Finassur has a very strong presence in the North of France, an economically strategic region for Marsh. 

Marsh, a Marsh McLennan (NYSE: MMC) company, is the #1 insurance broker and risk advisor worldwide, advising clients in 130 countries through four companies: Marsh, Guy Carpenter, Mercer, and Oliver Wyman. With annual revenues of more than $24 billion and more than 90,000 employees, Marsh McLennan helps clients build confidence to succeed through the power of perspective.

This acquisition will enable Finassur’s clients and employees to benefit from Marsh McLennan's global capabilities, solutions, and expertise in the areas of insurance, risk management, and strategy consulting expertise to help them achieve their growth and development goals.

This transaction is an illustration of ADVANT Altana’s ability to manage complex cross-border transactions for US clients investing in Europe and requiring the involvement of numerous areas of the law. 

The Büter Group comprises German and Dutch (production) companies and is one of Europe's leading companies in the hydraulics industry. Founded in 1965, the family-owned company is headquartered in Emmen (NL) and has production facilities in Haren and Meppen (DE). It employs around 550 people. Over the past six decades, the family-owned company has developed numerous patents and utility models in cylinder and lifting technology and is now one of the technological market leaders in the industry.

NPM Capital, part of the family-owned SHV Group, is an investment partner based in the Benelux countries that focuses on long-term partnerships with family-owned and entrepreneurially managed companies. As part of the transaction, NPM Capital is acquiring the entire group of companies, including the two German subsidiaries Büter Hebetechnik GmbH and Büter Maschinenfabrik GmbH.

By joining forces with NPM Capital, Büter Group is well positioned to accelerate its growth strategy and continue to invest in technological innovation and international expansion. Under the new ownership, Büter Group will continue to operate independently.

Regarding the sale of the Dutch entities, the international law firm Houthoff acted on ADVANT Beiten's recommendation. Taurus Corporate was involved as an M&A advisor. The acquisition is still subject to the usual regulatory and antitrust approvals. The parties have agreed not to disclose the transaction volume. 

Advisors to the shareholders of Büter Group:
ADVANT Beiten: Dr Guido Krüger (Corporate Succession/Taxes), Prof Dr Hans-Josef Vogel (M&A, both lead partners), Julian Krause (Corporate Succession/M&A), Dr Magdalena Rindermann-Haugwitz (Corporate/M&A), Volker Küpper (Taxes), Thomas Herten (Real Estate), Dr Andreas Imping, Anna Kubitz (both Labour Law, all Dusseldorf), Christoph Heinrich (Antitrust Law, Munich) and Maximilian Steffen (Taxes, Hamburg).

PR
Frauke Reuther
Manager Kommunikation
ADVANT Beiten
+49 (69) 75 60 95 - 570
frauke.reuther@advant-beiten.com

They can be implemented in various situations, such as issues relating to harassment, discrimination, corruption or other various violations of legal provisions.

This newsletter gives an overview on how national courts have ruled on the subject given that at European level, no legislation governs the practice.

Amélie d'Heilly and Mickaël d'Allende from ADVANT Altana detail the key points that companies need to pay attention to when it comes to their ability to interfere in the private lives of their employees, particularly in terms of romantic relationships or non-professional communications at work.

Anti-abuse rules against entities avoiding employer responsibilities through ambiguous and complex structures

Sometimes, companies try to evade legal responsibility as employers through complex employment structures. Interpretation II stipulates that when project owners subcontract/assign their business to entities without legal business qualifications, or when an entity without the corresponding qualifications conducts business activities externally through "affiliation" with a unit with legal business qualifications, the contractor/affiliated entity with legal business qualification will be legally recognized as the entity bearing the main responsibility as employer. This clarification aims to afford employees with a better protection of their rights in seeking payment of salaries and social insurance benefits because the responsibility for such claims will be borne by entities with legal status and (hopefully) sufficient financial means to honour such commitments.

