Alexis Huldén

Senior Associate, Member of the Finnish Bar

Services

  1. Dispute Resolution
  2. Employment
  3. Corporate Crime & Internal Investigations

Contact details

I specialise in dispute resolution and criminal proceedings and my work encompasses both court proceedings and domestic and international arbitration. I provide expert advice to clients on contract interpretation, tortious claims and regulatory matters across various business sectors, including energy, manufacturing, governmental entities and NGOs. With extensive experience in complex cross-border matters and issues of private and public international law, I am well-equipped to handle a wide range of legal challenges.

Recently, I have worked on disputes concerning supply agreements, professional negligence cases and criminal matters involving embezzlement, fraud and money laundering.

In addition to my practical experience, I have honed my skills in academia and legal research. My academic background has provided me with a strong foundation in legal theory and principles and has equipped me with the ability to analyse complex legal issues and develop innovative solutions. This combination of practical and academic expertise allows me to offer clients well-rounded and informed legal advice.

Latest references

The Finnish State – The Court of Appeal dismissed the action of Peter Fryckman against the Finnish State
We successfully advised the Finnish State/the Ministry of Justice in a declaratory action in which the Helsinki Court of Appeal dismissed the claims of businessman Peter Fryckman and confirmed the non-existence of an arbitration agreement. Fryckman had filed for arbitration before The Hague’s Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in February 2018. The request was based on a claim that the Finnish Minister of Justice had signed a consent to arbitration between Fryckman and the Finnish State in the PCA. The State denied the existence of an arbitration agreement in its response to the request for arbitration and refused to appoint its own arbitrator. The Secretary-General of the PCA deemed that the document titled ‘Declaration of Consent’ was too ambiguous and general in nature, and therefore he could not appoint an arbitrator for the State to an arbitration conducted under the PCA Arbitration Rules 2012. After this, Fryckman requested that the District Court confirm the existence of an arbitration agreement between him and the Finnish State, under which disputes between the parties concerning tax and debt collection actions against Fryckman and his companies, as well as the resulting damages, would be settled before the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague.  However, the District Court dismissed this action because the consent signed by the Minister of Justice was general in nature, its content was unspecified, and it was unclear whether the consent was even a matter that could be arbitrated. Furthermore, the District Court deemed that the consent signed by the Minister of Justice and the plaintiff’s application for commencement of arbitration were not identical and reciprocal, and there was no evidence of an agreement between the parties as to the commitment to and content of the agreement. Fryckman appealed the District Court’s decision to the Court of Appeal, but in its judgement of December 2022, the Court of Appeal deemed that there was no cause to amend the District Court’s decision. The Court of Appeal found that the expression of will in the document titled ‘Declaration of Consent’ had not been made in accordance with the Ministry of Justice’s procedure for presentation and decision-making. According to the Court of Appeal, due to this key fault in the Ministry’s procedure, the free-form expression of will by the Minister did not have a binding effect on the parties. The Court of Appeal remarked that the plaintiff’s actions bore characteristics of an intent to bypass the Ministry’s customary procedure for decision-making. The Court of Appeal also noted that the Minister’s expression of will was encumbered by deficiencies in arbitrability and the subject matter of the consent as stated by the District Court, and referred to the grounds stated by the District Court in other respects as well. On 5 May 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that no leave to appeal would be granted, and the judgment of the Court of Appeal is therefore final.
Case published 27.6.2023
Global manufacturing company – Purchase agreement dispute
We represented a global manufacturing company in arbitration relating to a purchase agreement. The dispute was of a highly technical nature due to the qualities of the product, the intended use and the alleged defects. Also, several technical and quantum experts were involved from various jurisdictions. The value of the claims was approximately EUR 113 million. The dispute was settled in late spring 2022 under favourable terms to our client.
Case published 5.1.2022
Multitude SE – Conversion into an SE and Relocation of Registered Office from Finland to Germany
We advised Multitude SE (formerly Ferratum Oyj) in a conversion from a Finnish public limited liability company into an SE company earlier this year and we are advising Multitude SE in relocation of its registered office from Finland to Germany. Multitude’s board resolved to approve a transfer proposal on 9 July 2021. The relocation will be carried out in accordance with the Finnish Act on European Company and the SE Regulation. Multitude’s new registered office will be seated in Hamburg and the relocation will take effect at the end of 2021. The final decision on the relocation is subject to approval by the general meeting of Multitude’s shareholders. Multitude is an international provider of mobile banking and digital consumer and small business loans, distributed and managed by mobile devices. Founded in 2005 and headquartered in Helsinki, Finland, Multitude has expanded to operate in 19 countries across Europe, South and North America, Australia and Asia. Multitude SE is listed on the Prime Standard of Frankfurt Stock Exchange.
Case published 24.8.2021
Global manufacturing company – Competition law infringement damages claim
We represented a global manufacturer in large-scale international arbitration proceedings against subsidiaries of a multination company. It was the largest antitrust damages case ever tried in Finland and one of the largest and most complex private enforcement of competition law cases ever tried in Europe. The counterparties claimed over USD 800 million in damages from our client based on an alleged global cartel. The dispute was solved by an amicable settlement between the parties to the full satisfaction of our client.
Case published 16.6.2019
Kito Corporation – Acquisition of Erikkila Oy
We advised Kito Corporation in its acquisition of Erikkila Oy through its wholly-owned subsidiary Kito Europe GmbH.  Erikkila Oy is a manufacturer of light cranes, lifting equipment, bridge cranes and robotic cranes based in Kirkkonummi, Finland. Erikkila Oy has subsidiaries in Estonia, Russia and Germany and it is represented through an extensive distributor sales network across Europe. Kito Corporation is a Japanese manufacturer of cranes and hoists.
Case published 15.2.2018
Efima – Sale of AI business
We advised Efima Oyj on the sale of its AI business to Better Care Technologies Oy. The transaction included Efima’s Moiva AI platform developed for the care sector, the related technology and brand, customer contracts, and the experts working in the business. Efima is a Finnish digital company that supports the sustainable growth of large and mid-sized companies by streamlining their business processes and by creating competitive advantage through the innovative use of artificial intelligence and data. The company has nearly 200 experts based in Helsinki and Tampere. 
Case published 21.9.2026
Neoen – Sale of data centre
We advised Neoen Renewables Finland Oy, part of the French Neoen Group, in its sale of a data centre project to a consortium consisting of international data centre developers and operators. This marked Neoen’s first data centre development project in Finland. Founded in 2008, Neoen is one of the world’s leading independent renewable energy producers. The company operates in 15 countries. It develops, finances, builds, owns, and operates solar power plants, wind farms, and battery storage systems. Neoen Group is owned by global alternative asset manager Brookfield Corporation.
Case published 17.9.2026
Jolt Capital and Tesi – Investment in VEV
We advised Jolt Capital and Tesi in connection with their investment in VEV, a leading provider of commercial fleet electrification solutions. The investment, led by Jolt Capital with Tesi as co-investor, will support VEV’s next phase of growth and expansion across Europe. As part of the transaction, VEV became an independent company following the acquisition of Vitol’s stake in the business. Founded by Vitol, VEV provides integrated fleet electrification solutions combining fleet strategy, charging infrastructure, energy supply and operational services. Through its VEV IQ platform, the company supports more than 6,000 commercial electric vehicles across Europe and has been deployed across more than 600 sites spanning the transport, logistics and waste sectors. Jolt Capital is a private equity firm focused on growth investments in European deeptech companies. Tesi is a Finnish state-owned investment company that promotes Finnish business and economic growth through investments. We advised Jolt Capital and Tesi on the equity financing and structuring aspects of the transaction. International law firm Goodwin advised the investors on the acquisition of VEV.
Case published 10.9.2026

