Ruben van Diepen

White & Case, Clifford Chance, Hengeler Mueller and other European firms are advising on two European cross-border deals in the nutrition and renewable energy sectors with a combined value of $3 billion. Clifford Chance is advising dsm-firmenich, a Swiss-Dutch chemicals company, on its agreement with CVC Capital Partners to divest its Animal Nutrition & Health (ANH) business for an enterprise value of about €2.2 billion ($2.6 billion). The deal will see dsm-firmenich retain a 20% equity stake in the divested ANH companies in partnership with White & Case client CVC. Clifford Chance’s Amsterdam team, led by corporate M&A partners Gregory Crookes and Stephanie Horowitz, includes M&A partner Ernst van der Touw and co-head of the global IP group Claudia Milbradt. This transaction follows the sale of dsm-firmenich’s stake in Feed Enzymes Alliance to Novonesis for €1.5 billion in 2025, which Clifford also advised on. Brussels-based White & Case partner Carlo Meert co-led his deal team, which includes London partners Ben von Maur and Joshua Crawley, and Frankfurt’s Stefan Koch and Carola Glasauer. The firm has supported CVC on other cross-border mandates, including during last year’s €1 billion joint investment with Therme Group. CIP to Acquire Ørsted’s European Arm In a second deal announced this week, Danish fund Copenhagen Investment Partners (CIP) agreed to acquire Ørsted’s European onshore business, which includes onshore wind, solar PV, and battery energy storage systems, in a transaction valued at more than €1.4 billion ($1.7 billion). Denmark’s Kromann Reumert, led by Copenhagen's Anders Stubbe Arndal and Nicolai Helms, is advising Ørsted while Hengeler Mueller is counseling Ørsted on German aspects of the transaction. Hengeler’s team is led by Frankfurt M&A partners Sebastian Schneider and Marika Öry, with energy, regulatory, and competition/FDI advice from Düsseldorf partner Jörg Meinzenbach. Hengeler has worked with Ørsted for 25 years, making it one of the firm’s core clients in renewables. The firm has also advised on projects beyond Germany, including the €7 billion Baltica 2 offshore wind project between Denmark and Poland in 2025. Danish law firm Accura, meanwhile, is advising CIP, led by partners Louise Hilligsoe Norgaard and Thomas Weincke.

Feb 12

2 min

Law firms across the Asia-Pacific region have strengthened their senior benches with a series of partner hires in Australia, Singapore and Hong Kong, targeting sectors such as energy and infrastructure, and insurance. In Australia, Dentons has expanded its construction practice with the addition of a partner from DLA Piper. Jonathan Stafford brings more than two decades of experience advising on all aspects of construction and infrastructure law. His expertise spans contract drafting and negotiation, project structuring, procurement, risk management and regulatory compliance. “Jonathan’s appointment underscores our strategic focus on sectors that drive Australia’s growth. His extensive experience across major infrastructure and construction projects positions Dentons to deliver even greater value to clients navigating complex, high-stakes developments,” said Dentons’ Australia chair and Australasia region chief executive officer Amber Warren in a statement. A DLA Piper spokesperson commented: “We wish him well in his new role.” Dentons also strengthened its Singapore office with the appointment of insurance lawyer John Goulios. Goulios also joins from DLA Piper, where he served as global co-chair of the firm’s insurance sector and previously led its Singapore office. Goulios has more than 30 years of experience advising multinational insurers and corporations on complex insurance and reinsurance matters, including transactional, regulatory and compliance issues, as well as claims, disputes and investigations. He spent over 18 years at DLA Piper and was earlier in his career based in Australia. Also in Singapore, local Big Four firm Drew & Napier has hired Ton van den Bosch as head of its projects, energy and infrastructure practice. Van den Bosch is a dual-qualified corporate and project development lawyer who specialises in energy, offshore, infrastructure, ports and logistics projects across the Middle East ,Africa and Asia. He joins the Singapore firm from Clyde & Co, where he has practised for more than three years. Prior to that, he served for nearly four years as the Singapore managing partner of U.K. firm Addleshaw Goddard. Earlier, he was global head of the ports and terminals practice at the now-defunct Singapore office of Ince & Co. Van den Bosch has also previously worked in-house. He was the Manila-based general counsel at International Container Terminal Services Inc., a global terminal operator, where he advised on acquisitions, concessions, project financings and geopolitical risk issues. Drew & Napier said his appointment strengthens the firm’s capabilities in capital-intensive projects and energy transition work. In Hong Kong, Paul Hastings has hired corporate lawyer Joongwon Park as a partner. Park joins Paul Hastings from Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, where he was counsel. He advises Korean and international clients on complex buyouts, minority investments, pre-initial public offering investments and listings, as well as Rule 144A and Regulation S offerings and private placements. He has previously worked in Simpson Thacher’s New York, Seoul and Hong Kong offices.

