I OVERVIEW OF THE MARKET
The Danish real estate market is mainly dominated by institutional investors and property funds, but real estate companies, of which the majority are privately held, are increasingly active in certain segments. The market for office properties is equally dominated by institutional investors, property funds and real estate companies seeking secure cash flows offered by the long leases usually attached to such properties. The residential segment is particularly dominated by property funds and real estate companies, with no notable presence of institutional investors, whereas property funds and institutional investors contribute the main part of investments in retail properties.
While the office, residential and retail segments have been predominant in recent years, investments in the hotel and logistic segments have recently begun attracting increased interest from investors following some years with slow activity. Transactions with hotel properties are increasing with particularly institutional investors, domestic and foreign, being interested in this segment typically only investing in the hotel property and not the associated operations. Investments in logistics are also on the rise and especially logistic assets with long leases are attractive to property funds in particular.
Domestic institutional investors have a significant presence in the Danish real estate market, where Danish pension funds in particular are increasing their investments in real estate. Pension funds are not only investing indirectly through property funds but are to a large extent investing directly in properties, including development projects, or providing financing by other means through various types of loans or bonds for acquisitions and development of real estate.
Recent years have seen an increasing number of foreign investors entering the Danish real estate market and in 2017 foreign investment for the first time surpassed investments from Danish investors. Also the number of deals involving solely parties originating outside Denmark is on the rise. Investors from Germany, Scandinavia, the US and the United Kingdom in particular are investing in Danish real estate with Swedish real estate investors especially being active in the Danish market and accounting for approximately one-third of the total investment volume in Denmark in 2017.
Foreign investors are mainly active in the retail segment, focusing primarily on retail properties located in prime locations, and the residential segment (mainly larger portfolios). However, they are increasingly interested in both office and logistics properties.
International investors tend to stipulate requirements to the transaction documentation deviating from what has previously been customary in Denmark. Transactions involving properties with significant commercial operations, such as hotel or retail properties, require bespoke solutions, which often entail a certain level of complexity as well as a need for thorough preparation. These transactions resemble M&A transactions more than ordinary real estate transfers in terms of structure, complexity, timing and process.
II RECENT MARKET ACTIVITY
i M&A transactions
One of the largest real estate M&A transactions in Denmark to date took place in 2015 when Novo A/S and TryghedsGruppen SMBA acquired 49.2 per cent of the shares in the privately held real estate company DADES A/S. The value of the transaction remains undisclosed, but DADES owns a portfolio of mainly office and retail properties worth 16.9 billion kroner. The sellers were a number of institutional investors, including banks, pension funds and an insurance company. As part of the transaction, the acquirers committed themselves to contributing additional capital of approximately 1.7 billion kroner for investments in real estate.
In 2017, the largest transaction was made up by the real estate arm of Danish pension fund ATP’s acquisition of 50 per cent of a portfolio consisting of 16 shopping centres from another Danish pension fund, Danica Pension. The transaction is valued at 6.9 billion kroner and through the transaction the two Danish pension funds formed a joint venture which will develop and operate the centres cooperatively and potentially expand the portfolio through additional acquisitions. Danica sold real estate at a significant amount in 2017 also divesting an office portfolio to Wihlborgs Fastigheter AB at a price of 1.9 billion kroner and another portfolio of office properties to Swiss-based Woodman Asset Management for 1.6 billion kroner.
Recent years have seen several transactions involving larger residential property portfolios, with Swedish real estate company Heimstaden AB being by far the most active investor. In 2017, Heimstaden, among numerous other acquisitions, acquired a residential portfolio from Ares Management at a value of approximately 2.9 billion kroner, which is Heimstaden’s largest Danish portfolio so far consisting in total of 30 properties, including four under construction. Another notable portfolio transfer took place in 2016 when Swedish real estate company Castellum AB, as part of the acquisition of another Swedish company, Norrporten AB, took over a Danish office portfolio at an estimated value of 3 billion kroner. Additionally, in 2017, Heimstaden acquired the residential property Hostrups Have for 1.7 billion kroner from Danish mortgage credit institution Nykredit Realkredit A/S, which had taken ownership of the property following foreclosure of the cooperative housing association previously owning it.
ii Private equity transactions
The largest Danish real estate private equity investment in recent years was carried out in May 2017 with Swedish Niam AB’s acquisition of all shares in Danish real estate company HD Ejendomme A/S from the founder family on undisclosed terms. HD Ejendomme owns and manages a portfolio consisting of both residential and commercial properties at a total value of approximately 4.2 billion kroner. HD Ejendomme was hit hard by the financial crisis in 2009 and struggled financially in the years following, causing a significant reduction in the portfolio. Simultaneously with the acquisition, Niam plans to recapitalise the company through an injection of new capital, strengthening the company financially as well as strategically.
