Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Cleveland Scott York undertook the IP due diligence in Europe’s largest ever medical devices funding round.
The firm undertook due diligence for private equity fund, Zhejiang Silk Road Fund, which is principally sponsored and managed by Zhejiang United Investment Group, China (‘ZUIG’) on the patent aspects of the group’s equity investment in CMR Surgical.
Cambridge-based surgical robotics firm, CMR Surgical, raised $100 million (£75 million) in its Series B funding round from Zhejiang Silk Road Fund as well as existing investors, Escala Capital Investments, LGT, Cambridge Innovation Capital and Watrium.
The Cleveland Scott York team of Partner Fraser Brown, Senior Associate Nick Bennett and Associate Hazel Stewart advised ZUIG.
Fraser Brown said: “CMR Surgical’s patent portfolio was clearly crucial to the value of the company in the eyes of the investors.
“Our extensive experience in the engineering and medical devices sector meant that we were ideally placed to conduct the due diligence investigation into the extensive patent portfolio in this deal, which showcases our capability as a firm.”
Cleveland Scott York has offices in the City of London, Hertfordshire, the Thames Valley and Brussels.
What particular patent issues do you look out for prior to working on such a deal?
The key patent issues are:
1) Whether the company’s core technology is protected by pending or granted patents and,
2) The extent to which the company’s freedom to operate could be limited by pre-existing third-party patents.
We review the company’s approach to patenting innovations and identifying problem patents, as well as conducting our own substantive investigations, including the prospects for grant of pending applications and likely scope of protection to be conferred. Crucially the work plan must be feasible in terms of ambition, cost and available time.
Did any unexpected patent issues arise during the process? How did you work around this?
CMR has a very extensive patent portfolio, as does the current dominant player in the field. An initial screening process allowed us to martial resources towards assessment of key home and third-party patents. It was invaluable to have direct access to the company’s engineers and a laparoscopic surgeon who ‘test drove’ the surgical arm to critically and comparatively review its performance against competing systems.
For you and your team, what is a successful end to a transaction? How do you ensure you get there?
On the issue of assessing the commercial significance of home and third-party patents, we needed to identify the level of risk/reassurance with which the client was comfortable, and clearly explain any significant issues so as to allow the client to take informed decisions. Cleveland Scott York’s medical devices team, including three patent attorneys led by Partner Fraser Brown, Senior Associate Nick Bennett and Associate Dr Hazel Stewart were able to conduct the analysis to the required depth and within the demanding time frame. Success is to see our client’s investment interests aligned with the future success of an exciting and growing UK medical technology company.
SGG Group, a leading investor services firm, backed by Astorg Partners, announced that regulatory approval has been received and the transaction to acquire First Names Group has successfully completed.
This acquisition considerably strengthens SGG Group’s reach and capabilities in key markets such as Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Switzerland, Cyprus and Ireland with the combined Group becoming a significant force in the provision of investor services to ultra-high-net-worth families, corporates and fund clients worldwide. As a result of this transaction the newly combined business has become the world’s fourth largest global investor services firm by revenue, now employing over 1,700 people across 22 jurisdictions.
A comprehensive review of the newly combined Group’s brands is currently underway and until this review is completed all businesses will continue to operate under their existing brand names.
Commenting on the acquisition, Serge Krancenblum, Group CEO of SGG Group, said:
"This acquisition represents a key milestone for SGG Group as we continue with our international expansion. First Names Group perfectly complements our existing client offering and grows our jurisdictional capabilities, giving us a truly global footprint while still allowing us to maintain personal relationships with our clients. Beyond this, First Names Group appealed to us because of its highly experienced team and client base which are highly complementary to ours, its similar history and shared vision for the future. We are very proud of this acquisition and we are excited to work together with the First Names Group team to take our combined business to new heights.”
Group Segment Leader Private Clients, previously First Names Group CEO, Mark Pesco, commented:
“At First Names Group we’ve been highly ambitious and delivered exceptional growth over the last few years. Joining forces with SGG Group is a hugely exciting opportunity as it brings a wealth of new opportunities for us as a combined business, for our people and especially for our clients. We have built a strong business, and now it’s time to embark upon the next stage of our business journey. I believe we have an extremely bright future ahead of us as part of SGG Group and look forward to working with the SGG Group management team in driving our now greatly expanded group towards even greater success in the future.”
Your team had represented a variety of financial institutions; are there any differences you have to take into account depending on who you are representing?
Representing lending institutions headquartered in both Europe and the US, each with its own regulatory overlay and internal policies and procedures, means there are a range of factors to keep in mind. In addition, while the individual appetite for risk within legal documentation differs, the overall deal execution is a shared goal. It is critical to manage expectations and requirements effectively to maximize client service while achieving deal certainty.
Why do you think your team were perfect for this transaction?
Our practice has gained significant traction advising private equity sponsors and credit institutions over the last 18 months. Our increased finance capability and extensive knowledge across the full range of capital structures means that we are perfectly placed to advise on deals of this nature. We feel that our balanced representation of creditors and sponsors and our deep understanding of the mid-market, places us very well to act on transactions of this type. These mid-market deals that require in-depth complex financing arrangements, particularly with a cross-border element, play right into our sweet spot.
When managing high-net transactions, what are three things you must consider prior to beginning?
What challenges did you come across and how did you work around them?
This particular transaction combined a cross-border refinancing, a transformative acquisition and smaller add-on acquisitions with an underwritten first-lien/second-lien syndicated financing structure. This necessarily presents a number of complexities and challenges, from representing investment banks on a ‘trees’ basis to ensuring consummation of all transactions simultaneously. Solving for each issue requires both articulate and top-tier technical legal work but also genuine commercial awareness and flexibility. The business was also subject to heavy regulation that added to structuring complexities and required creative thinking when it came to the collateral package.
How have you seen the M&A sphere changed since you first entered this sector? How has this affected the way in which transactions between international companies occur?
Moreover, is there anything you would wish to change, in order to ensure the process runs smoother, for you and clients you represent?
We believe the transaction was well executed and we worked closely with our clients to ensure they felt closely-represented throughout the process. As we grow the team and practice, we are continually focused on combining top-tier advice with efficient transaction management to ensure that each process is as smooth and collaborative as possible and that we are always exceeding our clients’ expectations.
What did you enjoy most about working on this transaction?
Besides working with a great deal team who were all fully committed to achieving a successful outcome for SGG, we particularly enjoyed delivering a complex cross-border transaction representing the first-lien banks. This showcases both our flexibility and the strength of our bench, one that we have created in a very short space of time.
