Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Following a recent High Court ruling, cryptocurrency, such as Bitcoin, can now be classed as ‘property’ under English Law.
This landmark decision, which provides judicial recognition to the property status of cryptoassets and allows them to be the subject of proprietary injunctions, is particularly important for English cyber insurers and cryptocurrency owners, who now have a greater level of security regarding how the English courts will treat cryptoassets. This is likely to provide more market confidence in such assets, potentially leading to a parallel growth in the use of cryptocurrency to pay for goods and services. Law firm Shakespeare Martineau's David Vaughan and Sneha Nainwal, international dispute resolution partner and international dispute resolution associate, offer Lawyer Monthly some insight into this landmark ruling.
Cryptocurrency is a type of cryptoasset. Essentially, it is a digital asset designed to serve as a medium of exchange by using encryption techniques to generate and verify the transfer of virtual currency. In simple terms, it is electronic money with no physical counterpart, with the most famous examples being Bitcoin, Litecoin and Ethereum.
Whilst widely used and traded around the world, most jurisdictions do not recognise cryptocurrency as legal tender. It remains a decentralised, self-sustained virtual currency that is not controlled by any singular entity and is subject to different regulatory frameworks depending on the jurisdiction in question.
Similarly, the fact that it is intangible has also led to uncertainty regarding whether it can be legally classified as property.
Whilst widely used and traded around the world, most jurisdictions do not recognise cryptocurrency as legal tender.
In November 2019, the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (UKJT) published a landmark paper called Legal Statement on Cryptoassets and Smart Contracts, which provided an in-depth analysis of how cryptoassets should be treated under English and Welsh law. The paper concluded that cryptoassets, including cryptocurrencies, are capable of being recognised as property.
A few considered the paper to be progressive, yet not conclusive, as it only deemed cryptoassets as capable of being recognised as property, without holding that they unequivocally are. This aligned with some previous English decisions (where the High Court had granted a freezing injunction in respect of cryptocurrencies) which served only as a persuasive authority, but not a direct ruling, on the property related status of cryptoassets.
It is against this background that the decision in AA v Persons Unknown assumes key importance. It was in this case that the English High Court provided, for the very first time, a direct ruling on this controversial point, judicially recognising, and endorsing, the UKJT’s legal analysis of cryptoassets as property.
In this case, digital attackers used cyber ransomware to hack the database of a Canadian insurance company, before demanding a payment of $1,200,000 in cryptocurrency to provide the company with the decryption tool needed to recover the data. In the end, $950,000 in Bitcoin was paid by the company’s insurer (based in England) to the hackers to regain access to the system. The insurer subsequently made an interim application for a proprietary injunction to recover the Bitcoin payment made to the attackers. The significant question before the Court in order to determine the application for proprietary injunction was whether Bitcoin could be treated as property under English law in the first place.
[ymal]
The Court considered UKJT’s legal statement, and previous case laws, on the definition of property and its evolution over time. Holding the UKJT’s analysis as ‘compelling’, the Court concluded that cryptocurrencies are property as they possess the key attributes of being definable, identifiable by third parties, capable of assumption by third parties and having some degree of permanence. The Court recognised cryptocurrencies to be a form of property and thus, capable of being subject to a proprietary injunction.
Historically, English courts have recognised only two forms of property – chose in action (right to possess something) and chose in possession (actual possession of something). The decision in AA v Persons Unknown presents a progressive judicial approach where the Court has classified cryptocurrency as property despite the fact that it does not neatly fit into either of the two forms. In line with the UKJT’s analysis, the decision manifests the ‘ability of the common law to stretch traditional definitions and concepts to adapt to new business practices.
This is also a progressive step towards instilling greater market and user confidence in the owners, traders and insurers of cryptoassets. Legal certainty and protection are vital when it comes to increasing the strength of an asset in the marketplace, making this decision a hugely positive step for the future of cryptocurrency and cryptoassets in general.
The decision is relevant to any industry that employs or recognises cryptocurrency as a form of value. Given the facts of the case, it is of particular relevance to the parties operating in the cyber insurance space.
From a legal perspective, the decision will also have a parallel impact on other associated fields of law, from cyber law and insolvency to IP, tax and succession.
The decision is relevant to any industry that employs or recognises cryptocurrency as a form of value.