In cases of so-called "group employment" or "affiliated company employment" (i.e. employment models where within a group of affiliated companies’ staff is transferred across different entities/units), it is often difficult to determine which particular entity is the “true” employer. Interpretation II provides that in determining the true employer, priority shall be given to the entity who signed the labour contract. If no written contract exists, the overall management behaviour and other comprehensive factors shall be considered. Specifically, one shall not only focus on formal aspects such as which entity pays salary and social security but also on actual factors such as which entity manages the staff, allocates work tasks, controls working hours, conducts performance evaluations, etc. and in such case the affiliated entities jointly are liable for salary payment and insurance benefits. This rule aims to better protect employees subject to business outsourcing models involving low-cost models and questionable third parties and is aimed to steer companies to simplify structures they may have set up to evade legal liability through untransparent structures.

Situations qualifying as “two consecutive fixed-term labour contracts” entitling employees to open-term labour contracts

PRC labour laws provide that in certain cases employees are entitled to ask for an open-term contract. Among others, employees are entitled to request an open-term contract after two consecutive fixed-term labour contracts with the same employer. 

Interpretation II provides that any of the following situations shall be considered as "consecutive conclusion of two fixed-term labour contracts":

• The parties agreed to extend the term of the first labour contract for at least one more year and such extension period has expired.

• The labour contract stipulates that the contract automatically renews upon the expiration of the first term for another fixed term and such second fixed term has expired.

• The employee “for reasons not attributable to himself” continues to work at his original workplace or job position after the first term of the contract expires and the employer merely changes the contracting entity of the (new) labour contract but continues to exercise labour management over the employee and the contract term expires. 

This addresses a scenario where the employee continues working in the same position/location after his contract has expired, even though the employer has changed the formal "party" (such as the company or organization) responsible for the contract, but the initial employer continues to manage the worker as before. In such cases, the court may treat this as a continuation of the same employment relationship and recognize it as meeting the conditions for signing two fixed-term contracts in a row, provided the continued performance at the same workplace/position with a new contract party did not stem from a voluntary decision of the employee himself. 

• After the expiration of the first contract, a new labour contract is signed by engaging in other actions that violate the principle of good faith to avoid obligations, and the contract term expires.

This refers to a situation where the employer signs a new labour contract under circumstances that violate good faith principles after the initial contract expires. Despite these circumstances, the contract is still recognized as having expired and requires legal consideration.

In essence, the last two bullet points focus on identifying situations where employers may try to circumvent labour laws by changing the structure of contracts or manipulating conditions, and the courts should still recognize the contracts as consecutive fixed-term contracts under those conditions.

Also, where, after the expiration of a given labour contract, the employee continues to work for his employer and the employer does not raise any objections against such continued performance for more than one month after the previous contract expired, the employee is entitled to a renewed labour contract under the terms of the expired contract. If at this point in time circumstances warranting the conclusion of an open-term labour contract exist, the renewed contract shall be entered into for an open-term if so requested by the employee. Should the employer rather choose to terminate the labour contract, this will subject the employer to bear liability for termination of a labour contract according to law (e.g. make severance payment if so required by law).

Consequences of failure to enter into written labour contracts

Under Chinese labour laws, not entering into a written labour contract with an employee carries serious legal and financial consequences for employers. An employer must sign a written labour contract within one month from the employee’s first day of work.

If the employer fails to sign a written contract within more than one month but less than one year, the employee is entitled to claim double his monthly wage for each full month worked without a written contract, starting from the second month. Interpretation II specifies that for a period of less than one month, the payment shall be calculated according to the employee’s actual working days in that month.  However, the employer is exempt from liability for double wage payment if it can prove any of the following circumstances:

• The labour contract could not be concluded in a timely manner due to force majeure.

• The failure to conclude the labour contract is attributable to the employee's own fault (e.g. refusal to provide necessary information).

• Other circumstances as stipulated in laws and regulations on this subject matter.