Is there anything else you would like to add?
We would like to thank the respective clients on this transaction for the opportunity to work with them to achieve what we hope will be a very successful transaction for all stakeholders.
As part of their growth strategy in both North and South America, ALS has completed the following acquisitions:
LABFOR Analises Laboratoriais based in Campinhas, Sao Paulo, Brazil (31 July)
Truesdail Laboratories, LLC (TLI) based in California (1 August)
As part of the growth strategy for Latin America, LabFor is now part of the ALS Limited group, recognising in this laboratory the same values and ideals of integrity and quality. This is the first step in the development of the pharmaceutical analysis market in Brazil and Latin America.
LABFOR was founded in 2010 with the purpose of absorbing the needs of the veterinary market, by conducting residues studies of products for registration with the Ministry of Agricultural Affairs of Brazil. In this line, LABFOR is expanding its presence in the human pharmaceutical market, offering the method development for stability studies and analysis such as density and viscosity. LABFOR is recognised as a high-quality service provider and currently employs 35 staff.
Latin America holds three of the biggest 15 pharmaceutical markets in the world, with Brazil being the 6th largest in terms of volume. It is this opportunity that ALS are keen to exploit with the LABFOR acquisition representing the group's first move into this region.
“We are very excited about this incorporation, which is an important milestone in the history of ALS Life Sciences in Brazil. Having central focus on our customers, we continue to increase the analytical scope offered, with quality and excellence. Another great success of ALS is to add to its technical staff, qualified and highly specialized professionals”, spoke Malcolm Deane – General Manager ALS Life Sciences LATAM.
Please tell me about your involvement in the business?
Zanetti and Paes de Barros Advogados is LabFor's legal adviser, since its foundation of more than 10 years ago; we are responsible for different legal demands, such as contract analysis, labour and tax matters. Thus, with the advancement of negotiations with the ALS since the beginning of the transaction, our firm was involved in all stages and assisted the partners in their decision-making.
Why is it a good deal for everyone involved?
The operation was successful thanks to the commitment of the companies to enter into an agreement that will bring benefits to all those involved, including LabFor employees who joined a multinational group. We were careful to analyse in depth every step of this process to consolidate the transaction with solidity, ethics and transparency. In addition, the company has the capacity to expand its business that demand high investments to meet the numerous opportunities built over the last few years.
What challenges have arisen? How did you navigate them?
In such cases there is always the challenge of reconciling the parties and constructing contractual conditions and clauses that will balance the interests involved with clarity, especially when there is a large multinational company and a medium-sized company with several partners . There is also the challenge of preserving the conditions so that the business itself thrives and fulfills the objectives of the negotiation. To navigate this requires dialogue, transparency and multidisciplinary technical preparation, such attributes that were also found in the advisers of the other party.
How does this transaction represent the current movement in the Brazilian M&A market?
Despite the economic and political crisis that Brazil is experiencing, this operation signals that the country still draws attention to investments in view of the quality of its entrepreneurs and the representativeness of its domestic market. The country needs a period of stability to resume high growth rates.
Can you share three things you should do before working on a business like this?
The suitability and good faith of the parties involved, clear, fair and transparent business purposes, and the legal feasibility of the intended business.
How do you ensure soundness, ethics and transparency are met for such transactions?
In order to guarantee solidity, ethics and transparency in transactions such as the ones in which we usually act, it is necessary to map, in a clear and concise manner, all the businesses of the companies to be integrated and carry out profound administrative, legal, financial operations and to determine the true value of the company to be acquired / purchased. It is important to note that operational and cultural aspects are also considered, especially when it comes to companies with different nationalities.
These definitions are important to outline strategic planning that will lead to the realisation of the business.
Dorae Inc. has closed its first round of external capital raising, achieving a USD 24 million valuation in a process that was several times over-subscribed.
Dorae is the leading distributed ledger technology company for raw materials.
Ricardo Santos Silva, Co-Founder and Executive Chairman of Dorae commented, "We have been very impressed with the focus and enthusiasm of investors in this round, showing the appetite that exists for quality technology projects with global reach. The track record we have in bringing successful projects to fruition has been important, as has our depth in the commodities and financial sectors. Blockchain is changing the way we do business in the same way email changed the way we communicate."
Dorae is active around the world, serving commodities supply chain participants from primary producers to end manufacturers. Independent from its users, Dorae enables compliance for processors and consumers of provenance-sensitive materials and enables automation and working capital efficiency across all products.
Aba Schubert, Co-Founder and CEO of Dorae added, "We are very excited about this support from private capital. Our first place result in the Volkswagen, Zalando and Adidas hackathon underscored our technical position in the supply chain space. And our investors recognise the commercial value in the way we act - solving a problem that exists, rather than building a solution and then looking for a problem."
Dorae has offices in Palo Alto, London and the Cayman Islands.
Please tell me about your involvement in the deal?
We worked with Dorae to develop a deal structure that would suit their business plan and reward their new investors with an attractive position in the capital structure. Then we identified potential investors who would understand and appreciate the value proposition in Dorae’s business model, either through their own knowledge and exposure in emerging markets and commodities, through their experience in technology investment and operations, or both. Finally, we managed the deal execution to ensure a swift and smooth process for everyone.
Why is this a good deal for all involved?
Dorae got timely capital both to continue the technical build-out of their innovative distributed ledger system for raw materials and physical commodities, and to fuel their growth across markets and materials. The investors got an attractive entry valuation into a fast-growing tech business run by seasoned entrepreneurs. It was a great win-win.
What challenges arose? How did you navigate them?
Frankly, it was a fairly smooth process. We had to do a bit of groundwork in terms of explaining the nature of Dorae’s business and the tech behind it, since the area is so cutting edge. But the investors who did the deal got those concepts quite quickly and were very commercially focused, showing themselves to be great long-term partners for the business.
Grit Real Estate Income Group Limited, the African focused real estate income group, raised USD 132.1 million in gross proceeds (USD 1.43 per share); the Issue Shares and the Existing Shares will be admitted to a standard listing on the Official List of the London Stock Exchange. With already 214 million shares in issue, Grit – which is already listed in Johannesburg and Mauritius - will apply for 306.4 million shares to be admitted.
As Morning Star reported: "We are delighted to be making our debut on the London Stock Exchange, and we are proud to be the first London listed pan-African real estate group," Grit Chief Executive Officer Bronwyn Corbett said.
