Featured Stories
Ropes & Gray Represented Patient Square Capital as Lead Investor in Osanni Bio's $190 Million Series B Financing
BOSTON, Massachusetts, June 30 -- Ropes and Gray, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Ropes & Gray Represented Patient Square Capital as Lead Investor in Osanni Bio's $190 Million Series B Financing
Ropes & Gray advised Patient Square Capital in its role as lead investor in Osanni Bio's $190 million Series B financing.
The transaction was announced on June 23.
Osanni Bio is a developmental stage therapeutics platform advancing the discovery and development of new medicines in therapeutic areas including ophthalmology and cardiology.
Patient Square Capital is a dedicated health care
... Show Full Article
BOSTON, Massachusetts, June 30 -- Ropes and Gray, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Ropes & Gray Represented Patient Square Capital as Lead Investor in Osanni Bio's $190 Million Series B Financing
Ropes & Gray advised Patient Square Capital in its role as lead investor in Osanni Bio's $190 million Series B financing.
The transaction was announced on June 23.
Osanni Bio is a developmental stage therapeutics platform advancing the discovery and development of new medicines in therapeutic areas including ophthalmology and cardiology.
Patient Square Capital is a dedicated health careinvestment firm with $19 billion in assets under management.
The Ropes & Gray team was led by life sciences transactions partner Ray Grant and private equity partner Annie Sipe and included capital markets partner Tom Holden, private equity partner Jay Freedman, IP transactions partner Megan Baca, executive compensation and benefits partner Kyle Higley and tax partner Ben Rogers.
* * *
URL: Patient Square Capital
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ropesgray.com/en/news-and-events/news/2026/06/ropes-gray-represented-patient-square-capital-as-lead-investor-in-osanni-bios
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Lexology Index Recognizes Dentons Lee's Kurt Gerstner and Sungsok Yang in 2026 Guide
WASHINGTON, June 30 -- Dentons, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Lexology Index Recognizes Dentons Lee's Kurt Gerstner and Sungsok Yang in 2026 Guide
Dentons Lee is pleased to announce that Foreign Attorneys Kurt Gerstner and Sungsok Yang have been recognized as recommended practitioners in the 2026 edition of Lexology Index, formerly known as Who's Who Legal.
Kurt Gerstner was recognized as Highly Recommended in Product Regulation & Liability, and as Recommended in South Korea - Product Liability Defence 2026. He has long advised Korean companies on U.S.-related litigation and
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 30 -- Dentons, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Lexology Index Recognizes Dentons Lee's Kurt Gerstner and Sungsok Yang in 2026 Guide
Dentons Lee is pleased to announce that Foreign Attorneys Kurt Gerstner and Sungsok Yang have been recognized as recommended practitioners in the 2026 edition of Lexology Index, formerly known as Who's Who Legal.
Kurt Gerstner was recognized as Highly Recommended in Product Regulation & Liability, and as Recommended in South Korea - Product Liability Defence 2026. He has long advised Korean companies on U.S.-related litigation anddisputes, and continues to be highly regarded in the field of product liability defence based on feedback from clients and peers.
Sungsok Yang was recognized as Recommended in South Korea - Transport - Shipping 2026. With extensive experience in shipping and transport matters, he has advised domestic and international clients on a broad range of maritime, shipping, and transport-related disputes and transactions.
Lexology Index, formerly Who's Who Legal, is a premier global legal directory, distinguished by its extensive international reach and rigorous independent research, identifying outstanding law firms and practitioners across jurisdictions and practice areas through in-depth feedback from clients and peers.
Learn more:
Lexology Index: South Korea 2026 (http://www.lexology.com/index/report/south-korea)
Lexology Index: Product Regulation & Liability 2026 (http://www.lexology.com/index/report/product-regulation-liability/rankings#highly-recommended)
* * *
About Dentons
Redefining possibilities. Together, everywhere. For more information visit dentons.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.dentonslee.com/en/about-dentons-lee/news/2026/june/dentons-lee-lexology
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
K&L Gates Adds Cross-Border Aviation Finance Partner in London
PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania, June 30 -- K&L Gates, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
K&L Gates Adds Cross-Border Aviation Finance Partner in London
London - Global law firm K&L Gates welcomes Andrew Harper as a partner in its Finance practice in London. He joins the firm from Reed Smith LLP.
