Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Making the decision to end a marriage is not an easy one and can bring with it numerous considerations on top of significant emotional strain. To assist in making the decision to end a marriage and all the key considerations more manageable and concise, experts at Cordell & Cordell have mapped out the need-to-knows when it comes to the divorce process in a step-by-step format.
There is certainly much to consider when it comes to embarking on divorce proceedings but the information below should make the prospect of ending a marriage less daunting, with much-needed clarity to help make the process as manageable as possible.
From applying for a divorce to contesting a divorce petition, with regard to all key legislation and terminology, we map out the divorce process, what you can expect and how the process can be made simpler in our comprehensive guide.
The Divorce Process Explained: Step by Step
In England and Wales, a divorce can be granted to any couple who have been married for at least a year and whose marriage has irretrievably broken down.
This however is only possible if:
(1) their marriage is legally recognised in the UK; and
(2) at least one party to the marriage has a permanent home/residency in the UK.
Why Choose Lawyers in the Divorce Process?
Whilst it is not a compulsory measure, many couples deciding to end their marriage do choose to seek advice from lawyers during a divorce. This can be for numerous reasons, including:
How to Apply for a Divorce
For anyone who is looking to apply for a divorce, a divorce petition must be issued. This is essentially a means of seeking permission from the courts to divorce. Whilst many couples decide to do so, it is not compulsory to seek and engage lawyers to assist with the divorce process.
A divorce petition must:
Proving Irretrievable Breakdown
There are five possible ways of proving irretrievable breakdown:
(1) Two years’ separation if both parties to the marriage give written agreement to the divorce.
(2) Five years’ separation if both parties have not provided written agreement to the divorce.
(3) Adultery, which means that the petitioner’s spouse had sexual intercourse with a third party. It is not possible to rely on this ground if the parties to the marriage continued to live together for six months or more after the petitioner discovered the adultery.
(4) Unreasonable behaviour, which means behaviour making it unbearable for the petitioner to continue their marriage to their spouse. Domestic abuse, including emotional abuse, and alcohol or drug issues are commonly cited examples of unreasonable behaviour. It is important to note that this is a subjective test and many different behaviours could be classed as unreasonable.
(5) Desertion, which means that the petitioner’s spouse has abandoned them without good reason and without seeking their agreement. The period of desertion must be at least two of the past two-and-a-half-years.
Challenging a Petition
Whilst this is relatively unusual, anyone wishing to contest a petition, or who receives a defence to their petition, is best advised to seek legal advice if this hasn’t already been carried out.
Next Steps
Decree Nisi
Following the issuing of the divorce petition, and providing the petition is undefended, the court will grant a decree nisi when it is satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to a divorce. The decree nisi is the precursor to the decree absolute.
Decree Absolute
This is a legal decree that officially dissolves the marriage and frees each party to marry another person should they wish to do so. The decree absolute can be applied for after six weeks and a day have elapsed since the decree nisi.
If the petitioner fails to apply for the decree absolute within four and a half months of receiving the decree nisi, the respondent is able to apply instead.
Greece experienced a long recession that has significantly damaged the business sector. Despite the harsh environment, a lot of efforts have been taken place and the country has made many steps towards its recovery.
Legal expert Serafeim Sotiriadis stated: “In the last years, we have seen crucial changes in the law that will positively impact the business landscape very soon. Investment opportunities have already increased and we foresee many more in the future.”
His firm’s goal is to pave the way for these changes in Greece and to provide clients with world class legal and financial consultation. He speaks more on the recession and Greece’s corporate sphere.
Which are the legal tools a potential investor could make use of when interested in investing in financially distressed companies in Greece?
The global financial crisis had a huge impact on the economic environment in Greece from 2011 and as a result, the business landscape changed dramatically. The consequences of this change brought out the vital need for Greek companies to restructure their debts in order to continue being viable and profitable. Through the restructuring mechanisms available in the Greek law, companies have the opportunity to extend the repayment of their obligations, write off a proportion of their debt and ultimately, in many cases, they get significant refinancing from the banks. Bankruptcy law provides businesses with the legal tools to achieve these goals. The most prominent ones are the “Pre-pack Agreement” and “Company Transfer Agreement” found in articles 106b and 106d of bankruptcy code (BC). Companies can also resort to the “Special Administration” provisions as they are defined in the Law 4307/2014 (articles 68-77). In any case, investors can step into reorganised, restructured and most importantly, viable companies, making a worthy investment at a fair price.
Also known as “Rehabilitation Agreement”, article 106b of Bankruptcy Code gives debtors the opportunity to sit at the table with the creditors and negotiate the future of their companies. Even though creditors used to be strict in the past, the current need to reduce their exposures from the non-performing loans has made them more flexible and eager to agree on favourable outcomes for the debtor provisions, especially in cases where an investor is about to step into the company. For instance, the parties may agree on the alteration of the terms of the debtor’s obligations, the disposal of the debtor’s assets, debt capitalisation, reduction of claims against the debtor, the appointment of a person responsible to supervise the implementation of the terms and many other provisions aiming at the success of the restructuring procedure.
The process begins with the negotiation of the agreement between the debtor, its creditors and the potential investors. The negotiation is followed by the signing of the agreement by creditors representing the qualified majority, namely creditors representing at least the 60% of the aggregate obligations of the debtor in which 40% must be secured. More importantly, a business plan must be drafted by a recognised accounting firm that presents predictions about the viability of the company in the future while the satisfaction of the creditors’ claims must be feasible in the future. The point is that the company does not only restructure its debts, but also reorganises its business’ operating sector, making important changes in the employees and suppliers status quo, in the expenses etc. The agreement must be ratified by the Greek courts; therefore, a petition must be filed and approved by a court decision which will be in effect erga omnes (even the creditors who did not consent to the restructuring).
Similarly, article 106d of Bankruptcy Code predicts the transfer of the company to a third company, either in whole or in part, and the restructuring of the debts will take place after the transfer. The third company may be either an existing or a newly established company and all the restructuring law provisions accordingly apply in this case as well. In essence, the third company purchases the assets that prefers leaving a part of the old entity behind and restructures the debts transferred alongside these assets. This mechanism turned out to be very popular in Greece in the last two years, especially among foreign investors who mostly seek to acquire a company under a healthy legal environment in case that the exposure of the acquired entity is too large.
What are the advantages?
First, I would like to stress the evolvement of the restructuring law in Greece. The Greek legislator has made crucial reforms in terms of the procedure, as restructurings used to be cumbersome and time-consuming, ultimately discouraging any investment initiative. The new legal environment allows debtors and investors to have an erga omnes court decision in approximately four to six months. The previous regime used to have a long time schedule from the signing to the execution of a deal, but now this is not the case. Other than that, the filing of the petition automatically grants a four month period during which collective and individual, pending or not, enforcement procedures against the debtor’s assets are suspended. This is an important provision reassuring that during this interim period any alteration in the debtor’s assets will not take place, so the investor will not be in fear of buying a different company from what he initially agreed on in the first place.
