Ilona Karppinen

Partner, Member of the Finnish Bar

Services

  1. Dispute Resolution
  2. Corporate Governance
  3. Consumer and Marketing Law

Contact details

I specialise in dispute resolution and general corporate law. I advise our clients in major commercial disputes ranging across a variety of different business sectors, for example, the energy sector. In addition, I have successfully handled disputes related to private enforcement of competition law, mergers and acquisitions, corporate liabilities, outsourcing and the procurement of data systems.

I assist our clients in managing their commercial disputes in domestic and international proceedings. I act as counsel in settlement negotiations, mediation, litigation, arbitration and authority investigations. I also act as an arbitrator in resolving commercial disputes.

In the field of corporate law, I advise clients in legal matters related to corporate structuring, corporate governance and directors` liability.

Our clients value my analytical and strategical approach. I strive to find innovative and business-driven solutions to our clients’ challenges. The Legal 500 and Euromoney Legal Media Group have ranked me as a Rising Star in Dispute Resolution.

I am actively involved in the world`s largest lawyers` professional organisation, the International Bar Association, where I have held various officer positions in the IBA Litigation Committee. I was also a member of the working group that modernised the Arbitration Rules of the Finland Chamber of Commerce, in force as of 1 January 2020. In addition, I have published a number of articles in international professional publications regarding private enforcement of competition law, investment disputes, cost-efficiency in arbitration and the effects of the financial crisis on Finnish corporate governance.

