icon
icon
icon
icon
icon
icon
icon
icon
Close browser
icon
Go back to News
NEWS

GA_P has advised InPost on the acquisition of Sending

icon 15 of July, 2025

Gómez-Acebo & Pombo has advised InPost, a group listed on Euronext Amsterdam and one of Europe’s leading logistics providers for the e-commerce sector, on the acquisition of Grupo Sending, an express transport company specialized in home deliveries.

Through this transaction, InPost integrates home delivery capabilities into its existing out-of-home delivery network of lockers and “Punto Pack” pickup points, adding 155 logistics centres to its network —which now includes more than 170 facilities in total— and strengthening its team with approximately 300 Sending employees.

The deal not only strengthens InPost’s position in Iberia—one of the fastest-growing e-commerce markets in Europe—but also boosts its international operations. Grupo Sending’s service area includes territories such as Andorra, Gibraltar, Ceuta, Melilla, the Canary Islands, Madeira, and the Azores, and it also offers daily transport to Iberia from Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.

Lawyer mentioned

Carolina Posse Van Der Laat – Senior associate

Daniel Marín – Partner

See all lawyersicon
See less lawyersicon
Tipology

Deal

Areas and sectors

Corporate and M&A

Tax

Public Law and Regulated Sectors

Litigation and Arbitration

Competition and EU Law

Employment

Intellectual Property

Press contact

Sandra Cuesta
Sandra Cuesta
Director of Business Development, Marketing and Communications
email scuesta@ga-p.com
Madrid, (+34) 91 582 91 00
Sandra Cuesta
Sandra Cuesta
Director of Business Development, Marketing and Communications
email scuesta@ga-p.com
Madrid, (+34) 91 582 91 00
icon
icon

More information about
Gómez-Acebo & Pombo

News icon Publications icon
icon
icon
icon
icon
PUBLICATION
The Court of Justice upholds the annulment of the European Commission's third decision on the scheme for the tax amortisation of financial goodwill
La Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de 26 de junio del 2025 declara que las dos primeras decisiones de la Comisión Europea sobre la incompatibilidad con las normas sobre ayudas estatales del régimen de amortización fiscal del fondo de comercio financiero generaron confianza legítima sobre el alcance y límites de la obligación de recuperación, incluyendo dentro de su alcance las adquisiciones directas e indirectas de participaciones en empresas extranjeras. Por tanto, no cabe la recuperación retroactiva de las ayudas relacionadas con adquisiciones indirectas cubiertas por las dos primeras decisiones, por lo que debe procederse a su devolución junto con los intereses de demora.
icon ¡NEW!
icon icon
PUBLICATION
Offsetting employment claims: can a company offset them unilaterally?
If a collective action is brought to challenge the unilateral conduct of a company in the offsetting of salary claims through a payroll deduction, the amount of the debt and the existence of quantitative discrepancies must necessarily be questioned in order to be able to assess whether or not there is legal offsetting on the part of the employer. Only by admitting that the debt is a liquidated amount that is due and payable will the employer - or the employee, as the case may be - be able to offset the debt, but if the debt is not disputed, the way is open for the offsetting of wage claims.
icon ¡NEW!
icon icon
PUBLICATION
Once again on the obligations assumed by the signers of a "strong" comfort letter
icon 6 days ago
icon icon
PUBLICATION
Pharma & Healthcare No. 44
The newsletter covers the main developments in Pharma & Healthcare legislation and case law.
icon 02 Jul, 2025
icon icon
PUBLICATION
Company resolutions reached with invalid votes
Although Article 204(3)(d) places them on the same level, the erroneous counting of votes and the counting of invalid votes are very different, given that the latter requires judicial balancing.
icon 19 Jun, 2025
icon icon
PUBLICATION
Limits of the Unified Patent Court's long arm with regard to Spain (IV): the recognition and enforcement of court decisions
The Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction, in certain cases and within the limits set by the Brussels Ia Regulation and the Lugano Convention, to hear actions relating to classic European patents validated in States that are not party to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court. Such decisions may be recognised and enforced in those other countries, but there are cases in which such recognition and enforcement will not be appropriate.
icon 13 Jun, 2025
icon icon
PUBLICATION
Limits of the Unified Patent Court's long arm with regard to Spain (III): applicable law
The Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction, in certain cases and within the limits laid down in the Brussels Ia Regulation and the Lugano Convention, to hear actions relating to classic European patents validated in States that are not contracting parties to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court. However, this does not mean that, when hearing such actions, the Court may apply the same rules as if the actions related to a unitary patent.
icon 12 Jun, 2025
icon icon
PUBLICATION
Limits of the Unified Patent Court's long arm with regard to Spain (II): the controversial judgment of the Court of Justice in the BSH/Electrolux case
This document sets out and criticises the doctrine established by the CJEU in its Judgment of 25 February 2025, C-339/22, BSH/Electrolux, ECLI:EU:C:2025:108. Although the dispute underlying the judgment was not brought before the UPC, the interpretation of the CJEU in the BSH/Electrolux judgment is equally applicable, since said court is equivalent to the national courts of the contracting states party to the UPC Agreement.
icon 11 Jun, 2025
icon icon
PUBLICATION
Limits of the Unified Patent Court's long arm with regard to Spain (I): international jurisdiction
Ever since coming into operation, there has been a tendency on the part of the Unified Patent Court to extend its jurisdiction to include patents that produce effects in States that are not party to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (the ‘UPC Agreement’ or ‘Agreement’), as is the case of the Kingdom of Spain. This phenomenon is known in specialised circles as the court's ‘long arm’. However, although in certain cases the Unified Patent Court (the ‘UPC’ or ‘Court’) does indeed have such jurisdiction, this is only possible within strict limits, limits that do not seem to be taken into consideration in a consistent manner.
icon 10 Jun, 2025
icon icon