One property has attracted particular attention in the private equity market in recent years: the Illum property, located in central Copenhagen and housing a luxury department store. In 2011, the Danish private equity fund Solstra Capital Partners, which acquired the Illum property in a distressed sale in 2009, divested the real estate company (propco) owning the Illum property for approximately 1.6 billion kroner to the UK-based private equity firm MGPA. Then in 2013, Solstra sold the Illum department store (opco) to Italian retailer La Rinascente, which is part of Thai-based Central Group. In 2015, Central Group acquired the Illum property from BlackRock (who had taken over MGPA in 2014) in a deal with an estimated value of between 2.5 and 3 billion kroner.
In recent years, the Danish market for hotel properties has seen a number of significant transactions. The most prominent transactions were Solstra’s divestments of first the property housing the Copenhagen Marriott hotel in 2016 and next the Bella Sky property housing the AC Hotel Bella Sky Copenhagen in 2017. The Marriott hotel property was sold to the Danish pension funds ATP and PensionDanmark, which paid approximately 1 billion kroner for the property, whereas the Bella Sky property was sold to the Norwegian private investor Wenaasgruppen for approximately 1.5 billion kroner. Prior to the divestments, the Solstra-owned operator of the hotels, which also operates another significant Copenhagen hotel, had performed a larger corporate restructuring separating all its real estate assets from its operating activities.
Residential properties have also been in focus in the private equity market, with transactions involving larger portfolios. The most significant transaction was UK-based Coller Capital’s acquisition of the former PFA portfolio containing 22 residential properties in 2015 at an estimated total value of 2.2 billion kroner.
III REAL ESTATE COMPANIES AND FIRMS
i Publicly traded REITs and REOCs – structure and role in the market
Currently, REIT structures are not used in Denmark, but there are a number of publicly traded real estate companies of varying size. The largest by some distance is Jeudan A/S, with a market capitalisation of around 10.7 billion kroner, total assets of 23.6 billion kroner and annual revenue of 1.3 billion kroner.
Jeudan owns both commercial and residential properties in the Copenhagen area. Its portfolio primarily consists of commercial properties, including mainly office properties but also with some retail properties on central locations in the Copenhagen Area. Jeudan’s business strategy is to continue investing primarily in office properties in Copenhagen with a long-term investment horizon.
Besides Jeudan, only smaller real estate companies are traded publicly, none of which has a market capitalisation exceeding 500 million kroner, revenue exceeding 200 million kroner or total assets exceeding 2.5 billion kroner. These smaller companies do not play roles of any significance in the real estate M&A market, and only Jeudan is of a size to engage in larger transactions. Swedish public real estate companies, however, are very active in the Danish market and able to carry out large investments; these are mainly Heimstaden, Castellum, Akelius Residential Property AB, Fastighets AB Balder and Wihlborgs Fastigheter.
ii Real estate PE firms – footprint and structure
The real estate private equity market in Denmark is dominated by a few local players together with a group of foreign private equity firms. The main local players are Solstra Capital Partners, NREP and Core Property Management, which are all based in Copenhagen. In recent years, NREP has developed to become a pan-Nordic player whereas Solstra Capital Partners has focused on developing a large portfolio of hospitality operations including the Marriott hotel, the Crowne Plaza hotel and the Bella Sky Copenhagen hotel in Copenhagen. NREP recently announced a new fund, raising €900 million from mainly pension funds, insurance companies and sovereign wealth funds from the Nordics, Europe, the US and East Asia making it the largest property fund in the Nordics so far.
