- How do the awards work?
- The Legal 500 United Kingdom Awards 2014
- The Legal 500 United States Awards - In-house winners
- The Legal 500 United States Awards - Law firm winners
- The Legal 500 Latin America Awards (coming soon)
- Microsite The Legal 500 Germany Awards (coming soon)
- Frequently asked questions
- Editor's Letter
- Inside GC: Executive Summary
- A dangerous game of bluff
- From client to colleague
- Harvard thinking
- How to be Chief Executive of your own career
- Rules of engagement
- The 5-minute financial analysis
- The third way
- The world's greatest management thinker: Clayton Christensen
- What I wish I'd known: moving in-house
- What's your IP strategy?
- Where are all the lawyer-CEOs?
- Whistleblowers and the in-house lawyer
- Corporate Counsel 100 Brazil roundtable
- Mexico City: Corporate Counsel 100 discussion
- The Legal 500 Corporate Counsel Summit
- Corporate Counsel 100 United States roundtable
- General Counsel: United States
- Intellectual property: debate
- Risk management
- Private equity
- Data security
- Leadership and management
- Intellectual property
Borenius Group consists of over 200 lawyers in six jurisdictions; Finland, Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and New York US.
The member firms of Borenius Group are separate legal entities practising advocacy for their own account and following their respective local Bar rules.
Number of lawyers 33
Above material supplied by Borenius.
Search News and Articles
The Finnish CFC legislation implies that a Finnish company may be subject to income tax for its share of the profit of a CFC regardless of whether these profits are distributed by the CFC to its shareholders or not. A CFC is defined as a foreign corporation owned and controlled by a Finnish tax resident that pays income tax in its domicile at a rate less than 60% of the Finnish corporate income tax rate.- Attorneys at law Borenius Ltd
On 31st December 2010 amendments to the Law Obligations Act (hereinafter LOA) came into force in Estonia, introducing the regulation allowing claiming punitive and preventive damages. Though the new regulation allows exemplary damages to be awarded only in the event of non-proprietary damages, it nevertheless constitutes a general paradigm shift, allowing for a much broader protection of personal rights.
Until the adoption of Reorganisation Act Estonian legislation did not provide efficient regulation for companies which were in temporary financial difficulties, but could be “rescued” via certain turn-around proceedings to overcome the economically difficult period.
New Advertising Act has entered into force from 1st of November 2008. The main reason for drafting the new Act was the current situation in the advertising market – the legal regulation of the Advertising Act passed in 1997 needed to be modernized. Requirements for advertising goods and services, which are likely to cause controversy in the society, have been specified. Additional restrictions have been provided for advertising of alcohol products and financial services, while exemptions have been added to the advertising regulation of tobacco products and gambling. The efficiency of surveillance has been improved and additional measures have been taken. Consistency with the EU law is important in order to avoid discrimination of foreign manufacturers and service providers. Drafting a new act was expedient, whereas extensive amendments were to be made to the current legal regulation of advertising.
The Civil Chamber of the Estonian Supreme Court has thoroughly handled the topics of division of joint property, repeated some earlier principles and given the clear instruction in the proceeding of division of the joint property of spouses in the question of assessment of the value of the company.
The Estonian Supreme Court handled the taxation of the earnings of the physical persons through the application of the rule of economic interpretation (Taxation Act § 84) in its decision of 6 November 2008. In this case the Supreme Court gave the instructions which circumstances are important for establishing the existence of the objective of tax evasion. This is a significant decision in the cases of transfer of securities, where the tax authority has found that the substance and form of the transaction are not in compliance and in no doubt will have its impact to assessing the tax consequences of corporate restructurings.