K&L Gates ranked “Highly Recommended” with E. Drouard & Claude-Etienne Armingaud by Leaders League.

Source: No longer publicly available

K&L Gates is ranked in the Industry focus: IT, telecoms and the internet ranking as Band 3

Headed by E. Drouard, K&L Gates LLP’s six-lawyer team assists major companies with digital transformation, outsourcing matters and IT systems integration. It also advises on cutting-edge data protection matters. Altarea-Cogedim Group and Voyages-SNCF.com are clients, as are a number of luxury goods manufacturers and advertising groups. Senior associate Claude-Etienne Armingaud is another name to note.”

Source: Legal 500 EMEA

On March 24, the French National Assembly hosted a day-long conference on “Blockchain: Disruption and Opportunities.

This event aimed at raising awareness of the French elected representatives and corporate executives on blockchain issues and potential uses for the digital transformation of society as a whole.

The closing statement provided by Emmanuel Macron, the French Minister of Economy, Industry and Digital Economy, was subsequently echoed by his announcement on March 29 of the upcoming adaptation of the French finance regulatory framework in order to progressively allow the introduction of the technology.

This adaptation should first open up to experimentation on the mini-bond market, to be expanded to other tools.

Mr. Macron stated that he was “aware of the importance of the disruptive potential of the blockchain” while the regulatory framework was limited by the current French and European regulations, which prevented the use of the blockchain “in real-life situations, i.e. with real clients and not exclusively in closed beta test scenario within a given financial institution.

It was also announced that a ministerial ordinance had just been submitted for review to the French Administrative Supreme Court (“Conseil d’État”) to allow for such experimentation in the coming weeks.

First published on K&L Gates FinTech Law Blog.

While the Obama administration just announced that the financing of the autonomous car would be one of its last projects during the Detroit Auto Show, the research services from the European Parliament also published a prospective note on a similar topic.

The two projects share a same ambition: reduce the death toll on the roads as well as energy consumption. (more…)

Prima Biomed Ltd. (ASX:PRR) entered into an agreement to acquire Immutep, S.A. for $28 million in cash, shares and warrants on October 2, 2014. Acquisition funding of the total consideration of up to approximately $28 million will be funded with up to $18 million in cash, partly based on the achievement of key milestones, the issue of Prima ordinary shares totaling approximately $3 million and based on a VWAP calculation and the issue of 200 million warrants equating to a consideration value of approximately $7 million. In order to fund the acquisition and provide ongoing working capital, Prima Biomed has secured an investment agreement with Bergen Global Opportunity Fund, LP managed by Bergen Asset Management for up to $37.4 million. Immutep’s founder and Scientific and Medical Director, Frederic Triebel will join Prima as its Chief Scientific Officer, along with his scientific team, to oversee the LAG-3 development program and to advise on the ongoing development of CVac. The deal is subject to approval of Prima Biomed Ltd. shareholders. As of November 14, 2014, the transaction was approved by shareholders of Prima Biomed Ltd.

Adam Holdsworth from ProActive Capital, Matthew Gregorowski from Citadel Communications and Axel Muhlhaus from edicto GmbH acted as the public relation advisors in this transaction. Jean-Patrice Labautière, François Lan, Alexandre Brossier, Claude-Etienne Armingaud, Ariane Samson-Divisia, Julie Bouchard, Bertrand Dussert and Glenn Hughes of K&L Gates acted as legal advisors to Prima Biomed Ltd. Pascale Gallien and Vincent Maufront of Heenan Paris acted as legal advisors for shareholders of Immutep.

Prima Biomed Ltd. (ASX:PRR) completed the acquisition of Immutep, S.A. for $25 million in cash, shares and warrants on December 17, 2014. Prima made upfront cash payment of $10.8 million with the remaining cash component of $7.2 million partly payable on the achievement of a predetermined milestone and partly payable after 12 months subject to the satisfaction of warranty retention arrangements. The total consideration paid by Prima for the acquisition is estimated to be approximately $25 million as opposed to the previously $28 million. The difference is attributable to the reduction in value of the warrants based on the Black Scholes option pricing model using updated market data.

After almost a decade of vigorous debate among interested parties, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has finally issued a decision that moves toward unifying the European perspective on internet filtering. While the CJEU decision itself is specific to the gambling industry, the core principles of the decision may be extended to other fields.