"Grit has achieved another key milestone in its development and we look forward to continuing to work with our new UK based investors in the years to come as we seek to take advantage of the further opportunities for real estate investment assets in pre-selected African countries."
Key personnel at AXYS that were involved in the deal:
Please tell me about your involvement in the deal?
We were the Lead Transaction Adviser. The partnership between GRIT and AXYS started in 2016 when GRIT was listed in Mauritius, and AXYS their stockbroker. The team and I had spent six months in London, accompanying GRIT on every investor meeting (over 100 meetings!). Due to being partner to GRIT, we advised and together co-ordinated the selection of the relevant accounting, legal and real estate valuation companies.
We helped facilitated the links between the UK and Mauritian service providers, advised on the UK brokers/placing agents, worked closely with the lawyers, accountants, and real estate valuers to produce the Prospectus and all the relevant documents for the LSE Main Board listing, and worked closely with GRIT and placing agents towards setting up investor road show, from the book build process through to final close at end of July.
Why is this a good deal for all involved?
This is a good deal for the following reasons: the complexity of the deal shows the capability of the group. Where it is common to see companies from big exchanges being listed on the LSE, it is the first time that a Mauritian company has been listed on LSE, which is a great thing all round.
It was also a good opportunity for the key personnel of AXYS in Mauritius, Dubai and London that were involved in this challenging project.
What challenges arose? How did you navigate them?
The timing was complex, alongside the fact that the company was already listed in both Johannesburg and Mauritius.
As mentioned, the major challenge was the timing of the listing as it was being done when the company was operating normally. We therefore had various timelines to respect, including the ones in South Africa, in Mauritius, and in London
Moreover, the legal, valuation and accounting standards are very stringent with a Main Board LSE listing and that was challenging.
Why was this particular transaction a positive movement for Mauritius?
GRIT is an example of what the authorities strive for Mauritius within the financial sector: to encourage local companies to go beyond and to also have other solid internationally listed companies to be listed and head quartered (HQ) here in Mauritius.
It also puts Mauritius on the map in London and allows Mauritius to be known as a HQ for doing business in Africa by being one of the Board of Investments’ aim. Further to this, we are now perceived as a solid financial player by global financial experts.
Can you share more about the current M&A scope in your jurisdiction? How has this affected your line of work?
There is a lot of M&A happening in Africa. The next step for Mauritius is to move from being an administration platform to a capital markets platform. If Mauritius wants to develop the financial sector, we have to become the capital market for Africa.
How has corporate law in Mauritius progressed over the years? How has this affected the investment scene?
Over the years the corporate law has greatly improved; I think that the environment in Mauritius is very accommodative for us to be the platform for business. Moreover, our law is based on English law, meaning that it gives confidence for many joint ventures, rather than going directly into African countries. This is further supported on the notion that the Privy Council is the final court of appeal.
Czabański & Gałuszyński Law Firm advised Delphia Yachts Kot sp.j. and its owners in a transaction with Ostróda Yacht Sp. z o.o., part of the Beneteau Group, one of the largest motorboat manufacturers in the world.
As part of the transaction, the Beneteau Group’s investment will consist of establishing a new entity with Delphia Yachts Kot sp.j. which will continue and develop Delphia Yachts’s existing activity using all available synergies from the Beneteau Group. At the same time, the current owners, while remaining minority shareholders (20%), will ensure stable continued growth, smooth operational management, and capital integration with the Beneteau Group.
The conclusion of the Agreement means a new chapter in the almost 30 year long history of Delphia Yachts, whose previous achievements prompted the global concern to invest in Delphia Yachts Kot sp.j. This decision was in recognition of the need to strengthen and consolidate the market, and will allow the joint implementation of key strategic goals, such as:
Czabański & Gałuszyński Law Firm’s lawyers advised Delphia Yachts and its owners from the very beginning of the investment process, including developing the transaction structure, negotiating and preparing transaction documentation, as well as providing support with all activities from the signing of the investment agreement to transaction closing.
The Czabański & Gałuszyński team’s work on this transaction was led by Tomasz Siembida, Partner and Head of the Corporate / M&A practice, and supported by lawyers Tomasz Maślak, Bartosz Lewandowski and Kinga Mogilnicka from this practice.
The Beneteau Group has been represented by the Paris office of Dechert law firm; the team of Dechert’s lawyers was led by Ermine Bolot supported by Benhoud Derradji.
Interview with Mr. Tomasz Siembida – Partner at Czabański & Gałuszyński Law Firm
What must you consider when developing the transaction structure?
This includes an extensive number of factors. I usually start from the end and define what the client expects as an outcome and whether these expectations are able to meet the expectations of the other parties in the transaction. If so, we then have to analyse a number of elements along the way: what business we are dealing with, whether it is regulated or not, in what form it runs in, the scale or nature of the parties' activities, including ascertaining what is the real value in a given business (whether these are tangible or intangible assets, or maybe a base of customers), what the tax situation looks like, what liability rules will be acceptable to the client during the transaction and after its closure, and how the transaction will be financed.
So you can see there are a huge number of considerations requiring bespoke definition, as each transaction is a completely separate case.
What skills must you acquire when negotiating during the documentation process? What challenges arose for you here and how did you overcome them?
This particular transaction had its own specificity, which affected both its structure and the way it worked. Our client was not an institutional client, but a family who successfully built their business, and after years decided to reduce their involvement. Each of the family members have their own preferences, goals and style. The trick is to find a common denominator, both on the communication level and understanding the interests of individuals. This is an additional task, but if it succeeds, as in this case, it gives you extra satisfaction.
What area in the following transaction did you and your team need to provide most support on, and why?
For a client who sells a business that he built for most of his life, it is usually the first and the last transaction of its kind. Such a client, unlike an institutional client, fund, bank or investment company, is not necessarily used to and has the right not to know something that we call "market standards" in the scope of transaction execution, transaction documentation or negotiation methods. First and foremost, you need to provide the client with a sense of trust and work on a common understanding of transaction mechanisms, which at the end of the day the client confirms with his signature.
Countries that want to promote innovation are coming to recognise the difficulty of innovating without regulatory certainty. For the uninitiated to the concept of the Regulatory Sandbox – in simple terms – it is flexible regulatory framework in which traditional and non-traditional institutions are able to test technology driven products that may not fit traditional regulations. The originator of the ‘Sandbox’ term is the technology world which have used “Sandboxes” to test drive new technology in a limited environment, that does not put the rest of an organisation’s technology at risk.
