Mandate

Vinge advised Hemfosa Fastigheter AB in connection with the acquisition of the Landic VIII portfolio

February 03, 2011

Vinge has advised Hemfosa Fastigheter AB in connection with the acquisition of the Landic VIII portfolio for approximately SEK 2.2 billion. The portfolio consists of 57 properties spread over 42 locations in Sweden. Almost 80 per cent of the rental income emanates from public authorities. Several of the properties have a market value of between SEK 5-40 million, although the portfolio also includes large properties such as the premises occupied by the Swedish Migration Board in Norrköping (Presidenten 1), the municipal council building in Haninge (Söderbymalm 3:486) and Sollentuna police station (Transporten 2). The portfolio comprises a total of 300,000 sq. m. and most of the lettable area consists of office space.

Vinge’s team consisted of partner Patrick Forslund and associates Niclas Winnberg and Daniel Unger.

New statute prohibits unfair terms and conditions and practices in conjunction with the purchase of agricultural and food products

The so-called UTP Act prohibits buyers from using certain terms and conditions and practices against suppliers of agricultural and food products. The Swedish Competition Authority exercises supervision and can, among other things, carry out unannounced inspections and order individual to attend formal interviews. In conjunction with violations, sanctions such as injunctions subject to a default fine or a sanction fee of up to one per cent of the buyer’s annual turnover can be imposed. The UTP Act will enter into force on 1 November 2021 and will also be applicable to contracts which are entered into prior to this date.
October 05, 2021

Vinge employs additional antitrust economists to further strengthen its practice

We welcome Adam Löfquist and Carl Widstrand to our EU, Competition & Regulatory practice group.
September 30, 2021

European Commission provides sanctions compliance guidance

The European Commission has recently issued three opinions regarding the interpretation of asset freeze provisions in certain sanctions legislation pertaining to Central African Republic, Ukraine, Libya and Syria. The opinions are also of relevance for other sanctions regimes which provide for the same or similar restrictions. Therefore, their practical relevance goes far beyond the sanctions regimes in the context of which they were issued and they therefore provide for helpful guidance regarding the required thresholds for sanctions compliance generally.
September 20, 2021