Thought Articles

Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd. This article was first published in The Corporate Governance Review – Edition 6 (published in March 2016 – editor Willem J L Calkoen). Law No. 31/1990 on companies, republished in 2004 and further amended and completed (the Companies Law) and the Capital Market Law No. 297/2004, as further amended and completed (the Capital Market Law), represent the primary sources of law relating to the corporate governance of listed companies in Romania. In addition, as an independent state agency, the securities regulator, the Financial Supervisory Authority (ASF) may issue legally binding regulations and other secondary enactments. Furthermore, Government Emergency Ordinance No. 109/2011 concerning the corporate governance of public enterprises (GEO No. 109/2011) sets out specific statutory rules for the corporate governance of enterprises controlled by the Romanian State (a significant number of the targeted companies that are listed on the Romanian regulated markets or that are envisaged for listing in the near future).

Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd. This article was first published in The Dispute Resolution Review - Edition 8 (published in February 2016 – editor Jonathan Cotton) Disputes in Romania are settled in court in the vast majority of cases, under procedures regulated mainly by the new Civil Procedure Code (CPC). Entered into force on 15 February 2013, the CPC accomplished a systemic and extensive overhaul of the Romanian dispute resolution model. With a specific focus on acceleration of trial proceedings, the new regulation has reformed both the schedule and the content of proceedings taking place in various phases of the lawsuit, while attempting to clarify many of the controversies raised by interpretable provisions in the former regulation. The system is designed to ensure a double-level jurisdiction, with local courts, tribunals or courts of appeal acting as first instances depending on the nature and value of the litigation, while the High Court of Cassation and Justice acts exclusively as a court of last resort, also settling requests for unification of practice.

Reproduced by kind permission of LexisNexis - Lexis®PSL Competition. The latest amendments to the merger rules were introduced in January 2016 and concern the value of the authorisation taxes (ie fee paid on clearance) of economic concentrations applied by the Romanian Competition Council (RCC). Also, in January 2016 amendments regarding the impact of the assessment performed by the Council of National Defense (SCND) were introduced. Where the SCND notifies the RCC that an economic concentration is likely to present a risk for national defence, the deadlines set out under the merger rules are suspended as of that notification date.

Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd. This article was first published in Getting the Deal Through: Dominance 2016, (published in December 2015; contributing editors: Thomas Janssens and Thomas Wessely, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer) The abusive behaviour of dominant firms is prohibited by article 6 of the Romanian Competition Law No. 21/1996 (RCL) and article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Article 6 expressly prohibits the abuse of a dominant position held by one or more undertakings on the Romanian market or on a substantial part of it.

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP is delighted to publish this first edition of the Pillsbury World Aircraft Repossession Index. Covering 57 popular jurisdictions worldwide in which aircraft are registered and operate, each one-page summary summarizes the expert analysis provided by reputable local counsel (as well as information from other sources) and, based on seven criteria, numerically scores the legal environment for repossessing aircraft in each participating jurisdiction. As a further comparative tool, this publication also includes a world map depicting each participating jurisdiction in a color determined by its overall score.

Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd. This article was first published in The Mining Law Review - Edition 4 (published in October 2015 – editor Erik Richer La Flèche) Before 1989, when the Communist regime fell, mineral resources in Romania were exploited by state-owned companies. Although these exploitations were advertised as big economic successes of the Communist governments, in reality, most of them were using outdated technology and some caused significant pollution in the mining perimeters. Moreover, in the context of Romania’s negotiations to join the European Union, some of the mining exploitations had to be shut down as they were far from being compliant with European environmental standards. Romanian governments became aware that some of the mining exploitations could not be further operated without capital injections necessary for financing the acquisition of new technology and environmental investments. In the last few years, the Romanian government has tried (unsuccessfully) to revitalise several mining projects in its effort to boost the Romanian industry and create workplaces.