Mandate Vinge advises CELLINK in conjunction with the acquisition of Dispendix GmbH

November 30, 2018

Vinge has advised CELLINK AB, listed on First North Stockholm, in connection with the acquisition of all shares in Dispendix GmbH. Dispendix’s operations focus on bio dispensing technology and its patented technology emanates from a 10-year development within the German research institute Fraunhofer.

The acquisition strengthens CELLINK’s offering of complete 3D bioprint solutions. The purchase price amounts to MEUR 5 as well as the assumption of net debt in a maximum amount of MEUR 0.4. The purchase price is paid with MEUR 2 in cash and MEUR 3 with CELLINK class B shares (issue in kind to be resolved by CELLINK’s extraordinary general meeting during December 2018).

Vinge’s team primarily consisted of responsible partner Anders Strid, Daniel Lennartsson (M&A) and Alexander Lindeberg (IP). Noerr through, among others, responsible partner Dr. Holger Alfes, acted as local counsel in Germany.
 

Vinge contributes to IUMI Eye

International Union of Marine Insurers (IUMI) is preparing for its first web based conference – Stockholm 2020 – of which Vinge is a proud sponsor. In the latest edition of IUMI Eye, published just in time for the conference, Vinge’s Paula Bäckdén and Sweden Insurance’s senior advisor Mikaela Tamm discuss the implications of waiving liability limitations.
September 15, 2020

Vinge – Best law firm for female business lawyers

Vinge has been awarded “Best Nordic Business Law Firm for Women” at the European Women in Business Law Awards which took place in London on 10 September. For the eighth time, Vinge has won the award as the law firm which has been most successful in relation to its gender equality work.
September 10, 2020

Clarification of the interpretation of ”nearest suitable railway station”

Road transport performed by Samskip Sia in Sweden has been confirmed to be within the framework of a permitted combined transport through a decision of the Administrative court of Falun in Sweden. The central question in the case was how to interpret the term “nearest suitable railway station”
June 30, 2020