Furthermore, the Bankruptcy Code predicts that in cases where the debtor received any interim financing, either by banks or investors, from the signing of the agreement until the court approval of the agreement, these claims are ranked and will be satisfied first if the rehabilitation agreement finally fails to be ratified by the court. This is also an important amendment in restructuring law that encourages the potential investors to be involved in the restructuring of the debtor’s business, enhancing the prospects of a successful rehabilitation. In most cases, the agreement predicted that the investor would step into the acquired company long before the court approval making investments for the continuance of the business operation. The law protects these early investments by granting a “privilege” to the investors if the deal eventually collapses.
Also, despite the fact that the future viability of the business is of huge importance for the court to ratify and approve the rehabilitation agreement, and difficult to prove, the competent court may proceed to the ratification without inspecting the viability of the debtor’s business, provided that certain requirements are met, which ensure that all creditors have full knowledge of the agreement and the supporting business plan.
Specifically speaking of the abovementioned article 106d of the Bankruptcy Code, it is very important to keep in mind that all transfers are exempted from any tax, duty or fee payable to the Greek state. However, in this scenario, apart from the assets, there must be provisions for the transfer of all or a part of the debtor’s assets to the third party and provisions of the parallel regulation of any non-transferrable liabilities that they shall either be written off, capitalised or remain as liabilities of the old entity. More importantly, there is no need to submit any certificate clearance or other statement of the debtor when the assets are transferred, because these exemptions take place automatically.
How is the Non-Performing Loans (NPL) market going to grow in Greece in 2019? What are the opportunities?
The Greek NPL Market is considered to be the most promising in Southern Europe, ahead of Italy and Spain within the next upcoming years. The combined non-performing exposures (NPEs) of the four systemic banks in Greece is estimated to be of €105 billion with the largest NPL ratio in the Euro area at 47%. The Greek systemic banks came to an agreement with the ECB Banking Supervision to reduce this exposure by approximately 50% (an amount equal to €43 billion) in the next years. This goal is not going to be reached, unless the banks proceed to NPL sales, which means that a “huge wave” of opportunities in this sector will occur in the next 12 months. As far as we know from banking sources, the Greek Banks will conduct sale processes of loans until December of 2019 with estimated value approximately €80 billion. Greek loan portfolios have already attracted investors, as the profit rate has been initially estimated between 10-15% IRR, a fact that allows us to be more optimistic for the imminent rise of the Greek NPL market.
Regarding the types of assets, it has to be mentioned that the Greek Banks have the intention of making available a variety of assets that may attract different kinds of investors in the market. The most stimulating is considered to be loans that are backed by hard assets such as hospitality-related (e.g. hotels) and real estate loans. Other than that, SMEs, large corporate and consumer (unsecured) loans remain on the top of the list, while residential mortgages alongside shipping loans are expected to gain significant interest from investors. The Banks intend to formulate mixed pools making the portfolios diversified, but sales of particular types assets are still on the table if sound investors’ interest is expressed.
Despite the delays, the Greek Banks have shown their intention to accelerate the processes within 2019 announcing the initiation of several NPL projects so far. In 2018 we witnessed the completion of two projects, namely the “Amoeba” and “Solar” projects that regarded loan transfers and loan servicing agreements respectively. Amoeba project amounted to 2 billion through an auction process that consisted of the NDA signing (first phase), the non-binding offers submission (second phase) and the binding offers submission with the highest bidder undertaking the project loans. Currently, three more NPL projects have already been announced, namely “Jupiter” valued at 800 million by Alpha Bank, “Keros” valued at 700 million by Attica Bank and Amoeba 2 by Piraeus Bank. The future is promising as new projects are expected to come up in the next 12 months and new opportunities will arise for potential investors.
What are the legal complexities clients should take into account from your experience?
Investors that are keen to be involved in this market have to take into consideration various financial and legal issues before making their investment decisions. First of all, they should keep in mind that the Greek NPL market is still at its infancy, meaning that the market participants lack experience as there are no precedents and for this reason, the sellers may appear to be hesitant in the beginning. Therefore, the potential investors should look to establish a trustworthy relationship and demonstrate consistency in the negotiation process. Furthermore, the potential investors should also take into account that after having access to the data, the information, both from economic and legal perspective, is presented in a way that due diligence is absolutely necessary. The data precision is of vital importance, as discrepancies in the content of the information are those that lead to huge divergences in the price estimation of the sale. The most vulnerable consequence is the delay in closing the transaction, which is something that could discourage investors from getting involved in such transactions in the first place.
Lastly, I would like to highlight the complexities that are likely to arise due to the Greek NPL Regulation and Greek Law in general. Speaking of the Regulation, the Greek Parliament has already passed the Law 4354/2015 (articles 1-3), which specifically determines the legal framework for the transfer of non-performing loans posing as a necessary requirement for the approval of any transfer by the Bank of Greece. This might end up being more complex than it sounds and the investors should not consider the approval process as a “typical” one. Also, foreign investors are not usually familiar with civil jurisdictions, especially Greek Law and its particularities should be seriously taken into account (e.g. confidentiality law). The clients should look to acquire specialised legal advice from lawyers that have a deep understanding both in the Greek banking industry and in the investors’ needs.
What are the key elements of your firm’s success?
Our firm deals with financially distressed companies, whose issues are extremely complex when it comes to practice. A corporate lawyer needs to have a set of particular skills to face corporate issues. In our firm, the key element to our success is the combination of our legal expertise and in depth understanding of the economic environment, alongside our experience in the Greek banking sector. These elements make us understand the needs of every client and always promote the best solution in every case.
Apart from that, we have formed a well-trained and trusted team that is always responsive. Our firm encourages every lawyer to take initiative and develop their skills by urging them to take steps forward. The special needs of our clients and the high volume of work demands the existence of such a team and personally, as a managing director, I always try to inspire and convey my experience to the next generation of lawyers.
Serafeim Sotiriadis
Founder
Serafeim Sotiriadis and Associates
4, Lykavittou Str., GR-10671 Athens
Tel: +30 2103388812 Fax: +30 3388813
Serafim Sotiriadis, Attorney at Law, the Founder of Serafim Sotiriadis and Associates, is a graduate of Athens Law School and a member of the LAA since 2001. As a specialist in major debt restructuring and insolvency, Sotiriadis frequently lectures on corporate reorganisation and the restructuring of bank loans, having been personally involved in some of the most significant cases to have taken place in Greece. He has extensive experience in bankruptcy processes and extrajudicial loan renegotiation, as well as judicial experience in defending cases related to financial white- collar crimes. He provides international and Greek legal and tax advice to foreign law offices and corporations concerning cross-border buyouts, real estate ownership, investments in listed Greek companies, and the establishment of foreign companies, subsidiaries and branches in Greece. Serafeim also offers assistance with international real estate transactions and acquisitions of “golden visas”.
Serafim Sotiriadis and Associates, considered to be one of the leading law firms in Greece, provides a wide range of legal and business services with a specialty in commercial law, insolvency law and business restructuring and recovery.
Our high-quality and high-tech services, certified by ISO 9001:2008, are provided to both Greek and international clients by our team of highly trained and knowledgeable legal and business advisers with cutting- edge expertise and experience in the field. We are members of the IBA (International Bar Association) and IAG (International Advisory Group), and our informed team members actively participate in seminars, conventions and international gatherings of legal and business advisors.
