Category: 3. Business

Story Continues

KARACHI – Pakistani rupee has recorded slight changes against various foreign currencies in open market as the buying and selling prices of Euro, Saudi Riyal and UK Pound witnessed slight changes.

On July 4, US Dollar’s buying rate stood at Rs285.1, while selling rate hovered at Rs286.5 after slight changes, according to forex.pk

Euro’s (EUR) buying rate stood at Rs336 and the selling rate at Rs338.6 while UK Pound buying rates settled at Rs391.5 and selling Rs394.5.

Several currencies, including the Australian Dollar (AUD), Canadian Dollar (CAD), Chinese Yuan (CNY), Danish Krone (DKK), Japanese Yen (JPY), Kuwaiti Dinar (KWD), Malaysian Ringgit (MYR), New Zealand Dollar (NZD), and Swiss Franc (CHF), showed no change in their rates compared to the previous update.

Currency Exchange Rates Today

Ministers are closely watching a court case in which Vodafone is alleged to have “unjustly enriched” itself at the expense of franchise operators, and have raised the prospect of a regulatory crackdown on the sector.

The small business minister, Gareth Thomas, has said he will “track very carefully” a £120m legal claim brought against Vodafone last year by a group of 62 of about 150 franchise operators.

They allege that drastic cuts to commission rates on selling Vodafone products in the group’s high street stores caused many of them to run up huge personal debts. They say they fear for their livelihoods or homes, and some have reported suicidal thoughts.

Their court filing claims the company “indiscriminately … operated to enrich Vodafone at the expense of its franchisees”.

Thomas told MPs on Wednesday: “There are without question some very serious allegations being levelled at Vodafone in this case.

“Until now there has not been sustained concern about the quality or effectiveness of the self-regulation of franchises in general. However, I recognise that this particular case has raised concerns across the House and I will track very carefully what happens in this case and the final outcome and conclusions that any court case might come to.”

Thomas was speaking in parliament during an adjournment debate secured by the the former Conservative minister John Hayes. He told MPs: “Franchising can be used as a method to exaggerate the power of the business at the heart of the franchise and to weaken the position of franchisees. My assertion is that is common and is particular in the case of Vodafone.”

Luke Akehurst, the Labour MP for North Durham, said: “There are major corporates that treat their franchisees very badly, that sign them up on one set of terms – one rate card – and then change the goalposts.

“And then when people dissent and complain about that, they find that their franchise is withdrawn and they lose their investment when they have put a great deal into that corporate giant. I think this is a matter that, in the near future, is going to require some ministerial attention.”

Talks to settle the franchisees’ legal claim against Vodafone ended without resolution in May, leaving the case potentially heading for the high court.

Vodafone was approached for comment. It has previously said: “This is a complex commercial dispute between Vodafone UK and some franchise partners and as we have said from the beginning, we refute the claims.”

The company has also apologised “unreservedly to anyone whose experiences while operating their business has impacted [their health] in this way” , adding: “Where issues have been raised, we have sought to rectify these and we believe we have treated our franchisees fairly.”

Vodafone has just completed a deal to merge its UK operation with rival Three to create Britain’s biggest mobile phone operator.

Vodafone’s chief executive, Margherita Della Valle, said in May that the merger would involve job cuts where the two businesses had a duplication of functions and roles, although overall it would create jobs as it embarked on an €11bn (£9.5bn) upgrade and expansion of its 5G network over the next decade.

Linklaters acted as bookrunners’ counsel on the successful completion of placing of new shares for Innovent Biologics, Inc. (Innovent Biologics) and placing of existing shares and top-up subscription of new shares for Keymed Biosciences Inc. (Keymed Biosciences) on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange (HKEX), raising approximately HK$4.31bn and HK$864m, respectively. 

Innovent Biologics is a leading biopharmaceutical company with pioneering innovations in the fields of oncology, cardiovascular and metabolic diseases, autoimmune diseases and ophthalmology which have since been able to treat some of the most intractable diseases. The net proceeds from the transaction will primarily be used for the global R&D and arrangement of clinical and preclinical programmes, as well as for building the global infrastructure and facilities. This transaction marks one of the largest new share placements in the healthcare sector in Hong Kong SAR over the past four years.

Keymed Biosciences is a comprehensive biopharmaceutical company focussing on the independent research, development, and manufacturing of innovative drugs. The company successfully completed the placement of existing shares and top-up subscription of new shares under the general mandate, aiming to support the company’s financial strength, market competitiveness, and to promote the long-term health and sustainable development of the company. 