Also the Danish operation of German fund Patrizia has been very active in recent years both in the retail and residential segments. Among the UK-based firms involved in recent major transactions are BlackRock, Coller Capital, Aberdeen Standard Investments, M7 Real Estate and M&G Real Estate. From Sweden, Niam and Svea Fastigheter have recently been party to significant transactions as well as CapMan from Finland. Furthermore, non-European players are also active in the Danish market, including amongst others US-based Blackstone and Hines. Private equity investors are focusing their investments on significant retail properties, logistics and larger portfolios of residential properties, and have recently also directed their attention towards office properties.
i Legal frameworks and deal structures
Typically, a real estate transaction in Denmark is structured either as a direct investment in the form of an asset deal or through a limited liability company or limited partnership in the form of a share purchase. However, limited liability companies are most frequently used for investments in real estate in Denmark as a result of the advantages attached to this structure.
Choice of deal structure depends on various factors, with tax or registration duty aspects being predominant, and which structure is most preferred depends on the circumstances of each specific transaction.
When structured as a share purchase, all the assets and liabilities in the company are transferred to the buyer by way of a transfer of the shares in the company. In contrast, when structured as an asset purchase, only the assets and liabilities that comprise the purchase agreement are transferred. The consequence of this is that any latent liabilities and risks, including pollution of the property, are, as the principal rule, not transferred to the buyer. However, in an asset purchase, transfer of any contracts requires consent from the contracting party, which is not necessary in the case of a share purchase, with the exception of contracts containing change-of-control clauses. The consent requirement in asset deals can be prevented by way of a partial demerger of the assets and liabilities to be transferred, as the Danish Companies Act prescribes mandatory debtor substitution in such cases. Subsequently, the demerged company can be transferred as part of a share deal.
As a result of these factors, the deal structure will often involve a prior corporate restructuring in the form of a demerger or contribution of assets where the relevant property or portfolio of properties is transferred to a separate entity.
A share purchase requires consent from the selling shareholders, whereas an asset purchase can be resolved by the management of the selling company – typically the board of directors – without involving the shareholders. This is presumably the case even if the property in question is the only substantial asset of the company.
An important aspect when structuring a transfer involving residential properties is the tenants’ mandatory right of pre-emption according to the Danish Rent Act. For properties with a minimum of 13 residential tenants, or six residential tenants if the property contains only residential tenancies, the tenants have a pre-emption right. Thus, unless the property has been divided into owner-occupied flats according to the Danish Rent Act, the owner must offer the property to the tenants on a cooperative basis before disposing of it to a third party. The tenants must be offered the opportunity to purchase the property on the same terms as any outside purchaser has offered.
The right of pre-emption applies both when the property is transferred, including by merger, and if there is a change of control of the limited liability company owning the property. However, a change of control of a parent company (the holdco) to the property owning company (the propco) will not trigger the tenants’ pre-emption right. The shares of the holdco may thus be transferred freely, whereas transfer of the shares in the propco triggers the pre-emption right if there is a change of control (i.e., the majority of the voting rights is transferred). It is a requirement for triggering the pre-emption right for the majority of the votes to be transferred to the same transferee. According to case law, a transfer of all the votes in the propco to three or more separate transferees, whereby none of them acquire control of the company, will thus not trigger the pre-emption right.
A different right of pre-emption applies when transferring residential properties reserved for senior citizens. Such properties must be offered to the municipality prior to a transfer to anyone else, but this pre-emption right does not apply in a transfer of shares in a limited liability company owning the property.
Another important factor in the choice of deal structure is registration fees. Registration fees are payable on the registration of change of ownership and security rights over real estate. A transfer of the property in question will thus trigger a registration fee of 1,660 kroner plus 0.6 per cent of the highest amount of the purchase price or the latest public property value (as of 1 January 2020 the variable registration fee will only be calculated on the basis of the purchase price). Registration of a mortgage triggers a registration fee of 1,660 kroner plus 1.5 per cent of the mortgage sum; however, it is generally possible to make deductions corresponding to the value of the mortgages being replaced. By way of contrast, a share transfer of a limited liability company owning a property does not trigger any registration fee. In a change of ownership as part of a corporate restructuring (i.e., merger, demerger, transfer of assets or exchange of shares), the registration fee is reduced to a fixed amount of 1,660 kroner. Hence, the variable part of the registration fee can be avoided by transferring the property in question to a separate company (a special purpose vehicle (SPV)) by way of a demerger or transfer of assets and, subsequently, transferring the shares in the SPV instead of transferring the property directly. This is commonly referred to as the ‘drop down’ model.
