Our latest news and deals.
Waselius & Wist successfully represented the winning tenderer Moventia & Smoove in public procurement litigation in the Market Court
Waselius & Wist successfully represented the winning tenderer Moventia & Smoove in public procurement litigation in the Market Court relating to the procurement by Helsinki City Transport (HKL) of a City Bicycle System.
Waselius & Wist represented Japan based Aioi Nissay Dowa Insurance Company in the Finnish law aspects of its investment in Maas Global Oy, a Finnish company developing multi-modal mobility solutions and applications enabling its users to plan journeys and purchase various mobility services through a single service (the Whim app)
Proposed changes to the Finnish merger control regime – increased scrutiny in the social and healthcare sector
A Government Bill issued on 15 June 2017 proposes a temporary amendment to the Finnish merger control regime. According to the proposal, the merger control regime would, subject to certain exceptions, be applicable to all concentrations where at least one party provides social or healthcare services, or imaging or laboratory services related to healthcare services, in Finland regardless of the turnover of the parties concerned.
The proposal is related to the overall reform of the Finnish social and health care system, which is currently being considered by the Finnish Parliament. The proposal seeks to limit further consolidation in the sector and maintain a competitive landscape with a sufficient number of competing service providers.
The concept of “social and health care services” is broadly defined in the proposal and the scope of application of the amendment would, thus, cover a wide range of undertakings active in the sector. Moreover, the notification obligation would apply regardless of whether the turnover thresholds of the Competition Act are exceeded. This marks a significant departure from the main turnover based regime. A short-form notification form is expected to be introduced to alleviate the administrative burden of notifying parties.
The proposed new notification obligation does not apply to small operators or undertakings within the same group of companies. Moreover, the notification obligation does not apply to apply to transactions where the target company, the merging party or the joint venture company to be established does not operate in the Finnish market for social, healthcare, imaging or laboratory services, or in any related markets. The latter exemption is intended to exclude from the notification obligation acquisitions by conglomerates and private equity companies of targets active in the social and healthcare sector outside of Finland and targets in Finland, which are not active in the social and health care sector.
The following concentrations are excluded from the scope of application of the proposed new notification obligation:
(i) concentrations where all parties are self-employed persons;
(ii) concentrations within the same company or the same group of companies;
(iii) concentrations, which involve only two parties and where one of the parties is a service provider with only five health care professionals;
(iv) concentrations where the target, the merging party or the joint venture company to be established is not active in the Finnish market for social or health care services, or
imaging or laboratory services, or any related markets.
The proposal also includes an amendment to the processing times of the competition authority in respect of concentrations in the social and healthcare sector. According to the proposal, the current Phase 1 period of one month is proposed to be extended to 45 working days.
No amendments are proposed to the substantive assessment of concentrations and, accordingly, the SIEC-test (“significant impediment to effective competition”) will be applied also to concentrations caught by the amended regime. Consequently, the competition authority will likely be able to intervene only in respect of a limited number of notified transactions. The authority is expected to scrutinize regional market conditions very closely and, apart from horizontal mergers, also vertical mergers and conglomerate mergers where the parties operate in neighbouring markets will likely be subject to detailed review.
The amendment is proposed to enter into force as soon as possible and will be applicable to transactions entered into after the amendment has entered into force (likely in autumn 2017) and before 1 January 2019. The Government Bill is currently still pending with the Finnish Parliament.
For further information, please contact
Reformed Finnish Anti-Money Laundering Act brings new obligations for many entities as per 3 July 2017
The Finnish legal regime for anti-money laundering has been reformed in connection with the implementation of the fourth Money-Laundering Directive (2015/849/EC). The new Act on Preventing Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing entered into force on 3 July 2017 and applies to all parties (entities and natural persons) having a statutory reporting obligation, such as, for example, banks, insurance companies, investment firms, gambling companies, realtors, auditors, lawyers and parties engaged in the business of trading in products, to the extent that a payment for such products by a customer is made in cash in an amount of at least EUR 10,000 (unless engaged in financial activities on an occasional or a very limited basis only).
The new legislation brings the following key changes to the Finnish anti-money laundering regulations:
(i) Obligation to draw up an individual risk assessment: Parties having a statutory reporting obligation must make a written risk assessment to identify and assess the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing. The risk assessment shall cover risk factors relating to i.a. customers, countries or geographic areas, products, services, transactions or delivery channels. Also internal policies, controls and procedures shall form a part of the individual risk assessment, the scope of which is determined by the size, nature and characteristics of the reporting party’s activities. The documents relating to the risk assessment must be approved, monitored and up-dated by a person belonging to the upper management such as the managing director, the board of directors or a signatory right holder. A written risk assessment must be put in place by 31 December 2017.
