GA_P advises Kobus Asset Finance I on the financing of a renewables project

Supreme Court Judgment no. 919/2016 of 16 June is groundbreaking in two respects: first, in holding that unit-holders are parties to a contract between the commonhold association and a third party; and second, in holding that this contract is linked to the loan agreements concluded by a bank with said unit-holders.

The first ruling to actually apply the business judgment rule in the determination of a claim in relation to liability.

Inasmuch as functioning as meta-clauses, non-binding and entire agreement clauses are paradoxical in a number of ways.

The fiduciary nature of the managed investment relationship supports the view that the bank should be liable for the loss of the pledged item because there would not have been such loss had the client’s order been executed prior to the bank’s resolution — but not for the reason given in the judgment.

Summary of legislative and jurisprudential developments relating to the automotive sector.

Debt from liability in tort for third-party damage or loss arises directly against the directors, without prejudice to the fact that, pursuant to Article 38 CC, it also arises simultaneously against the company, to which the non-contractual acts or omissions of its directors are also attributed. This is so true that the liable company (in debt, for example, with the tax authorities as the person liable for the surcharge and the tax penalty owed) may bring an action for contribution against its directors after settling the debt.

This paper critically analyses the Supreme Court ruling of 5May 2026, which applies the prohibition on financial assistance to a case involving the sale of treasury shares with deferred payment to the shareholders of the assisting company.

The Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Fifth Chamber) of 13 May 2026 (Korfin and Sempiola v Slovnaft, Case C-225/25) clarifies the concept of a takeover bid for the purposes of Article 2 of the 2004 Takeover Bids Directive, such that an offer made to the holders of securities of a company with a view to acquiring all or some of those securities does not fall within the concept of a takeover bid where it is made by an offeror who already controls the offeree company. Consequently, based on that court’s interpretation of the Directive’s provisions, there is no right of squeeze-out in such voluntary takeover bids.

Summary of legislative and jurisprudential developments relating to the automotive sector.