It is important to note that this decision was given in an interim application, made without notice, and as such is not the outcome of a fully considered trial. However, it does provide essential legal guidance on cryptoassets, building a more stable image for cryptocurrencies, as well as giving much-needed protection to its users and other counterparties.
It remains to be seen whether this decision will provide impetus to further judicial rulings and legislation, domestic or international, on other pertinent issues concerning the wider status of cryptoassets and regulation of cryptocurrencies, but it is certainly a step forward.
He advises those in the construction sector to take steps to improve their current position, and use the inevitable upcoming period of downtime to review contracts for future use.
COVID-19 has put us all in completely unchartered territory. A situation like this is totally unprecedented, and for many, there is a lot of uncertainty surrounding their professional lives. This is truer for those in certain sectors than others, and while no one can predict the future in a scenario like this, it’s fair to say those who work in construction will be severely impacted.
Although many major homebuilders have started to close sites in the last 24 hours, there is still a lot of confusion and conflicting advice out there around building sites and whether construction workers should be carrying on as normal or not right now. As it stands, the UK Government’s guidance on whether construction workers should be on-site or not is not definitive, and advice differs north and south of the border.
However, with Westminster set to urgently pass the Coronavirus Bill, the Scottish Government will be given the power to introduce regulations to protect public health, meaning they can impose laws which will effectively force building work to cease for the foreseeable future, as per their guidance.
This is where things can start to get complicated. Without labour, work cannot progress. Contractors will need to apply for more time to complete. If the government prescribes that labour cannot continue on-site, it is likely that there will be a contractual entitlement to stop progress and gain more time.
For anyone in the construction sector right now, it’s vital to think about what you can do to improve your current position.
A force majeure clause – which essentially frees both parties from immediate liability – may allow more time for unforeseen events. Or there may be a clause which provides that more time to complete is allowed for anything beyond the contractor’s control. However, these are open to interpretation, so if there is no clear prescription in the regulations, it remains to be seen how these general clauses will be applied.
For anyone in the construction sector right now, it’s vital to think about what you can do to improve your current position. What contract provisions are there, express or implied, that might give you an anchor in the current storms? Have you been paid all that you are due, or given contractual notices for non-payment? Do you have reason to send out suspension notices? It may be important to your cash flow to maximise every opportunity in your current contracts.
It’s also important to review your existing relationships. Are you getting a fair deal? Where do the risks lie in each of your contracts and what can you do to mitigate these? Can you take the opportunity to re-negotiate?
The playing field has just been levelled. Bigger businesses may face greater challenges, so now is a great time to look outward as if you were a start-up.
While it may be easier said than done given everything that is going on right now, I’d also advise using this time to do some housekeeping on your contracts. If you haven’t reviewed them for quite some while, now is the perfect opportunity to get to it. It’s likely you will have some downtime in the coming weeks and months, so use it to get your contracts in order for future use.
The playing field has just been levelled. Bigger businesses may face greater challenges, so now is a great time to look outward as if you were a start-up. Take the time to improve efficient service delivery such as your systems, processes, structures and skills base, and invest in a marketing strategy, reviewing your website and branding.
[ymal]
Ross Taylor has extensive experience of working with a cross-section of clients in the construction industry, including sole traders, SME contractors, national commercial developers and private self-builders. Ross specialises in contentious construction disputes.
The whole world has gone hand sanitiser crazy. The new coronavirus strand, Covid-19, has placed the globe in an unexpected standstill, with people being instructed to stay at home and medical staff being inundated with cases and pressure to nip the virus in the bud. It almost feels like a PG version of a zombie apocalyptic film; streets are quiet, supermarkets have been raided and if someone has braved the outside world, they are most likely wearing masks and gloves to protect themselves from the killer virus. What post-apocalyptic movies fail to showcase is the initial impact on our everyday lives; we, most likely and hopefully, will never reach the point where we are searching for evidence of other human life with a backpack full of necessities and weapons, but instead, are trying to find new ways to entertain ourselves at home and figure out methods that enable to us to still work, earn money and retain control over the normality of our everyday lives.
The stock market crashed leaving the economy in turmoil while SMEs are fighting to stay running as they are simultaneously adhering to governmental guidelines. Every sector has managed to find a way to keep the cogs turning more remotely, without unnecessary face-to-face contact. Even the legal sector, famously known for sticking to its traditional guns, has welcomed the use of video conferencing for important court cases, with lawyers at home still working to keep their clients happy during this uncertain time.