The cornerstones of our business philosophy are consistency, thoroughness and personal engagement, underlying a commitment to offering our clients personalised and effective integrated solutions that are specific to their particular interests and requirements. This has allowed our team of lawyers, economists, accountants and consultants to achieve significant success, not only in the fields of company and commercial law, but also across our broader expertise in criminal and civil law. Our team members receive continuous training in the latest developments in national and international law.
There are reports that there could be another economic crisis brewing. Whether this is truly the case or not, is another question, however, Lawyer Monthly decided to discuss with insolvency practitioners Dr Franc Zimmerman and Knut Rebholz about the Great Recession, what we learnt from it, how it affected Germany and how companies can tackle insolvency and restructuring.
As an expert in insolvency and bankruptcy, what is the current state of Germany’s insolvency landscape?
After the Great Recession, which began in 2007 and in 2008 with repercussions that were felt in Germany, it was generally to be expected that many German companies would have to declare bankruptcy. Rescue packages were created and rescue measures were taken, not only by the German Federal Government, but also internationally, to avoid a complete collapse of the worldwide economic system. In the course of this, Germany has amended the insolvency reason of over-indebtedness in insolvency law, as they were worried that due to the effects of the economic crisis, many companies would be over-indebted and disappear from the market and consequentially the impact of the international economic crisis would have catalytic effects.
This international economic crisis was triggered by a sort of “snowball system”, which was essentially combatted with future counter-financing measures. The feared effects did not arise in Germany due to the stabilisation measures introduced by the Federal Government and on account of the prevailing interest policy, which was introduced to accompany the rescue measures. The counter-financing measures currently take the form of attractively priced loans, which means that the German economy appears to be prospering through “cheap money”; the number of insolvency proceedings has been continuously decreasing for years, from which the effects of the aforementioned measures can be seen. However, one must also pose the question as to where the money on the market provided by the state through the stabilisation measures comes from. If one poses this question, it is quite probable to assume that a new snowball system was created which counter-finances the old snowball system, which caused the Great Recession. In many cases, properties in Germany are currently sold clearly above their market value, which on the one hand documents that the value attributed to money is no longer in line with actual values, and on the other hand so that many investors can try to secure their money at least partially through (supposedly safe) investments.
As a result, we are of the opinion that currently – in contrast with what appears outwardly – there is an unstable economic situation in Germany, as the boundary conditions were created “artificially” and the number of insolvency proceedings will increase, at the latest once the interest policy changes.
Are insolvency and bankruptcy levels beginning to decrease now that the economic recovery is gaining momentum?
Yes, the number of insolvency proceedings has been clearly going down for some years now. Even small and mid-sized companies which cannot present any concept for the future, profit from the general economic conditions in Germany currently prevailing. They often also receive funds from private investors who invest generously in search of a better interest for their existing funds and therefore keep so many companies afloat which would not be able to survive from the yields of their own business operations.
Parallel to this, the German Insolvency Act 2012 attempts to emulate restructuring procedures similar to the US Chapter 11. To this end, the Insolvency Act introduced the possibility of the so-called (preliminary) self-administration (sections 270a, 270b Insolvency Act/InsO). This in particular means that the company itself retains control over its actions and there are no restraint risks as in the classical (preliminary) insolvency proceedings, as no (preliminary) insolvency practitioner is appointed by the insolvency court, which then alone and without influence of the company has the power of disposition, but a so-called insolvency administrator who acts as a control person on behalf of the creditors. This however requires that the company itself can prove that it has expertise in insolvency law, which usually is only possible by contracting or integrating qualified consultants, who in the case of larger companies often either work as chief representatives, or even take up a position in the board as CRO (Chief Restructuring Officer). This type of procedure requires an active preparation incorporating the creditors who, during the formation of a preliminary creditor committee reflecting the creditor structure, must also legally be able to determine the insolvency administrator whom the insolvency court uses to uphold the creditors’ interests.
As a result, these days predominantly large companies try to position themselves on a future-orientated foundation with the tools of (preliminary) self-administration provided by the Insolvency Act and to free themselves from old liabilities. The procedures in accordance with sections 270 a, 270 b Insolvency Act are very appealing and effective as they offer the opportunity of executing the procedure quickly and mostly without a great deal of public attention.
Currently, the greatest challenge is struggling to attain the so-called tax exemption for recapitalisation gains. Usually at the end of such a restructuring procedure, there is an insolvency plan solution: in other words, a kind of arrangement with the creditors involving the creditors foregoing part of their claims. When creditors forego their claims, generally there are accounting profit results, which then has to be taxed. The German Federal Ministry of Finance had made (supposedly) binding provisions in 2003 and 2009, in which the tax on recapitalisation gains in restructuring cases governed by insolvency law was waived; however, the Federal Fiscal Court decided in 2017 with convincing arguments that the German Federal Ministry of Finance was not appointed or legitimised to do this due to the separation of powers in force in Germany. This decision clearly set back Germany overnight – although Germany was on the right path and was able to compete in Europe from a restructuring law viewpoint. The German legislator has in the meantime correspondingly adapted a bill with the same goal, but now European legislative questions also play a decisive role, so that the planned law is currently being reviewed on a European level. It is clear that restructuring can generally only succeed if the creditors waive their old claims and it is therefore necessary that the question of tax on recapitalisation gains is clarified soon as, otherwise Germany will be unattractive as a restructuring location and – generally – as a business location. However, in our opinion, there is reason to be hopeful, as one cannot deny the fact that every restructuring is cheaper for the creditors involved and the state as “involuntary creditor” than the liquidation of the company, as the state is left with a company which still pays taxes after the former has been restructured. Furthermore, the state does not have to bear the risk of unemployment of the employees working in the company in question.
What are the key pieces of advice you give your clients in order to avoid insolvency?
There is no blanket answer to this question. There are statistics which try to work out reasons for bankruptcy. In actual fact, every company is different. There are companies whose existence is overtaken by developments and others which fail due to poor management. What we often see in our day to day work is that action is often taken too late (in some cases considerably) on the management level and market changes are simply ignored. Special attention must be paid to digitalisation which partially involves high costs which are often avoided as an investment, even in profitable times. This can result in companies being left behind unable to catch up.
Every entrepreneur lives from hope. The entrepreneur must always hope that the next day a customer will order services or its products. From this situation many entrepreneurs, directors or board members often recognise too late that a crisis situation has already arisen. An accurate, on-going and critical appraisal of the order books could prevent this. Frequently, the key figures are very heavily involved in the operative processes themselves, so that often they cannot find time to take a step back and objectively focus on the company and its situation. If there are any doubts, we advise getting an expert opinion as early as possible, especially as restructuring options generally decrease proportionally.
How has the insolvency environment altered since you began your career?
When we started working in the mid 90s as associates, there were only a very few law firms specialising in insolvency which had started and completed bankruptcy cases under restructuring aspects. The standard practice back then was to close and wind up the companies without even considering or checking the option of restructuring. In the past decades this led to a negative association of the image of insolvency practitioners.