While the Regulatory Sandbox concept has seen its greatest adoption in financial services, it is emerging in other business verticals from medical services (Medtech), agriculture (Agratech) to energy delivery (Enertech).
In my 2017 article on this subject I explored some of the challenges that regulators and lawyers face given our traditional legal training and inclination towards risk minimisation. It is a model that has served global financial institutions and regulators effectively for decades with a few exceptions, (think the Great Depression). The other important concept is that regulation should not occur too quickly. It needs to be responsive to new business needs but also respectful of the governing process that put in place the framework for industries and its society for decades. Instant dictates by heads of government bodies rarely advance business needs and thus will not be respected – even if adhered to. The concept of a Regulatory Sandbox enables oversight in a way that is oriented to 21st century speed of change in business models and the technology that enables such change.
While the Regulatory Sandbox concept has seen its greatest adoption in financial services, it is emerging in other business verticals from medical services (Medtech), agriculture (Agratech) to energy delivery (Enertech). However, the impact and appetite for new technology in financial services has been more obvious, as it touches almost every first world citizen and is exponentially finding its way into emerging economies. Not surprisingly, traditional financial institutions, because of decades of building infrastructure, cannot embrace it as quickly as new and less regulated non-financial entities can. While the internet has enabled the consumer to take advantage of long standing server and software technology – the fact is many of our core technologies have been around for over 50 years from IBM servers (1960) to ATMs (1967) but have remained for the most part out of these leads the reach of regulation. The more important and new reality and the one that is driving the Regulatory Sandbox concept is that “digital” financial services are no longer dictated or owned by traditional financial institutions. Regulators need a new way of thinking of what constitutes a “financial service”, what new risks need to be managed and how to accommodate traditional services under a new delivery model.
With a number of specific financial services technologies being actively tested since 2016, the UK and Singapore are clearly leaders in embracing the concept, but they recognise that this discussion is bigger than their usual regulatory backyard.
Globalisation Is Here!
While some 28 countries have made formal announcements to open the door to a Regulatory Sandbox, the UK and its FCA have been leaders in the regulatory sandbox movement with 89 concepts being tested since they initiated the sandbox in 2015. Singapore’s Monetary Authority has championed the “never say no approach” and has become a Regulatory Sandbox wonderchild. However, the very nature of technology connecting people and industries at a global level has invited the latest concept – namely a “Global Regulatory Sandbox”. First proposed in February 2018 by the FCA, it was formally launched in August as the Global Financial Innovation Network (GFIN). It has the commitment of entities in 10 countries - Abu Dhabi, Canada, Australia, Bahrain, USA, Dubai, UK, Guernsey, Hong Kong, Singapore and the Consultative Group to Assist the Poor (global in membership). The GFIN published a Consultation Document[1] and is soliciting comments until 14 October 2018.
With a number of specific financial services technologies being actively tested since 2016, the UK and Singapore are clearly leaders in embracing the concept, but they recognise that this discussion is bigger than their usual regulatory backyard. One of the biggest enablers of the Sandbox in these two countries was an early recognition on which regulatory body would own the initiative. The FCA and Singapore Monetary Authority have been given the lead role in their countries across a broad range of financial services. Other countries - while conceptually and very publically embracing the Regulatory Sandbox concept - have struggled to make large strides as they figure out which regulatory entity should lead the way on technologies that don’t readily fall under their existing defined authority. The US in particular with its numerous federal and state regulatory agencies has been slowed in its efforts as the likes of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, the Securities Exchange Commission and The Federal Trade Commission debate who should take the lead. Interestingly, the recent push at the state level with a highly promoted launch of Arizona’s Regulatory Sandbox in August, prompted President Trump to recommend better coordination between state and federal regulators so that the US could be more globally competitive in the Fintech space. The embrace of the Sandbox at the US federal level has been described by numerous business leaders and state governors as moving at a “glacial pace”. Their participation in GFIN will hopefully overcome some these challenges.
The challenge for regulators is that the delivery of services by FinTechs may escape regulation set up for traditional financial institutions.
There are three requirements that regulators have identified that are driving the Sandbox concept. The questions now are: (1) who will they regulate (financial vs nonfinancial institutions), (2) what to regulate (i.e.: financial products vs data) and (3) how to regulate technologies that enable cross border transactions (think GDPR). These lead to the more philosophical question: how to achieve alignment of each countries’ values around global concepts like privacy and data ownership. This may prove to be the biggest challenge facing GFIN.
Two of the more important values at the heart of the Global Regulatory Sandbox, as it relates to financial services are:
These two concepts are being increasingly researched by regulators, but the initiation of the GFIN will go a long way to supporting and achieving these ambitions.
The Role of TechFin in Driving the Regulatory Sandbox
The TechFin concept was coined by Jack Ma, Co-Founder and Co-Chariman of Alibaba. Simply put they are entities that started in the technology space (most in e-commerce) and are now stepping into financial services. TechFins are connected to their customers in ways that far exceed financial institutions customer connections. They have a sea of data that dwarfs that of banks’ and which customers readily share with them in ways that banks could only dream of. While they don’t advertise it, the likes of Amazon, Samsung, Ant Financial and Alphabet arguably know more about the banks’ customers than the banks themselves. They represent a new brand of financial institution by indirectly providing financial services “lite”, but for the most part are positioned under the label of e-commerce. They are also set up on a newer technology infrastructure and thus are proving nimbler and more cost-efficient. The challenge for regulators is that the delivery of services by FinTechs may escape regulation set up for traditional financial institutions. This is where the Regulatory Sandbox - whether Global or country oriented - can play an important role to enable technology while protecting consumers.
Cryptocurrency and distributed ledger technologies are frequent applicants across the independent Global Sandboxes.
Who Is in the Sandbox Already?
With the UK’s FCA being the first country to formally launch the Regulatory Sandbox concept in 2015 and approving its first cohort in July of 2016, it has received 279 applications for innovative products, services and delivery mechanisms over four submission rounds. The range of entrants includes established entities like HSBC, Barclays and Standard Life to blockchain and distributed ledger (DLT) start-ups. It is noteworthy that 40 percent of the last round of 29 accepted applications are using DLT. The range of proposed business solutions is equally broad in range, from capital raising platforms to RegTech solutions, to improved KYC for credit platforms. Singapore introduced Sandboxes for electricity and gas firms, while Australia introduced Sandboxes that included block-chain, energy, health and agriculture. Canada’s Sandbox accepted an ICO (initial coin offering) with accommodation around registration and prospectus requirements. Cryptocurrency and distributed ledger technologies are frequent applicants across the independent Global Sandboxes. Insurance products and money movement at the consumer level are also frequent Global Sandbox applicants. The bottom line is that the range of technologies being accommodated within the GFIN group of countries is broad and exceptionally creative compared to services offered by traditional financial institutions.