(ii) Obligation to declare beneficiary owners: All legal entities (with the exception of listed companies), must report their beneficial owners to a register maintained by the Finnish Patent and Registration Office (Trade Register). A beneficiary owner is defined as a natural person holding more than 25 per cent of an entity’s ownership or voting rights. If another legal person holds a share of 25 per cent of more in the entity, the natural person(s) who de facto has the right to make independent decisions in the holding entity must be identified. Also, when considering beneficiary owners, not only ownership and voting rights shall be taken into consideration but also, for example, the rights conferred by a shareholders’ agreements, bye-laws and other arrangements by which control de facto may be exercised. The registration obligation enters into force 1 July 2019.
(iii) Obligation to identify and keep information on a beneficiary owner: Any party that is under a statutory reporting obligation must also identify the beneficiary owners of its customers and keep adequate, accurate and current information on the identified beneficiary owners. The new register on beneficiary owners to be maintained by the Trade Register may be used in order to receive up to date information on such beneficial owners.
(iv) Obligation to establish independent and anonymous whistleblowing channel: Parties under a statutory reporting obligation will have to establish independent and anonymous whistleblowing channels for its employees for the reporting of suspected breaches of the anti-money laundering regulations.
(v) New tougher sanctions: The supervising authority is vested with the powers to issue penalty fees amounting to EUR 5,000-100,000 for legal persons and EUR 500-EUR 10,000 for natural persons. For severe breaches/neglects tougher penalty fees are available: credit or financial institutions can face penalty fees amounting to at most 10 per cent of their turnover for the previous year, or EUR 5,000 000, whichever is higher. Other parties under a reporting obligation can face penalty fees the amount of which can be twice the benefit derived from the act/neglect or EUR 1,000 000, whichever is higher. In addition, the supervising authority must publish its decision on imposing a penalty fee on its internet pages and have the decision available to the public for five (5) years. Only if it would be unreasonable to publish the name or decision of the sanctioned natural person or entity or if such a publication could endanger any official investigations, the supervising authority may decide not to publish the details or to leave the decision unpublished.
During the past few years the amount of reports made to the Financial Intelligence Unit (independent unit within the Finnish Central Criminal Police) has varied between 20,000-38,000 per year (some 37,000 reports were made in 2015). Of these reports around 10 per cent have been subject to further investigations. Especially banks, other payment intermediation service providers and gambling companies have been active in submitting reports.
For further information, please contact
A Q&A guide to restraints of trade and dominance in Finland. Published by Thomson Reuters Practical Law, June 2017.
The Q&A gives a succinct overview of restraints of trade, monopolies and abuses of market power in Finland. In particular, it covers the regulatory authorities and the regulatory framework, the scope of rules, exemptions, exclusions, statutes of limitation, notification, investigations, penalties and enforcement, third party damages claims, EU law, joint ventures and proposals for reform.
A Q&A guide to Merger control in Finland. Published by Thomson Reuters Practical Law, June 2017.
The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, regulatory framework and regulatory authorities, relevant triggering events and thresholds in Finland. It also covers notification requirements, procedures and timetables, publicity and confidentiality, third party rights, substantive test, remedies, penalties, appeals, joint ventures and proposals for reform.
Waselius & Wist’s Partner Bernt Juthström has been recognised as Lawyer of the Year 2017-2018 in Finland in Intellectual Property law by Best Lawyers®. Only one lawyer is recognized as “Lawyer of the Year” for each speciality and location.
Our partners Jan Waselius, Tarja Wist, Niklas Thibblin, Lotta Pohjanpalo, Tanja Jussila and Lauri Peltola were also recommended by Best Lawyers®. The “Best Lawyers in Finland 2017-2018” list is based on a survey process in which leading lawyers confidentially evaluate their professional peers.
Once again Waselius & Wist has been recognized as a top-tier firm and the firm’s partners as top-tier individuals in the Legal500. The firm is highly ranked in the following practices: Banking and finance, Capital markets, Corporate and M&A, Dispute resolution, EU and competition, Intellectual property and Tax.
Our partners were well regarded, comments including:
“Extremely thorough in all of his work” (Niklas Thibblin)
“Provides a highly responsive and reliable service” (Tarja Wist)
“Depth of experience and market knowledge” (Lauri Peltola)
Read more: http://www.legal500.com/firms/13644/14442