We have considered this to be the wrong approach for ages. At the end of the 80s, the persons after whom our law firm is named already began keeping companies afloat in the course of the insolvency proceedings and preserving them as part of a transferred restructuring resulting from the insolvency proceedings. After all, if a company is shut down, this results in shut-down costs being incurred which indirectly affect the interests of creditor satisfaction, as these costs have to be met upfront from the existing funds. Right from the start it was thus our top priority to avoid the shutting down costs by keeping the business afloat, and additionally to create the foundations for the players involved to continue to pursue lucrative business operations with the (previously insolvent) company. This was a new concept for the parties involved in the respective process at the time. It was, however, mostly convincing and in the meantime has become the goal of the proceedings today in Germany. A change has taken place here from purely winding up a company and shutting it down to a restructuring culture which is also evident in the fact that, in particular, the (preliminary) self-management procedure is also used positively as a strategic restructuring instrument.
The market for insolvency practitioners has also completely changed. There has been a complete change from a relatively small-scale system to an open market system. The number of insolvency practitioners has almost increased ten-fold. At the end of the 90s, there were approx. 200 insolvency practitioners in Germany. Today, the number of practitioners registered at the insolvency courts is around 2,000. Due to the increased number of practitioners, the number of cases which have decreased are more widely distributed, i.e. the number of cases processed by a practitioner is going down. An important change has in particular resulted through the amendments to legislation with the introduction of the Act on Simplification of Corporate Restructuring in the Insolvency Act, which especially facilitates access to the special form of procedure of the (preliminary) self-administration and has thus strengthened the latter. Particularly in these cases, insolvency proceedings which are consciously initiated as restructuring procedures, are no longer issued fully independently by the insolvency court. The reorganisation and restructuring consultant are responsible in this case to create the preconditions for executing the procedure in co-operation with the creditors and thus can also influence the appointment of the insolvency administrator.
The acquisition point for the practitioners and insolvency administrators, especially for the complex procedures, has thus moved from the courts to the aforementioned parties involved.
How often is restructuring a viable route for companies in trouble? Are there any situations in which restructuring is definitely not an option?
Basically, every company can be restructured if there is a market for the product the company is selling or the service it is offering. There are industries which are no longer capable of surviving in the future. Hardly anyone buys a typewriter these days; it has been taken over by computers. But in a number of cases, the companies do not know themselves well enough and do not concentrate on their strengths. It is then a question of highlighting and focussing on these strengths. Frequently enough, thanks to an objective external perspective, the intrinsic strengths of the company can be brought to the forefront, whereby the management and employees are sometimes surprised what unique selling point and market opportunities their company actually has, of which those involved were not aware.
However, there are also companies which do not have this and have no economic justification to exist. They are then not capable of being restructured and not worth being saved – even if often an attempt is nonetheless made. One has to be able to recognise this situation too. To this extent, the insolvency proceedings are still a market shake-out tool.
Mr. Rebholz, what has been your most challenging case so far and why? How did you overcome such challenges and how did it shape your future in law?
In the last two years two cases spring to mind: a German manufacturer of lightweight aircraft, once a market leader with more than 2,000 planes sold worldwide. Here many factors came together: the production facilities with originally 600 employees had been located in the Ukraine since the mid 90s and had suffered badly under the political developments of the past few years. Added to this were strategic errors by the management, who had got involved in various projects and whose financing were not fully secured in the end. This had repercussions on its core business and led to extreme losses. In this case I was able to gain a lot of experience with contractual partners in the international field, in addition to almost all European countries also in Asia, the Arab countries and South America. This was equally due to the preparation for the transfer solution subsequently implemented being an enormous challenge on account of the complex regulations applicable to the authorisations required by manufacturers imposed by the European Air Safety Association EASA.
I also had to process several cases in the renewable energy field, especially for companies which operated biogas plants, including one of the most powerful individual plants in Germany. I was very surprised by the high loss in value of such plants. Due to the many subsequent investments which still had to be made buyers were often only prepared to pay 10 to 20% of the financing volume still outstanding as the purchase price for this type of plants, irrespective of the revenues secured by legislation.
Dr Zimmermann, as co-author of “Continuing operations in bankruptcy”, can you share ways in which businesses can make the most out of a bad situation such as bankruptcy?
As an insolvency practitioner and restructuring consultant, one automatically thinks differently than the management level of companies and also differently than the creditors affected by the crisis situation. There really isn’t a bad situation per se, unless of course the management/the board is unable to acknowledge that there is a crisis situation. If the management bodies react too late then consecutive valuable restructuring options are lost. Getting an expert opinion in good time does not do any harm and can make a big impact as relevant measures to get the company out of the crisis can be introduced in good time. According to the relevant statistics and experience in our law firm, the impending crisis situation is recognised by the managers and boards with a time delay of 1 to 1.5 years. This is far too late and means that many restructuring options which would have been available before an insolvency situation arose can no longer be implemented due to the time schedules. This on the one hand is certainly due to the pride of the management and that they want to get it sorted themselves, and on the other hand, because they are scared of what the liability issues could result for the management. However, it is often misunderstood in this situation that if professional counselling and support is obtained in good time, the restructuring can be optimally executed on the one hand and on the other hand, the feared liability risks of the management level do not even ever arise.
Bankruptcy and restructuring is often a dreaded side effect for business people; what motivates you in the area of insolvency law in order to help your clients?
Of course no one wishes an insolvency scenario. Nevertheless, how an insolvency situation is dealt with is heavily determined by culture. Insolvency scenarios are a mandatory and necessary part of any credit-based or business-based society. Did you know that there were already tools in place to clean up insolvency situations in the Roman Empire approximately 2000 years ago? Our society, which is generally geared towards success, has made insolvency a fail which everyone wants to avoid. But if considered correctly, an economic crisis is a logical consequence of a market economy based on performance and competition. The crisis situation which has arisen is not the goal pursued by the management, but a necessary risk for progress and development. Thus, it is motivation enough to help those who have consciously taken this risk and have tried to get things moving and advance them, factors which are a prerequisite for progress and future developments. It is inconceivable to move forward into the future socially and technically if there is no-one willing to take entrepreneurial risks. This would lead to a standstill. Thus we understand the protagonists and, in order to secure the future, try to do our utmost to maintain what has been reached. For example, Dr Zimmermann had an insolvency case where the insolvent company had developed totally new technologies in the field of reading devices for the blind and generally in the text recognition field and without a doubt was essentially operating on a future-orientated basis. It would have been destructive if the knowledge and these technologies would have been lost by the company being shut down.
Dr Franc Zimmerman and Knut Rebholz
Dr Franc Zimmerman and Knut Rebholz are partners at the liquidation law firm Mönning Feser Partner which is backed by more than 30 years of experience.
Dr. Franc Zimmermann: Lawyer, Insolvency Practitioner, Sequestrator, Restructuring Consultant, Specialist Lawyer for insolvency law
“I have been working as an insolvency practitioner for around 10 years now, nationwide for more than 10 insolvency courts and additionally nationwide as consultant in insolvency-related questions and as a restructuring consultant. I can draw upon experience from more than 1000 insolvency cases which I have processed and my efforts are targeted at working towards restructuring solutions in suitable cases.”
Knut Rebholz: Lawyer, Insolvency Practitioner, Sequestrator, Specialist Lawyer for insolvency law and labour law
“I have been working for around 15 years as an insolvency practitioner on a cross-regional basis from our Berlin office and additionally nationwide as a consultant in insolvency law questions and in restructuring. I have processed more than 1,000 insolvency cases in all different sizes attempting to keep companies afloat which are capable of being restructured and enabling them to stay in business.”