Harper is an asset finance lawyer, with a particular focus on fixed-wing and rotary aircraft finance and leasing transactions. His experience includes secured debt and export credit agency-supported financings and operating, finance, and tax-based lease structures, as well as aircraft sales,
... Show Full Article
PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania, June 30 -- K&L Gates, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
K&L Gates Adds Cross-Border Aviation Finance Partner in London
London - Global law firm K&L Gates welcomes Andrew Harper as a partner in its Finance practice in London. He joins the firm from Reed Smith LLP.
Harper is an asset finance lawyer, with a particular focus on fixed-wing and rotary aircraft finance and leasing transactions. His experience includes secured debt and export credit agency-supported financings and operating, finance, and tax-based lease structures, as well as aircraft sales,purchases, and portfolio transfers.
His clients include major international banks, export credit agencies, lessors, airlines, arrangers, funds, private equity investors, and manufacturers that engage across the full spectrum of aviation finance transactions, including JOL and JOLCO structures.
Additionally, Harper's broad perspective and skill set includes the experience he gained through an in-house secondment at a leading aircraft manufacturer. Outside of aviation, his transportation finance experience includes advising on rail, shipping, and equipment financings.
"Andrew joins us at a time of sustained growth and increasing complexity in the aviation finance market, where strong demand for aircraft, constrained supply, and evolving capital sources are reshaping how transactions are structured," remarked Paul Callegari, managing partner of K&L Gates' London office. "Clients are navigating more sophisticated multi-source financings, while also responding to regulatory and sustainability pressures. Andrew's extensive experience positions us to support clients through this next phase of market evolution."
Matthias Grund, the lead practice area leader of K&L Gates' global Finance practice, commented: "Andrew brings a highly relevant combination of technical capability and market insight at a time when aviation finance is becoming more structured, selective, and globally interconnected. As leasing platforms consolidate and portfolio and secondary trading activity accelerates, his experience enhances our ability to support clients on complex, cross-border transactions. At the same time, his broader transportation finance background and industry insight are highly relevant as clients adapt to evolving sustainability requirements and long-term fleet transition strategies."
Harper's arrival follows recent London office additions, including data partner Sarah Pearce, asset management and investment funds partner Marianna Tothova, and finance partner Gareth McCarter. More broadly, the firm has continued to bolster its global Finance practice since the beginning of last year with the addition of partners Seth Ivey in Charlotte and Rob White in Sydney, as well as of counsel Sean Corcoran and Scott Rudd in Charlotte.
"We're thrilled to welcome Andrew to the firm and leverage his valuable experience, particularly in Japanese operating lease (JOL) and JOLCO structures, which have long been a cornerstone of aircraft financing," said Robert Melson, a practice area leader for the firm's Finance practice and head of the global Aviation Finance practice group. "As European lenders, lessors, and airlines increasingly look to diversify capital sources and access Japanese investor liquidity, his deep familiarity with these structures and cross-border execution will be highly relevant to clients in London and across Europe as well as Asia seeking more sophisticated, capital-efficient financing solutions."
K&L Gates' global Finance practice integrates the many disciplines involved in financing and restructuring transactions across markets and industries around the globe. With lawyers in offices across Asia, Australia, Europe, the Middle East, and North America, the practice maintains a balance between buy-side and sell-side representation in its work on behalf of lenders, borrowers, servicers, collateral managers, trustees, rating agencies, investors, and other participants in a wide array of financing transactions.