Feb 13

2 min

Canadian hockey officials asked the Ninth Circuit to reject an appeal from junior players who sued the National Hockey League and its pipeline organizations over alleged antitrust violations, arguing certain rules actually benefit the community and foster competition. Allowing U.S. courts to apply American antitrust laws to Canadian hockey clubs would undermine Canada's youth development system and threaten major junior hockey for many communities, the Canadian Olympic Committee and Hockey Canada, which is the governing body for amateur hockey in the country, said in a Tuesday amicus brief. The league's recruiting rules, the organizations said, have helped sustain a unique product. "Instead of paying on average several thousand dollars a year for their children to participate in 'pay to play' junior leagues, parents of major junior hockey players pay nothing, and their children earn scholarships to fund college studies when they become adults," the organizations said. "The rules challenged by plaintiffs also benefit consumers by creating a unique entertainment product that provides enjoyment to fans in small towns and larger cities spread across Canada." Junior players Tanner Gould and Isaiah DiLaura, the World Association of Icehockey Players Unions North America Division and the World Association of Icehockey Players Unions USA Corp. argued in their January 2025 lawsuit that geographic recruiting restrictions for junior players in developmental leagues prevent them from shopping their talent to other teams where they could earn higher wages, in violation of antitrust laws. The lawsuit named the NHL, the junior hockey teams and the Canadian Hockey League, an amateur developmental league for players ages 16 to 20 that acts as an umbrella organization for the junior hockey teams. However, the Canadian Olympic Committee and Hockey Canada argued that the challenged geographic player eligibility rules provide the junior teams with a good mix of younger, older and foreign players to ensure one team is not always dominant. Over the last quarter century, 17 different teams have won the national championship because of the eligibility rules, according to the brief. "Many of Canada's most memorable moments in international hockey may not have occurred without Canada's youth development leagues," the brief said. The junior development hockey leagues serve as pipelines to the NHL and are divided into three "exclusive" geographic recruiting territories — Western, Eastern and Central regions. Players can be drafted only by teams that are within the boundaries of the exclusive territory in which they reside. "The draft ensures that small market teams may sign talent that allows them to compete with larger market teams," the brief said. The organizations said Washington U.S. District Judge Tana Lin was correct when she dismissed the hockey players' antitrust lawsuit on May 27 for lack of personal jurisdiction over the NHL, the CHL and the teams and clubs in Canada. The majority of conduct addressed in the lawsuit occurred in Canada, Judge Lin said. Only nine of the 60 hockey clubs in the junior leagues are based in the United States. The plaintiffs argued in their Nov. 12 opening brief to the Ninth Circuit that federal courts have jurisdiction over federal antitrust claims and that the defendants NHL and its junior leagues have deliberately restrained competition for elite hockey talent across North America, not just in Canada. Although the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act limited the Sherman Act's broad reach, it does not prohibit its reach in this situation, contrary to the lower court's analysis, the brief said. The antitrust restraints challenged in the lawsuit are "inextricably bound" by the defendants' restraint on domestic and import commerce, which is not covered by the FTAIA, the players said. The parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday. Hockey Canada and the Canadian Olympic Committee are represented by Michael K. Vaska and Graham Fulton of Foster Garvey PC. The unions and the players are represented by Jeffrey Shinder, Ethan Litwin, J. Wyatt Fore and Tyler Ross of Shinder Cantor Lerner LLP, Michael Rubin, Stacey Leyton and Bronwen O'Herin of Altshuler Berzon LLP, Eric Citron and Lindsey Powell of Zimmer Citron & Clarke LLP, and James Martin, Jennifer Duncan Hackett and Sarah Van Culin of Zelle LLP. The NHL is represented by Andrew G. Gordon of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP. The CHL and the junior leagues are represented by Lauren Willard Zehmer, Derek Ludwin, Sarah E. Harrington, Benjamin C. Block, Jacqueline M. Fitch and Alexander J. Cave of Covington & Burling LLP. The case is World Association of Icehockey Players Unions North America Division et al. v. National Hockey League et al., case number 25-3929, in the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit.

