The GC Powerlist, published by the global legal directory The Legal 500, highlights the most influential in-house lawyers in business today. Everyone here at Castrén & Snellman is proud to be the country partner for the GC Powerlist Finland in 2016.
9.5.2016
Castrén & Snellman GC Powerlist’s Country Partner in Finland
The nomination process is now running and will be open until the end of May 2016. In November, we will have the great pleasure of hosting local corporate counsel at a cocktail reception at our Helsinki office to celebrate the counsel who make the final list.
We are looking forward to seeing many talented lawyers on the GC Powerlist Finland 2016!
For further information, please contact:
Pauliina Tenhunen and Carola Lindholm
Greetings from David Burgess, the Publishing Director of The Legal 500:
Dear all Finnish in-house lawyers
Since launching the GC Powerlist series, we have been pleasantly surprised at the level of engagement from GCs across the globe. In-house lawyers are very aware of The Legal 500, regularly using the independent editorial and research to help them select which law firms to use. But since we turned our attention to the GCs, we have noticed a key difference between private practice and in-house.
For nearly 30 years, private practice lawyers have been incredibly upfront about the capabilities of the firm, the practice and themselves, as they know that engaging with our research team leads to better information, which leads to more accurate rankings. The in-house community, however, is much more modest. Sometimes it can be the culture of the company, sometimes it comes down to the personality and modesty of the GC, but what is noticeable is how reluctant in-house lawyers are to shout about their achievements. In private conversations, most GCS will say that what they have done for their companies far outstrips the often “conveyer belt” type work they did when they started out in private practice. Yet, for a multitude of reasons, they “don’t like to talk about it”.
The Legal 500 is about to launch the nomination process for the GC Powerlist: Nordics teams. Our research is Finland is supported by Castren & Snellman, and we look forward to launching the results in November in Helsinki. However, we can’t do it without you, so I’m writing this to urge you to nominate in-house teams, either your own or others you admire.
The process could not be simpler, simply fill in your details here and tell us in under 500 words why the team should be considered.
What are we looking for? Well, to be honest, there is no rigid formula, we are interested in hearing your story as to what makes your in-house team so valuable to the business. It could be the way you interact with your business, or the way you have partnered with your internal stakeholders to add value. In some cases, we have even seen the in-house department be classed as a revenue generator and be rewarded on that front. But it could be about how you have structured your in-house department, the diversity initiatives and training that you provide. It could be related to restructuring or mergers. As you can see, there are a host of reasons for why an in-house team is good, but we need to hear from you.
Our research team will gather all nominations and will conduct interviews to ascertain the leading teams. Want another reason to nominate? Hiding from the light won’t allow you to grow in your role, but many of the GCs or in-house teams that we have recommended have told us that it has made a material difference within their organisations. Either the business has suddenly recognised that they have a world-class legal function, or it has empowered the legal teams to interact at a deeper and more rewarding level with their internal stakeholders.
If you have any questions, please contact me at corporatecounsel@legal500.com.
What are you waiting for? Get nominating!
David Burgess
Publishing Director
www.legal500.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/david-burgess/6/881/23b
https://twitter.com/thelegal500
Latest news
Latest references
A. Ahlström – ESG advisory and corporate sustainability due diligence process planning
We advised A. Ahlström in establishing a corporate sustainability due diligence process plan which incorporates best practices and tailored solutions based on our expertise within relevant business sectors. Our comprehensive ESG offering also included tailored training for members of the investment team and management team and the board of directors of several portfolio companies. ‘The ESG team at Castrén & Snellman provided us with legal and practical advice around the ESG regulatory tsunami that we need to incorporate in our ESG work,’ comments Camilla Sågbom, Director, Sustainability and Communications, at A. Ahlström Oy. A. Ahlström is a family-owned industrial company, developing leading global specialist positions in Forest & Fiber and Environmental technology sectors.
Case published 5.9.2024
Vapaus Bikes Finland – Series A funding round
We represented Vapaus Bikes Finland Oy, a company offering employee benefit bikes, in its international EUR 10 million Series A funding round. The investors behind the funding are private equity investors Shift4Good and Superhero Capital Ltd as well as Tesi together with the European Guarantee Fund of the European Investment Bank. The equity-based funding will support the company’s international expansion, software development, platform automation, and the growth of its concept for the second-hand market of bikes. Vapaus Bikes Finland is at the forefront of sustainable mobility services and has been a pioneer in the Employee Benefit Bikes sector since late 2020. It has been ranked among Finland’s fastest growing companies. Shift4Good is an impact venture capital fund focused on the decarbonisation of the transportation sector. Tesi (officially Finnish Industry Investment Ltd) is a state-owned, market-driven investment company that invests in venture capital and private equity funds and directly in Finnish startups and growth companies.