Our law firm is known throughout Germany and sought after in restructuring cases. This is partly due to the fact that our firm’s philosophy is aimed at restructuring companies in danger of going into insolvency or which are about to become insolvent. The key to our success is that our efforts focus on providing a comprehensive, far reaching and sustainable service for each client. We analyse and optimise corporate workflows taking into consideration the economic framework conditions on a cross-industry basis. Smaller companies are advised with the same care and expertise as larger ones.
The insolvency practitioners who work for us are certified pursuant to the Principles of Correct Insolvency Administration, ISO 9001 for insolvency practitioners as well as to ISO 9001 2008. Based on the number of bankruptcy cases processed, Mönning Feser Partner with its 13 branches and around 85 employees is one of the top ten German insolvency administration law firms.
Additionally, we provide counselling in all commercial law-related problems.
Helping law firms come to grips with self-destruct messaging
More and more individuals and corporate enterprises are using encrypted self-destruct messaging, also known as ephemeral messaging apps such as WhatsApp, Snapchat or Wickr. Ephemeral messaging is the transmission of encrypted messages that automatically or within a set period of time, disappear from the recipient’s device after the message has been viewed. These apps are no longer used just between friends, but are also being used within the corporate world to prevent IP leaks and confidential information from getting in the wrong hands.
In some cases, employees are using self-destruct messaging as a way of communicating between colleagues that goes under the radar of internal detection. Increasingly, companies are allowing the use of ephemeral messaging for incident response investigations where a trusted secure channel is often required to properly conduct the investigation in confidence while a determination of compromised assets is underway. Other examples include mergers and acquisitions information exchanges, sensitive internal investigations, attorney/client and board of director confidential communications.
Legitimise ephemeral messaging
However, ephemeral messaging by its nature can create legal complications for information governance and eDiscovery. A strong use policy is critical to staying out of trouble with this technology. It is important to recognise that data transmitted in ephemeral messaging may create legal headaches. The mere existence of any secret conversation in a corporate environment can often have the appearance that the parties are using it for ill intent or to circumvent litigation holds. Having a strong use policy will help demonstrate that the technology is being used responsibly and in good faith for legitimate reasons.
A basic information governance principle is that effective and secure collaboration and communication within corporate groups requires that information be properly controlled. Ideally, to mitigate risk and enforce record retention polices, document controls should be set at or before the information is created. Typical document controls used by enterprises include labelling the document by category, controlling how long the document can live within the enterprise (time-to-live, or TTL), or restricting access by user or geography. All of this can be relatively easy to achieve with a single corporate ephemeral messaging technology platform like Wickr.
Obligation to preserve data
In a pre-trial hearing ahead of a trade secrets case late last year, the use by two Uber employees of ephemeral messaging app Wickr came under scrutiny. Reuters reported that although Timothy Heaphy, a lawyer at Hunton & Williams and a former US Attorney in Virginia, said there is nothing inherently unlawful about instructing employees to use disappearing messaging apps, companies do have an obligation to preserve records that may be reasonably seen as relevant to litigation or that fall under data retention rules set by industry regulators1.
There are measures companies can take to better manage ephemeral communications:
With all the hacking going on these days and how easy it is to intercept electronic communications, ephemeral messaging is valuable where a trusted secure channel is required. It is a safe way of carrying out sensitive communications. However, as with all new technologies, the risk of misuse and the compliance implications requires that it is governed by a strong data governance policy coupled with a proactive re-evaluation of the changing technology in use and its legal implications.
About the author
Albert Barsocchini is Director of Client Advisory Services, NightOwl Discovery.
Albert Barsocchini joined NightOwl Discovery in 2012 and is currently the director of client advisory services. Albert is an internationally recognized expert in the fields of privacy and protection, compliance, audit and corporate investigations. He has served on the Law Technology News editorial board, as chair of the California State Bar’s Law Practice Management & Technology Section, and as a court appointed special master. He writes and lectures frequently on industry issues.
Carson Burnham is an equity shareholder at Ogletree Deakins, PC, an international Labour & Employment firm. She Chairs the International Practice, which consists of lawyers who specialise in assisting in-house counsel and their business-partners with labour & employment-law challenges outside the country in which they work. After starting the Practice in 2011 and growing it first in the US, she oversaw the expansion into the UK, France, Germany, Mexico and Canada. Today, she assists clients worldwide with all manner of employment-related legal matters. This insightful article touches on managing employment matters on a broad, global scale.
What three things must you consider when you are managing employment litigation on a global scale?
First, we always want to know what the client’s desired end-game is, since it’s very rare that employment litigation is about “winning at all costs.” Most employment-disputes arise from the breakdown in a relationship – we sometimes call it “industrial divorce,” recognizing that colleagues often spend more time together than they do with their spouses and kids. So clients can become frustrated when their defense lawyers spend thousands in fees just going through procedural steps in a reactive-mode, rather than working to achieve their client’s pre-determined goal, which often takes into account the positive aspects of the former employment relationship, as well as the negative. Even for those cases where winning a litigation is the key goal, such as defending a for-cause termination, winning often feels like losing, because it involves expending key resources just to maintain continuity.
Second, many jurisdictions do not litigate employment-law cases at the same level of procedural complexity as we have in the US, so there are many strategic ways our litigation experience can offer a fresh approach. Years of practice advocating in a complex system where volumes of precedent govern (and constrain the parties) at every step give us an opportunity to advance new litigation strategies in a less-restrictive setting, such as a labour tribunal in a civil-law jurisdiction.
Last, it is important to prepare our US Headquartered clients very well, particularly in the ways they may be perceived outside the States: US companies don’t enjoy a great reputation when it comes to showing respect for and deference to other countries’ laws, so it is important for us to educate our clients in how their predecessors’ behaviour will impact how they are likely to be perceived.
When planning compensation and company policies, what should companies involved all across the globe consider?
The key for both projects is to remember that employees outside the US have a contractual right to maintain the terms and conditions they have in place, so they must agree to anything that materially changes the terms and conditions of employment. It sounds simple, but the reality is that most global organizations need to implement changes constantly, in order to remain competitive, obtain opportunities, invent and sell new products. So the contractual right to remain in a static position conflicts with the organization’s need to constantly change, and it becomes difficult and frustrating when local law prevents an organization from imposing changes unilaterally. This comes back to communication – when a workforce is given the information it needs to understand why it is being asked to agree to a change, it is far more likely to go over quickly and smoothly. More often than not, our key work with clients on these projects is in developing and implementing the strategy to obtain global agreement and buy-in, to implement compensation and policy changes successfully.
Can you share more about your experience with labour and employment issues in cross-border M&A from a multidisciplinary perspective?
