Home / Publications


Media type
11 June 2021
Waste man­age­ment in CEE
You can stay tuned on fur­ther waste man­age­ment reg­u­la­tion in CEE by sub­scrib­ing to our CMS Law-Now free in­form­a­tion ser­vice.
June 2021
Pol­ish Desk
We are pleased to present a bro­chure ded­ic­ated to the CMS Pol­ish Desk – a team of Pol­ish-speak­ing law­yers fo­cused on as­sist­ing cli­ents when ex­pand­ing in­to the Ger­man mar­ket. This present­a­tion was cre­ated...
09 June 2021
Open secrets? Guard­ing value in the in­tan­gible eco­nomy
Some leaks can’t be fixed “Con­fid­en­tial in­form­a­tion is like an ice cube... give it to the party who has no re­fri­ger­at­or or will not agree to keep it in one, and by the time of the tri­al you have just a pool of wa­ter.” This, from the so-called Spycatch­er case (1987), ap­plies well to cor­por­ate as­sets: fail to store them cor­rectly and all you might have left is an ex­pens­ive mess.The con­sequences of even a minor ex­pos­ure of a trade secret can be huge. As this re­port re­veals, the pro­tec­tion of trade secrets is rightly re­cog­nised by most seni­or ex­ec­ut­ives as a pri­or­ity is­sue. But the re­search also re­veals gaps that leave com­pan­ies un­ne­ces­sar­ily ex­posed to risks. The top named threats – cy­ber­se­cur­ity at­tacks and em­ploy­ee leaks – res­on­ate with what we see im­pact­ing our cli­ents. In­creased home and re­mote work­ing is strain­ing se­cur­ity meas­ures and em­ploy­ee loy­alty. Ad­ded to this, an ‘in­nov­ate or die’ at­ti­tude in highly-com­pet­it­ive sec­tors can mo­tiv­ate new join­ers to ar­rive with ques­tion­able ma­ter­i­al from their pre­vi­ous em­ploy­er, or worse: out­right theft between com­pet­it­ors. But while it is easy to fo­cus on the lurk­ing threats from weakened cy­ber se­cur­ity and dis­gruntled em­ploy­ees – and they are im­port­ant – there are more routine ac­tions a com­pany can take to safe­guard its secrets than just up­dat­ing its IT sys­tems or the em­ploy­ee hand­book. Com­monly, those who most need our help already have a trade secrets policy but have not prop­erly im­ple­men­ted it in re­la­tion to the secret in ques­tion. Or the policy has not been up­dated to re­flect the in­tan­gible as­sets the busi­ness now owns. Or pro­tec­tion was taken for gran­ted.With trade secrets – which for many busi­nesses are stra­tegic­ally more im­port­ant than a pub­lic pat­ent port­fo­lio – it is al­ways cost­li­er and messi­er to find solu­tions after a theft or a leak. Identi­fy­ing the trade secrets and the threats posed to them, com­bined with rig­or­ous in­tern­al pro­cesses and well-draf­ted con­tracts, can help pre­vent such prob­lems from hap­pen­ing. Harder, but just as ne­ces­sary, is en­ga­ging hearts and minds in cor­por­ate cul­ture, to know why trade secrets are im­port­ant, why we are all are re­spons­ible for pro­tect­ing them, and what may hap­pen if we do not (to both the com­pany and the in­di­vidu­al). In our ex­per­i­ence, the busi­nesses with the strongest de­fences have not only thought stra­tegic­ally about their in­tan­gible as­sets and how best to pro­tect them but are also pre­pared for the worst. The trick to avoid­ing an as­set be­com­ing a crisis is to be wise be­fore the event.Tom Scourfield, Co-Head, In­tel­lec­tu­al Prop­erty Group, CMS
08 June 2021
Leg­al pre­ci­sion in pri­vacy, data se­cur­ity and data pro­tec­tion
Ex­pert leg­al ad­visers
08 June 2021
Clev­er moves
Re­lo­cat­ing tal­ent safely, smartly, and seam­lessly As an in­ter­na­tion­al busi­ness, you need your best people to be mo­bile. That can re­quire as­sign­ing ex­ec­ut­ives and em­ploy­ees to dif­fer­ent ter­rit­or­ies – of­ten at short no­tice.CMS Ex­pat Desk – part of the largest em­ploy­ment and tax teams in Europe – provides com­plete and co-or­din­ated ad­vice and sup­port on tax, pen­sions, so­cial se­cur­ity, pay and em­ploy­ment law for ex­pat­ri­ate em­ploy­ees. Glob­al sup­port – from one point Our ex­pat­ri­ate spe­cial­ists are net­worked across 43 coun­tries in Europe, Asia, Africa and Lat­in Amer­ica to give you multi-jur­is­dic­tion­al sup­port – all ser­viced from a single point of con­tact.From the start to ter­min­a­tion of an as­sign­ment, we can help en­sure the op­tim­al leg­al, tax and re­mu­ner­a­tion ar­range­ments for both for the em­ploy­ee and for your busi­ness.With our sup­port, you are free to de­ploy your people wherever they need to be – swiftly and seam­lessly.Our team can:Draw up em­ploy­ee con­tracts cov­er­ing all leg­al as­pects of an as­sign­ment in any giv­en jur­is­dic­tion­Keep you up to speed on the tax and so­cial se­cur­ity re­gimes in each ter­rit­ory – and help re­lo­cated staff nav­ig­ate any po­ten­tial pit­falls in the sys­tem.Ad­vise on op­tim­ising the be­ne­fits of an em­ploy­ee’s ex­pat­ri­ate status – e.g. in terms of tax, re­mu­ner­a­tion and pen­sion ar­range­ment­sHelp your busi­ness man­age multi-jur­is­dic­tion­al payroll and tax ob­lig­a­tion­sAd­vise on spon­sor­ing pen­sion schemes in mul­tiple coun­tries, in­ter­na­tion­al trans­fer of be­ne­fits and en­abling em­ploy­ees to con­tin­ue scheme par­ti­cip­a­tion.Watch the videos for in­form­a­tion about re­gimes in dif­fer­ent coun­tries. For more de­tails about of­fers in in­di­vidu­al jur­is­dic­tions and leg­al as­sist­ance feel free to reach out to your usu­al CMS con­tact or send an email to em­ploy­[email protected]­al.com.
04 June 2021
About the re­port
Open secrets? Guard­ing value in the in­tan­gible eco­nomy is a re­port com­mis­sioned by CMS and writ­ten by The Eco­nom­ist In­tel­li­gence Unit. It ex­plores the ex­tent to which firms identi­fy in­tan­gible as­sets as trade secrets and im­ple­ment pro­tect­ive meas­ures to safe­guard them ac­cord­ingly. The re­port is based on a sur­vey of 314 seni­or cor­por­ate ex­ec­ut­ives loc­ated in China, France, Ger­many, Singa­pore, the United King­dom and the United States, and across six sec­tors: con­sumer goods and re­tail; fin­ance; en­ergy and nat­ur­al re­sources; life sci­ences; man­u­fac­tur­ing; and tech­no­logy, me­dia and tele­com­mu­nic­a­tions. The sur­vey was con­duc­ted in Janu­ary and Feb­ru­ary 2021. Ex­pert in­ter­views To sup­ple­ment the sur­vey res­ults, The EIU con­duc­ted an in­ter­view pro­gramme with trade secret and in­tel­lec­tu­al prop­erty ex­perts between Feb­ru­ary and March 2021, with the aim of val­id­at­ing and guid­ing our re­search. Our thanks are due to the fol­low­ing ex­perts for their time and valu­able in­sights:Anil Cher­iy­an, Ex­ec­ut­ive Vice Pres­id­ent, Strategy and Tech­no­logy at Cog­niz­ant­Pro­fess­or Dav­id Hsu, Richard A. Sapp Pro­fess­or  of Man­age­ment at the Whar­ton School, Uni­versity of PennsylvaniaPro­fess­or Dav­id Teece, Thomas W. Tush­er Pro­fess­or in Glob­al Busi­ness at the Haas School of Busi­ness, Uni­versity of Cali­for­nia, Berke­leyPro­fess­or Matt Marx, Bruce F. Fail­ing Sr. Pro­fess­or of En­tre­pren­eur­ship at Cor­nell Uni­versity
04 June 2021
Safe­guard­ing trade secrets
The five key types of pro­tect­ive meas­ures
04 June 2021
Loom­ing threats
The vul­ner­ab­il­ity of trade secrets stems from leg­al and il­leg­al, in­tern­al and ex­tern­al, and in­ten­tion­al and un­in­ten­tion­al threats. Be­fore com­pan­ies can de­vel­op a toolkit of pro­tect­ive meas­ures, they need to identi­fy the most prom­in­ent con­cerns and threats.
04 June 2021
Look­ing to the fu­ture
As trade secrets gain im­port­ance, com­pan­ies must take reas­on­able steps to un­der­stand the threats to their trade secrets and how to ward against them. However, com­pan­ies must over­come sig­ni­fic­ant hurdles in or­der to suc­cess­fully safe­guard their trade secrets.
04 June 2021
On the Pulse
Wel­come to ‘On the Pulse’ de­livered by the Glob­al Life Sci­ences & Health­care Sec­tor Group A video/pod­cast series, On the Pulse, brings to­geth­er CMS law­yers and ex­perts to dis­cuss key in­dustry top­ics...
01 June 2021
FDI and di­git­al as­sets
FDI joins com­pet­i­tion and reg­u­lat­ory rules as ma­jor con­sid­er­a­tion in di­git­al in­fra­struc­ture M&A deals With the ar­rival of For­eign Dir­ect In­vest­ment (FDI) re­gimes, a whole new lay­er of reg­u­lat­ory con­cerns is now im­posed on in­vest­ments in the com­mu­nic­a­tions sec­tor. These in­vest­ment re­view and con­trol sys­tems run un­ashamedly against the long-pre­vail­ing tide of mar­ket open­ing: they rep­res­ent the clear tri­umph of se­cur­ity con­cerns and na­tion­al in­terest over prin­ciples of free move­ment of busi­ness and cap­it­al.  In this way, reg­u­lat­ors are in­creas­ingly con­sid­er­ing com­mu­nic­a­tions in­fra­struc­ture as either:crit­ic­al na­tion­al in­fra­struc­ture, orim­port­ant na­tion­al as­set­s­This has led to a par­al­lel chain of ap­prov­al, which sits along­side any com­pet­i­tion pro­cess or cri­ter­ia, al­though the two tracks may have as­pects in com­mon. The FDI ap­provals are gen­er­ally car­ried out by a min­is­ter or gov­ern­ment de­part­ment and are more of­ten a polit­ic­al rather than a strictly leg­al pro­cess. This al­lows a wide range of dis­cre­tion, as well as less form­al­ity. Whilst most reg­u­lat­ory re­gimes have spe­cified as­sess­ment peri­ods, tim­ing can be more un­cer­tain in FDI than mer­ger con­trol pro­cesses. In ad­di­tion, FDI re­view of these trans­ac­tions de­pends on vary­ing defin­i­tions of “pub­lic in­terest”, such as pub­lic or­der, na­tion­al se­cur­ity, pro­tec­tion of in­di­vidu­al rights and sup­ply chain re­li­ab­il­ity.FDI con­trols of­ten cap­ture agree­ments, ac­quis­i­tion types and struc­tur­al mech­an­isms that may fall out­side mer­ger con­trol rules. Fur­ther­more, many FDI re­gimes ap­ply ir­re­spect­ive of any turnover or oth­er thresholds.Na­tion­al in­dus­tri­al policies have evolved quickly to re­flect the grow­ing im­port­ance of di­git­al in­fra­struc­ture and com­mu­nic­a­tions in so­ci­ety, and the new meth­ods of work­ing and liv­ing that have de­veloped dur­ing the epi­dem­ic. The pro­tec­tion of di­git­al in­fra­struc­ture and the se­cur­ity of com­mu­nic­a­tions net­works are key, for ex­ample, to the UK’s new Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity and In­vest­ment Act. This in­cludes ex­pans­ive sec­tor­al defin­i­tions and, when it comes in­to force later in 2021, will re­quire the man­dat­ory no­ti­fic­a­tion of (among oth­er deals) a broad ar­ray of di­git­al and com­mu­nic­a­tions-re­lated trans­ac­tions. Oth­er coun­tries such as Ger­many have for some time con­sidered the op­er­a­tion of IT in­fra­struc­ture, hous­ing and host­ing, con­tent de­liv­ery net­works and cloud com­put­ing ser­vices as “sens­it­ive”, re­quir­ing man­dat­ory no­ti­fic­a­tions of dir­ect or in­dir­ect in­vest­ments by non-EU/EFTA per­sons. Since May 2021, for­eign in­vest­ment in com­pan­ies de­vel­op­ing or man­u­fac­tur­ing net­work com­pon­ents also of­ten re­quire no­ti­fic­a­tion.These con­sid­er­a­tions in­ter­act in a com­plex way with new in­vest­ment mod­els for di­git­al in­fra­struc­ture. Earli­er mod­els, such as the na­tion­al cham­pi­on/dom­in­ant op­er­at­or/single net­work com­mu­nic­a­tions paradigm, have evolved in­to a broad­er eco­sys­tem.Now, there are al­most al­ways mul­tiple stake­hold­ers, both at the net­work and ser­vices level - in­clud­ing ser­vice pro­viders, net­work own­ers and op­er­at­ors (mo­bile and fixed) - as well as “over the top” play­ers that use tele­com net­works to de­liv­er com­mu­nic­a­tions and re­lated ser­vices.What’s more, a new range of fun­ders and lenders has emerged, provid­ing “neut­ral host in­fra­struc­ture” that make net­works avail­able on a “con­nectiv­ity as a ser­vice” basis. This can fur­ther com­plic­ate reg­u­lat­ors’ abil­ity to gauge the po­ten­tial im­pact of M&A on do­mest­ic in­fra­struc­ture and ser­vices.With FDI con­sid­er­a­tions in­creas­ingly im­pact­ing com­mu­nic­a­tions deals, na­tion­al and re­gion­al reg­u­lat­ors will need to up­date their mod­els and guidelines in or­der to re­flect the wider range and great­er num­ber of in­fra­struc­ture and ser­vice pro­viders.
01 June 2021
5G net­work shar­ing in densely pop­u­lated areas
Com­mer­cial 5G ser­vices are start­ing to launch across Europe, fol­low­ing the first round of auc­tions and is in line with the European 5G Ac­tion Plan. There is a strong case for the next wave of 5G in­vest­ment in urb­an areas to fea­ture net­work shar­ing ar­range­ments, which have already proven use­ful in sparsely pop­u­lated rur­al areas that might oth­er­wise have been too costly for mul­tiple op­er­at­ors to serve. Across the board, net­work shar­ing en­ables op­er­at­ors to ex­tend cov­er­age at lower cost and re­duce cap­it­al and op­er­at­ing ex­pendit­ure, es­pe­cially in areas where it is un­eco­nom­ic to de­ploy sev­er­al com­pet­ing in­fra­struc­ture net­works.  Ef­fi­cient use of urb­an space  5G net­works, par­tic­u­larly in urb­an areas, will re­quire many more base sta­tions (or cell sites) than 3G and 4G have. This will sig­ni­fic­antly in­crease net­work roll-out costs, as op­er­at­ors will need to build new cell sites and RAN in­fra­struc­ture. Each new cell site will also re­quire back­haul, fur­ther adding to de­ploy­ment costs. In dense urb­an set­tings, there are few­er loc­a­tions that can sup­port phys­ic­al in­fra­struc­ture re­quire­ments. In this case, net­work shar­ing agree­ments can al­low more play­ers to of­fer 5G ser­vices in cit­ies. The costs of 5G Spec­tru­mUp­grad­ing ex­ist­ing RAN in­fra­struc­ture (masts, base sta­tions and an­ten­nae)Up­grad­ing IT and ser­vice plat­forms New high­er-fre­quency spec­trum­New in­fra­struc­ture