Regulators need to truly understand how technology works and be adaptive at a speed that lets its country be competitive globally.
Consultative Group to Assist Poor Countries (CGAP)
One of the more interesting entities to sign on for the GFIN initiative is CGAP. It has members from 57 countries and a mission to advance financial inclusion through practical research and active engagement with financial services providers. With most current Regulatory Sandboxes in high and middle-income countries, they do not struggle with financial inclusion. The CGAP sees technology and the Global Regulatory Sandbox as a significant opportunity to improve financial inclusion particularly in emerging markets and developing economies. These are countries that lack regulatory capacity in terms of adequate resources, staff, expertise and tools. They also have underdeveloped financial market infrastructure compared to first world countries where regulatory bodies are the standard. Regulatory Sandboxes, particularly global ones, can in their view enable innovation to benefit excluded and underserved customers. Examples of this would be the enablement of structures that support mobile money and remote customer identification through biometrics. They are also hoping to leverage and learn from the leadership provided by the GFIN participants.
Professional Responsibility and Opportunity
The Regulatory Sandbox Concept - global or local - is a wakeup call for the legal profession. Regulators need to truly understand how technology works and be adaptive at a speed that lets its country be competitive globally. That equally requires lawyers who advise on these regulations or advocate on behalf of clients to regulators to understand the technology driving the business case. This may require an investment of time outside of the traditional continuing education forums and topics that respective countries’ law societies support. The better we understand technology – the better we can work with regulators, get regulation right and enable clients to leverage the technology. More importantly we need to grasp the positive impact technology combined with optimal regulation can have on global business and quality of life.
Stephen is Toronto based lawyer admitted to the Bars of Ontario, Colorado and Wales and England who has advised on transactions across the globe. With added credentials in Anti-Money Laundering, Privacy and Cyber Security, he is a frequent and passionate speaker on the intersection of technology and regulations. He has held legal and compliance roles in the delivery of financial services for global companies that include Foresters Financial, HSBC, Apptical, Thinktum and Canada Protection Plan and more recently is providing compliance expertise in the banking and life insurance space with a focus on digital initiatives.
[1] Global Financial Innovation Consultation Document, August 2018
With more than 18 years of professional experience with human rights and labour related issues in the Nordics, as well as internationally from working in more than 45 countries in Latin America, Africa, Europe and Asia, Thomas Trier Hansen speaks with us on employment law in relation to foreign workers.
As a specialist dealing with a wide variety of employment disputes– would you say that there are any sectors that are more susceptible to such disputes?
The movement of labour is increasing. Workers in, for example, the construction, transportation and agricultural sectors, are often are recruited in other countries through a variety of agencies, or they are employed in companies in their country of origin but are delivering their services in other countries like Denmark on short term engagement. The companies in Denmark are expected to ensure that anyone working for them or in their sites are granted the same rights equivalent to Danish staff. Not only Danish companies, but any company, should carefully assess if their supply of labour, whether directly employed by them or by others, is being treated in accordance with national and international human rights and labour standard, including that they are not being subject to discrimination, unfair treatment or exploitation. If the companies fail to assess such risks, they may face legal action by losing public contracts and reputational risks.
In your opinion, how open is the Denmark legal system to abuse by employers and employees?
In Denmark, workers are protected through a system of collective agreements, strong trade unions and an efficient labour dispute system. However, foreign workers that are not having more permanent relations to the Danish labour market are in a much more vulnerable position. They are rarely members of trade unions and consequently they do not have access to the labour dispute system as that system is based on trade unions’ right to represent the interest of their members. Furthermore, the foreign workers are not familiar with their rights and obligations according to the Danish legal framework, perhaps because they do not speak the language, the legal framework is complicated, and they fear losing their job. If the companies benefitting from foreign workers are not ensuring fair labour standards, then there is a higher risk that the foreign workers can be exploited.
What other significant changes might we see in the employment law spectrum in Denmark?
We are not going to see many legislative changes. However, there is an increased focus in contracts with suppliers of labour on compliance with national and international labour standards to avoid so-called “social dumping”. Social dumping covers a situation where foreign workers are not granted the same rights as Danish workers. They are, for instance, paid lower salaries or are required to work more hours than generally accepted in collective agreements. Such contract clauses are becoming more frequent in public contracts and they are even being monitored and enforced. We are also experiencing similar contract clauses in contracts between private parties, where the supplier of labour is required to respect internationally recognised human rights standards, including fair labour standards. There also seems to be a trend towards an expectation that recruitment agencies should become more ethical.
How do you feel about alternative forms of dispute resolution such as mediation and arbitration for use on workplace disputes, as opposed to litigation?
Alternative dispute mechanisms are important to protect the rights of workers that are at risk of being subject to discrimination, but to be effective, they need to be trusted by the workers. In Denmark, organised workers have access to support from the trade union representatives at their work place. However, for those that are not organised, and these are often foreign workers, raising grievances against their employer might be risky. Consequently, it is important that alternative dispute mechanisms are designed to protect the workers raising the grievance in order to be effective. If that is the case, the alternative dispute resolutions are clearly more suitable for workers that believe their rights have been violated, as litigation is often expensive, lengthy and not very accessible for foreign workers.
Thomas Trier Hansen is a Danish advocate working in his own law firm. His expertise includes human rights, in particular in a business context, labour law, corporate governance, anti-corruption, data protection and public procurement. He also carries out consultancies for companies, non-governmental organisations and public authorities. Previously, Thomas served as a judge and chairman of the Court of Greenland. Thomas has lived in Mexico, Malawi and Greenland but is now based in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Gary Hood speaks with Lawyer Monthly this month about how he solves complex cases, especially in relation to IP law. Famously known for masses of documents to sift through, Gary shares a nugget of advice: “Don’t go it alone. IP is complex, so you ought to find an expert you trust and get comprehensive strategic advice early and often, in order to position yourself for maximum strength in any IP dispute.”
He shares more about IP law and working through disputes.
Your clients count on you to determine what is at the heart of the dispute early on; how do you achieve this? Do you have a step by step process?