* * *
K&L Gates is a globally integrated law firm trusted by sophisticated clients to deliver market leading legal counsel across jurisdictions and industries. Operating as one firm worldwide, K&L Gates combines deep local insight with seamless global coordination to address clients' most complex legal and business challenges. Guided by a relentless focus on client service, the firm delivers practical, high impact solutions with consistency, efficiency, and a clear emphasis on results.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.klgates.com/KL-Gates-Adds-Cross-Border-Aviation-Finance-Partner-in-London-6-29-2026
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: SCOTUS Just Expanded President's Power to Fire Members of Independent Agencies - What the Landmark Ruling Means for Businesses and Employers
ATLANTA, Georgia, June 30 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on June 29, 2026:
* * *
SCOTUS Just Expanded President's Power to Fire Members of Independent Agencies: What the Landmark Ruling Means for Businesses and Employers
The US Supreme Court just ruled in favor of President Trump by vastly expanding the presidential power to remove members of independent agencies. While today's Trump v. Slaughter decision centered on challenges to statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the case could have sweeping implications for other
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, June 30 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on June 29, 2026:
* * *
SCOTUS Just Expanded President's Power to Fire Members of Independent Agencies: What the Landmark Ruling Means for Businesses and Employers
The US Supreme Court just ruled in favor of President Trump by vastly expanding the presidential power to remove members of independent agencies. While today's Trump v. Slaughter decision centered on challenges to statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the case could have sweeping implications for otherindependent agencies like the Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) - not to mention the fundamental structure of the federal government itself. Here's everything businesses and employers need to know.
Quick Background
* How It Started. Last year, President Donald Trump fired two Democratic Commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) without articulating a specific cause. After former Commissioner, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, challenged her termination as unlawful and was reinstated by a federal district court, the Trump administration appealed and challenged Slaughter's statutory removal protections as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court agreed in September to hear the case and blocked Slaughter's reinstatement while the lawsuit played out.
* Legal Issues. At issue in Trump v. Slaughter is a century-old federal law and a 1935 Supreme Court decision. The FTC Act establishes the agency's powers and provides that commissioners may be removed by the president for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance." In Humphrey's Executor v. United States, SCOTUS upheld the constitutionality of for-cause removal protections in the FTC Act. The unanimous Court at that time said that because FTC commissioners were "charged with duties neither political nor executive, but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative," the power of Congress to establish those protections prevailed over the president's removal power.
The Supreme Court's Decision in Trump v. Slaughter
In a 6-3 decision issued today, the Supreme Court held that the FTC Act's statutory removal protections violate the separation of powers, and that the President may remove his subordinates at will.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts said that the President is not "all powerful" but is "not impotent either" - and has the sole executive power of the United States. The Court said that today's FTC enforces and administers around 80 federal laws that are key to the US economy and performs tasks that "fall well within the heartland of executive power."
SCOTUS ultimately concluded: "Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work. Subordinates who exercise the President's power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people."
In so ruling, the Court overruled Humphrey's Executor, after questioning if anything more was left of it after decades of decisions that chipped away at it. The Court said that Humphrey's was tethered to a "highly circumscribed and almost fictional view of the FTC's role" that is completely out of step with the agency's activities today.
The Court, however, left many questions open. For example, the Court declined to define the bounds of what the executive power entails, noting that "not all offices created by Congress necessarily come with executive or even sovereign power attached." The majority also made clear that the Trump v. Slaughter decision:
* should not be read to implicate the constitutionality of other entities with unique roles, such as the Federal Reserve; and
* does not address the fate of officials not before the Court, explicitly leaving open potential exceptions for adjudicatory agencies, including non-Article III courts.
Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson Strongly Dissented
Justice Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. The dissent said that the Constitution's text and history, as well as centuries of political practice and the Court's own precedent, make it clear that Congress may enact for-cause removal protections for the heads of independent agencies. "The result," according to the dissent, "is a President who emerges with far greater power than ever before."
The dissent also said that today's decision will transform the dozens of agencies headed by commissioners or board members with for-cause removal protections "in ways that those who created them never could have expected and actively sought to avoid, fundamentally recalibrating the balance of power in this country in the process."
How'd We Do With Our Predictions? Our FP attorneys (Jonathan Crook, Dave Dorey, Ben Ebbink, and Reyburn Lominack) correctly predicted in December that the SCOTUS majority would strike down the statutory removal protection for FTC Commissioners as unconstitutional in a 6-3 decision (with Jonathan, Dave, and Reyburn even nailing that it would be written by Chief Justice Roberts). Our attorneys also predicted that the Court would overrule Humphrey's Executor while also making clear that it was not reaching unpresented questions about "unique" government agencies such as the Federal Reserve.