Get to know our other experts in the field

Anders Forss
Position: Partner, Chairman of the Board
Primary service Dispute Resolution
 +358 50 588 6110
Marko Hentunen
Position: Partner
Primary service Dispute Resolution
 +358 40 590 6689
Ilona Karppinen
Position: Partner
Primary service Dispute Resolution
 +358 50 357 0514
Eveliina Tammela
Position: Partner
Primary service Dispute Resolution
 +358 44 532 5022
Marcus Blomfelt
Position: Senior Counsel
Primary service Dispute Resolution
 +358 40 352 9226
Teemu Auressalmi
Position: Counsel
Primary service Dispute Resolution
 +358 50 325 2465
Stina Europaeus
Position: Counsel
Primary service Dispute Resolution
 +358 40 744 3545
Lars Lindeman
Position: Counsel
Primary service Dispute Resolution
 +358 20 776 5086
Iris Brisson
Position: Senior Associate
Primary service Dispute Resolution
 +358 44 068 5598
Touko Hakahuhta
Position: Senior Associate
Primary service Dispute Resolution
 +358 40 749 0511
Onni Koivu
Position: Senior Associate
Primary service Dispute Resolution
 +358 50 400 5032
Pekko Linnanmäki
Position: Senior Associate
Primary service Dispute Resolution
 +358 50 306 9193
Roope Oja
Position: Senior Associate
Primary service Dispute Resolution
 +358 45 788 17724
Robin Ollus
Position: Senior Associate
Primary service Dispute Resolution
 +358 20 776 5413
Veera Sundberg
Position: Senior Associate
Primary service Dispute Resolution
 +358 50 438 7197
Mikaela Virtanen
Position: Senior Associate
Primary service Dispute Resolution
 +358 20 776 5046
Janina Assor
Position: Associate
Primary service Dispute Resolution
 +358 40 051 4935
Lotta Henriksson
Position: Associate
Primary service Dispute Resolution
 +358 45 788 44261
Ella Tervonen
Position: Associate
Primary service Dispute Resolution
 +358 40 095 0959