Several recent decisions by the CJEU put into a strict perspective the validity of the position held by certain European member states with regard to gambling, namely state-sponsored monopolies [see for instance CJEU case C-42/07]. At the same time, the opening of the online gambling field to authorized operators in European countries, such as France, went hand-in-hand with the creation of administrative agencies. Those agencies, such as France’s Autorité de Régulation des Jeux en Ligne (ARJEL) possess, among other things, the prerogatives and powers to demand the take-down of crossborder gambling and gaming websites deemed illegal under national law and accessible by individuals connecting from the same country.

On the other hand, on the copyright and peer-to-peer front, collective rights management agencies have been
heavily involved in regulating the contents made available on the Internet. Indeed, for the past decade since the
appearance of Napster, right-holders have been trying relentlessly to limit the impact of online copyright infringement, by pursuing action against individual downloaders in the first place, and then against the website publishers making illegal content accessible.

On both fronts, though, the temptation for grasping control over Internet content can be seen lingering around. In the SABAM vs. Scarlet decision (CJEU case C-70/10), published on November 24, 2011, the CJEU applied a five-prong
approach on Internet control ordered by third parties on Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that may be extended to the gaming and gambling industry.

In SABAM, the Belgian collective rights management entity had requested ISPs to cut access to several websites that allowed the illegal download of copyrighted material.

Although the national laws of EU member states specify the requirements for obtaining an injunction against the operator of an online service deemed illegal, such as national law must be compliant with the mandatory limitations
set forth by European law, notably in the e-Commerce Directive 2000/31/EC. The e-Commerce Directive provides in Article 15.1 that “Member states shall not impose a general obligation on providers, when providing the services covered by Articles 12, 13, and 14, to monitor the information which they transmit or store, nor a general obligation actively to seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity.” This has been understood by many commentators as the founding European net neutrality principle.

As a consequence of this European net neutrality principle, national authorities may not adopt measures which would require an ISP to carry out general monitoring of the information that it transmits on its network.

In the SABAM decision, the Belgian courts requested that the CJEU clarify whether European law would permit an injunction that would require an ISP to implement a filtering system for all electronic communication transiting through its services where such filtering would:

  • Apply impartially to all of the ISP clients;
  • In a preventive manner, as opposed to a reactive manner where infringing content, once identified and notified by the right-holders, would be dealt with;
  • In a permanent manner, as opposed to a temporary measure; and
  • At the sole costs of the ISP.

Following its advocate-general, who had concluded in the preceding legal opinion that this scheme was obviously disproportionate with regard to the rights to be protected, the court held that the implemented measures have to be “fair and proportionate and must not be excessively costly.

Additionally, the court foresaw the practical consequences of such general filtering and blocking—the ISPs need to appreciate the legality of the online services, which would thus “require active observation of all electronic communications conducted on the network of the ISP concerned and, consequently, would encompass all information to be transmitted and all customers using that network.” In other words, instead of relying on an evidenced take-down request from the right-holders, such right-holders were requesting that the ISPs themselves perform all the necessary checks on all the material they make available to ensure no infringing content would be available. At the same time, such a measure would have been in complete contradiction with the founding principle of Article 15 of the e-commerce directive and the net neutrality principle.

Moreover, the court drew attention to the fact that to permit the ISP to be the judge of what internet content was to be deemed illegal would likely adversely affect freedom of expression by blocking, albeit in a collateral manner, legal
services and information. According to the court, the ISP bears a technical role in the individual’s access to the Internet.
Therefore, its involvement should be limited to such a technical role, except in cases where the obviousness of the illegality of the targeted content prevails.

Finally, to the great satisfaction of many privacy advocates, the court seized the opportunity to state incidentally that the IP addresses used for ISP subscribers’ identification purposes were personal data. Indeed, in spite of the strict regulation of personal data processing in Europe, many national laws of agencies, in order to implement fast proceedings against illegal online file-sharing, were quick to dismiss the need for compliance with data protection
law. This latest observation also calls for moderation in the processing of online data and information, be it by rightholders, collective rights management organizations, or administrative agencies all over Europe.

First publication: K&L Gates – Global Government Solution 2012 with E. Drouard