Mafalda Barreto on Representations & warranties insurance (R&W) – a facilitator for M&A transactions | Advocatus

A flawed judgment on a problem that has remained unresolved to date in the truck cartel. The issue is not whether the liability-in-solidum regime applies, but whether co-liable parties can raise personal defences.

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 Court of Justice, in the Stellantis Portugal case, confirms that a transfer pricing adjustment intended to ensure a specific profit margin, even if certain repair or warranty costs are partially taken into account in its calculation, does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that there is an independent supply of services subject to value-added tax. The determining factors are the existence of a legal relationship involving reciprocal consideration and a direct link between the identifiable service and the consideration received.

The Supreme Court and the Madrid Provincial Court, following established legal doctrine, have reiterated that a party to a unanimous shareholders’ agreement acts in bad faith if he or she challenges a company resolution passed in compliance with said shareholders’ agreement. In this case, the shareholders’ agreement provided for the possibility of paying dividends in kind, and the contested resolution — which was passed by a majority at the shareholders’ meeting — transferred certain real estate properties to one of the shareholders (with his consent) in payment of the dividend due to him.

The evolution of the concept of genetically modified organisms in the European Union in light of new genomic techniques (NGTs) is examined, along with the regulatory response that introduces a distinction between two categories of NGT plants, making the regime more flexible for those that can be considered equivalent to conventional plants. It also highlights that the institutional agreement reflected in the Council’s position represents a significant shift from the case law of the Court of Justice. Regarding patents, it highlights the absence of substantial changes, opting instead for a cautious approach based on transparency, monitoring, and possible future intervention.

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.

An action for declaration of invalidity of an agreement can almost always be brought, even if the agreement has been performed and terminated.

Notwithstanding a dismissal occurring before the opening of insolvency proceedings, if a court finding of unfairness and an employer decision to make a severance payment occur after, the dismissed employee’s claim must be deemed against the insolvent estate, even if the parties had reached a settlement, if such was reached also after.

In this paper we address the controversy that the taxation of Brazilian interest has sparked both during the period when the recast version of the Corporate Income Tax Act was in force and since the Corporate Income Tax Act came into effect. Its possible classification, either as dividends or as interest, has been analysed on several occasions by Spanish courts and tax authority, the latter having recently agreed with its Brazilian counterpart to treat it as “interest” for the purposes of the Spain/Brazil Double Taxation Convention.