Case published 21.8.2024
City of Rovaniemi – Former employees ordered to pay damages in an investment decision matter
We successfully acted for the City of Rovaniemi in a matter concerning offence in public office and damages claims in relation to a significant investment decision made by the city. The defendants were the city’s former municipal corporate officer, who was in an employment relationship, and a city treasurer, who was in a public-service employment relationship and acted as the supervisor of the municipal corporate officer. The criminal matter related to the City Board’s decision to invest EUR 2 million of the city’s funds in bonds offered by a newly established investment company in accordance with a decision prepared by the defendants. A significant part of the company’s operations involved quick loan business. The main legal question in the matter was whether the investment of public funds constitutes an exercise of public authority and whether regulation on offences in public office therefore becomes applicable even to a person in an employment relationship. The municipal corporate officer in an employment relationship was charged with aggravated abuse of public office based on her negligence in the preparation and presentation of the investment decision as well as based on a conflict of interest due to the fact that she had invested her own money in a company that received funding from the investment target presented to the City Board. The charges of an offence in public office against the city treasurer concerned his position as the supervisor and reporter of the city’s investment activities. He was also involved in the preparation and presentation of the City Board’s decision. The processing of the matter started in the District Court of Lapland in June 2022. In its judgment given in August 2022, the District Court stated, based among other things on our argumentation, that the investment of public funds constitutes an exercise of public authority and that regulation on offences in public office can therefore be applied to the municipal corporate officer. The District Court deemed that the conduct of the former municipal corporate officer fulfils the characteristics of abuse of public office and that the conduct of the former city treasurer fulfils the characteristics of violation of official duty with respect to the preparation of the investment decision, but the right to bring charges had become time-barred. Punishments could therefore not be imposed on the defendants, but the defendants were ordered to jointly and severally pay the city approximately EUR 114,000 in damages plus interest for late payment. The city treasurer’s share of the amount was 10%. The prosecutor accepted the judgment but the other parties appealed it to the Court of Appeal. Acting for the city, we pursued claims for both punishment and damages in the Court of Appeal. The Rovaniemi Court of Appeal processed the matter in November and December 2023. In its judgment given in June 2024, the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s judgment with respect to the abuse of public office and violation of official duty. The Court of Appeal deemed that the municipal corporate officer had failed in her duty to declare the conflict of interest. In addition, she had failed in her duty to ensure that the prepared decision was in compliance with the city’s investment guidelines and that it had been properly put out to tender. The Court of Appeal also found that the text of the investment proposal was insufficient and misleading and that the municipal corporate officer’s conduct was intentional. As regards the city treasurer, the Court of Appeal held that he had failed in his duty to ensure that the investment proposal to the City Board complied with the investment guidelines, that the presentation was not misleading and that risks were taken into account as required by the investment guidelines. With the judgement, the Court of Appeal took a clear position that abuse in public offices and when exercising public authority is not acceptable. The judgment is also significant as it declares that investing public funds constitutes an exercise of public authority and that the liability for acts in office therefore becomes applicable even to persons in employment relationships. In addition, a key question for the Court of Appeal to assess was defining the amount of economic damage in a matter related to investment activities. The Court of Appeal held based on our arguments that the conduct of the municipal corporate officer and the city treasurer had caused damage to the city. The Court of Appeal increased the amount of damages to EUR 210,000 with the city treasurer’s share limited to 10%. The amount was increased because the Court of Appeal deemed that the city had suffered damage not only in terms of the loss of capital but also in terms of the loss of estimated return on investment. The judgement is not final.
Case published 21.8.2024
Tesi – Investment in Sisu Auto
We advised Tesi (Finnish Industry Investment Ltd) in its investment in the heavy duty vehicles company Oy Sisu Auto Ab. With this investment, Tesi became an owner in the company with a share of 24.4 per cent. Sisu Auto is a pioneer in the Nordic market in the development of heavy duty vehicles. Sisu’s core competences are in the product development and production of trucks and military vehicles. Tesi is a state-owned, market-driven investment company that invests in venture capital and private equity funds and directly in Finnish startups and growth companies. The investments managed by Tesi total 2.1 billion euros.
Case published 19.8.2024