The principal office of Lideika, Petrauskas, Valiūnas ir partneriai LAWIN started operating in Vilnius in 1992 and in 1998 its branch has been opened in the seaport Klaipėda. Presently, the firm provides services in all major fields of business law. LAWIN in Lithuania has around 60 law professionals,the work is organized in Corporate and M&A, Finance and Tax, Trade and Technology, Property and Environment, Dispute Resolution and Transport practice groups. The firm is an active member of international legal organisations and legal networks and can boast of its long and successful co-operation with major international law firms. Lideika, Petrauskas, Valiūnas ir partneriai LAWIN is the only representative of Lex Mundi in Lithuania. The firm is also a member of TAGLaw, World Services Group and The International Bar Association. LAWIN has 4 offices in the Baltic States: in Vilnius and Klaipėda (Lideika, Petrauskas, Valiūnas ir Partneriai), Riga (Klavins & Slaidins), Tallinn (Lepik & Luhaäär) and is the largest legal presence working in the Baltics. LAWIN currently has more than 120 lawyers, making it the largest legal presence working in the Baltics. This Bulletin provides an overview of legal news and is merely of informative nature, and should not be treated as a legal opinion or advise.

      The law firm Lideika, Petrauskas, Valiūnas ir partneriai LAWIN organises for its lawyers special training on arbitration – LAWIN Arbitration Academy. In November 2008, Mirèze Philippe (Special Counsel, ICC International Court of Arbitration, Paris) and Matthew Secomb (lawyer, White & Case, Paris), the two well-known arbitration law specialists visited Vilnius where they delivered lectures and moderated the first module training titled “Drafting Arbitration Clauses” for the lawyers of the LAWIN offices. LAWIN arbitration academy is composed of four modules. In each module, arbitration law specialists will conduct practical training on a relevant issue of arbitration law.

      International Finance Law Review 1000 announced its 2009 ranking results. The law firm Lideika, Petrauskas, Valiūnas ir partneriai LAWIN is recommended as sole No. 1 law firm in M&A and one of the best law firms in banking & finance law. The law firm’s partners Dovilė Burgienė and Žilvinas Zinkevičius are distinguished as the best professionals in M&A law, while Giedrius Stasevičius and Gediminas Rečiūnas as the best specialists in banking and finance law. LAWIN firms in Latvia (Klavins & Slaidins LAWIN) and Estonia (Lepik & Luhaäär LAWIN) are also ranked among the best ones. For more information refer to www.iflr1000.com.

      In the ICC International Court of Arbitration the Lithuanian State won the case against UAB Naftos gavyba. Naftos gavyba failed to prove that during the privatisation of the company Geonafta the Republic of Lithuania had not disclosed all the required information. Besides, the Court of Arbitration obligated the claimant to compensate the State for all the litigation expenses. The defendant was represented by a team of attorneys of the law firm Lideika, Petrauskas, Valiūnas ir partneriai LAWIN headed by Vilija Vaitkutė Pavan, the partner in charge of the firm’s litigation department.

      Amendments are made with the view of implementing Directive 2006/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on company reporting. The enforced laws serve to entrench the collective liability of the manager and governing and supervisory bodies of a company for drafting and submission to the Register of Legal Entities of financial statements (financial consolidated statements), annual reports (consolidated annual reports). In case of non-fulfilment or improper fulfilment of obligations related to the drafting and submission to the Register of Legal Entities of the documents stipulated in the laws, the manager as well as governing and supervisory bodies will have to redress all damages inflicted on a company or third parties. The new wording of the Law on Financial Statements of Entities has increased the criteria (amounts of net sales income, amounts of property value, average annual number of employees) entailing the obligation to perform an audit of annual financial accounts and predetermining the cases when a company is entitled to draft a concise and when a full financial statement. The Law on Financial Statements also specifies in more detail other provisions concerning the information to be provided in an annual report.

      Among the underlying amendments of the Law – a new procedure for carrying out simplified procurements. Upon entry into force of the amendments, all purchasing organisations in both classical and utility sectors should carry out simplified procurements according to the approved rules of implementation of simplified procurements which rules have to be publicly announced within 3 business days after approval thereof in the Central Information System of Public Procurements. No consent of the Public Procurement Authority is required for the purchasing organisations in order to terminate the ongoing simplified procurements; however, the obligation is prescribed to announce the termination of such procurements. The amended Law has been left without an absolute prohibition to change the terms of a public procurement agreement during the validity term thereof. Now changes are allowed upon receipt of consent from the Public Procurement Authority according to the prescribed procedure. The amendments to the Law also set forth that offers will not be rejected solely on the grounds of arithmetic error in calculation of the price – the purchasing organisation will be obliged to provide an opportunity to a supplier to correct the error. A number of other amendments have been made to the Law on Public Procurement establishing the limits of the value of cross-border procurements, confidentiality undertaking, the procedure for reporting as well as the procedure for acceptance and consideration of offers and execution of a procurement agreement. Also, a shorter 45-day term has been fixed for examination of claims and appeals regarding public procurement procedures in court.

      On 16 September 2008, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) gave a preliminary ruling in joined cases C-468/06 - C-478/06 specifying that a refusal by a pharmaceutical undertaking that holds a dominant position on a relevant pharmaceutical market to supply wholesalers with a view to impeding parallel export of such wholesalers from one Member State to other Member States constitutes an abuse of a dominant market position under Article 82 of the EC Treaty

      

      This ECJ ruling is passed in proceedings between the pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Greek wholesalers exporting pharmaceutical products to other Member States where prices for medicines are higher. The dispute arose when GSK started limiting for the wholesalers the amount of the supplied products to meet national demands but not enough for exporting. Such conduct of GSK was brought before the ECJ for assessment. The Greek Competition Commission asked to clarify whether pharmaceutical supply quotas could constitute an abuse of a dominant position under Article 82 of the EC Treaty. In 2001, Advocate- General Jacobs stated in his opinion that supply restrictions can be justified to protect commercial interest of the supplier, even if they intend to impede parallel export. However, the ECJ refused the case on procedural grounds. In November 2006, the Athens Appeal Court applied to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling on the same questions. Now the ECJ has explained that where a dominant pharmaceutical company refuses to supply medicines to wholesalers with a view to impede parallel export, it should be recognised as abusing its dominant position. Exceptions are only allowed when a dominant pharmaceutical company provides objective justifications of its conduct. In this case, the State intervention in fixing prices for pharmaceuticals at national level was not recognised as a justifying and conclusive circumstance.

      Conciliatory mediation of civil disputes is a form of resolution of civil disputes where the mediators of conciliation of disputes assist the parties in peacefully and effectively resolving the disputes. The procedures stipulated in this Law are not applicable to judicial conciliation that is performed by the judge who is examining a case. Conciliatory mediation may be agreed by the parties. In such event, the parties before applying to the court should attempt to resolve a dispute in this manner. Conciliatory mediation for resolution of a dispute may also be recommended by the court. The examination of a case is postponed if so agreed by the parties. In the event of conciliatory mediation the parties enter into a peaceful settlement agreement which, after it is approved, acquires the power of a court judgement in respect of the litigating parties. The Law inter alia sets forth the procedure for appointment of mediators and the confidentiality obligation in respect of information of conciliatory mediation.

      Three years ago law firm was among the first members who joined the National Network of Responsible Business (NNRB) and assumed an obligation to respect human rights, employee rights, to abide by the principles of environmental protection and anti-corruption.