Transactions in the Financial Sector

Transactions in the Financial Sector

Transactions in the financial sector always require special expertise. A successful execution calls for an advisor with a deep understanding of both corporate transactions and the business models of regulated entities.

Our unique ability to assist with strategic regulatory matters enables regulated entities to structure their operations in a way that meets both commercial objectives and regulatory obligations. We help clients identify potential regulatory risks early on and plan the transaction process from a regulatory perspective to ensure an efficient completion.

Mergers and acquisitions
Transfers of business
Transfers of insurance portfolios
Corporate restructurings

Our clients include banks, insurance companies, investment service firms and fund management companies.

The Legal 500, IFLR1000, Chambers Europe and Chambers Global rank our services among Finland’s best.

Latest references

The Mortgage Society of Finland – Update of EUR 2,5 billion bond programme

We advised The Mortgage Society of Finland in the update of a EUR 2,5 billion bond programme under which the Mortgage Society of Finland may issue senior preferred and unsecured Tier 2 notes, and covered bonds. The notes under the programme may be listed on the official list of Nasdaq Helsinki Ltd. The Mortgage Society of Finland is the only nationwide credit institution in Finland that focuses on housing. It provides customers with the full range of home financing services such as granting mortgage and consumer loans for all stages of home owning including purchasing and renovating. The Mortgage Society of Finland carries out this activity in accordance with the Act on Credit Institutions and the Act on Mortgage Societies.

Multitude – Relocation from Finland to Switzerland

We act as the lead legal counsel in the groundbreaking case of Multitude SE’s (Multitude) proposed relocation from Finland to Switzerland. The first phase of the relocation, involving the transfer of Multitude’s registered office from Finland to Malta pursuant to SE Regulation, was successfully completed on 30 June 2024. In this connection, Multitude’s shares were removed from the Finnish book-entry system and the issuer central securities depository of the shares changed from Euroclear Finland Oy to the CSD operated by the Malta Stock Exchange. In practice, all of Multitude’s shares are now held through Clearstream. In Malta, the company is anticipated to be converted into a public limited liability company under Maltese law, following which it will seek redomiciliation from Malta to Switzerland. Given that Finnish legislation does not allow for direct relocation to a non-European Economic Area country such as Switzerland while preserving the company’s legal personality, the process necessitated a multi-jurisdictional strategy as outlined above. Our mandate encompasses advising Multitude on all aspects governed by Finnish law concerning the proposed relocation and coordinating the work of local legal counsel and various other advisors involved in the project. The process also involved a written procedure to amend Multitude’s existing subordinated capital notes and senior bonds to facilitate the relocation as well as placement of EUR 80 million senior guaranteed notes by a newly established Multitude Capital Oyj. ”The transfer to Malta marks a significant step in Multitude’s journey. This pioneering and complex process has been successfully implemented with the invaluable support of our own team and advisors. Castrén & Snellman has masterfully orchestrated the entire project, ensuring seamless coordination across multiple jurisdictions. We look forward to achieving our next step with the further relocation to Switzerland”, says Jorma Jokela, Multitude’s CEO. Multitude is a fully regulated growth platform for financial technology, employing over 700 individuals across 25 countries. Its shares are listed on the regulated market (Prime Standard) of the Frankfurt Stock Exchange.

Fortum – AI workshop

We delivered two AI workshops for Fortum Corporation’s Mergers and Acquisitions team, with both legal and business professionals participating. The sessions combined fundamental AI principles with custom use cases for commercially available AI tools tailored to Fortum’s needs. We also presented a bespoke solution merging AI with a script-based tool developed by our Legal Tech team, enabling a more automated way of working. Our experts conducted the training drawing on their legal background and leading experience in this emerging field of legal technology. Participants particularly appreciated the clarity and relevance of the implementations demonstrated. ‘C&S delivered an excellent, well-structured series of workshops, with directly applicable takeaways,’ says Sabina Hautaviita, Legal Counsel for M&A at Fortum.

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.

Latest insights

3.3.2026 – Employment The threshold for dismissal is lowered: what should be taken into account in practice?

Aleksandra Särkelä

Aleksandra Särkelä

6.2.2026 – Tax & Structuring Electricity sector Profit Tax Act in conflict with EU law – SAC denied leave to appeal

Janne Juusela

Mikko Alakare

Janne Juusela & Mikko Alakare

2.2.2026 – Data & Technology Avoid costly risks with well-drafted distribution agreements

Topi Lusenius

Samuli Salminen

Topi Lusenius & Samuli Salminen

14.1.2026 – Tax & Structuring VAT deductions for private equity investors under the microscope

Mikko Alakare

Lotta Manu

Mikko Alakare & Lotta Manu

Search from the site.