If the employer still fails to sign a written contract within one year from the employee’s  work start date, the employee is deemed to have entered into an open-term contract starting from the second year. In this regard, Interpretation II specifies that while the employee is entitled to sign an open-ended labour contract as of such second year, the employee is not entitled to claim double wages for the period as of such second year. The employee however remains entitled to claim double wages from the day following the expiration of one month from his work start date until the day before the expiration of one year from the work start date (so basically up to eleven months of a double wage claim).

Interpretation II further provides that where the term of a labour contract expires under any of the following circumstances and the court determines that the term of the labour contract automatically renewed/extended by operation of law, this situation shall not be regarded as a “failure to conclude a written labour contract”:

• The employer terminated the labour contract despite the terminated employee being under statutory protection against dismissal pursuant to Art. 42 Labour Contract Law (which lists situations such as medical treatment, occupational hazards/disease, maternity, other legally protected conditions). 

• The initial term of the labour contract expired but has been automatically extended 

in accordance with Art. 17 Labour Contract Law Implementing Regulations (extension until the agreed end of the service period after specific technical training under Art. 22 Labour Contract Law).

• The labour relationship is extended in accordance with Art. 19 Trade Union Law under the framework of a valid collective bargaining agreement. 

Clarifications for cases of breach of service period and non-compete agreements

Breach of Service Period: If the parties to a labour contract agreed on a minimum service period for the employee (e.g. following specialized training) and the employee breaches such obligation, PRC labour laws allow the employer to claim compensation for the resulting losses. Such labour contracts or training agreements often stipulate formulas for calculating such compensation. Interpretation II provides that courts shall not rigidly enforce such agreed formulas but comprehensively consider all actual losses of employers, such as the training expenses, housing subsidies, travel costs, the length of service that the employee has fulfilled and other special benefits granted to the employee. The compensation amount shall be proportionately adjusted based on factors such as the degree of fault of both parties regarding the employee's resignation. 

Validity of Non-compete Agreements: Under PRC labour laws non-compete obligations can only be imposed on employees having knowledge of and access to employers’ trade secrets and/or confidential information relating to intellectual property rights. Thus, in case of dispute, employers bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that the obliged employees did in fact have such knowledge/access during their employment period. If employers fail in such demonstration, the non-compete agreement is not binding on the employees. Additionally, when assessing the validity of non-compete agreements, court will put the substance scope, geographical area and duration of the non-compete restrictions into relation to the nature and scope of trade secrets and other protected information that the employee had access to. If a court finds that certain parts of the non-compete restrictions are incompatible with the trade secrets the employee had access to and thus the non-compete restrictions exceed the necessary scope for protecting the trade secrets, courts may determine such parts of the non-compete agreement invalid. Thus, employers are compelled to tailor the scope, geographical location and duration of non-compete restrictions based to the nature of the employee's position, job description and trade secrets he has access to because if excessive in nature/scope, the validity of the non-compete agreement can be challenged.

Procedural aspects regarding labour termination / labour disputes

A labour contract cannot continue to be performed: If an employer terminates a labour contract without being entitled to do so, PRC labour laws provide that employees can either claim for double severance payment or for reinstatement of the labour relationship if it is possible to continue to perform the labour relationship. Regarding the latter, Interpretation II provides that in the following cases, a labour contract cannot continue to be performed (thus making the reinstatement claim mute and compelling the employer to pay double severance):

• The labour contract expires during the labour dispute process and there are no legal requirements that mandate a renewal or extension of the labour contract.

• The employee has begun to enjoy the basic old-age insurance benefits according to law.

• The employer has undergone bankruptcy liquidation, had its business license revoked, been ordered to close down, been dissolved, or has decided to liquidate voluntarily.

• The employee has already been employed by another employer and the new labour relationship seriously affects the continued performance of the original labour relationship or the employee refuses to terminate the labour contract with the new employer. 

• Other circumstances exist make it objectively impossible to restore the labour relationship.