In my former in-house role for a technology company, I was responsible for negotiating the Labour/Employment aspects of many acquisitions and divestitures. It became clear to me very quickly that these issues – which affect every individual at the business to be acquired -- are highly-sensitive and usually the last to be resolved, since the buyer wants to keep costs down and the seller usually wants to preserve and reassure the workforce. Add to that the uncertainty the incoming workforce is going through, knowing they are going to be “sold” to a new company about which they know little or nothing, and with whom they are unable to communicate – it’s a recipe for paranoia and fear. Since the buyer can’t communicate directly with the onboarding workers, the way the lawyers negotiate becomes a proxy for those communications, and the deal lawyers’ behaviour has a huge impact on a transaction. So many times I’ve seen lawyers’ strenuous and tough negotiations in earnest to obtain a “win” on an issue unwittingly end up signaling (wrongly) to one side that the seller’s employees are greedy, and to the other that the buyer is callous and ruthless. By the time the deal is signed and the lawyers all move on, the seller and the on-boarding employees from the buyer already distrust and dislike one another – that’s a terrible way to begin a working relationship.
Handling this now for my own clients, it is important to me to remind them about what signals a seemingly-minor disagreement over employment terms might send, after being transmitted through intermediaries and ultimately to decisionmakers on both sides. It is also important that my client anticipates the inevitable last-minute requests typically raised by a seller for additional compensation, incentives, and benefits-commitments for its onboarding workforce, so that when those requests do come up, my client is not caught off-guard or upset. Just like dissolving an employment relationship is similar to a divorce, negotiating an acquisition is like negotiating a pre-nup; it’s so important to remember that the parties on the opposite sides of the table are going to be on the same side when the deal is complete.
Those issues arise in every transaction, no matter what country they are in. On top of those issues, of course, are the laws of the countries in which acquired entities’ workers are located. As with all cross-border Labour & Employment-law matters, it is important for my clients in the deal context to understand not just the legal rights of the employees joining through acquisition, but what those employees already know about those rights. All too often these issues are not considered when researching, pricing and negotiating a transaction, and then the buyer is surprised to be presented with them as an impediment to bringing a new workforce on-board (often, to their embarrassment, by the employees themselves). Some of these, like TUPE, works council obligations, or consultation requirements are obvious, but many others are not obvious. For example, when acquiring a company for the purpose of adding a new business line to an existing portfolio, the leaders of the organization coming over inevitably will not have the exact same management duties, responsibilities, status or opportunities for advancement that they had in a stand-alone company, creating the potential for those leaders to dispute the terms of their “new” positions: When they have a contractual right to continued employment, the unilateral change caused by the transaction itself can be challenged. My responsibility is to help my clients understand these issues well and early, to avoid unwittingly triggering issues like these which undermine perceptions of their integrity and credibility, and the success of the transaction itself.
What are three things which are the key to being a top lawyer and gaining what is right for clients?
First, think like your client. Anticipate their questions, their business challenges and their desired outcomes, and give them work product that takes all of these into account. People hire lawyers because they need help, and the worst thing a lawyer can do is fail to take the time to understand their clients well enough to know what “help” really means to them.
Second, be fast and efficient. A good lawyer gives their clients the support they need quickly and in a manner they can use – clients are really busy people who do not have time to wade through memos or even open attachments.
Third, be kind. Lawyers have a reputation for being arrogant, talking more than they listen, and being – well –rude. Before any lawyer can be a trusted advisor, he/she needs to earn respect and trust. That leaves no room for arrogance and rudeness, no matter how successful one has been in the past. Empathy and kindness will make you a better advocate, a better advisor, and a better human being.
Carson G. Burnham
Chair, International Practice Group
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
One Boston Place, Suite 3500 | Boston, MA 02108
Telephone: +1-617-994-5733
carson.burnham@ogletree.com
Carson Burnham Chairs the International Practice Group of Ogletree Deakins. She is a shareholder based in the Boston office. Carson and her global team manage worldwide labour and employment matters for clients and offer practical solutions to employment law issues in over 100 countries.
Carson’s expertise includes multijurisdictional investigations into employment law and compliance matters. Carson also specializes in a practical and efficient approach to sensitive, executive-level negotiations, assisting her clients with hiring, management, and terminations worldwide. Carson has unique experience with labour and employment issues in cross-border M&A from a multidisciplinary perspective, and is often called upon to partner with corporate firms to assist from the kickoff of a transaction through post-close integration.
Eugenija Sutkienė discusses her progression from starting one of the first private law firms in Lithuania post their independence, all the lessons she has learnt along the way and why she went from being a litigator to a commercial and corporate lawyer.
You are qualified in a range of legal areas; which is your favourite and why?
My legal areas do change over time, but my core areas M&A, corporate law, and to some extent project finance. Lately, over the last four years, I have been focusing on life sciences; this area is very exciting. We have managed to build a very good portfolio over the years, and the biotech industry itself is a very progressive business for start-ups; it is very dynamic and creative, which I find highly interesting and so I naturally enjoy working in this area. In most cases it is challenging: there is a lot of work regarding regulations and unique situations where clients require assistance - but to me, regardless of the situation, I am always happy to find the way to offer help.
For example, keeping to the science and health industry, I recently pioneered a movement in Lithuania to build health clinics and medical facilities; that is why there is a lot of excitement in this area and why I love this practice, there are always some very interesting elements.
What was your best achievement of 2017 and how is this pushing you to achieve better in this year?
I am one person working around three positions: I am the Founder of the firm, I am a Practitioner, so I try to exceed in my practice and, finally, I am Managing Partner, which to me is the most challenging area. Juggling all three positions can be a challenge, so the best achievement in 2017 was being awarded by The Lawyer European Awards, the European Managing Partner of the Year. For me, this is a remarkable achievement, as I simply see myself as a girl from Eastern Europe. To be recognised for my work was unimaginable and I never thought I would gain such an award in that area. What was most invigorating, heart-warming and energising, was that my team of lawyers submitted my place secretly behind my back and thus they presented me this award; this was something that was beyond my belief, which I really value. I value the support of my team and my office, because without them, I would be nothing. In 2017 again, there was another award regarding the legal market.
I was the first private law firm established after independence; it was a time where the tanks were still in the streets, the Russian groups were starting to move out in 1991 and we founded the law firm which started things that were quite unique to us [Lithuania] at the time, such as: private acquisitions, and working with big companies, like Coca-Cola and accommodating their businesses. It was a very exciting time. But nevertheless, at that point of time our legislation on joint ventures and franchising was non-existent, so with the help of my American colleagues, we managed to contribute a lot into the development of this market. Two major awards, that represent my work as a Managing Partner and the effort I put in post-independence were my greatest achievements in 2017, which I value greatly.
Why did you pick the legal profession?
Before starting as a private lawyer, I worked in the Court. Being a litigator was my first job, but after a while, I reached to the commercial side of things. The reason is because I generally found it more rewarding. We managed to start off and build factories and many production facilities which are still standing today. In general, when you are doing this type of work, you are contributing to your society, to your economy and development, which is why I enjoyed and preferred it. I felt like I was making more of a difference. Moreover, especially in the first stages of our firm, this was our main type of work; you do not necessarily choose the nature of your work at the start, as your clients choose you, so you naturally try your best to help them and their requirements. I would say this is why my role is ambiguous and constantly changing as I want to help clients and my society, so I adapt to what they need. Now I am focusing a little more in life sciences sector, as it is the future of our society. I always like to try something new and always try to give. I guess that motivation has always been in my character, which reflected onto my legal career.
What was one lesson you learnt when transitioning from law school to practising?