The Linklaters team was led by corporate partner Donnelly Chan and capital markets partner Lipton Li, with support from counsel Christian Felton and Gary Tsang.

Linklaters has a track record of advising clients in the healthcare sector. The firm’s clients are many of the world’s leading players, ranging from pharmaceutical, biotech, and medical equipment manufacturing organisations, through to healthcare services groups, banks, private equity houses and sovereign wealth funds.

Key aspects that VC investors need to be aware of

Broad sector coverage: Within the past few years, the list of relevant businesses caught by the German FDI rules was extended from previously 11 to now 31. The German FDI regime now covers several of the most promising emerging and transformative Deep Tech, High Tech, and Green Tech sectors including defense, aerospace, (clean) energy, life sciences, biotechnology, artificial intelligence, robotics, semiconductors, and quantum technology.

Broad personal scope: The German FDI regime typically captures acquisitions by non-EU/EFTA investors. In the defense sector, filing requirements may even apply to non-German acquirers. It is particularly noteworthy that the MoE applies a “look-through” approach, examining the entire chain of ownership up to the ultimate beneficial owner. Consequently, the mere fact that the direct acquirer or the ultimate investor and/or the UBO might be a German or an EU/EFTA based entity does not exclude a filing requirement in any case. Given that the German FDI regulations differ from the common rules on the attribution of voting rights and do not provide for a “dilution” of voting rights, a 10% shareholding of a foreign entity at a higher level of the investor’s acquisition structure may trigger the need for a filing (even if this is just a holding company).

Low thresholds: Compared to most other FDI regimes across the globe, the German FDI screening rules provide for very low voting rights thresholds that trigger a filing requirement. In particular, the German FDI rules are triggered not only when an investor acquires control over a domestic company. Depending on the business of the German target, the acquisition of 20%, or even just 10%, of the voting rights may be subject to prior clearance from the MoE. VC seed and Series A funding may often reach or exceed such thresholds even if the investment volume is not very high.

No enterprise value or turnover thresholds: The German FDI rules do not provide for any de-minimis exemptions with regard to the turnover generated by the target company and/or with respect to the enterprise value or the funding amount. Hence, even low investments in a start-up that does not yet generate any turnover may trigger a filing and clearance requirement.

Stand-still obligation and gun jumping: Transactions that require a mandatory notification are principally subject to a stand-still obligation and a suspensory effect, i.e., the parties are not allowed to complete such a transaction until approval from the MoE. A ban on (i) sharing sensitive information with the acquirer and (ii) exercising voting rights by the acquirer prior to clearance (“gun jumping”) applies. As long as such clearance has not been issued by the MoE, the transaction is temporarily invalid under civil laws.

Multiple clearance requirements/successive funding rounds: Even if an initial investment was cleared by the MoE, subsequent increases in shareholding in later funding rounds (e.g., Series B, C) may trigger new filing obligations if relevant voting rights thresholds are crossed (20%, 25%, 40%, 50%, 75%).

Far reaching ex officio powers of the MoE: All acquisitions of 25% or more of the voting rights by a non-EU/EFTA investor may be called-in by the MoE for a period of up to five years. Parties may therefore carefully consider to file on a voluntary basis in the interest of deal certainty. The advisability of voluntary filing depends on the specific circumstances, including target and investor characteristics and the political climate.

Be aware, but don’t be concerned – FDI filings are no deal-breakers

Most of the transactions are cleared without conditions

Official data published by the MoE show that the overwhelming majority of notified transactions is cleared without any remedies. In 2024, the MoE imposed restrictive measures only in 3% of the transactions it had reviewed. As far as publicly known, only one transaction was blocked in 2024. Whilst these figures have been quite stable in Germany over the past few years, the global FDI landscape paints a mixed picture with an increased number of interventions in some of the key jurisdictions including, in particular, France where 44% of the transactions were subject to remedies, the US (19%) and Italy (13%).

If the MoE stipulates conditions or requests certain commitments from the parties, such remedies are typically tailor-made and address specific concerns. They regularly comprise of, inter alia, (i) limitations on shareholder influence, (ii) requirements with regard to the management composition, and (iii) the obligation to keep running the German business and to continuously supply critical German customers. The allocation of such execution risks and commitments in the transaction documentation is therefore crucial.

Based on our experience, the MoE is usually open to negotiate the content of the remedies with the parties. Contrary to merger control decisions, any such remedies are not made public by the MoE.