If a transaction involves a real estate company with securities listed on a regulated market in Denmark or another EU Member State, the company may have a duty to disclose the transaction to the market in accordance with the EU Market Abuse Regulation. The duty to inform the market arises if information about the transaction constitutes inside information.2 If information on a real estate transaction constitutes inside information, the company is required to inform the public as soon as possible of the information, but with an option to delay disclosure subject to certain conditions being met.
ii Acquisition agreement terms
Generally, it can be noted that agreements in Danish real estate M&A and private equity transactions are becoming more detailed and thorough. This is probably due to influence from the increasing number of foreign investors now in the Danish real estate market. Further, there is to a large extent no law regulating such transactions, thus requiring a more thorough description of each party’s rights and obligations within the agreement itself.
Consideration is typically cash payment and, if relevant, the buyer’s payment of any intercompany loans provided by the seller to the target company. The types of representations and warranties vary to a certain degree depending on whether the transaction is a share deal or an asset deal.
A share purchase agreement will usually contain a number of representations and warranties regarding various corporate matters. These will typically include representations and warranties relating to, inter alia, the parties’ capacity to enter into the agreement, title to the shares, and that the shares are freely transferable and not subject to any encumbrances.
In respect of the property, a share purchase agreement will usually contain a representation and warranty to the fact that the company owns and has full and unrestricted title to the property in question. Similarly, an asset purchase agreement usually contains a representation and warranty to the fact that the seller has such ownership and title to the property.
Both share and asset purchase agreements generally contain representations and warranties with regard to the property. Typically, these include that the seller represents and warrants that the property is free from all material encumbrances, easements and mortgage deeds other than as set out in the purchase agreement. Further, they may require that all due payments relating to the properties have been paid at the time of closing, including property taxes, and that all lease agreements relating to the properties have been disclosed and are legally binding.
With respect to the property in question, it is customary for the seller to represent that to the seller’s knowledge its construction and utilisation is in accordance with applicable law, and also that it is built in accordance with all regional and local development plans applicable to as well as easements registered on the property, and that there are no hidden defects.
Other representations and warranties by the seller may concern property insurances, lease agreements, pending cases or environmental matters relating to the property, and that there are no agreements or rights for sale, options or rights of pre-emption affecting the properties other than the purchase agreement.
Closing conditions will typically include the buyer’s obtaining of the necessary external financing, either fully or partially, as well as both seller and buyer documenting board approval of entering into and execution of the agreement. In a sale-and-leaseback transaction, conditions precedent to closing may include execution of a lease agreement pertaining to the property in question. The terms of the lease agreement will typically be agreed as part of the purchase agreement.
A mutual closing condition relating to a transaction involving residential properties may be that the tenants of the residential property in question do not exercise their pre-emption right according to the Danish Rent Act. When transferring a portfolio of residential properties, the pre-emption right applies to each individual property. Hence, the purchaser will normally require a contractual right to stand down from the entire agreement or benefit from a price reduction if the pre-emption right is exercised for one or more properties.
The purchase agreement may contain an indemnification clause requiring a party to the agreement to hold the other party harmless from and against any loss subject only to the limitations set out in the agreement. The clause may preclude claims regarding consequential and indirect losses, including loss of goodwill, business, anticipated profits and similar losses. Typically, the loss would be determined in accordance with general principles of Danish law, including the principles regarding mitigation of loss and limitation of losses resulting from acts by the party bringing the claim.
Liability may be limited in regards to both time and amount (de minimis, basket and cap) and exclude liability for certain claims, for example, defects in the property, environmental and pollution matters, and the accuracy of particulars registered with public authorities.
It is becoming more and more common in larger Danish real estate M&A transactions that a W&I insurance is taken out in favour of the buyer regarding the potential liability of the seller for breaches of the warranties given in the purchase agreement. This is in line with a general trend in the Danish M&A market where W&I insurances are becoming increasingly popular. As a consequence, it is typically agreed in the purchase agreement that the purchaser may only direct a warranty claim against the insurer and only in the event of wilful misconduct or fraud may the claim be made directly against the seller. The premium of the W&I insurance will often be borne equally by the each of the purchaser and the seller, but the purchase agreement may stipulate that either the purchaser or seller is to pay the full premium.
iii Hostile transactions
Hostile transactions rarely occur in Denmark. This is also the case for public real estate companies.