Key Takeaways for Employers
Now that the Supreme Court has struck down the statutory removal protections for FTC members, we anticipate two big developments in the near future that will impact the workplace.
Stay Tuned for FTC Politicization
The FTC will soon become more politicized, and its enforcement priorities could swing more drastically with each administration. However, it would have little impact in the short term. The five-member agency currently has just two commissioners - Andrew Ferguson (Chair) and Mark Meador, both Republicans. In addition, President Trump nominated David MacNeil (Republican) to one of the three remaining open seats, and federal law prohibits more than three commissioners from the same political party.
While the FTC may not seem like a major player in workplace law, it has increasingly expanded its reach into employment-related issues, such as non-competes and restrictive covenants, antitrust in the labor market, gig economy and worker classification, and employee data privacy (particularly when artificial intelligence tools are involved). And, of course, consumer protection remains a priority for the FTC, which can also impact many businesses (for example, the FTC announced in September a $7.5 million settlement with an educational technology company over its unlawful cancellation practices).
Impact on Other Federal Agencies
The Court's overruling of Humphrey's Executor will eventually create ripple effects for other independent agencies such as the NLRB and EEOC, dramatically shifting how these key workplace agencies operate. For example:
* In December, a federal appeals court upheld President Trump's unprecedented firing of former NLRB member Gwynn Wilcox, ruling that the Board's functions in recent years amounted to meaningful enforcement and policymaking authority beyond the reach of Humphrey's Executor and into a realm that must be subject to the president's unfettered removal authority. While the ruling could be appealed, the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Slaughter seems to strongly signal that the Wilcox saga will end in the president's favor.
* Several courts are currently hearing constitutional challenges to the NLRB's structure - such as litigation brought by SpaceX in 2024 after the agency issued an administrative complaint against the company (read more here - however, earlier this year a Regional Director of the NLRB relinquished jurisdiction over SpaceX, and a federal appeals court recently dismissed a SpaceX appeal in its suit against the agency). In addition, circuit courts divided last year regarding whether employers can use federal court injunctions to halt NLRB proceedings. After today's ruling, the agency will be in a much weaker position to prevail in these cases.
* After Trump fired two Democratic members of the EEOC in January 2025, one of them sued the administration. Jocelyn Samuels argued that her removal was unlawful and that protections set by Congress are constitutional under Humphrey's Executor. In October, a district court in DC hit pause on the case pending the decision in Trump v. Slaughter - and we now seem to have a pretty good indication on how that litigation will turn out.
Conclusion
We will continue to monitor developments from SCOTUS and all areas of workplace law, so make sure you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to get the most up-to-date information directly to your inbox. If you have questions, contact your Fisher Phillips attorney or the authors of this Insight.
* * *
Related People
Jonathan Crook
Partner
704.334.9313
jcrook@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Benjamin M. Ebbink
Partner
916.210.0400
bebbink@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Reyburn W. Lominack, III
Partner
803.255.0000
rlominack@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/scotus-just-expanded-presidents-power-to-fire-members-of-independent-agencies
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath Issues Commentary: Is a Stockholder Vote Necessary?
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, June 30 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following commentary on June 29, 2026, by partner Oderah C. Nwaeze:
* * *
Is a Stockholder Vote Necessary?
The Corporate Guide
This guide was originally published on January 4, 2022, and has been updated as of June 26, 2026.
At a Glance
Delaware law states that a stockholder vote is only necessary when a corporation sells "all or substantially all of its [] assets." But the law stops short of defining "substantially all." Instead, judges have broadly defined the meaning of "substantially all" through
... Show Full Article
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, June 30 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following commentary on June 29, 2026, by partner Oderah C. Nwaeze:
* * *
Is a Stockholder Vote Necessary?
The Corporate Guide
This guide was originally published on January 4, 2022, and has been updated as of June 26, 2026.
At a Glance
Delaware law states that a stockholder vote is only necessary when a corporation sells "all or substantially all of its [] assets." But the law stops short of defining "substantially all." Instead, judges have broadly defined the meaning of "substantially all" througha series of cases. This guide explains how Delaware courts determine whether a company has sold "substantially all" of its assets.
-
The Meaning of "Substantially All"
A company sells "substantially all" of its assets when the assets sold are "quantitatively vital to the operation of the corporation, [are] out of the ordinary and substantially affect[] the existence and purpose of the corporation." "[A] determination of whether there is a sale of substantially all assets so as to trigger section 271 depends upon the particular qualitative and quantitative characteristics of the transaction at issue." Hollinger Inc. v. Hollinger Intern., Inc., 858 A.2d 342, 377 (Del. Ch. 2004).
A transaction involves "substantially all" of a company's assets if the assets sold are "quantitatively vital to the operation of the corporation, [are] out of the ordinary and substantially affect[] the existence and purpose of the corporation." Id.
The results of the quantitative and qualitative prongs of the test are analyzed together to find whether the totality of the circumstances indicates that the corporation disposed of "substantially all" of its assets.
A corporation will not be found to have sold "substantially all" of its assets when the remaining assets are substantial and profitable. Id. at 385.
Quantitative Analysis Explained
The quantitative prong of the "substantially all" analysis considers the portion of assets sold in comparison to those retained by the corporation. The assets for sale will be considered "substantially all" of the corporation's assets if they are quantitatively necessary to the corporation.
A corporation will not be found to have sold "substantially all" of its assets if:
1. It retained other significant assets
2. The retained assets have a strong record of profitability
3. It still expects healthy future profits and growth
The percentage of assets sold is not outcome determinative, but it is part of the analysis. The following cases further shed light on how the quantitative analysis may be applied.
Hollinger Inc. v. Hollinger Intern., Inc., 858 A.2d 342 (Del. Ch. 2004)
The Court of Chancery found that an international newspaper company's sale of one of its most profitable and prestigious divisions (56-57% of the company's asset value) did not satisfy the quantitative test because the surviving company would continue as a profitable enterprise even after the sale. Id. at 380.
* This conclusion was informed, in part, by the fact that the division sold accounted for (1) less than half of the company's revenue during the last three years; (2) less than 50% of the company's earnings and book value; and (3) a declining percentage of the company's EBITDA. Id. at 380-82.
* In addition, the remaining business included more than 100 newspapers, and one remaining division had been valued at $950 million. Id. at 379-80.
Thorpe v. Cerbco, Inc., 1995 WL 478954 (Del. Ch. Aug. 9, 1995)
The Court of Chancery held that the company's sale of its subsidiary constituted the disposition of "substantially all" of its assets because the subsidiary constituted 68% of the company's assets and was the primary profitable segment of the company. 1995 WL 478954, at *9-10, overruled on other grounds by 676 A.2d 436 (Del. 1996) (affirming the Chancery Court's conclusion that the subsidiary accounted for 68% of the company, thus its sale would constitute "substantially all" of the company's assets).
Qualitative Analysis Explained
According to then-Vice Chancellor Leo E. Strine, Jr. (and former Chief Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court), the qualitative aspect of the "substantially all" analysis is "more than a tad unclear." Hollinger, 858 A.2d at 383.
This particular piece of the "substantially all" analysis focuses on the economic qualities of the assets, and whether the transaction leaves stockholders with an investment that, in economic terms, is different from the one they currently possess. Id. That calculus is unconcerned with the aesthetic or symbolic value of any one asset or group of assets, and instead addresses the rational economic expectation of reasonable investors. The qualitative test is said to hinge on whether the transaction "strike[s] at the heart of the corporate existence." Gimbel v. Signal Corp., Inc., 316 A.2d 599, 606 (Del. Ch. 1974).
To determine whether the assets are qualitatively substantial, a court will consider:
1. The corporation's purpose, as stated in its certificate of incorporation or charter
2. The business the corporation actually conducts
A corporation will have sold "substantially all" of its assets if the transaction fundamentally alters the existence and purpose of the corporation or leaves the corporation unable to conduct the business it was formed to conduct. The following cases help explain how a court may apply the qualitative analysis.