When a client first asks me to consider a potential new case, my team and I take a very deep dive. We review closely the claims and potential defences that have been or might be brought. We vet theories for likelihood of success. We consider witnesses and experts, and identify and assess potential case theories and themes to determine at that very early stage the best strategy for the case. Over many years, I have refined this approach into a specific step-by-step process for achieving the end goal of scoping out a dispute from the start and developing a plan to win. This approach also enables me to budget a case to reflect that plan and goal. This process is significantly more time consuming and complex than many lawyers use at the outset of a case, but it has served me and my clients well over the years.
Can you expand more on your ‘unique case preparation’ and what this entails? Why do you choose this method?
First and foremost, I prepare every case that I take for trial. Many don’t go that far, but I plan for them all to be tried. This ensures that my client is always in position of maximum strength, to go to trial if we need to, but to obtain a best settlement if it makes sense – without concern that we have to settle because we’re not prepared for the ultimate battle.
My method of preparing a case starts with my early case assessment. From that early assessment and the winning strategy that we identify at the outset, my team executes that strategy, all in constant consultation with our client. In other words, we pursue the case theories and theme that we identified at the start of our engagement. While we continually reassess and refine our approach as evidence and the case generally develops, my strategic plan serves as the “roadmap” for all that we do in a case - from the discovery and evidence we seek, to the motions we bring, to the case we present to judge or jury.
In terms of IP, how have you seen issues in this area progress in Chicago, and further into the other states?
IP has become an increasingly important tool for many companies, not just in Chicago, but across the United States. Encompassing patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets, IP often becomes not only a major driver of company value, but a primary asset on which a company may trade and succeed. As a result, enforcement of IP rights - and defence against charges of infringement - have become an increasingly important and necessary part of doing business.
To succeed in the modern economy, a business that is based in or operates in the US must develop a comprehensive strategy to acquire and enforce its own IP rights, as well as navigate and defend against the assertion by competitors of their IP. Most IP disputes take place in federal court, and there are certain venues in the US where such disputes are more heavily concentrated. These include the major metropolitan centres of Southern and Northern California, Chicago, New York and New Jersey, and Washington, D.C., as well as other locations such as Wilmington, Delaware and Eastern Texas.
Companies would do well to consider the various factors that go into where a lawsuit for infringement can be brought. Just because a company is located somewhere else does not mean that it might not find itself hauled into court in one of these other popular IP jurisdictions. And detailed advanced planning can ensure that the company is best positioned to assert its own rights, and defend if accused of infringement, in a way that is least disruptive and costly. A company does well, in fact, to consider well in advance of any actual dispute, the types of IP disputes it might encounter, and prepare a strategic plan to address them if and as they arise.
What are supposedly new, but common, challenges that you face during IP litigation? How do you work around these challenges?
IP disputes are complex and often costly. They usually involved thousands if not millions of pages of documents, numerous company personnel as witnesses, and complicated legal issues. For many companies, this increasingly complex environment and the financial costs and business disruption can dictate business decisions. In other words, a company may decide not to assert its IP rights, or defend aggressively against infringement claims, because they assume it would be too disruptive or costly.
The issues involved in such disputes are usually complex, and do require specialised knowledge and understanding to assess properly. To avoid non-substantive factors becoming the primary driver of strategy, rather than the merits of the dispute itself, I apply the early case assessment strategy and determine at the outset the merits of the case. This enables a client to understand the merits and make decisions based on the substance of the dispute, including an efficient way in which to litigate the dispute if it so chooses. In other words, we figure out the case early, to enable a client to get the maximum “bang for the buck.”
Can you think of any important tips for companies to consider, in order to avoid disputes?
Plan well ahead to ensure that you avoid or are in best position for any IP disputes. Incorporate IP assessments and strategy into your business plan. And most importantly, be comprehensive and specific – know your relevant IP landscape(s), and have a plan to maximize the strength of your position.
Gary E. Hood is a shareholder in the Chicago office of Polsinelli PC, an AmLaw 100 firm with more than 825 attorneys in 21 offices across the U.S. He is the Chair of the Firm’s Intellectual Property Proceedings and Litigation Division, and also leads the firm’s Hatch-Waxman Pharmaceuticals & Biosimilars Litigation Group. Gary has been practicing for over 22 years, and his experience trying cases involving a range of legal issues have given him perspective and insight on judge and jury persuasion for which clients seek him out. He handles all types of intellectual property (“IP”) disputes, involving patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets, and has particular extensive experience in the pharmaceutical, consumer electronics, automotive, and food industries. Gary developed and employs a unique case preparation method that identifies strategic direction for an IP dispute early, and in doing so is able to avoid the conventional "no stone unturned" approach that often drives fees higher than they need to be.
Dale Fiola has been practicing law for over 40 years in the Southern California area, specializing in employment, labour and administrative law for the last 30 years. With extensive years of practice, Dale shares insights into employment law in the US; he shares light into what employees may deem as controversial, but what benefits employers, as well as how writing musicals enhanced his ability as a refined legal expert.
Why did you choose law? What attracted you to this industry?
I took Latin in high school and thought that a spiritual, religious calling may be best suited for me. I never received the call, so I decided to apply the Latin to the Law, focusing on a legal career. I never looked back. I had an extensive background in debate and forensic speaking as a teenager and competed at speech tournaments throughout my academic life. Later, in my legal career, that experience paid off and allowed me to feel more comfortable in presenting and arguing cases before a judge and jury.
An employer is vicariously liable for a hostile work environment created by a supervisor.
How has the sector changed over the years? What has been a big change which has deeply impacted the legal sector for the better?
Administrative and labour law have operated on an even keel with predictable changes in their makeup to fulfill due process and fair trial proceedings afforded government and union-represented employees. One of the frustrating areas in labour law litigation is suing labour unions and employers conjointly in a hybrid action in federal court under claims of breach of duty of fair dealing and breach of the collective bargaining agreement, respectively. The Courts almost automatically grant summary judgments when an employee must show that the “union’s conduct was discriminatory or in bad faith.” (Stevens v. Moore Business Forms, Inc. (1992 WL 570916). In other words, the unions are not culpable for their ordinary acts of negligence. To succeed with an action against a union, one has to prove the union acted with gross negligence tantamount to bad faith, discriminatory or arbitrary conduct. That is difficult to prove from a judicial perspective. As for the rest of us, ordinary negligence is all that is necessary to hold us liable.
