Serbian and non-Serbian lenders in relation to the €375m senior and a €60m PIK financed by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

• three listed Serbian operating companies, two of which were partially owned (i.e. 80% and 60%) with a voluntary takeover bid for the remaining shares in the two partially owned Serbian companies at financial close.

Financial Institution Restructuring

White & Case has spent many years advising on the restructuring of Kaupthing hf., which became effective from December 23, 2015. Highlights include:

• with liabilities of more than US$45 billion and creditors in more than 100 countries, Kaupthing hf. is one of the largest ever bank insolvencies

• the successful restructuring enabled the distribution of billions of euros in cash, as well as other instruments, to senior unsecured creditors

• it also facilitated those creditors taking control of the company and its remaining assets. Completing the restructuring before the end of 2015 also ensured that Kaupthing was not subject to an Icelandic stability tax on its assets, preserving value for creditors.

Shipping Restructuring

White & Case advised the steering committee on the restructuring of TORM AS, a Danish listed shipping company. Highlights include:

• restructuring by way of an English scheme of arrangement which involved a mandatory cancellation of 'out of the money' debt in return for warrants and an optional exchange under which scheme creditors were eligible to exchange additional scheme claims or secured indebtedness for shares

• a merger of equals between Oaktree and TORM by way of contribution in kind in exchange for the majority of shares in TORM

• the provision of a new US $75m working capital facility.

Borrowing Base Facilities

White & Case represented Trafigura on its flagship $2 billion refined metals borrowing base financing.

Conclusion

2016 continues to be another year of innovation and diversity in financing structures, which will be necessary to deal with events such as the collapse of oil and gas prices and the slowdown in M&A activity. This will undoubtedly provide interesting opportunities for issuers, borrowers, sponsors, investors, banks and direct lenders alike.

 

Click here to download PDF.

 

This publication is provided for your convenience and does not constitute legal advice. This publication is protected by copyright.
© 2016 White & Case LLP

English
Publication Type: 
Authors: 
Jeremy Duffy
Patrick Clarke
Kelly Gibson
Date: 
19 Apr 2016
Download File: 

White & Case Advised Republic of Poland on US$1.75 Billion US-Registered Sovereign Bond Issue

$
0
0

Global law firm White & Case LLP has advised the Republic of Poland on its issuance of a US$1.75 billion ten-year benchmark bond. The offering was registered with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission under Poland's shelf registration statement.

The lead managers and bookrunners on the transaction were Barclays, BNP Paribas, Deutsche Bank and J.P. Morgan.

The White & Case team that advised on the transaction was led by partner Doron Loewinger (London) and local partner Andrzej Sutkowski (Warsaw) with support from associates Katarzyna Grodziewicz (Warsaw), Luiza Salata and Brian Dearing (both London).

Press contact
For more information please speak to your local media contact.

English
20 Apr 2016
Press Release
Related Offices: 
London
Warsaw

White & Case Secures Merger Clearance in MOL Hungarian Oil and Gas PLC's Acquisition of ENI Hungaria and ENI Slovenija

$
0
0

Global law firm White & Case LLP has successfully represented MOL Hungarian Oil and Gas plc (MOL) in obtaining regulatory clearance from the European Commission for its acquisition of ENI Hungaria Zrt. (ENI Hungaria) and ENI Slovenija druzba za trzenje z naftnimi derivati, d.o.o. (ENI Slovenija).

MOL, an integrated oil and gas company active across the entire crude oil and natural gas value chain, agreed in Autumn 2015 to buy from ENI S.p.A the companies ENI Hungaria and ENI Slovenija, which own 183 filing stations in Hungary and 17 stations in Slovenia (including dealer owned sites), operated under the Eni and Agip brands, as well as ex-refinery and non-retail operations of these companies in Hungary and Slovenia (ENI Hungaria's lubricants wholesale business was excluded from the transaction).

MOL filed the deal for merger review in Brussels on February 29, 2016 and the Commission cleared the deal on April 7, concluding that the acquisition would not raise competition concerns given the competitive conditions in the relevant markets.

The White & Case team in Brussels which advised on the transaction was led by partner Mark Powell with support from associate Strati Sakellariou.

Press contact
For more information please speak to your local media contact.

Undefined
21 Apr 2016
Press Release
Related Offices: 
Brussels

EU Customs Developments: March 2016

$
0
0

Welcome to the March 2016 issue of the White & Case Newsletter on Customs Developments in the EU.

EU Customs Policy
Union Customs Code (UCC) Developments
Proposed Directive on Customs Infringements and Sanctions
Updated Rules to Fight Customs Fraud

Tariffs
GSP – "Graduation" List for 2017-2019
Expansion of WTO Information Technology Agreement
WTO Environmental Goods Agreement
FTA Update: United States; Canada; Japan; Mercosur; Philippines; Turkey; Australia and New Zealand; India; ASEAN; Malaysia; Moldova and Georgia; South Africa; Morocco; Kosovo

Classification
Court Judgment on Combined Video-Audio System Sets
Court Judgment on Streaming Devices
Court Judgment on Soya Protein Concentrate
Nomenclature Committee Developments: Textiles and Mechanical/Miscellaneous Sector; Combined Nomenclature Sector; Agriculture/Chemistry Sector; BTI Sector

Origin
Amendment of the Rules of Origin between the EU and Norway/Iceland
Relaxation of EU-Jordan Rules of Origin
Origin Committee Developments

Procedures
Special Procedures Section

Miscellaneous
EU Expands Sanctions Against North Korea

 

Click here to download PDF.

 

This publication is provided for your convenience and does not constitute legal advice. This publication is protected by copyright.
© 2016 White & Case LLP

 

English
Publication Type: 
Authors: 
Jacquelyn MacLennan
Sara Nordin
Fabienne Vermeeren
Charlotte Van Haute
Date: 
22 Apr 2016
Viewing all 557 articles
Browse latest View live