Hollinger Inc. v. Hollinger Intern., Inc., 858 A.2d 342 (Del. Ch. 2004)
The court found that the "trophy" nature of the assets being sold (a group of newspapers and magazines including the prestigious British newspaper, the Telegraph) was not a factor in determining qualitative value. Id. at 384. The vice chancellor opined that it is unreasonable to assume that stockholders "invested with the expectation that [the corporation] would retain [its prized asset] even if it could receive a price that was attractive in light of the projected cash flow" of the asset. Id. at 384-85.
The Hollinger court looked at the company's recent history of transactions:
* When Hollinger International went public, it did not own the Telegraph. During the course of its existence, Hollinger International has frequently bought and sold a wide variety of publications. In the CanWest sale, it disposed of a number of major newspapers in Canada -- and diminished its assets by half -- all without a stockholder vote. That sale came on the heels of its departure from Australia and an American downsizing. Thus, no investor in Hollinger International would assume that any of its assets were sacrosanct. It "can be said that ... acquisitions and dispositions [of independent branches of Hollinger International's business] have become part of the [company's] ordinary course of business." Hollinger, 858 A.2d at 384 (quoting Gimbel, 316 A.2d at 608).
Katz v. Bregman, 431 A.2d 1274, 1276 (Del. Ch. 1981)
The court held that the company's sale of 51% of its assets constituted "substantially all" of its total assets because the company deviated from its principal purpose and abandoned its historically profitable line of business.
Oberly v. Kirby, 592 A.2d 445, 464 (Del. 1991)
The court found that stockholder approval was not required when a company sold 80% of its assets as part of its usual business. The Delaware Supreme Court held that while "unquestionably large," the securities assets sold did not have an impact on the existence and purpose of the corporation because the company existed to hold and sell investment securities and donate profits to charity.
Key Takeaway
In attempting to reconcile the subjective and "unclear" analysis for determining whether a company has sold "substantially all" of its assets, the Court of Chancery in Hollinger court stated:
...when asset sales were deemed to involve substantially all of a corporation's assets, the record always revealed great doubt about the viability of the business that would remain, primarily because the remaining operating assets were not profitable. But, if the portion of the business not sold constitutes a substantial, viable, ongoing component of the corporation, the sale is not subject to Section 271. Hollinger, 858 A.2d at 385 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Given the complexities involved, it is important to consult and work closely with legal and financial advisors to help determine whether an asset sale involved "substantially all" of the corporation's assets and requires stockholder approval.
The material contained in this communication is informational, general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising.
* * *
Meet the Authors
Oderah C. Nwaeze
Partner
Philadelphia
Wilmington
+1 215 988 1172
+1 302 467 4268
oderah.nwaeze@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2022/1/the-corporate-guide-is-a-stockholder-vote-necessary
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Dentons Advises EBRD on Its Equity Investment in UzCarlsberg
WASHINGTON, June 30 -- Dentons, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Dentons advises EBRD on its equity investment in UzCarlsberg
Tashkent--Global law firm Dentons has acted as legal counsel to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) in connection with its equity investment in UzCarlsberg LLC, Uzbekistan's leading brewer.
The EBRD provided financing of up to US$15.4 million to UzCarlsberg to support the company's expansion programme. The proceeds of the investment will be used to build and put into operation a new brewing facility adjacent to UzCarlsberg's existing
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 30 -- Dentons, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Dentons advises EBRD on its equity investment in UzCarlsberg
Tashkent--Global law firm Dentons has acted as legal counsel to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) in connection with its equity investment in UzCarlsberg LLC, Uzbekistan's leading brewer.
The EBRD provided financing of up to US$15.4 million to UzCarlsberg to support the company's expansion programme. The proceeds of the investment will be used to build and put into operation a new brewing facility adjacent to UzCarlsberg's existingproduction site, as well as to acquire advanced brewing and bottling equipment and expand its warehouse capacity. The transaction represents the EBRD's third equity investment in Uzbekistan since 2020, reflecting the Bank's sustained commitment to supporting private sector development and sustainable growth in the country.
