Hunkemöller International BV (the Company) conducted a Liability Management Exercise (LME) in 2025. The key points appear below. For a look at some FAQs about LMEs, see Practice Note: FAQs on Liability Management Exercises. Key legal and tactical takeaways This is one of the first high profile LME uptiering transactions reported in Europe. Non pro rata uptiering transactions may be perceived by non-participating creditors as particularly aggressive and the commencement of litigation in several jurisdictions by the dissenting minority creditors shows a growing trend by such creditors to challenge these types of European LME. It is interesting to see that the minority creditors have launched proceedings in Europe (as well as the US) against a growing number of parties using (i) some of the challenges we have seen in the US , (ii) potential challenges against the directors under local European laws which are often determined by the centre of main interests (COMI) of the debtor company (see Practice Notes: European directors' duties in the zone of insolvency and Table comparing European

Law360, London: The High Court has stayed an English claim arising from the enforcement of Dutch lingerie retailer Hunkemöller International BV’s €272.5 million debt, ruling on 6 August 2026 that it substantially overlaps with an earlier New York action involving the same underlying dispute.

CASE HUB Archived—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 14 September 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline UK merger investigation into the completed acquisition by Hunter Douglas N.V. of convertible loan notes and certain rights in 247 Home Furnishings Ltd in 2013 (2013 Transaction) and the completed acquisition by Hunter Douglas N.V. of a controlling interest in 247 Home Furnishings Ltd in 2019 (2019 Transaction) (together, the Transactions). The Transactions involve horizontal overlaps in the supply of window furnishings, including blinds, shutters and curtains. Latest developments On 14 September 2020, the CMA issued its final report in its phase 2 investigation, finding that the transaction has resulted, or may be expected to result, in an SLC in the online supply made-to-measure blinds in the UK. In particular, the CMA found that the transaction removes a direct competitor from this market, resulting in an ability and incentive for the merged entity to increase retail prices, lower the quality of its products or

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 10 September 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline European Commission phase II merger investigation into the planned acquisition by Huntsman Corporation of certain businesses from Rockwood Holdings (Case M.7061).The transaction involves a horizontal overlap in the market for sulphate based TiO2 pigments, in particularly titanium dioxide (especially titanium dioxide for printing). Latest developments The Commission cleared the transaction subject to commitments on 10 September 2014. The commitment accepted is the divestment by Huntsman of its TR52 business, which is Huntsman's main TiO2 grade used for printing ink applications (such as printing inks used in flexible packaging). The business to be divested includes the TR52 brand, technology and know-how, customer arrangements and some key personnel. The transaction will not be closed until a binding agreement for the sale of the divested business has been entered into and the proposed purchaser approved by the Commission. The commitments

The hurdle sets the amount of profits that have to be distributed to investors in a private equity fund before the carried interest partner can be paid any carried interest. The hurdle will be reached once the amount distributed to the investors exceeds a certain level (usually the amount invested plus about 8%) also known as the preferred return.

The minimum rate of return required before a prerequisite profit is made or a performance fee is paid.

The Hurtigruten group conducted an LME using distressed disposal mechanics in the ICA in 2025. The LME involved a debt for equity swap, the injection of additional capital, plus the extension of maturities to 2030. The key points appear below. For a look at some FAQs about LMEs, see Practice Note: FAQs on Liability Management Exercises. Capitalised terms are defined at the end of this Practice Note. Key legal and tactical takeaways This LME utilised the distressed disposal mechanics of the ICA (also known as an ‘ICA drag’) and economically is most akin to an uptiering LME; the participating lenders obtained enhanced lending and equity interests and a favourable allocation of the restructuring surplus, but this was achieved by enforcement, transfer and release under the ICA (not by amending the ranking of the existing debt to insert new priming debt as in a normal uptiering transaction). Hurtigruten shows that the information asymmetries that are inherent in LMEs may help non-participating creditors excluded from an LME that has been imposed upon them under documents

It is assumed husband (H) and wife (W) left their estates to each other, and, thereafter to A. On W’s death, her estate passed to H, and the issue here concerns the extent to which H is now bound by his continuing testamentary bequest to A. It is also assumed that H and W did actually make valid mutual Wills (as opposed to individual mirror Wills), namely that they created a legally binding contract between themselves to the effect that, in return for W agreeing to make a Will in the form that she did and not to revoke it without notice to H, then H made his Will in the form he did, agreeing not to revoke it without

This Q&A assumes that the life interest created by H’s Will satisfies the three conditions in section 49A of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984) if the life interest trust for W is an immediate post death interest (see IHTA 1984, s 49A), W will be treated as owning the underlying trust property for inheritance tax (IHT) purposes by virtue of IHTA 1984, s 49. See also Practice Notes: • The meaning of qualifying interest in possession • Qualifying interest in possession trusts—IHT treatment On

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 12 December 2012; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission merger investigation into the planned acquisition by Hutchison 3G of Orange Austria (Case M.6497). The Commission cleared the transaction subject to commitments on 12/12/2012. Parties Hutchison 3G (H3G) and Orange Austria. H3G provides mobile telecommunication services (voice, SMS and MMS) as well as mobile broadband and multimedia products in Austria. Orange Austria provides mobile telecommunication services (voice, SMS and MMS) as well as mobile broadband

CASE HUB (appeal against Commission's clearance decision lodged by third party in Case T- 19/17 Fastweb v Commission) ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 1 September 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission merger investigation into the proposed joint venture involving the telecommunications activities of Hutchison 3G Italy (3 Italia) and VimpelCom (WIND) in Italy (Case M.7758). The transaction involves horizontal overlaps in the mobile telecommunications market and other telecommunications markets in Italy. Latest developments The Commission cleared the transaction subject to commitments on 1 September 2016. Under the commitments, the parties will divest assets to the French telecommunications operator Iliad to enable to establish a new mobile network operator (MNO) in Italy. The commitments include: • the divestment to the new MNO of a certain amount of the parties' mobile radio spectrum • the transfer or colocation (ie sharing) by the parties to the new MNO of several thousand mobile base stations, and • a transitional agreement allowing the

CASE HUB (appeal lodged against prohibition decision by CK Telecoms UK Investments Ltd in Case T- 399/16 CK Telecoms UK v Commission) ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 11 May 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission merger investigation into the proposed acquisition by Hutchison 3G UK (owner of Three UK) of Telefonica UK (owner of O2) (Case M.7612). The transaction involves horizontal overlaps in the mobile telecommunications market and other telecommunications markets in the UK. Latest developments On 11 May 2016, the Commission prohibited the transaction. The proposed commitments offered did not adequately address the Commission's concerns. In particular, the proposed commitments did not resolve the Commission's concerns in relation to the disruption to the current network sharing agreements in the UK, were not capable of replacing the weakened competition in the retail and wholesale markets and the, largely behavioural, measures raised significant uncertainty as regards their effective implementation and monitoring. Parties Hutchison