From hearings to depositions, the law has been very slow to adopt new technology that can save time and money.
The Importance of Remote Working
What has the legal sector learnt from all of this? That remote working has its benefits, surely. The most important thing the law is learning from this pandemic is the need to have alternative means and methods for doing our jobs. As Justin A. Hill from Hill Law Firm shares, “From hearings to depositions, the law has been very slow to adopt new technology that can save time and money. The pandemic has made it necessary for attorneys and judges that have never used technology such as video conferencing to conduct essential functions of our practice. I think even after the pandemic passes, this will be a change that will become a much larger part of our practices.”
We have the opportunity to examine these types of outdated mandates and "catch up" with technology
Speaking to Caroline Fox, Principal Attorney at CJFox Law PLLC, she expands on this by saying that if we learn anything from this outbreak, it's that the legal profession needs to be taking advantage of the technological advances that are available to us.
“Lawyers and courts need to be up-to-date on technology, including secure forms of video communication. We need to know how to securely access documents and enable quick, efficient communication with our staff and clients. As a Virginia lawyer, some courts still require wet ink signatures, even in spite of federal acceptance of E-signatures. We have the opportunity to examine these types of outdated mandates and "catch up" with technology”, Caroline tells us.
And that is not all lawyers need to be up-to-date on to keep things flowing in good order. It has also become wildly apparent that the siloed work of a lawyer needs to be expanded into the practical aspects of practising law. “For example”, expands Caroline, “New lawyers need to be taught how to mail certified letters, how to call the Clerk for scheduling, when and where to send important documents, how to send a fax (with or without a fax machine), and other seemingly "trivial" administrative tasks that are actually the backbone of the legal practice.”
If we enter a recession, for example, we may find that people cannot afford to pay their insurance, potentially leaving us to witness more attorneys dealing with uninsured drivers as a result.
Lawsuits and Class Actions
Of course, we have already touched on how Covid-19 may impact insurance and insurers. But we have to mention here the potential impact the pandemic may have on future lawsuits, as this entire journey is bound to see companies making mistakes. From price-gouging and antitrust violations to insurance and delays in trials, lockdown is guaranteed to be teaching us a lot of lessons.
If we enter a recession, for example, we may find that people cannot afford to pay their insurance, potentially leaving us to witness more attorneys dealing with uninsured drivers as a result.
“Insurance companies may take advantage of hard economic times and attempt to lowball clients, hoping they'll settle because they need the money now (slow pay or no pay)”, states Founding Partner Bill Karns of Los Angeles personal injury firm Karns and Karns, who expressed his concerns regarding those who may take advantage of the current crisis.
And this is just one aspect of concern for personal injury lawyers Bill tells us. Clients might be afraid to keep their medical appointments out of fear of exposure in medical settings, which reduces case value and courthouses may have to delay or modify proceedings as the courts close down, concerning those currently in the middle of personal injury lawsuits. Even the highly anticipated trial: New York state against McKesson Corp (MCK.N), Johnson & Johnson (JNJ.N), CVS Health Corp (CVS.N) and others, for allegedly fueling the opioid epidemic, has reportedly been postponed due to the coronavirus outbreak[1].
Tackling unprecedented cases such as these further showcases how lawyers need to be malleable and responsive to everything that is occurring at such a fast rate.
Delayed lawsuits are just one, unexpected challenge lawyers are facing during this uncertain time. The bigger challenges are in fact those who will be presenting new cases and problems that need to be dealt with. Price-gouging is certainly one example and is a major concern and issue that lawyers may see more cases regarding. We have seen supermarkets increase the price of toilet roll to ridiculous amounts due to its unusual demand over the past month. In the UK alone, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) said it had already contacted traders and online trading platforms about excessive pricing of hand sanitiser and that action will be taken against firms that breach consumer protection or competition laws if they do not respond to warnings. According to The Guardian, the government will also be advised on emergency legislation if problems cannot be addressed through existing powers[2].
Tackling unprecedented cases such as these further showcases how lawyers need to be malleable and responsive to everything that is occurring at such a fast rate. In fact, (as reported on law.com), class action suits have already hit the courts: consumers in California filed a federal class action complaint alleging that Vi-Jon, Inc. falsely advertised, marketed, and sold its Germ-X brand hand sanitizers as being able to prevent viruses, including COVID-19[3]; Purell is also under scrutiny and facing a class action lawsuit in New York federal court. The complainants are claiming that Purell falsely said that its Healthcare Advanced Hand Sanitizer can prevent the flu and potentially even the Ebola virus.
Nonetheless, alongside a rise in class action suits against companies taking advantage of the current crisis, we are also likely to see the fast emergence of virtual court hearings and skype conferencing as social distancing continues.
“Mistakes are going to be made. This is an emergency. It’s unprecedented. Nobody really prepared for it,” said plaintiffs attorney Elizabeth Cabraser, of San Francisco’s Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein to law.com.
Nonetheless, alongside a rise in class action suits against companies taking advantage of the current crisis, we are also likely to see the fast emergence of virtual court hearings and skype conferencing as social distancing continues.
“It will be vital for any law firm to keep pace with the ever-increasing need to rely on technology”, explains Stuart Snape, Partner at Graham Coffey and Co Solicitors.
What About Big Law?
On a wider societal point, it may be that there is also a recognition that we should be more creative than simply continuing to presume that a business needs an office full of people and that office should be in a city centre. “Covid-19 exposes the vulnerability of congested workplaces and commuters and it may prove a pivotal point in considering whether the firms should look to move away from city centres and focus on a more virtual office environment”, continues Stuart.
We may well see a rise in legal challenges and judicial review of the use of these powers especially if their use goes beyond Covid-19.
This could see a big change in how Big Law firms operate and work in the long-run. With more people working from home, the need to commute to the city is proving less essential. “The government should also consider this carefully when planning future infrastructure. The obsession with city-centre living and working results in an illogical drive to find ways of getting everyone from their homes to the same city centre at the same time of day every day.”
By encouraging more regional hubs and virtual offices, explains Stuart, would take huge pressures off the transport system, spread more wealth into regions and crucially make it much more difficult for viruses like Covid-19 to spread. If more Big Law firms are outside of cities and working more regionally, could we see a shift in how they work and the clients they represent?
The Power of Legislation and our Governments
The UK Government has been working hard to pass The Emergency Coronavirus Bill 2020. Large sections are designed to ease the burden by reducing some of the safeguards in key areas of health and education, Stuart tells us, and will also increase the powers of the executive to forcibly quarantine people and close premises and even postpone elections.
Even though there remains an on-going uncertainty among the legal profession as to what we can do to help, we have seen communities pulling together during this weird and daunting time.
“There is likely to be significant concern on how these powers are used, not just during the Covid-19 outbreak, but after the outbreak is nothing but a bad memory. We may well see a rise in legal challenges and judicial review of the use of these powers especially if their use goes beyond Covid-19.”
With The Emergency Coronavirus Bill 2020 also keeping lawyers busy with wide-ranging powers and amendments to existing legislation to help deal with Covid-19, a lesson truly learnt here is the immense powers at the disposal of the state and federal government to restrict the liberties of the entire population.
“Prior to this pandemic, I did not appreciate the immense powers that the federal government had taken upon themselves in the name of public safety. I did not appreciate that the federal government has the power to exert extreme authority to quarantine the entire population in response to a public health concern”, says David Reischer, Esq. Attorney and CEO of LegalAdvice.com.
In fact, the US Supreme Court has in fact permitted quarantine since 1824, in the landmark case - Gibbons v Ogden. “If the risk of harm is high and life-threatening then there is a Constitutional basis for the federal government to quarantine a population as found in the Ogden precedent via the language found in the 'Commerce Clause' of the US Constitution. The Commerce clause gives Congress wide power to regulate Interstate commerce especially during a severe public health concern.”
[ymal]
Even though there remains an on-going uncertainty among the legal profession as to what we can do to help, we have seen communities pulling together during this weird and daunting time. “Many lawyers wonder what we can do to help the country through the crisis whilst continuing to provide valuable services to our clients”, concludes Stuart. “This is perhaps the most fundamental question and one which is answered could prove to be a defining moment in the legal industry.”
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-opioids-litigation/closely-watched-opioid-trial-in-new-york-postponed-due-to-coronavirus-idUSKBN20X2TB
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/20/new-uk-taskforce-to-crack-down-on-coronavirus-profiteers
[3] https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1552e7ad-2bee-49c0-9912-a1151da966bc
History tells us that it will only be a matter of time before claims management companies and solicitors alike, jump on the Coronavirus bandwagon and start advertising for claims. Indeed, there are already a few firms of solicitors suggesting that people can be compensated if they become infected while abroad. But while it may be possible to successfully claim against a tour operator or hotelier for Coronavirus, we anticipate that it’s going to be incredibly tough. The reason being, even if the claimant is able to prove that they contracted the virus, they must also show that the travel company did something wrong and that this negligence caused or contributed to the illness or loss.