Latest references

VR – Supreme Court decision clarifies working time practices
We successfully represented VR Group before the Supreme Court in a case concerning the meal break practice of commuter train drivers. On 6 February 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in VR’s favour (decision KKO:2026:12), confirming that VR had the right to amend the commuter train drivers’ meal break practice in 2021 by rendering the break unpaid in accordance with the applicable collective agreement. This decision clarifies the interpretation of collective agreements and employment legislation as well as the limits of the employer’s right to direct work. Over 250 commuter train drivers challenged the unpaid meal break practice which VR introduced in April 2021. Before the change, meal breaks had a long history of being paid. The change was based on the train drivers’ collective agreement, which allows for meal breaks to be organised either as paid or unpaid time. The Supreme Court ruled that the scheduling and managing of breaks falls within the core area of the employer’s right to direct work. This increases the threshold for an established practice becoming a binding condition for the parties. Merely following a practice consistently and over a long period of time does not make the practice binding; instead, the employer’s intent to commit to the practice must be clearly evident from the employer’s conduct or other circumstances. As both alternatives – paid and unpaid – for organising meal breaks had been retained in the collective agreement despite other amendments over the years, it could not be considered that VR had intended to commit to the paid break practice and waive its right to direct work as regards break scheduling. It was also significant that the employment contracts explicitly referred only to the collective agreement as regards working time. The Supreme Court deemed that the employees’ paid meal break was not an established term of employment and that VR was entitled to change the practice based on the collective agreement. The employer had the right, by virtue of its right to direct work, to unilaterally change the meal break practice by choosing to apply the other arrangement permitted by the collective agreement.
Case published 3.3.2026
Peptonic Medical – Acquisition of Majority Stake in Lune Group
We advised Peptonic Medical AB (publ), a Swedish medical development company, in the acquisition of a majority stake in Lune Group Oy Ltd, a Finnish company that sells the Lunette menstrual cup. The acquisition allows Peptonic to grow and expand its product portfolio by enabling the merger of two strong women’s health and selfcare brands with several synergies. In addition, the acquisition gives Peptonic access to a global distribution network that is already up and running, including in the United States. Peptonic is listed on the Spotlight Stock Market in Stockholm, Sweden. Lune Group was founded in 2005 by CEO Heli Kurjanen and has earned its place as a top global menstrual cup company through its continued focus on quality, safety, sustainability and inclusivity. Lune Group Oy Ltd has a subsidiary in North America. The completion of the acquisition is subject to certain customary conditions and is expected to occur during June 2020.
Case published 18.5.2020
Stora Enso – Supreme Court Dismissed Metsähallitus’ Application for Leave to Appeal in the Roundwood Case
The Finnish Supreme Court rendered a decision on 29 January 2019 in which it dismissed Metsähallitus’ application for leave to appeal in an antitrust damages trial where Metsähallitus claimed damages from Stora Enso Oyj, UPM-Kymmene Oyj and Metsäliitto Cooperative based on a competition infringement on the Finnish roundwood market. The Supreme Court’s decision means that the case has been finally resolved. The forestry companies are not obligated to pay Metsähallitus damages due to the competition infringement. Metsähallitus originally claimed damages amounting to nearly 283 million euros jointly and severally from the forestry companies due to the alleged undercharge paid by the forestry companies for roundwood during 1997–2005. The Helsinki District Court dismissed Metsähallitus’ claim in its judgment of 22 June 2016 and ordered Metsähallitus to compensate the forestry companies’ legal costs in full. Metsähallitus appealed the District Court’s judgement to the Helsinki Court of Appeal, which rendered its judgment on 21 May 2018. The Court of Appeal did not change the District Court’s judgment, dismissed Metsähallitus’ appeal and ordered Metsähallitus to compensate the forestry companies’ legal costs also in the Court of Appeal in full. With the Supreme Court’s decision, the Court of Appeal’s judgement is now final. The Helsinki District Court dismissed damages claims by a group of Finnish private forest owners and a group of Finnish municipalities against the forestry companies in relation to the same competition restriction in its judgements of 2017. These judgements have gained legal force. Castrén & Snellman successfully represented Stora Enso in every stage of the trials.   This is the largest antitrust damages case ever tried in Finland. Read more about the earlier stages of the case.
Case published 30.1.2019
Stora Enso – Helsinki Court of Appeal Dismissed Metsähallitus’ Damages Claim against Stora Enso
We successfully represented Stora Enso Oyj in an extensive antitrust damages trial in which Metsähallitus claimed a capital amount of nearly 125 million euros in damages jointly and severally from Finnish forestry companies Stora Enso, UPM-Kymmene Oyj and Metsäliitto Cooperative based on the forestry companies allegedly having purchased roundwood from Metsähallitus below market prices in 1997–2005. The Helsinki District Court dismissed Metsähallitus’ claim in its entirety on 22 June 2016 and ordered Metsähallitus to compensate the forestry companies’ legal costs in full. Metsähallitus appealed the District Court’s decision to the Helsinki Court of Appeal, which upheld the District Court’s decision. Metsähallitus filed its claim against the forestry companies in March of 2011, so this exceptionally extensive case took over seven years before the Court of Appeal rendered its judgment. Outset In its final decision from 2009, the Market Court found that Stora Enso, UPM-Kymmene and Metsäliitto Cooperative had exchanged information on the Finnish roundwood market during 1997–2004 in a manner prohibited by the Competition Restrictions Act. In its follow-on damages claim, Metsähallitus alleged that the forestry companies had purchased roundwood from Metsähallitus below market prices during and after the competition infringement found by the Market Court. Helsinki District Court dismissed Metsähallitus’ claim by a unanimous decision on 22 June 2016 and ordered Metsähallitus to compensate the forestry companies’ legal costs of 8.5 million euros from hearing the case in the District Court in full. Metsähallitus appealed the District Court’s decision to the Helsinki Court of Appeal. In the Court of Appeal, Metsähallitus primarily