Client Case Partners Date Aukruststiftelsen BAHR successfully represented Aukruststiftelsen in the Court of Appeal in a Are Stenvik 2018 dispute with Caprino Filmcenter AS. The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Aukruststiftelsen, finding that Aukruststiftelsen had not infringed the rights of Caprino Filmcenter AS pursuant to the Norwegian Marketing Control Act and further that Aukruststiftelsen had not acted in breach of the principle of loyalty in contracts. The decision may still be appealed to the Supreme Court. This latest Court of Appeal decision follows a decision by the Supreme Court, which in November 2017 found in favour of Aukruststiftelsen on the copyright issues which originally were a part of the case. The remaining questions concerning alleged breach of the Marketing Control Act and the principle of loyalty in contracts were then referred back to the Court of Appeal.

Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA (NAS) and BAHR recently represented Norwegian in the Supreme Court. A number of Tarjei Thorkildsen 2018 Norwegian Air AS (NAN) pilots and members of the cabin crew sued ASA and Christian Backe Norwegian Air Norway AS, claiming that they were employed by the parent and subsidiary company in the Norwegian Group. The case raised a number of interesting issues, including whether the Norwegian Group’s business model is based on the acquisition of services (including manpower) or if it is based on the hire of employees and whether the parent company has such an managerial control or influence on the employees, that it should be regarded as their employer. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal from the pilots and cabin crew. The Supreme Court concluded that the pilots and crew members were not hired personnel but part of a crew service delivered to the airline operators within the Norwegian Group and that the parent company had no such influence or managerial control over the pilots and cabin crew which could make the parent company their employer.

Norwegian Hull Club BAHR recently represented the Norwegian Hull Club Gjensidige Tarjei Thorkildsen 2018 Assuranseforening Assuranseforening (NHC) in the Court of Appeal in a dispute regarding payment under loss of hire insurance – The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of NHC. The dispute was whether Suez Fortune Investments (SFI) was entitled to payment under the loss of hire insurance for two different incidents of damage to the Vessel MT Brillante Virtuoso. The disputed amount was approx. USD 7,000,000 in addition to interests on arrears, amounting to approx. USD 12,000,000.

Argentum Fondsinvesteringer AS BAHR successfully assisted Argentum and others to a win in the Supreme Peter Hammerich 2018 Court. The Supreme Court has this week given their decision in a case regarding tax deduction for management fee paid by private equity funds to its manager/advisor Arbeidsgiverforeningen Spekter BAHR successfully represented Arbeidsgiverforeningen Spekter in the Tarjei Thorkildsen 2018 Labour Court in a dispute against LO regarding whether a requirement of 20% of a full position for membership in a pension scheme was discriminatory towards part time employees, alternatively a breach of the collective bargaining agreement. Nordea Bank Norge ASA BAHR successfully represented Nordea in the Court of Appeal against a Arne Tjaum 2018 borrower who took legal action for alleged negligent consultancy in connection with a loan of Swiss francs. The Court of Appeal concluded that Nordea had given satisfactory information about the risks. Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA (NAS) and BAHR successfully represented Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA and Norwegian Tarjei Thorkildsen 2018 Norwegian Air Norway AS (NAN) Air Norway in a dispute in the Appeal Court against certain pilots and cabin Partners Date Client crew members claiming to be employed by said parent and operative subsidiary company in the Norwegian group. The main question was whether the business model of the Norwegian group is based on acquisition of services or if it is based on staff hire. Case

Nordic Trustee BAHR represented Nordic Trustee in the Court of Appeal against former Atle J. Skaldebø-Rød 2018 directors of the board and CEO of Thule Drilling, claiming compensation for Karstein J. Espelid loss and damage inflicted on security interests.

P4 and Bauer BAHR represented P4 and Bauer Media in a preliminary injunction against Lars G. Norheim 2018 other radio channels regarding the continued broadcasting of radio shows over the FM network past the date for which all commercial FM radio broadcasting was to cease.

Color Line BAHR represents Color Line in a dispute against Nye Kystlink AS regarding a Gunnar Sørlie 2018 claim for compensation based on Color Line’s alleged breach of competition Helge Stemshaug law. The Court of Appeal has submitted a separate question regarding limitation periods to the EFTA Court for a preliminary reference.

Solveig Gas Norway AS BAHR represented three of the investors in Gassled, the infrastructure for Jan B. Jansen 2018 transportation and processing of gas on the Norwegian continental shelf, in Thomas K. Svensen the Supreme Court. The Norwegian state prevailed in the Supreme Court, which found that the Ministry for Oil and Gas had a legal basis to reduce tariffs in Gassled, and concluded that any interference with the right to property as safeguarded by ECHR P1-1 was not disproportionate. Accordingly, the Supreme Court left unanswered whether any such infringement was made. The matter has attracted significant international media interest.

Skuld BAHR currently represents Skuld in an ongoing litigation concerning the Atle J. Skaldebø-Rød 2018 statute of limitation applicable to direct actions against the insurer of an insolvent assured. The direct action claim against Skuld is brought by the charterer of a vessel for losses sustained due to a ship collision in the Far East caused by Skuld’s member (the vessel’s sub-charterer) who was in breach of the charter party’s safe port warranty. ASA (former Statoil ASA) BAHR represents Equinor in a significant patent dispute against Neodrill Are Stenvik 2018 regarding oil and gas well technology. Gunnar Sørlie

Bergen Sentrum Tomteselskap AS BAHR represented Bergen Sentrum Tomteselskap AS against Sam E. Harris 2017 Zachariasbryggen in the Supreme Court in a case concerning the question of determining remuneration principles in ground lease contracts. Aukruststiftelsen BAHR represented the Aukrust Foundation in the Supreme Court against Are Stenvik 2017 the Caprino Filmcenter concerning the rights to the intellectual property of the car “Il Tempo Gigante, on which the movie “Flåklypa Grand Prix” is based upon. Bogstadveien 27B AS BAHR represented Bogstadveien 27B in the Supreme Court in a case Øystein Myre Bremseth 2017 regarding annulment of first refusal in a ground lease contract.

Sunrise Medical AS BAHR assisted Sunrise Medical in a preliminary injunction regarding a Beret Sundet 2017 competitive tender, in which Sunrise Medical was rejected. P&I-insurer BAHR represented a P&I-insurer in an arbitration against a member Atle J. Skaldebø-Rød 2017 claiming cover for losses due to “idle fines” issued by a private port operator whilst the member’s vessel was arrested in Nigeria under suspicion of cargo on board being intended for use by a terrorist organisation, as well as costs for alleged sue and labour.

Industry Client BAHR defended an industry client in arbitral proceedings against a claim in Atle J. Skaldebø-Rød 2017 excess of MNOK 100 based on revision of a SPA.

Ole Robert Reitan and Monica BAHR successfully represented the Reitan family in the Supreme Court Øystein Myre Bremseth 2017 Tønnesen Reitan regarding a final settlement-dispute with a contractor, and whether the contractor was entitled to payment in excess of the price estimate. ENGIE E&P Norge AS BAHR successfully represented ENGIE E&P Norge AS in the Court of Appeal Tarjei Thorkildsen 2017 in a dispute regarding the legality of an alteration of the employees’ pension scheme from defined benefit scheme to a defined contribution scheme. Norsk Flygerforbund BAHR successfully represented two third party intervenors in a case Tarjei Thorkildsen 2017 regarding claim for damages for age discrimination in the Supreme Court. Westcon Yards AS BAHR represented Westcon Yards AS in a final account dispute against Jan Einar Barbo 2017 Prosafe Rigs Pte Ltd after the conversion of Prosafe’s rig “Safe Scandinavia”.

Oil major BAHR acted for an oil major in a dispute concerning the complex area of Thomas K. Svensen 2017 longterm gas sales contracts. The case was settled in December 2017.

Rainpower AS, Rainpower Norge AS BAHR represented Rainpower in proceedings initiated by Andritz Hydro Jon Christian Thaulow 2016 and Rainpower GmbH, Andritz Hydro As, Andritz AG regarding alleged breaches of the Marketing Technology AS Practices Act and compensation claims relating to Rainpower’s alleged 2016 illegal use of Andritz’ knowhow and business secrets. Rainpower was fully acquitted and awarded legal costs. Evry Norge AS BAHR represented EVRY in the Court of Appeal in a dispute with Entra ASA Atle J. Skaldebø-Rød 2016 regarding Entra’s obligation to support a Datacentre project in which EVRY was to be the main tenant.

Nordea Bank Finland Plc BAHR represented Nordea Bank Finland Plc in a dispute regarding whether Arne Tjaum 2016 a forward interest swap-agreement should be set aside/revised due to the bank not fulfilling its duty of information. Shipowner BAHR represented a shipowner in arbitral proceedings against the Atle J. Skaldebø-Rød 2016 Norwegian Was Risk Insurance Company. The dispute concerned whether the insured’s loss, which was due to the detention of a vessel in Nigeria, was covered by the War Risk Insurance. Mongstad Terminal DA/Statoil BAHR successfully represented two companies in the Court of Appeal Jan B. Jansen 2016 Refining Norway AS against the tax authorities regarding the tax treatment of two production Frode Talmo facilities at Mongstad (a petroleum refinery plant). Pangea Property Partners AS BAHR successfully represented Pangea Property Partners AS in the Supreme Are Stenvik 2016 Court in a case regarding whether the company name violated a previous registered company name.

Building Owner BAHR represented a Norwegian builder in a eight weeks arbitration against Øystein Myre Bremset 2016 a foreign contractor in a final settlement-dispute. Jan Einar Barbo

Gilead BAHR represents Gilead in its claim for the revocation of a patent held by Are Stenvik Idenix. Both parties have applied for patents related to pharmaceuticals to treat the Hepatitis C virus, and have patents on compounds for its treatment.

Biogen, INC. BAHR acted for Biogen in an invalidity case concerning a therapeutic Are Stenvik regimen for the biological drug rituximab. The patent was challenged by two producers of biosimilars, Celltrion and Sandoz.

Jessheim Byutvikling/Veikdekke BAHR represented two private land owners in a Supreme Court case against Sam E. Harris Industri AS the Government, in order to decide the correct legal interpretation of a provision in the Norwegian Zoning and Building Act regarding the appreciation of property value as a result of publicly funded infrastructure works.