Feb 18

4 min

A manufacturer of flooring for sporting events has asked a Utah federal judge to toss an antitrust suit from several of its distributors, casting doubt on claims that its recent acquisition of a competing company is an anticompetitive power play. Connor Sport Court International LLC, which sells flooring products under its Sport Court brand, told the court that the tie-up between its parent company Gerflor USA Inc. and competitor Snap Lock Industries Inc. is aboveboard, and that the distributors are improperly attempting to inflate simple contract disputes into a grand antitrust conspiracy. But the complaint does not identify any antitrust harm, CSCI argued, saying that its framing of the changes in the sports flooring market since the transaction is muddled and imprecise. "Plaintiffs complain solely about injuries to their own business, such as 'undercutting of bids,' loss in revenues, and erosion in the value of their business," CSCI said. "Indeed, contrary to the purpose of antitrust protections, plaintiffs seek relief for increased competition between CSCI and Snap." In their suit, the distributors seized on instances where CSCI refused to lower its prices to meet those offered by Snap Lock, which they saw as evidence that the onetime competitors were now collaborating under the same corporate umbrella. CSCI called those allegations "contradictory" and said that the companies were actually identifying procompetitive effects of Gerflor's arrangement with Snap Lock. "Namely, they allege that the two previously unrelated companies are now engaged in joint product development efforts," CSCI told the court. Sterling Brennan, a Maschoff Brennan Gilmore Israelsen & Mauriel LLP attorney representing the distributors, told Law360 that his clients "believe that their claims are meritorious and they expect to continue to assert them and ultimately obtain relief from the court." The suit filed last year by 16 flooring distributors said that, after acquiring Snap Lock in 2023, Gerflor discontinued its entry- and mid-level products and did not replace them with anything comparable, merely replacing them with products offered by Snap Lock. That and other subsequent activities have manipulated the sports flooring market, the suit claimed. But the suit also fails to identify a specific "market" for sports flooring products, which is a foundational requirement for an antitrust action, CSCI said. Specifically, it noted that the different tiers of offerings of the companies splinter the distributors' antitrust arguments. "The allegations of the complaint suggest that products in the 'sports flooring market' are not interchangeable, stating that CSCI offers 'premium' products while Snap offers a 'lower quality, less expensive alternative,'" CSCI said. "Therefore, alleging 'sports flooring' as a market does not allow the court to determine whether alleged anticompetitive conduct restrains trade." The plaintiffs are represented by Sterling Brennan, Thomas Krzeminski and Lannie Rex Sears of Maschoff Brennan Gilmore Israelsen & Mauriel LLP and Michael Smith of Fowler Law Firm PC. CSCI is represented by Benjamin R. Dyer of Dyer Law Group PLLC, David B. Ritter and Paul Olszowka of Barnes & Thornburg LLP and Mark Bettilyon and Peter M. de Jonge of Thorpe North & Western LLP. The case is Custom Courts Inc. et al. v. Connor Sport Court International LLC et al., case number 2:25-cv-01048, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.

Feb 9

2 min

A manufacturer of flooring for sporting events has asked a Utah federal judge to toss an antitrust suit from several of its distributors, casting doubt on claims that its recent acquisition of a competing company is an anticompetitive power play. Connor Sport Court International LLC, which sells flooring products under its Sport Court brand, told the court that the tie-up between its parent company Gerflor USA Inc. and competitor Snap Lock Industries Inc. is aboveboard, and that the distributors are improperly attempting to inflate simple contract disputes into a grand antitrust conspiracy. But the complaint does not identify any antitrust harm, CSCI argued, saying that its framing of the changes in the sports flooring market since the transaction is muddled and imprecise. "Plaintiffs complain solely about injuries to their own business, such as 'undercutting of bids,' loss in revenues, and erosion in the value of their business," CSCI said. "Indeed, contrary to the purpose of antitrust protections, plaintiffs seek relief for increased competition between CSCI and Snap." In their suit, the distributors seized on instances where CSCI refused to lower its prices to meet those offered by Snap Lock, which they saw as evidence that the onetime competitors were now collaborating under the same corporate umbrella. CSCI called those allegations "contradictory" and said that the companies were actually identifying procompetitive effects of Gerflor's arrangement with Snap Lock. "Namely, they allege that the two previously unrelated companies are now engaged in joint product development efforts," CSCI told the court. Sterling Brennan, a Maschoff Brennan Gilmore Israelsen & Mauriel LLP attorney representing the distributors, told Law360 that his clients "believe that their claims are meritorious and they expect to continue to assert them and ultimately obtain relief from the court." The suit filed last year by 16 flooring distributors said that, after acquiring Snap Lock in 2023, Gerflor discontinued its entry- and mid-level products and did not replace them with anything comparable, merely replacing them with products offered by Snap Lock. That and other subsequent activities have manipulated the sports flooring market, the suit claimed. But the suit also fails to identify a specific "market" for sports flooring products, which is a foundational requirement for an antitrust action, CSCI said. Specifically, it noted that the different tiers of offerings of the companies splinter the distributors' antitrust arguments. "The allegations of the complaint suggest that products in the 'sports flooring market' are not interchangeable, stating that CSCI offers 'premium' products while Snap offers a 'lower quality, less expensive alternative,'" CSCI said. "Therefore, alleging 'sports flooring' as a market does not allow the court to determine whether alleged anticompetitive conduct restrains trade." The plaintiffs are represented by Sterling Brennan, Thomas Krzeminski and Lannie Rex Sears of Maschoff Brennan Gilmore Israelsen & Mauriel LLP and Michael Smith of Fowler Law Firm PC. CSCI is represented by Benjamin R. Dyer of Dyer Law Group PLLC, David B. Ritter and Paul Olszowka of Barnes & Thornburg LLP and Mark Bettilyon and Peter M. de Jonge of Thorpe North & Western LLP. The case is Custom Courts Inc. et al. v. Connor Sport Court International LLC et al., case number 2:25-cv-01048, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.

Feb 9

2 min