The only recent hostile bid for a public real estate company was William Demant Invest A/S’s (WDI) tender offer to purchase all the shares in Jeudan in 2012. The tender offer was a consequence of WDI obtaining control of Jeudan, thus triggering the mandatory bid rule requiring the acquirer to make an offer for all the shares in the company. Hence, WDI had no intention of acquiring all the shares in Jeudan and made the tender offer only because it was legally obliged to do so. Therefore, the offer was not at a premium to the market price, and it was thus only hostile in the sense that the board of directors of Jeudan was recommending that the shareholders not accept the offer. Under these circumstances, the result of the tender offer was that WDI further acquired an insignificant number of shares in Jeudan, bringing its total holding to 41.6 per cent of the share capital.
iv Financing considerations
The prevailing way of financing real estate transactions is by way of loans secured by mortgages over the property in question. However, there are certain limits as to how much of the transaction it is possible to finance through mortgage loans. With regard to commercial properties, including office and industrial properties, it is only possible to finance up to 60 per cent of the property’s value with mortgage loans according to the Danish Act on Mortgage Loans and Mortgage Bonds. The limit is 80 per cent for residential properties and 40 per cent for other properties, including undeveloped properties. The Danish mortgage system offers very low lending costs compared to the rest of Europe making it desirable to leverage investments in real estate, which is particularly attractive for property funds.
The rest of the transaction value must be financed in other ways. This will often be through either equity contributions or ordinary second-tier bank financing on less favourable terms than mortgage loans but still with security in the property. In addition to security in the property, lenders may also require other security instruments such as negative pledges, account pledges, share pledges, assignments of receivables and springing mortgages (mortgages initially not registered with the Land Register to save registration fees), but this depends on the will of the lender.
When structuring the transaction as an asset purchase, the buyer may legally provide the property as security to the lender that is providing the financing for the transaction. However, this is not necessarily a possibility in the case of a share purchase. Under Danish law, a limited liability company is subject to limitations in terms of financing an acquisition of shares in the company itself. According to the Danish Companies Act, a limited liability company may not, directly or indirectly, provide, inter alia, security for a third party’s acquisition of shares in the company or its parent. Thus, the target company cannot put up the property as collateral for the buyer’s financing of the acquisition. However, subject to certain conditions, the target company is allowed to provide financial assistance. Such legal financial assistance requires shareholder approval and must be provided at arm’s length, and the board of directors of the target must issue a statement ensuring that the recipient is credit rated. Finally, the financial assistance may not exceed the funds that can be distributed as dividends, and it must be reasonable having regard to the target company’s financial position.
Because of the limitations in the target company’s ability to provide financial assistance, the financier of a share purchase will often obtain security in the shares in the target company. Such pledging is not subject to limitations according to the Danish Companies Act.
v Tax considerations
There are significant differences in the tax aspects of a transaction depending on the deal structure.
In an asset deal, the seller, domestic or foreign, is taxed on the profit of the sale of the property and there is a right of deduction for losses incurred in this respect; however, the deductibility is limited to other profits on sales of property with the possibility of carrying the loss forward to subsequent income years. Furthermore, the seller is taxed on any recaptured depreciations.
In a share deal, the seller is not taxed on any profit of sale of the property and, consequently, incurred losses are not deductible. Furthermore, a transfer of shares will generally not trigger any capital gains tax on the shares if (1) the seller is a Danish limited liability company; and (2) the selling company holds at least 10 per cent of the shares in the transferred company. If these conditions are not met, the capital gain is taxed at the corporate tax rate of 22 per cent if the seller is a limited liability company.
If the seller is a foreign shareholder not subject to full tax liability in Denmark, any capital gains from the sale of shares will not be subject to taxation in Denmark. This is as a result of capital gains from shares not being subject to limited tax liability under Danish tax law.
As a general rule, interest related to commercial activity in a company is tax deductible, but interest deductions may be limited by three sets of rules: the thin capitalisation test, the asset test and the EBIT test. If these rules apply, it may be preferable to make a direct investment or invest through a tax-transparent entity, for example, a limited partnership.
Corporate restructurings, including a demerger or transfer of assets, made prior to a transaction can be tax exempted and generally either with or without permission from the Danish tax authorities. However, certain conditions will apply to the tax-exempt restructuring, including a ban on selling the shares in the demerged or receiving company within three years of the restructuring. In general, it is possible, though, to obtain permission to carry out a tax-exempt restructuring without these conditions, provided that the contemplated transaction is commercially justifiable. Furthermore, it is worth taking into consideration that a tax-exempt restructuring may render tax losses carried forward from previous income years inapplicable as deductions against future income.