Well, it was a long journey from law school to becoming a professional. I learnt many lessons and had to learn all the rights and laws. This role is about learning all the time. This is about being open, all the time. Not hearing one sole opinion, but about listening, learning and being adaptable. The law changes rapidly, and you look back all the time and think, even if yesterday was perfect, today can go wrong: you always have to adapt.
A lot of lessons were learnt, and even now, as I work in various positions I am constantly learning new things: I have to learn about business to take responsibility of the firm, then as a lawyer, to work with the people and clients. Overall, you have to be open to change.
What is the most challenging case you have dealt with so far, and how did you overcome such challenge?
I am presented with many challenging cases! However, the most challenging often provides the most excitement at the same time. Oftentimes, things can be challenging when dealing with clients from different cultures. It is a different environment, with language barriers and without clear knowledge of legislation. I once worked with professionals from China, and the cultural differences were evident, which did pose difficulty. Until I managed to acquire some text books on their legislation (etc.), it was very tough and definitely a new experience. When negotiating the acquisition of two companies and two different sellers, it was challenging in many respects: in the way of doing business and thinking, but, nonetheless we succeeded and became friends with the Chinese colleagues. There were many magical moments and we found common ground and solutions, which is what a true legal professional has to do.
Eugenija Sutkienė specialises in the following areas of law: Corporate & Commercial, Mergers & Acquisition, PPP/PFI, Project Finance, Development & Regulatory, Restructuring and Insolvency, Pharmaceuticals & Health Care, Life Sciences, Cross-Border Tax Planning. She has been practicing law as private practitioner since 1992. She has acted as a legal adviser for multinational corporations such as Coca-Cola, Mars Inc., Philip Morris, Sicor Biotech, Svenska Petroleum, and assisted in investment in and development of production facilities. She has acted as a Lithuanian Government adviser in major privatisations , acted as a corporate counsel for many corporations such as TEVA, Sanitas, Moller Group, PKN ORLEN and many more; assisted various Government institutions in legislative work, was a member of the working groups drafting foreign investment, corporate, bankruptcy, privatisation laws and regulations, the Law on Land Expropriation in the Public Interest in Implementing the Projects of Particular National Importance, land planning regulations, etc.;
With a specialism in M&A transactions for more than a decade and handling a lot of transactions, over the last decade, she has begun specialising mainly in the life sciences sector and providing a range of services from corporate, regulatory to acquisition and business expansion projects.
TGS Baltic is a top-tier commercial law firm with offices in all the Baltic countries. Our mission is not only to be the best legal experts in our region, but to use our expertise, experience and skills to support the business of our clients. We believe lawyers should not only be experts in law – the real added value for our clients comes from our ability to help them succeed in their business objectives.
Renewing professional indemnity insurance (PII) can be a long-winded and costly process. Here, Blake Hynds, Senior Client Account Manager at Wesleyan, the specialist financial services mutual for lawyers, discusses how to get the best terms at the best price.
The PII market has been competitive in recent years with some keenly priced policies available to law firms who shop around. This is largely because firms have become more adept at managing risk better resulting in fewer claims being made and therefore cheaper premiums.
Capitalising on a competitive market
Despite changes in the market in 2013 that opened up the timing of PII renewals, 68% of firms continue to stick with the traditional date of 1st October¹. However, the sooner you start the renewals process the more time you’ll have to prepare and find the best deal.
Completing the PII proposal form is a key stage of the process and so plenty of time should be allowed for this. Ultimately the proposal will give an insurer your view of risk. Answer questions in full, giving as much information as possible so that the insurer has all of the information they need to provide the best quote.
Understanding what the insurer looks for
When completing the proposal, there are certain factors that insurers will always consider when providing firms with a PII quote.
Find the right broker for your needs
Make sure you’re aware of the best deals and be prepared to move insurer if you find a better deal. When talking to a broker, make sure you understand what they’ll provide you with over the course of the policy. If you need to make a claim, for example, will they represent you or will they outsource to a third party expert? If the latter, what are the credentials of their preferred panel of experts?
It’s also important that firms keep the number of brokers they ask for a quote to a minimum. Insurers can be put off if they receive a number of requests for quotations. Some brokers are tied into contracts with certain insurers so it’s worth checking whether your broker is independent and can access most of available market.
¹https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/Support-services/Research-trends/docs/PII-survey-2016-17-report/
The information contained in this article is does not constitute financial advice.
Wesleyan provides specialist financial advice and services to lawyers and can provide guidance on reviewing your PII renewal. For more information, go to www.wesleyan.co.uk or call 0800 092 1990.
Wesleyan is the only endorsed finance provider to The Law Society of England and Wales and its members for both commercial and personal financial solutions.
Wesleyan's flexible commercial finance solutions enable law firms to maximise their growth and support their cash flow against rising operating costs. These include flexible short-term expenditure funding for Tax, VAT, Practising Certificates and Professional Indemnity Insurance. The company provides medium-term loans which cover investment in technology and associated IT services including cyber and data security, in addition to long-term financial solutions to facilitate business mergers and acquisitions, commercial mortgages and partner buy-ins and buy-outs.
EPC Industries Ltd. (EPC) has announced a joint venture with an Israeli Greenhouse firm Top Greenhouses Ltd (TGH). EPC will hold 60% stake in the JV while TGH will hold remaining 40%. India agriculture is currently grappling with multiple challenges - climate change, food security, and water scarcity. Protected Cultivation coupled with use of micro irrigation is one of the best technology interventions to address these challenges. With more focus on addressing climate change, food security and more corporates entering in agri-value chain, there is a huge potential for Protected Cultivation technology. Mr. Ashok Sharma, Managing Director, EPC Industries Limited said, "I am pleased to announce [the] joint venture with Top Greenhouses. It is an opportunity for EPC & TGH wherein both the partners can draw on the strengths of each other and grow protected cultivation business by providing access of hi-tech and relevant solutions to country at large. With more evident impact of climate change on agriculture, Protected Cultivation is an important method to raise agricultural productivity in the country."
Interview with Benjamin Grossman at APM Law
Please tell me about your involvement in the deal?
We were nominated by TGH, as an Israeli legal consultant due to our background and experience in Indian-Israeli technology deals, in order to consult TGH during the negotiation regarding the JV agreement and its terms, as well as to advise TGH regarding the various mechanisms and instruments ensuring the success of the collaboration.
Why is this a good deal for all involved?
The deal is a typical win-win deal for parties who would like to leverage Israeli technology and make it accessible to the Indian market. EPC gains an access to the technology and know-how of TGH in the field of secured agriculture, enabling EPC to also make it accessible to their target customers in India. TGH gains access to the practically infinite market of farmers who will benefit from TGH technology; it would be very difficult for TGH to gain access to an infinite market by independently basing it on TGH’s own resources and capabilities.
What challenges arose? How did you navigate them?
The main challenge derived from the vast differences between the two parties. TGH were requesting to ensure their full long-term involvement in the JV, in spite of TGH's relative modest size and resources compared to EPC. TGH also wanted to verify the attention and allocation of resources of EPC in the JV, regardless of its relatively modest magnitude in relation to EPC magnitude of activities. These challenges have been met by offering sets of balanced mechanisms and instruments securing the long-term interests and rights of both parties and the long-term viability and success of the JV.