As for employment law, it has been on a virtual roller coaster ride since Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654. For the last thirty years, case decisional law interwoven with legislative changes have slowly defined what is a “terminable at will” employment from one that is not. The employment that is not is one protected by public policy, statutes prohibiting discrimination or retaliation in the workplace, or constitutionally protected freedoms of expression. With the legal terrain being spelled out with some clarity for employment law, employers have been free to develop compliance systems, engage human resources departments and provide investigatory procedures to establish due diligence to promptly investigate and rectify outstanding claims of discrimination and retaliation.
The upholding of the arbitration agreements places employees in a very vulnerable position relative to recovery and the employers know it.
One area that is developing came as a result of the US Supreme Court’s decisions in two cases in 1998. An employer is vicariously liable for a hostile work environment created by a supervisor. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton 118 S. Ct. 2275. The Court followed the rationale of Restatement § 219(1), which provides, “a master is subject to liability for the torts of his servants committed while acting in the scope of their employment.” Then, in Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 765, the Supreme Court provided an affirmative defence that the employer could assert as to liability and damages if it could meet two prongs: (1) “that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behaviour”; and (2) “that the plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.”
As a result of these two decisions, human resources departments have worked actively to, at least, create the appearance of a prompt investigation and corrective action into any claim of discrimination or retaliation. The investigation by the human resources departments or their proxies must meet certain standard human resources practices. The investigation should be conducted by a well-trained human resources representative who has no connection with the accused employee. The investigation must carefully follow company’s written policies, and witnesses must be interviewed, including the claimant and accused, with relevant, open-ended, non-leading questions being asked. See Silva v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 256.
Another area of note that has been changing in the last six to seven years is employer-compelled arbitrations. When an employee hires on as a condition of employment, he is required to sign a host of documents. Now, it is standard fare for an employer to present a new hire with an arbitration agreement that locks an employee into agreeing that his employment is “at-will,” can be terminated for any or no reason given and with or without notice, that he/she waives his/her right to a civil action, jury trial, and collective, representative or class action, and he/she agrees to take all disputes to arbitration. In almost all instances, the employee is at the mercy of his/her employer and his/her desire to be gainfully employed and will sign without reading. The implications of that act will force any dispute regarding that employment into an arbitral forum rather than a court of law.
On 21 May 2018, the United States Supreme Court upheld those arbitration agreements between employer and employee finding that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires the courts to enforce agreements to arbitrate, including the terms of arbitration the parties select. As a result of that ruling, most arbitration agreements will be enforced and employees compelled to take them through individual arbitrations eliminating any possibility of a civil jury trial, or class or collective action. However, as to violations of California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) (California Labor Code § 2698 et seq.) to recover civil penalties on behalf of the state against an employer for Labour Code violations, those claims are not covered within the arbitration agreements and therefore do not conflict with FAA. Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (9th Cir. 2014) 59 Cal.4th 348. Iskanian ruled that predispute employment waivers were unenforceable against the state [“a PAGA claim lies outside the FAA’s coverage because it is not a dispute between an employer and an employee arising out of their contractual relationship.” (Id. 386).] A recent Ninth Circuit court decision upheld the unenforceability of PAGA waivers based upon the Iskanian decision. Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc. (9th Cir. 2015) 803 F.3d. 425.
The upholding of the arbitration agreements places employees in a very vulnerable position relative to recovery and the employers know it.
The employer holds all the discovery cards
The Possibility of Arbitral Incentives.
First, there is no civil court judge not being paid by the parties, only by the state, who generally remains impartial throughout the proceedings. In an arbitral setting, the arbitrator could get “continuing business” from the employer or its attorneys as a perk for favorable decisions. In one arbitration I was handling, after one favorable decision for the employer, the employer’s attorneys engaged that arbitrator for two more arbitrations while the original arbitration was still pending! One can only speculate what the attorneys’ motives were.
Employer’s Apprehension with Jury Trials.
One of the most formidable weapons against the employer is the jury trial. It places the inner workings of the employer and how it treats its employees out there for public display. Its results in bad public relations. It is a lose-lose situation for the employer. Then, there is no telling how the jury will react. Will it make a large verdict against the employer with a huge non-economic award or lofty punitive damages? The uncertainty is frightful for any employer but very real. Placing the lawsuit in arbitration adds a privacy component to the dispute. Generally, arbitrators are retired judges or current attorneys who have a sober view on what is a fair decision; whereas, a jury may send an emotionally-charged “financial” message to the employer.
Limited Discovery and Law and Motion.
Another advantage of the arbitral forum is cost. There are fewer motions and discovery matters that vent themselves in arbitration. Many arbitration services limit the number of depositions to be taken and excise the formalism of interrogatories, requests for production of documents and requests for admission from the proceedings. It results in a faster approach for the employer to handle the matter and reduces the expense of attorneys’ fees in defence which could correspond to a potential award of attorney’s fees in favour of the employee should he/she ultimately prevail.
There is another appeal to the employer – the employee is hindered in his/her efforts to get discovery. Without the formal procedures in place and limited discovery, which the courts have indicated are appropriate for arbitrations, the employee is left scurrying trying to get enough evidence to prevail on his/her claims. Thus, the employer holds all the discovery cards: the employees that are available and currently on payroll to testify against the recalcitrant employee and all the personnel records. It only needs to ask for what documents the employee has and take his/her deposition, and it is on its way to trial.
Although I have not seen unethical legal practices in the courts, I have detected from my own observations that political party preferences influence the judicial reasoning, which can have an impact on the success or failure of an employment case.
No Class, Collective and Representative Actions.
With no class or collective action possible, the employer’s prerogative is to “silence” each arbitration as it goes through the mill. It does this by using confidentiality agreements and stipulations for protective orders that eventuate into protective orders. Once the arbitration is completed, the records produced by the employer must be “returned” or destroyed” and not accumulated for dissemination on other cases. This imposed “gag order” protects the employer from plaintiff attorneys sharing case information. The gag order does not impair the employer’s ability to accumulate information from one arbitration to the next so that it can “fine tune” and strengthen its defences against the next upcoming case.
Regarding unethical legal practice, what do you think needs to be done in America to fight against possible corrupted, untruthful practice in the courts?
Although I have not seen unethical legal practices in the courts, I have detected from my own observations that political party preferences influence the judicial reasoning, which can have an impact on the success or failure of an employment case. For example, I had three to four cases in federal courts in the early 1990’s, which were being presided over by Republican-appointed judges, where summary judgment was granted in favour of the employer (two of those cases were later overturned by the Ninth Circuit). Later, when I tried a federal jury trial before a Democrat-appointed judge, there was a successful jury verdict for my client/employee. It may have been coincidence, but I think not.