Salary calculation during the period until resumption of contract performance: If the employer is ordered to resume the performance of a labour contract with an employee, the employee's salary during the period from the termination date until the date of work resumption shall generally be calculated based on the normal labour wage standard of the employee (i.e. including base pay and fixed allowances but excluding performance-based salary/bonus, overtime pay and year-end bonuses). However, if the employee contributed to his dismissal and only the employer's dismissal procedure does not comply with the law, the court may, based on the degree of the employee's fault, proportionally reduce the wages that the employer should make up for.

Off-boarding occupational health examination: For employees engaged in operations with occupational disease hazards, conducting pre-departure occupational health examinations is a legal prerequisite for employers to dismiss such employees. If an employer terminates a labour contract without conducting a pre-departure occupational health examination for the employee as required, the employee has the right to request the continuation of the labour contract unless any of the following circumstances can be proven by the employer to exist:

• the pre-departure occupational health examination is completed before the conclusion of the first-instance court hearing, and the examination results show that the employee has no (suspected) occupational disease. 

• The employee refuses to undergo the pre-departure occupational health examination without a valid reason.

Defense of statute of limitation: In legal terms, "statute of limitation" refers to the maximum time within which a party can initiate legal action, such as a labour arbitration claim. If the time limit expires, the party may be barred from pursuing their case. In this regard, Interpretation II provides the following clarifications:

• No Raising the Defense During Arbitration: If a party did not raise the statute of limitations defense during the arbitration process (because of their own reasons), it cannot later use this defense during the litigation process (whether during the first or second instance of litigation). The court will not accept this defense in such cases.

• New Evidence: If the party has new evidence showing that the statute of limitations has indeed expired for the other party’s claim, the court will support this defense even during the litigation process.

• Failure to Raise the Defense in the Proper Time: If a party fails to raise the statute of limitations defense in arbitration or during the early stages of litigation, it cannot later seek a retrial or raise the statute of limitations defense during a retrial. The court will not entertain this defense in such cases.

This clarification encourages parties to raise relevant defenses (like the statute of limitation) in a timely manner during arbitration or earlier litigation stages. This rule prevents parties from using the statute of limitation defense as an afterthought if they failed to address it at the appropriate time.

Cases involving foreign nationals or entities

Foreigners asking for confirmation of their employment relationship: Interpretation II stipulates that foreigners employed in China by local employers are entitles to request courts to confirm the existence of their local employment relationship in the following cases:

• The foreigner obtained Chinese permanent residence status (aka Greencard).

• The foreigner obtained a Chinese work permit and resides legally in China.

• The foreigner has otherwise gone through the relevant legal procedures to work/reside in China.

Labor disputes involving foreign representative offices (FROs): According to Chinese law, FROs do not hold independent legal person status and are not entitled to directly hire Chinese nationals as employees. Rather, FROs must enter into labour dispatch agreements with qualified PRC human resources agencies to hire such Chinese staff through a three-party arrangement where the Chinese staff enters into the labour contract with the qualified agency and the agency in turn enters into a labour dispatch agreement with the FRO (or its foreign parent company). This arrangement has it made debatable how to involve the FRO/its foreign parent company in case of labour disputes involving dispatched staff. Interpretation II now confirms that legally established FROs may be parties to labour dispute cases and that in case any party to such cases applies for the participation of the foreign parent of the FRO to the lawsuit, the courts shall support such requests.

Opting out of mandatory social insurance is illegal 

According to PRC labour and social insurance laws, both employers and employees are obliged to participate in the mandatory basic social insurance in China. 

Any agreement between the parties to a labour contract, or any undertaking by the employee, waiving the employer’s obligation to pay social insurance contributions is invalid. 

If an employer fails to pay mandatory social insurance, the employee may terminate the labour contract for that reason and the employer must pay the statutory severance payment to the employee. 

If under any of these above circumstances the employer makes up the social insurance payments in accordance with the law, he is entitled to recover from the employee the employee portion of contributions.