The burden of proof is on the claimant, not on the travel company to disprove it. So, one must ask whether the hotel knew, or should they have known, that guests had contracted the virus but did nothing to stop the spread to other guests. The same goes for cruise liners and airlines - did the ship stop in an infected port and fail to screen guests or did the airline fail to properly clean its aircraft when flying to regions that are known to be affected?
While the industry should be braced for the inevitable influx of claims, determining whether a claim is genuine or fraudulent will be key.
Proving that a travel company has been negligent is no easy task and even if the claimant gets over this second, significant hurdle, they must still then prove that this negligent act caused their illness. Did stopping at the infected port, or failing to have adequate hygiene systems in place make any difference? And the answers to all these questions, or rather the way they are tackled by the Courts, also differ depending on who you are bringing a claim against. For example, the rules for bringing an illness claim against a cruise liner differ to those used in a claim against a tour operator or hotel.
While the industry should be braced for the inevitable influx of claims, determining whether a claim is genuine or fraudulent will be key. Over the past few years, the travel industry has seen a 500% increase in gastric claims, but many claimants have since paid the price for making speculative claims under the premise that they had nothing to lose.
These prosecutions should serve as a stark warning to those that believe that bringing a dishonest claim is a minor offence, or is risk-free, as fraud will not be tolerated by the travel industry.
If your loved one has suffered elderly abuse then not only do you want to stop the abuse, but your loved one may be entitled to financial compensation. However, only the abused person can consent to cooperate with filing a legal claim, and they may not want to because they are afraid. But you can take steps to file a lawsuit if you suspect there is abuse.
All facilities that accept Medicare or Medicaid must abide by strict guidelines regarding reporting and resolving nursing home issues. Speak to management about the specific staff members that you fear are harming your loved one. Be sure to document if you notice any retaliation from the staff member or a worsening of conditions of care in your loved one.
If you feel the problem is within management, you file a claim with your state’s Adult Protective Services (APS). You can also file a complaint with the state licensing board that allows the facility to operate.
Immediately! You do not want to delay in seeking legal counsel. The abuse will not only continue but may get worse. Additionally, if you wait too long, the defense will claim that if the suspected patterns or events were so egregious, then you would have filed the suit sooner. You also risk any evidence being destroyed, as abusers try to hide what they’ve done. Wounds, too, can heal. Nowadays almost everyone has a camera on their phone, so whenever you see cuts or bruises on your loved ones in a nursing home, it’s a good idea to get a picture of them in case you need it later.
Additionally, many states have a statute of limitations on nursing home abuse. This means you have a limited amount of time during which you can file your claim. After that point, no court will hear your claim.
[ymal]
As soon as you witness any abuse you will need to report it. When you speak to your attorney, you will want to explain what steps you’ve taken thus far with management to find solutions to the issues. You will also want to provide the following:
Many attorneys who take on these kinds of cases also specialize in medical malpractice and personal injury cases and work on a contingency basis. Therefore, speak to your attorney if you have concerns about paying for legal counsel, but don’t delay because of the fear of attorney’s fees.
Your attorney has the resources and the power to conduct an investigation into the claims you’ve made. They will also help you prepare a draft of the complaint and file it with the clerk’s office. In this complaint, you will have worked with your attorney to gather sufficient evidence to support your allegations. An attorney will know all the important deadlines, what paperwork you need to fill out, and what supportive documents you can get. You don’t want to miss out on making a claim before the statute of limitations runs out, though you should ensure you are up to date with nursing home abuse law before your claim is filed.
When you’ve been arrested and charged with a crime, you will need an expert criminal defence attorney representing you in court. Many crimes are prosecuted aggressively in order to deter criminals. But by understanding the different types of defenses, and hiring the right legal counsel, you can possibly find yourself facing lesser charges, or having them dropped.
There are a few types of criminal defences that your attorney can use. The first one is alibi. Most people are familiar with this term from movies and procedural television shows, and they’re not too different in the real world. An alibi is when you have proof that you could not have committed a crime because you were not where the crime occurred during the date and time that it happened. Proof can be in the form of photographic evidence, witness testimony, or even plane tickets or other proof of travel.
An excuse defence is one where a crime is explained but culpability is not necessarily found in the person who committed the crime. An example would be a plea of insanity, which is when a defendant is unable to communicate or understand their attorney or even others in a rational way. Their actions are not justified. Rather, they are excused.
Justification defences are called when there was a threat to you, your property, or your family, that required you to respond. For example, if you broke a law because you were under the threat of physical violence, and you can prove it, then your lawyer will consider the duress defence in your specific case.
Lastly, there are procedural defences. These are when the actual procedures of the arrest of gathering of evidence are called into question. For example, if you were administered a blood alcohol content (BAC) test and received a questionable determination resulting from the mishandling of the evidence by the police, then you may be able to use that as a defence. In the US Constitution the 4th Amendment states that no citizen should undergo unlawful search and seizure. However, people’s fundamental rights are often violated, and if you believe that you have been victimised, then you will need to speak to an attorney right away. You don’t want to delay, as that may complicate your case.
[ymal]
Being charged with a crime and/or convicted of a crime will have serious, long-term consequences on your life. Mainly, it can affect your chances of getting a job or keeping the one you have, getting an education, keeping custody of your child (if applicable), and can even lead to deportation if you are not already a U.S. citizen. It is very unwise to represent yourself in court, even if you think your case if very straightforward and that your defence is obvious. Prosecutors will fight aggressively for you to receive the harshest punishment possible. That’s why you need to hire an experienced, successful attorney to represent you. But you may want to think about the kinds of advantages you’ll have if you hire someone who has experience as a prosecutor, who will be familiar with the types of arguments you will face. Of course, you will also want to schedule your consultation right away.
This acquisition results in 5 million new customers and €800 million in additional premiums. The deal closed at an approximate €1 billion.
UNIQA CEO Andreas Brandstetter said: “We have been aware of the AXA companies for a long time; they are an excellent fit with our long-term strategy. Their strong focus on profitable retail business and balanced product mix complement[s] our existing business and make us the number five in the growing Central and Eastern Europe region.”
Schoenherr and Hugh Owen – who advised specifically on the English law aspects of the deal- of Go2Law, advised UNIQA on its acquisition of AXA subsidiaries. Hugh commented: “I was very impressed by the efficiency of the negotiations on the deal and the sensible, no-nonsense discussions.”
Clifford Chance advised AXA on the transaction, which remains subject to regulatory approvals.
The agreement between the parties was to ensure continuity in production and commercial relations and to conserve Tecnopails’ production site in Piacenza and the maintenance of the current staff.
Villa Roveda Associati assisted Tecnopails in the sale of their business, from the due diligence to the closing. Speaking to their team, they commented, “In particular, we had to identify the most suitable solutions in order to guarantee the continuity of production, commercial agreements and current employment contracts, while also preserving the company’s production facility in Piacenza.”
The project was headed by Founding Partner Angela Roveda, who was assisted by Alessandra Bissi and Velia Gallo, Associates at the firm. The legal team was in charge of all aspects concerning Corporate, Commercial and Employment Law and the VRA Partner Marco Simone advised Tecnopails on tax and financial aspects.
Alta Developers LLC – which operates as a real estate joint venture development firm - signed an $80 Million Secured Credit Agreement with Itau Corpbanca’s New York Branch to refinance existing debt.
The company, serving customers in Florida, had the Credit Agreement executed under the laws of New York and has certain mortgage collateral granted under the laws of Florida and other guarantees granted under Chilean Law.
Honorato | Delaveau advised Alta Developers with a team including Matias Langevin and Jose Luis Honorato.
Greenberg Traurig acted as special counsel on real estate matters in Florida.
Ashurst acted as US Counsel of Itau Corpbanca at their New York Branch.
Hughes Hubbard & Reed, from their Miami and New York branches, alongside Parquet y Asociados Abogados represented the station in the operation which concluded on 21 January.
The General Budget of the Nation (PGN) for the fiscal year 2020 foresees resources for investments financed with public credit for the amount of USD 1,145 million. These resources will come from multilateral loans previously approved and from the issuance of bonds. The banks that accompanied this issue are Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Itaú BBA. The legal advisers to Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC were Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton and Gross Brown Law Firm.
