Partner
Frank B. Testa
Frank B. Testa
Frank B. Testa is a Partner at Mamo TCV Advocates. He graduated Doctor of Laws from the University of Malta in 2004, and was called to the Bar in January, 2005. After a couple of years of practice in the financial services industry in the City of London, he returned to Malta concentrate on civil and commercial litigation. In January 2012, he became a partner at Simon Tortell & Associates, until it merged with Mamo TCV in July 2016.
Frank’s main areas of practice include dispute resolution concerning corporate, commercial and real estate matters as well as related transactional work. He has been advising various local and international companies as well as government entities in those fields. Frank has also worked extensively in the regulatory area of hospitality law.
Practice Areas
- Litigation
- Arbitration, Mediation and other Dispute Resolution
- Corporate & Commercial
- Real Estate & Construction
- Tourism, Leisure and Hospitality
Education
- B.A. Legal and Humanistic Studies (2001, University of Malta)
- Doctor of Laws (2004, University of Malta)
Representative Experience
- Counsel for various local investors in actions instituted against local financial servicee providers for mis-selling financial products. Cases still ongoing
- Counsel for major investor in photovoltaic industry via Maltese structures in the context of significant arbitration proceedings cocerning sale of shares in photovoltaic plants
- Counsel for leading local construction companies in various suits involving local developments
- Counsel for consortium made up of foreign and local investors in the successful public procureent bid for the design, build and operation of a local marina
- Advising on the enforcement, restructuring and redrafting of local hospitality legislation
Memberships
- Admitted to the Maltese Bar, Superior Courts of Malta (2005)
- Malta Chamber of Advocates
Get In Touch
Address
MAMO TCV Advocates
Palazzo Pietro Stiges
103, Strait Street
Valletta, VLT 1436
Malta
Stay updated with our latest insights
Legal Notice Introduces Possibility of Amending or Revoking Conditions in Contracts of Sale and Emphyteusis
On the 23rd August, 2024 a new set of regulations (the “Regulations”) were promulgated under Legal Notice 196 of 2024 enabling requests for the amendment or revocation of conditions imposed in the original deed of sale or emphyteusis concerning property transferred by the Government of Malta (the “Government”), the Lands Authority (the “Authority”), or any ecclesiastical entity which subsequently transferred the title to the Government. Such Regulations shall apply to both new applications as well as to those already pending before the Authority at the time of their entry into force. Application to the Lands Authority These Regulations allow any…
Court of Justice of the European Union Issues Decision on a Potential Breach of Sanctions
The Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) has issued a decision (C-109/23) on a reference for a preliminary ruling requested by a German court in relation to a potential breach of restrictive measures issued against Russia. The referring court requested the CJEU to provide a ruling on whether a German notary would have infringed the prohibition to provide legal advisory services to a legal person in Russia had he authenticated a contract for the sale of title to an apartment that was entered into between the Russian legal person as seller and a national of a Member…
Key Decision by the Financial Arbiter on Life Insurance Policies with Investment
In a decision given on the 8th of August 2024 with respect to the case ASF 013/2024, the Arbiter for Financial Services (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Arbiter’) rejected a complaint filed against a Life Insurance Provider regarding a life insurance policy with an investment element which the complainant had purchased from the Life Insurance Provider in the year 2000. The complainant claimed that the said policy had matured to a significantly lower amount than what he alleged was initially promised upon its purchase. More specifically, the complainant asserted that he bought the life insurance policy as he believed that…