Dentons provided comprehensive Uzbek and English law advice to the EBRD across all phases of the transaction, covering structuring, due diligence, and the preparation and negotiation of transaction documents. Tashkent-based partners Eldor Mannopov and Fayzulla Khusankhodjaev and Prague-based partner Chris Watkinson led Dentons' cross-border legal team, with support from counsel Sanjar Narzullaev, senior associate Sitora Sobirova, and associate Saidrakhim Ibadullaev.
Eldor Mannopov, Uzbekistan Managing Partner at Dentons, commented: "We are delighted to have advised the EBRD on this important investment in Uzbekistan's food and beverage sector. This transaction demonstrates the growing attractiveness of Uzbekistan to leading international development finance institutions and reinforces Dentons' position at the forefront of complex cross-border transactions in the country. We remain fully committed to supporting our clients on high-profile deals that contribute meaningfully to the sustainable development of Uzbekistan's economy."
UzCarlsberg LLC is Uzbekistan's leading brewer and the country's only brewer manufacturing internationally branded products of the Carlsberg Group.
The EBRD is an international development bank that promotes the development of the private sector and entrepreneurial initiative across its countries of operation. The EBRD has invested almost US$6.9 billion in Uzbekistan to date across 208 projects, with the country having been the leading recipient of EBRD funding in Central Asia for each of the past six years.
* * *
About Dentons
Redefining possibilities. Together, everywhere. For more information visit dentons.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.dentons.com/en/about-dentons/news-events-and-awards/news/2026/june/dentons-advises-ebrd-on-its-equity-investment-in-uzcarlsberg
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
A&O Shearman Advises Lead Arrangers on Financing for Bain Capital's Acquisition of Everllence
LONDON, England, June 30 -- A and O Shearman, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
A&O Shearman advises lead arrangers on financing for Bain Capital's acquisition of Everllence
A&O Shearman has advised the mandated lead arrangers (MLAs) in connection with the financing of Bain Capital's acquisition of a majority stake in Everllence, a globally leading developer and manufacturer of 2-stroke and 4-stroke marine and power engines and turbomachinery, from Volkswagen Group. The transaction is structured as a carve-out from Volkswagen Group, which will retain a shareholding in the company
... Show Full Article
LONDON, England, June 30 -- A and O Shearman, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
A&O Shearman advises lead arrangers on financing for Bain Capital's acquisition of Everllence
A&O Shearman has advised the mandated lead arrangers (MLAs) in connection with the financing of Bain Capital's acquisition of a majority stake in Everllence, a globally leading developer and manufacturer of 2-stroke and 4-stroke marine and power engines and turbomachinery, from Volkswagen Group. The transaction is structured as a carve-out from Volkswagen Group, which will retain a shareholding in the companyand remain a long-term partner.
Everllence has operations in Europe, Asia, and the Americas. It holds leading positions in each of its principal businesses, serving customers in global shipping, naval defense, power generation, and industrial processing, and maintains one of the most extensive aftermarket service networks in the sector, with more than 140 locations worldwide.
"The transaction represents one of the largest European leveraged buyouts of 2026 and underscores continued private equity appetite for high-value industrial carve-outs. The deal reflects growing investor confidence in the European industrials sector, where carve-out activity has accelerated as major corporates refocus on core operations. We're proud to have supported the MLAs in delivering a financing package that matches the ambition of the deal," said Denise Gibson, Partner.
The A&O Shearman team was led by partners Denise Gibson, Temi Esho, and Marc Plepelits, with counsel Rafael Serrano, senior associates Kiddist Forsythe and Odysseas Theofanis, associates Deborah Wathome and Rhea Variava, and solicitor apprentice Thomas Stanbridge. Tax advice was provided by partners Tim Drach and James Burton. The team in Germany was led by partner Rauni Ahammer.
The transaction is subject to regulatory approvals and customary closing conditions. Financial terms of the transaction were not disclosed.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.aoshearman.com/en/news/ao-shearman-advises-lead-arrangers-on-financing-for-bain-capitals-acquisition-of-everllence
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
