Short Reads

Stibbe advises Picnic

Stibbe advises Picnic

Stibbe advises Picnic

31.03.2017 NL law

Stibbe advises online supermarket Picnic on obtaining EUR 100 million growth capital from several Dutch family funds.

A year and a half ago Picnic started making deliveries of groceries and other daily shopping needs and it has experienced explosive growth since. The investment in Picnic will enable the online supermarket to realize its ambitious growth plans.

Team

Related news

06.02.2020 NL law
Pay-for-delay: brightened lines between object and effect restrictions

Short Reads - In its first pay-for-delay case, the ECJ has clarified the criteria determining whether settlement agreements between a patent holder of a pharmaceutical product and a generic manufacturer may have as their object or effect to restrict EU competition law. The judgment confirms the General Court’s earlier rulings in Lundbeck and Servier (see our October 2016 and December 2018 newsletters) in which it was held that pay-for-delay agreements (in these cases) constituted a restriction ‘by object’.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Wet zorgplicht kinderarbeid gepubliceerd in het Staatsblad

Short Reads - Op 13 november 2019 is de Wet zorgplicht kinderarbeid in het Staatsblad gepubliceerd. Op grond van deze wet geldt voor elke onderneming die aan Nederlandse eindgebruikers goederen verkoopt of diensten levert dat gepaste zorgvuldigheid moet worden betracht om te voorkomen dat die goederen en/of diensten met behulp van kinderarbeid tot stand zijn gekomen. Het is nog niet bekend wanneer de wet in werking zal treden.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
The ACM may cast the net wide in cartel investigations

Short Reads - Companies beware: the ACM may not need to specify the scope of its investigation into suspected cartel infringements in as much detail as expected. On 14 January 2020, the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal upheld the ACM’s appeal against judgments of the Rotterdam District Court, which had quashed cartel fines imposed on cold storage operators. The operators had argued that the ACM was time-barred from pursuing a case against them, because the ACM had not suspended the prescription period by beginning investigative actions specifically related to the alleged infringements.

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring