Risk Partners Life Sciences Roundtable 2025, thank you very much! 

No startup bonus for
criminal and administrative offenses.

As exclusively researched by Hannah Schwär and her team at Capital Magazine, the founders of Sono Motors are now also facing problems with the public prosecutor's office. According to Capital Magazin, subsidy fraud in the context of short-time work and the programs surrounding the corona crisis is in the offing. The company, which is listed on the NASDAQ via De-SPAC, has already filed a report with the SEC. While the loss amount of EUR 40,000 still seems manageable, the criminal proceedings against the two founders are much more unpleasant. Unfortunately, it does not matter that the two founders no longer work for the company. Before we go into the insurance perspective, we wish the two founders a good outcome and access to excellent criminal defense lawyers, because as partners of many growth companies and great founder personalities, our hearts "bleed" a little that the story seems to end so unpleasantly here.

What is the insurance perspective here?

It should be said in advance that Sono Motors' listing on the Nasdaq alone represents a "risk that is difficult to insure". Therefore, an effective marketing strategy is required to obtain appropriate insurance coverage. We refer interested parties to our "Road to IPO" page, where we also discuss a Nasdaq IPO. Ideally, the two founders will have access to specialized criminal liability insurance, either provided by Sono Motors or taken out privately, as well as (at least) D&O insurance.

In such cases, the preference is always for specialist criminal legal protection insurance, as it is specifically designed for such situations (which are not uncommon), whereas D&O insurance only offers a limited scope of cover to cover similar risks. Unfortunately, despite advice, we still see a low level of awareness of the issue of "unjustified" criminal investigations, particularly among growth companies, so it is not unlikely that the preferred specialist criminal legal protection insurance is not in place. In the less ideal case, the focus shifts to at least one D&O insurance policy in order to obtain insurance cover for costs (e.g. expensive criminal defense) via the criminal law section cover.

Why at least one D&O insurance policy? The special situation caused by the De-SPAC and the listing in the USA plays a role here. In addition to the challenging US capital market risk, a personal D&O or corporate D&O insurance policy without the US capital market risk, but with cover for risks in Germany, could also be available. Based on knowledge of the insurance market, it can be clearly stated that the possibly current D&O insurance with the US capital market risk, which certainly includes the company in Germany and thus the two founders, does not have to offer insurance cover despite possible negotiations on criminal law protection insurance. The background to this is that the (alleged) breaches of duty occurred before De-SPAC in 2021 and so-called De-SPAC D&O insurance policies in the USA are designed as pure "forward cover", which means that past breaches of duty are not covered. The focus is therefore shifting to current corporate D&O insurance policies for the "German risk" or the D&O insurance policy that was sent into run-off at the time of the listing, which should ideally be equipped with a longer grace period in order to step in if necessary. The same applies to any existing personal D&O insurance for the German risk (note: not available for the US capital market risk), which is certainly in run-off due to the departure of the two founders and should ideally also have a correspondingly long grace period.

We hope that the two founders come out of this situation in good shape and ideally have access to high-performance special criminal legal protection insurance and - should civil law claims still arise here - also to strong cover via at least one D&O insurance policy.

Management

Capital requirements for (fully regulated) AIFMs

What are the capital requirements for an asset management company? Together with experts Johannes Kiefer (Director of Risk & Compliance at Landsiedel & Partner) and Henry Franz (Managing Director of Layline.tax), we were able to compile our combined expertise on capital requirements, ranging from registered asset management companies to fully licensed ones. In this issue of VC Magazine, we share how E&O insurance, among other things, can provide added value. In addition to our article available below, please also check out the link to the online edition of Venture Capital Magazine. Enjoy!

Read more "
IPO

Risk Partners is advising Terranor Group AG on its NASDAQ (Sweden) IPO

From Road Builder to IPO Candidate: How Terranor Group AB Conquered Nasdaq First North. It was a day that marked a new chapter not only for Terranor Group AB but for the entire Nordic infrastructure sector: On June 19, 2025, the Swedish company celebrated its successful initial public offering on the Nasdaq First North Premier Growth Market in Stockholm. Risk Partners as IPO Advisor For while Terranor Group shares began trading under the ticker symbol TERNOR on June 30, 2025,

Read more "
IPO

New: Risk Partners POSI Insurance for MiCAR White Paper

MiCAR Compliance? We Cover the Risk! The MiCAR Regulation (EU 2023/1114) exposes crypto-asset service providers and whitepaper authors to significant liability risks. Incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading information in white papers can have significant consequences for Crypto-Asset Service Providers (CASP) and authors—ranging from regulatory sanctions to civil claims. Our solution: Risk Partners Tech POSI MiCAR Whitepaper Protect 2025 The creation and publication of white papers under MiCAR entails complex liability pitfalls: In addition to civil claims (e.g., under the German Civil Code) and criminal risks, there is a threat of

Read more "