Susanne Rademacher
Dr Jenna Wang-Metzner
Kelly Tang

With decision No. 118 rendered on 21 July 2025, the Constitutional Court intervened in the matter related to the regime of protections applicable in cases of dismissal by a “small” employer, declaring unconstitutional Article 9, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree No. 23 of 2015, insofar as it provides a rigid and non-modifiable cap for the compensation due to employees in the event of unlawful dismissal, equal to six months' salary.

According to the Court, imposing a rigid cap on the indemnity without allowing the Tribunale any room for further evaluation of the specifics of the case undermines the effectiveness of the protection afforded to employees and does not serve as a deterrent against unlawful terminations.

The ruling does not challenge the legitimacy of a system that, for smaller companies, provides a differentiated regime based on reduced indemnity. That choice by the legislator is not questioned per se; rather, it is the rigidity of the upper limit that is deemed incompatible with constitutional principles, as it prevents any real assessment of the damage based on the peculiarities of the case.

As a result of the unconstitutionality of Article 9(1), limited to the words "and may not in any case exceed the limit of six months' salary", the indemnity in the case of smaller companies may now be adjusted by a judge between 3 and 18 months’ salary—i.e., half of the range provided for companies that exceed the numerical threshold.

The decision also notes that the number of employees is no longer a reliable indicator of a company’s real economic strength in the current economic scenario. As a result, the Court invites the legislator, in the event of a review of the applicable laws, to consider the introduction of additional parameters to calibrate the size of compensation in a manner more consistent with the actual characteristics of the employer.

The Constitutional Court had already raised concerns on the matter with decision No. 183 in 2022 and emphasized the existing misalignment between the rules applicable to smaller employers and constitutional principles. At that time, however, the Court decided not to intervene with a ruling and instead called for a reform of the matter, which has not been implemented.

Article edited by the Employment department of ADVANT Nctm. For more information click here

French Article available here 

This move is part of a strategic plan to strengthen the Labour department, which started a few months ago with the arrival of lawyer Patrizio Bernardo and his team. 

The new group will be based in Rome, ensuring better coverage of the area and an increasingly structured service that is closer to local clients.

ADVANT Nctm welcomes Enrico Boursier Niutta, Partner, and a team composed of Carlo Boursier Niutta (Of Counsel), an authoritative figure in the field, and Patrizio Maria Raimondi (Of Counsel), Antonio Armentano (Counsel), Paolo Angeli, Antonio La Bella and Mattia Grupposo (Advisors), Rosalina Panetta (Senior Associate) and Giulia Clementi (Associate), as well as two staff members.

As a result of the addition of Studio Boursier Niutta & Partners, ADVANT Nctm's Labour Department strengthens its position among the leading players in the sector, achieving a size and level of expertise among the most significant in the market, with 37 professionals. 

Enrico Boursier Niutta has significant experience in assisting domestic and international clients in the field of labour and trade union law and provides advice and assistance to companies in all areas of labour law, with particular focus on the following matters: corporate restructuring, incentive plans for executives, MBOs and fringe benefits, individual and collective dismissals, transfers of businesses, industrial relations and agency agreements.

Paolo Montironi, Senior Partner at ADVANT Nctm, comments: “We are thrilled to have reached this important deal with Enrico, Carlo, and their team. ADVANT Nctm keeps proving itself as an attractive place for boutique firms and well-known professionals, thanks to the quality of its organisation and a modern and transparent partnership model that values their skills while keeping their identity, offering at the same time the perfect space for growing business projects and professional relationships, as demonstrated by the recent additions of Studio Berlingieri (shipping, 2023) and Studio Zitiello (regulatory, 2024)”.

The total number of ADVANT Nctm partners now rises to 84.

With its SolarMe electricity brand, Solarimo offers tenant electricity solutions for the housing industry. With this transaction, 300 photovoltaic systems with an installed capacity totalling 10.3 megawatts are to be transferred to Einhundert's operations by the end of the year. The systems are expected to supply more than 10,000 tenants across Germany with locally generated solar power. This is expected to save around 4,000 tonnes of CO2 per year.

ENGIE Deutschland GmbH is committed to accelerating the transition to a carbon-neutral economy. In Germany, the company plans, builds, operates and markets wind, photovoltaic and hydropower plants as well as pump storage and battery storage systems. Engie trades in electricity and gas and supplies end customers with energy.

The transaction was led by Dr Barbara Mayer, Christian Burmeister and Peter Meisenbacher at ADVANT Beiten. 

Einhundert Energie GmbH has been supporting real estate companies in the electrification and decarbonisation of their building portfolios since 2017. The Cologne-based company enables housing companies and their tenants to participate in the energy transition. The aim is to use 100 per cent CO2-neutral energy from local PV systems.

Consultant Solarimo:

ADVANT Beiten: Dr Barbara Mayer (Corporate/M&A, Freiburg), Christian Burmeister (Corporate/M&A, Freiburg/Berlin), Peter Meisenbacher (Public Sector/Energy, Freiburg/Berlin, all lead partners), Dr Erik Schmid, Alexander Gräßel (Labour Law, Munich/Freiburg).

Consutant Einhundert Energie:

Noerr: Dr Christoph Thiermann, Dr Christian Haagen (Munich/London)

Public Relations

Frauke Reuther
Manager Kommunikation
ADVANT Beiten
+49 (69) 75 60 95 - 570
frauke.reuther@advant-beiten.com

Dr Barbara Mayer
Rechtsanwältin
ADVANT Beiten
+49 (761) 15 09 84 - 14
Barbara.Mayer@advant-beiten.com

Christian Burmeister
Rechtsanwalt
+49 (761) 15 09 84 - 18
Christian.Burmeister@advant-beiten.com

With the arrival of Patrizio Bernardo and his team, which includes Claudia Schmiedt (senior associate), Francesca Retus (associate), two trainees (Sara Salmeri and Emiliano Ferrari) and one staff member (Angelica Tamburrano), the practice is further enhanced, reaching a total of 28 professionals.

Patrizio Bernardo has a solid experience in labour law, both at national and international level, assisting medium and large-sized companies in all matters relating to the management of employment relationships, both in and out of court, including, in particular, the drafting of employment contracts for managers and post-contractual non-compete agreements, remuneration policies, health and safety at work, individual and collective dismissals, management of social shock absorbers, industrial relations and negotiation of collective agreements.

"With his expertise, Patrizio Bernardo will further contribute to the strengthening of ADVANT Nctm's position as a reference point in the field of labour law. We are excited to welcome him and his team and are certain that this collaboration will bring further added value to both our firm and our clients, while contributing to ADVANT Nctm's continued growth" commented Paolo Montironi, Senior Partner of ADVANT Nctm. 

With Patrizio Bernardo, the total number of ADVANT Nctm partners rises to 79.

High-Risk AI systems under the EU AI Act In a employment context, the new regulation concerns foremost: 
a) AI systems intended to be used for the recruitment or selection of natural persons, in particular to place targeted job advertisements, to analyze and filter job applications, and to evaluate candidates. 
b) AI systems intended to be used to make decisions affecting terms of work-related relationships, the promotion or termination of work-related contractual relationships, to allocate tasks based on individual behavior or personal traits or characteristics or to monitor and evaluate the performance and behavior of persons in such relationships.

The most important requirements for high-risk AI systems at a glance 

The providers of high-risk AI systems bear the following obligations: 

• Quality and risk management
• Technical documentation, record-keeping and logging obligations
• Consideration of accuracy, robustness, cybersecurity and accessibility during development
• Transparency and information obligations
• Registration in the relevant EU database and cooperation with the competent authority

Those who only deploy of high-risk AI systems generally have to fulfil fewer requirements than providers. However, there may be scenarios in which they can be subject to the same extensive obligations as the providers of high-risk AI systems.