Want to impress your followers on Instagram? Or want the children to explore and document their adventure, without destroying a £300 camera? The GoXtreme Vision 4K is a compact video and still image action camera with class leading features, which you can use to shoot footage of you snorkelling in the Mediterranean, or biking around the Amalfi Coast.
As much as I love taking snazzy photos, I hate carrying a big camera around my neck and would rather leave it at home and snap everything on my trusted phone. Why? It slides right into my pocket. With the GoXtreme being lightweight and small enough to slide into your pocket or bag, one of the best things about this device is that you don’t notice the added luggage.
However, what gives me anxiety about carrying my phone with me? Accidentally dropping it into the pool when trying to perfect my Snapchat Story. Luckily, the GoXtreme comes with a waterproof case, which not only is handy, but means you can shoot videos of nearby jellyfish roaming in the sea.
The device captures stunning ultra-high definition true 4K/24fps video recording and still image capture at up to 16MP – and even though your phone may do a better job at taking photos, the video footage is where it works best. The 170-viewing angle, built-in 2.0" LCD screen and WiFi connectivity allow you to capture, view and share every detail on the fly without the need for a PC, while the wide selection of accessories and mounts including the 30M waterproof case, make the Vision 4K an unbeatable package at an incredible price.
Quite simple to use, even for the tech-scared, their app allows you to easily navigate, and the variety of settings you can choose from makes it easier to change your setting preferences when the action camera is strapped to your bike or your helmet. The camera comes with a bike, helmet and clip mount, as well as a tripod and monopod adaptor, especially for those wanting to capture their adventures.
There are a variety of ways to access your footage, from the microSD card (the device doesn’t come with one of these), or by using the miniUSB slot or WiFi. Quite cleverly, the built-in Wi-Fi, when used with the free smartphone app, provides a live view from your camera to your smartphone, remote control via smartphone and file transfer from camera to smartphone, for quick and convenient viewing and sharing of your videos and photos without the need for a PC.
The GoXtreme is the best way to delve into what could be your new hobby, or keeping the kids entertained. Whilst it may not be up there with GoPro, it definitely a piece of kit you would benefit packing in your suitcase this summer!
GoXtreme Vision 4K Action Cam – Available from Argos for £99.99
The legal path is seldom an easy journey. Getting a foot in the door is difficult in itself but climbing the ladder to get to managing partner is tough journey. In this feature, we speak with recently appointed Sara Teasdale, who shares three top tips on how she became managing partner in less than 20 years of being qualified.
Whilst undoubtedly everyone’s journey through career progression and promotion is a unique and personal one, having being asked to reflect upon my own personal career path, culminating in recently being appointed as Managing Partner of Byrne and Partners LLP, it is clear to me now that there are three recurrent themes that I have navigated throughout my professional career.
Having qualified in 2000 into the business crime department at the Manchester firm Pannone, I moved to London in 2003 as an assistant solicitor in a boutique city litigation practice. In 2006, I accepted a job that may have appeared to some as slightly “off piste”. I joined Roiter Zucker, a niche life sciences practice based just off Finchley Road. One of the firm’s long-standing corporate clients was being prosecuted by the SFO, in what was at the time one of the biggest SFO prosecutions brought to date, and I was recruited as the sole criminal lawyer to run the criminal side of the corporate defence and to build up a free-standing criminal fraud practice. It was not without a high degree of trepidation and lingering self-doubt that I accepted the position. However, within twelve months I had built up a steady independent flow of criminal fraud work and I happily accepted an invitation to become a partner.
Fast forwarding to 2010, I was approached to re-join Pannone to set up its London office to build up its fraud and regulatory London offering. That move coincided with the timely return to my psyche of my doubting gremlin friend, but emboldened by my four happy, successful years at Roiter Zucker, I again ignored my nagging self-doubt and took on the challenge with a heady mixture of nostalgia and abject fear. Whilst the Pannone office never reached magic circle proportions, it progressed from me, alone in a subterranean office with my own balloon-based version of “Wilson” to a fully functioning full service offering with a headcount in double figures (just). I was asked to head the full service London office and be the main point of contact for the Manchester-based Board and Managing Partner.
In February 2014, Pannone was acquired by the personal injury behemoth Slater and Gordon and whilst there was a keen desire for me to move across to Slater and Gordon as part of that acquisition, I had a firmly held belief that my practice was better suited to a more commercial practice. At the time, my decision was unexpected and unpopular and throughout that period I recall that my mantra was that of “be brave” and have faith that I am best placed to know what is best for me and my career. After exploring a number of potentially exciting and quite varied opportunities, I joined Byrne and Partners LLP in March 2014. Four and a half years on, I am in no doubt that I was absolutely right to stand by my unpopular decision and to forge a new and different path.
It is never easy to swim against the tide of popular opinion but a large part of the job of any solicitor is about exercising and trusting your own judgment. That applies equally to one’s own personal and professional decisions. The majority isn’t always right!
My advice to any junior solicitor has always been to start at the earliest possible stage of your career to build up your network of contacts. A linchpin of most law firms today is the ability of its partners to generate work, and I have no doubt that my ability as a rainmaker has been seminal to my career progression over the last ten years.
Even as a trainee in 1998, I sat on various committees, and upon moving to London in 2003, I joined the committee of the Young Fraud Lawyers Association and latterly became the Chairwoman. I have continued that practice to date and am currently the Treasurer of the Fraud Lawyers Association. I have met many brilliant and extraordinary lawyers through my involvement in those committees and through immersing myself in many years of networking and people who started out as “mere” professional counterparts are now amongst my closest friends and confidantes.
That support and guidance has had an immeasurable impact on my career progression, not only in terms of work referrals but more importantly in terms of having a network of people you trust; who will support you and be honest with you when you are having a moment of self-doubt or are struggling to stand by an unpopular decision.
And so to Managing Partner
Agreeing to become Byrne and Partners’ next Managing Partner wasn’t an easy decision. I read an article recently that opined that the first step to making a great managing partner was having an easy act to follow. It concluded that “there is never a better moment to emerge than taking over from an awful predecessor”. My predicament is that I am following in the footsteps of a strong, successful and popular predecessor, and so again to lingering self-doubt. Whilst that is undoubtedly one of the many challenges that I will face in my newly appointed role, I will instead focus on my fellow partners’ trust and belief in my ability to lead and continue to take forward a successful and profitable business.
Practically, my other challenge will be to maintain the right balance between the demands of my new management role and continuing to grow a successful fraud practice, not to mention of course the demands of my three year old son!
In conclusion, more than ever I will need to ignore the gremlin; rely on and lean upon my unflinching support network; trust my own judgment and be brave!
Sara Teasdale
Managing Partner
Byrne and Partners LLP
Sara Teasdale is Managing Partner at Byrne and Partners LLP. Sara has extensive experience of criminal and regulatory investigations and prosecutions brought by the SFO/FCA/MHRA/DOJ, acting primarily for senior, often high-profile individuals. Notable previous cases include acting for a corporate defendant in the SFO investigation into alleged criminal cartel activity in the pharmaceutical industry; for the former Finance Director of the main trading arm of Cattles PLC in the FCA and FRC cases; and acting for individuals in numerous bribery and corruption investigations including BAE Systems, Sweett Group plc and currently in a Unaoil-related investigation.