Generally, a transfer of property does not trigger any VAT; however, a sale of building land or newly constructed property is subject to VAT at a rate of 25 per cent of the transfer sum. VAT is not levied on such a transfer if it is part of an entire or partial transfer of business (going concern), for example, an ongoing rental business.
Generally, no VAT is due on the sale of shares in a company owning real estate, and a share deal does thus not trigger any VAT.
vi Cross-border complications and solutions
Denmark has some firm purchasing restrictions on foreigners’ investments in real estate. These restrictions render it practically impossible for many foreign investors to make direct investments in real estate in Denmark without obtaining permission from the Danish Ministry of Justice. It is unlikely that such permission will be granted if the targeted property is purely an investment.
However, the purchasing restrictions do not apply to Danish legal entities owned by foreigners. Hence, foreign investors generally choose to invest in Danish real estate through a Danish company or subsidiary. This can be done even if the sole purpose of the establishment of the company is to acquire the property in question.
V CORPORATE REAL ESTATE
There has been a slight trend to separate corporate real estate from operating companies by way of opco/propco separations. This has primarily been done by companies owned by private equity firms. In real estate-heavy companies such as in the retail and hotel sectors, private equity-owned companies have tended to separate the company’s real estate from the operating company to divest either the propco or the opco, or as part of a complete exit from the investment through sales of both to different acquirers. Typically, the separation takes place by way of a demerger or a transfer of assets.
Furthermore, sale-and-leaseback transactions are becoming increasingly popular, with a significant growth in volume in recent years. Several of the largest Danish companies have engaged in sale-and-leaseback transactions disposing of domicile properties to release capital tied up in real estate and focus resources on the core business with the potential to generate a higher return on capital. The acquirers are typically institutional investors and private equity firms. Sale-and-leaseback transactions are expected to continue at a relatively high level.
Particularly major companies within the financial sector has offloaded real estate and recent notable sale-and-leaseback transactions include Denmark’s largest bank, Danske Bank A/S’s, sale of its headquarters to Standard Life for approximately 1.4 billion kroner and Denmark’s largest mortgage credit institution, Nykredit Realkredit’s, divestment of its domicile, comprising two properties on the Copenhagen waterfront, to DADES at an estimated total of 1.5 billion kroner in 2016. In addition, industrial company Vestas Wind Systems A/S also sold its newly built headquarters to Solstra Capital Partners and Danish pension fund Sampension in 2017.
It is expected that the focus on M&A and private equity transactions in the real estate market will continue. Additionally, the number of foreign investors in the Danish real estate market is expected to remain at a high level in the form of both private equity firms, property funds and real estate companies.
Until recently, retail and residential properties have been the main focus of investments, particularly by international investors increasingly backed by foreign pension funds. However, both domestic and foreign investors are increasingly directing their attention towards office properties and this trend is expected to continue. The trend is expected to drive a further increase in the already high activity level of sale-and-leaseback of office properties held by corporations.
In addition to the main property segments comprising office, retail and residential properties, the hotels and logistics segments are seeing an increased interest. The hotels sector, in particular, is experiencing great investor attention, which is expected to continue with both domestic and foreign investors focusing more on diversifying real estate portfolios by investing in the hotel market and particularly Danish pension funds directing attention to the hotel market in the pursuit of stable yields. With the number of hotels, both high-end and budget, increasing rapidly, in particular in the Copenhagen area, this trend is likely to continue in the coming years. The rising interest in logistics properties are also expected to continue.
The number of transactions involving properties in prime locations is not expected to remain at the current high level because of the lower supply of such properties. Consequently, real estate investments are expected to be increasingly directed towards new development areas, suburban areas and provincial cities, and 2017 saw an increasing interest in properties located outside Copenhagen, where major cities such as Aarhus, Odense, Aalborg but also Esbjerg, Roskilde and the Triangle Region (the area around Vejle, Fredericia and Kolding) especially attract interest. This is a trend that is expected to continue.
1 Alexander Troeltzsch Larsen and Michael Wejp-Olsen are partners at Gorrissen Federspiel. The authors would like to thank Anders Watson Hansen, junior associate at Gorrissen Federspiel, for his assistance in the preparation of this chapter.
2 Inside information is non-public information that would be likely to have a significant effect on the price of the company’s securities.