Corporate and M&A
Meet the Co-chairs - TAGLAW
Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP
Meet the Co-chairs - TIAG
Burgis & Bullock
Meet the Co-chairs - TAG-SP
Corporate and M&A
Author: Prof. Dr. H. Ercument Erdem
Pursuant to the Law on the Establishment of the Turkish Wealth Fund Management Joint Stock Company and on the Amendment of Certain Laws numbered 6741 (“Law No. 6741”), the purpose of the Wealth Fund is to contribute to the variety and to the depth of tools in the capital markets, to bring domestic public assets into the economy, to provide external resources, and to take part in strategic and large-scale investments. In this Newsletter article, the establishment and the characteristics of the Wealth Fund are analyzed.
Attorney-at-law and partner Pirkka-Marja Põldvere is writing in the news portal Postimees.ee about the topic “Can private limited company reclaim the fee paid to a member of management board?”.
Mister X has been elected as a member of the management board of a private limited company. The member is satisfied – elected for 3 years and the parties have agreed to pay him as a member of the management board a significant amount of fee. However, one day the shareholders unexpectedly submit a claim for the repayment of the fee. Unprecedented? Not really.
Partner Pirkka-Marja Põldvere is explaining in the news portal Delfi how the Estonian Supreme Court has specified the limits of liability of board members.
In the decision from 29 March 2017, the Supreme Court established that in certain cases the liability of board members is up to 10 years. Usually the applicable term for any claim against board members is 5 years.
Interpreting Contracts - Indemnity Clauses in Share Sale Agreements: Implications of Wood v Capita Insurance Services Limited
In 2010, Capita Insurance Services Limited (Capita) purchased the share capital of Sureterm Direct Limited (Sureterm) which carried on a business selling insurance for classic cars. After completion, a number of employees raised concerns about Sureterm’s sales processes. Sureterm responded by carrying out a review of its sales between January 2009 and January 2011. This review revealed that in many cases Sureterm’s telephone operators had misled customers into believing that an underwriter had required a higher premium or that their risk profile was worse than it was or had pressurised the customer to make sure that a sale was made.