Harassment is a byproduct of social interaction, whether at home, work or elsewhere...One isolated remark which engenders offensive feelings in an employee is not enough to violate the discrimination statutes.
What are your first initial steps when talking on a new case on discrimination in the workplace?
It is most important that you listen to all the facts. An employee will state their version of the facts in a very positive light. You don’t have the employer’s take on that version, so you have to take off the rose-colored glasses and be “real”. In examining discrimination or retaliation, the wrongful events must be continuing in nature, not just one isolated circumstance (unless egregious), and occurring in the recent past to assure the timeliness of the claims under the local forum’s statutes of limitations. In California and under federal law, administrative charges of discrimination must be filed within a short period of time, no longer than one year, in most instances, from the last act of discrimination.
Out of all the cases you see regarding employment law, which is the most common ‘type’ of case, and why?
Wrongful termination is the most common type of employment case that moves through the courts. However, close on its heels, is a discrimination or retaliation case. Many times, the subcomponent to wrongful termination has a variant of discrimination or retaliation to it.
Harassment in the workplace: why does it still exist and what can be done to fight it?
Harassment is a byproduct of social interaction, whether at home, work or elsewhere. When two people get together, words can get in the way and be misinterpreted; harassment can spawn from there. Harassment in the workplace requires more than just generalized harassment. It must be “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.” Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986) 106 S.Ct. 2399. One isolated remark which engenders offensive feelings in an employee is not enough to violate the discrimination statutes. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, (1998) 118 S.Ct. 2275, 2283. A hostile working environment will be proven only when the incidents of harassment occur in concert or with a regularity that can reasonably be termed pervasive. Lopez v. S. B. Thomas, Inc. (2nd Cir. 1987) 831 F.2d 1184, 1189.
When is freedom of speech an issue in the workplace? What should workers be aware of in regard to political stance in the workplace?
This is an area that has been under construction for several years. In a landmark case decided by the US Supreme Court, Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) 126 S.Ct. 1951, the court determined that a county employee is protected from discipline based on speech that is not part of the employee’s official duties. In Ceballos, the county employee was a deputy district attorney, who communicated with fellow deputies in a written memorandum regarding serious misrepresentations contained in a warrant. After the memorandum’s surfacing, Ceballos claimed he was subjected to a series of retaliatory actions. Ceballos never expressed those views publicly, but only inside his office. The Court found that his speech was not protected because it was written as a part of his official duties as a calendar deputy. Whatever the employer’s response was “reflects the exercise of employer control over what the employer itself has commissioned or created.” Garcetti, p. 1960.
The more the speech is a matter of public concern, expressed publicly, and not within the official duties of that employee, First Amendment protections come into play and protect that speech or expression.
What do you think makes a good lawyer?
Integrity, honesty, objectivity to the facts of a case, and hard work.
Do you have any ‘out of the box’ tips on how lawyers can retain their expertise over years of working in the industry?
Starting in 2005 through May 2015, I represented 4,000+ employees of Countrywide Homes Loans, Inc. in state and later in federal court. A week or so before trial in October 2013, the case tentatively settled with the Bank of America, conditioned upon the approval of the district court. The case was slated for a one-month long trial and, with its settlement, I had a big hole in my calendar for that time slot. I decided to fill the void by writing a musical, the first of its kind for me, called “Attention Whore,” based upon similar, but not identical, facts of a federal case I had prosecuted to jury trial in 2003. I wrote the script and the music in 56 days, copyrighting it thereafter. I never promoted the musical for production purposes, but I got such exhilaration out of the exercise that I decided to write a second musical. The second musical was called “Dittz, which was scripted with music in 2015. My daughter was a Hollywood actress and I decided I would help her find work by possibly writing a screenplay for her to act in. That screenplay was called “Suggestibles,” about a Christ-like prototype that attends Stanford University. Again, I never promoted the screenplay.
Having written so much legalese over the years, it was fun to write loosely in script format at the ripe old age of 62 years. I now have written 9 more screenplays in the past 5 years and two more musicals called “Heaven -27” and “WitchStruck.” I am currently working on two more musicals called “The Time Tinker” and “Vulgaria,” the last of which is a specially prepared musical for a Las Vegas showroom.
The persistency in generating a livelihood as lawyer can dull the senses over time. A brief respite can trigger a renewed sense of vigor in the legal trenches, which I have experienced first-hand.
Despite these digressions into entertainment, I have an active caseload of class actions and individual arbitrations that has and will continue to occupy a good amount of my time.
I believe I was inspired to pursue entertainment from a legal standpoint when I law clerked for Kenneth Kahn, a Los Angeles Attorney, who represented Andrew Daulton Lee in an espionage case that was later made into a movie entitled, “The Falcon and the Snowman,” with Sean Penn playing Lee. The case generated a lot of attention and public reaction.
As my years practicing law progressed as an attorney from 1977 to the Countrywide settlement, I did not have the time or ability to devote to free-lance script writing. When my children final went off to college and moved out, and with the Bank of America settlement proceeds, I determined to take a little time off to explore these literary pursuits.
I’m certainly no professional musician or composer, but I think someone gave me a dollar one time when I played the piano by happenstance at a local restaurant. That won’t qualify me as a professional on any level.
Writing “Attention Whore” opened my eyes for the first time that, even as a professional lawyer, I don’t lose my ability to create on a different level. Labeled as an attorney does not deprive me of the manner and means to step out of that role once and a while and experience something that drives passion. I think of Francis Scott Key, a Maryland lawyer, who stepped out of the role of advocate to write a poem about his observations over the battle at Fort McHenry in 1814. Those words became immortalized as the lyrics for the National Anthem.
I know that my foray into a new area of entertainment may stimulate the neurotransmitters in my head to hopefully delay the onset of aging, but that temporary migration into this new territory has made me more astutely aware of law and the representation of clients. The persistency in generating a livelihood as lawyer can dull the senses over time. A brief respite can trigger a renewed sense of vigor in the legal trenches, which I have experienced first-hand.
The Law Offices of Dale M. Fiola have been handling employment and labor actions since the early 1980s. As the years have passed, the Law Offices of Dale M. Fiola have focused primarily upon representing employees in all types of litigation, such as race, sex, age and ethnIcity discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination and discipline, and racial and sexual harassment against public and private sector employers.