Looking ahead, the AI Liability is poised to complement the EU AI Act. It aims to streamline legal pathways for individuals harmed by AI systems, including in employment related situations. However, the legislative process is still in its early stages and only rarely does a directive emerge from the legislative process in the form in which it was presented by the EU Commission.

You can download the entire newsletter by clicking ‘Download associate files’.

The European labour law landscape is set for significant changes with new EU directives and regulations. Work-life balance measures will enhance parental leave rights and promote flexible working arrangements. 

Transparent and predictable working conditions will be reinforced, ensuring employees receive clear information on their rights and obligations. Platform work regulations will introduce stronger protections for gig economy workers, addressing employment status and fair remuneration. 

Equal pay initiatives will tackle the gender pay gap, requiring greater transparency in salary structures. 

Companies must proactively adapt to these evolving standards to remain compliant and foster fairer workplaces.

Click here to read the full article

Amphenol est l'un des plus grands concepteurs, fabricants et distributeurs mondiaux de connecteurs et de systèmes d'interconnexion, de solutions d'antennes, de capteurs et de câbles à grande vitesse.

Le groupe Luetze International est actif dans le monde entier et se compose de plusieurs entreprises regroupées dans une structure de holding. Le groupe d'entreprises a une tradition de plus de 60 ans dans le domaine de l'automatisation et est aujourd'hui l'une des principales entreprises du secteur. Le groupe Luetze propose des solutions innovantes dans les domaines des câbles hautement flexibles, des assemblages de câbles, des interfaces, de l'alimentation électrique et de la surveillance, ainsi que du câblage des armoires de commande.

La gamme de services du groupe Luetze complète le portefeuille d'Amphenol dans différents segments du marché électronique en forte croissance et souligne le positionnement transfrontalier et orienté vers l'avenir d'Amphenol.

Dans le cadre de cette transaction, ADVANT Altana, partenaire d'ADVANT, a conseillé l'entreprise en droit français, Fox Williams en droit britannique, Havel & Partners en droit tchèque, Kellerhals Carrard en droit suisse et E+H en droit autrichien.

ADVANT conseille régulièrement Amphenol dans le cadre de projets européens de fusion-acquisition. Plus récemment, ADVANT Altana et ADVANT Beiten ont conseillé conjointement Amphenol dans le cadre de l'acquisition du groupe CMR basé en France.
 

Conseiller Amphenol Corporation : ADVANT Beiten : Dr Christian von Wistinghausen, Tassilo Klesen (tous deux associés responsables), Olga Prokopyeva (tous Corporate/M&A, Berlin), Susanne Rademacher, Lelu Li, Kelly Tang, Dr Jenna Wang-Metzner (tous Corporate/M&A, Pékin), Michael Riedel (Labour & Employment, Berlin), Carsten Pütger, Danah El-Ismail (tous deux dans le domaine de l'immobilier, Berlin), Mathias Zimmer-Goertz, Christian Döpke (tous deux dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle, de l'informatique et des médias, Düsseldorf), Uwe Wellmann (droit antitrust, Berlin), Christoph Heinrich (droit antitrust, Munich), Dr Marion Frotscher et Simon Bauer (tous deux dans le domaine de la fiscalité, Hambourg). ADVANT Altana : Jean-Nicolas Soret, Fabien Pouchot, Eléonore Vucher-Bondet et Théodore Sabot (tous en Corporate/M&A, Paris).
 

Conseiller des vendeurs du groupe Luetze : Heuking Kühn Lüer Wojtek : Dr. Rainer Herschlein, LL.M., Dr. Emanuel Teichmann (tous deux en droit des sociétés/fusions et acquisitions, Stuttgart), Dr. Stefan Bretthauer, Jia-Xi Liu (tous deux en droit antitrust, Hambourg).

Relations publiques
Frauke Reuther
Manager Kommunikation
ADVANT Beiten
+49 (69) 75 60 95 - 570
frauke.reuther@advant-beiten.com