claimed a capital amount of nearly 125 million euros in damages jointly and severally from the forestry companies for the roundwood purchases allegedly made from Metsähallitus below market prices. Metsähallitus’ secondary claims were separate based on the roundwood transactions it had made with each defendant company. The secondary claim against Stora Enso amounted to approximately 68 million euros, which covered over half of the total amount claimed by Metsähallitus. In addition to the capital amounts of the damages claim, Metsähallitus claimed profit and penalty interest, which increased the amount of Metsähallitus’ overall claim significantly. During the trial, Metsähallitus had reduced its claims substantially. The initial amount claimed jointly and severally by Metsähallitus at the District Court totalled nearly 283 million euros. However, during the District Court proceedings, Metsähallitus specified its claims and jointly and severally claimed a total amount of approximately 159 million euros. At the Court of Appeal, Metsähallitus further reduced its claims by approximately 34 million euros, since this amount of the claims was found to be statute barred based on Supreme Court ruling KKO 2016:11. This Supreme Court’s preliminary ruling concerning the statute of limitation of compensation debt was issued in another trial concerning the same competition infringement. We also successfully represented Stora Enso in this trial. Results The Helsinki Court of Appeal rendered its judgment in the matter on 21 May 2018. The Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s decision and dismissed Metsähallitus’ appeal and claim. The Court of Appeal also obligated Metsähallitus to compensate the forestry companies’ legal costs from hearing the case in the Court of Appeal in full. The forestry companies’ legal costs in the Court of Appeal were approximately 4 million euros in total. The Court of Appeal was presented essentially with the same evidence as the District Court. The evidence on the alleged harm from the competition infringement was very extensive and consisted of both factual evidence as well as a considerable amount of expert evidence regarding the roundwood market and economic analyses. The Court of Appeal accepted the position taken by Stora Enso and the other forestry companies and unanimously dismissed Metsähallitus’ claims. In its judgement, the Court of Appeal evaluated the evidence in detail and for the most part in the same manner as the District Court. Based on the evidence, the Court of Appeal found that Metsähallitus had not produced sufficient evidence to prove that Metsähallitus would have suffered damage in the delivery sales between Metsähallitus and the forestry companies due to the violation of the Act on Competition Restrictions. The damages trial between Metsähallitus and the forestry companies is one of the largest damages cases related to a competition infringement ever tried in Finland.
Case published 1.6.2018
Stora Enso – Helsinki District Court Dismissed Metsähallitus’ Claim for Damages against Stora Enso
We successfully represented Stora Enso Oyj in an extensive damages trial in which Metsähallitus claimed a capital amount of nearly 160 million euros in damages jointly and severally from Finnish forestry companies Stora Enso, UPM-Kymmene Oyj and Metsäliitto Cooperative based on the forestry companies allegedly having purchased roundwood from Metsähallitus below market prices in 1997–2005. The Helsinki District Court dismissed Metsähallitus’ claim in its entirety on 22 June 2016 and ordered Metsähallitus to compensate the forestry companies’ legal costs in full. Metsähallitus filed its claim against the forestry companies in March of 2011, so this exceptionally large case took over five years in the court of first instance.
Case published 29.6.2016
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
VR Group – Intellectual property matters
VR-Group Plc is a transport and logistics group owned by the Finnish State, operating passenger and freight rail transport in Finland with activities also in the Swedish market. VR Group provides passenger, logistics and maintenance services with over 160 years’ experience in developing responsible transport of the future. We advise VR Group in intellectual property matters as part of the company’s wider brand protection efforts. Our assignments have included advice on copyright, design rights and trademarks, focusing on the protection of the company’s visual identity – including its distinctive green colour – in connection with transport services as part of a comprehensive IP protection strategy. VR Group’s consistent brand building has also received recognition, including the Finland Chamber of Commerce’s Brand of the Year award in 2026. In the competition, brands were viewed comprehensively from various perspectives, including their story, strategic role, brand renewal ability and intellectual property protection. The jury found that VR had understood the importance of the protection of its brand as part of a comprehensive business strategy. 
Case published 9.9.2026
NoHo Partners – EUR 50 million secured notes and EUR 97 million senior secured facilities agreement
We advised NoHo Partners Plc on the issuance of EUR 50 million senior secured floating rate notes. The notes have a tenor of four years and mature on 10 September 2030. The notes bear interest at a rate of three-month EURIBOR plus a margin of 4.375 per cent. per annum. The notes were allocated to a mix of domestic and international investors. We also advised NoHo Partners on the negotiation of its new senior facilities agreement. The facilities agreement comprises a EUR 60,000,000 term loan facility, a EUR 10,000,000 capex facility and a EUR 27,000,000 revolving credit facility. “We are delighted by the interest investors have shown in the company’s Notes, which reflects confidence in our strategy. The successful issuance of the Notes, together with the new loan agreement, extends the maturity profile of our financing and enables the company to continue executing its growth strategy going forward. I would like to thank all investors for their participation, as well as our partner bank for the excellent execution of the Notes issuance”, says Jarno Suominen, CEO of NoHo Partners. OP Corporate Bank plc acted as the sole lead manager and bookrunner for the issue of the notes. NoHo Partners Plc is a Finnish group established in 1996, and it specialises in restaurant services being the creative innovator of the Northern European restaurant market. The company was listed in Nasdaq Helsinki in 2013 becoming the first Finnish listed restaurant company, and it has continued to grow strongly throughout its history. NoHo Partners’ vision is to be the leading restaurant operator in Northern Europe.
Case published 4.9.2026

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
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
Alexis Huldén
Position: Senior Associate
Primary service Dispute Resolution
 +358 40 661 5222
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