Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
I am not so sure about that, but I just wanted to say, it is such a gift for us to be alongside one another here. I failed to realise until I came into this conference space just how much of a thirst there would be for connections, and especially as a legal community. Although a lot of people are moving to at-home work, one of the things you cannot replicate, especially in challenging cases, is to have the range of both professional and lived experiences alongside one another in chambers.
As a short introduction, I am a barrister. I practice at 2 Hare Court, which is in many respects the most established public criminal chambers, although most of our work is regulatory and international law, which was – by the time I accidentally stopped being a barrister – the chief arena of my practice. And then in a rather odd meeting, having prosecuted cases internationally and advised governments, I found myself coming back to Croydon to defend in a case. That is to say nothing about Croydon or how I ended up in television or how depressed I was about the law, but I think we can all agree the architecture could be improved.
I ended up writing scripts. It was a spare-time hobby. I went to sell one to a woman at ITV who looked at it, and the best thing to say is that she gave it her aggressively undivided indifference. I think she thought it was the worst thing she had ever read. As I am a defence lawyer in this country, and completely undeterred by a difficult response, I went back to Croydon, sent her an email, thought nothing of it, took another brief and came back to the idea of a TV court. It normally takes years and years of various developments to produce something like this, and of course, you can imagine that various focus groups were involved. This one was just put onto television in three months.
I practice at 2 Hare Court, which is in many respects the most established public criminal chambers
So we then move on. I was prosecuting a case in Jersey and I arrived in court with a TV crew with my name on it. We have now done 2,000 cases involving civil disputes, and from there, gifted privilege after privilege, I have had a range of extraordinary opportunities including how to dance on Strictly Come Dancing and, just this morning, presenting Good Morning Britain for the first time. But perhaps the richest gift of all has been to give a platform to the causes I care about. This includes documentaries about human rights issues, such as one with the BBC that will hopefully come next year about the conflict between Israel and Palestine, and having a column both in the Sun and the Evening Standard where I answer questions – and have done for six years – for people who have the least access to legal aid, with no access to power. That, I think, has been the richest privilege of all.
You know, there is a legal aid crisis. We as a legal community are – and when you think about it, it is quite ironic – shockingly bad advocates for ourselves as a legal community. We are really bad at making the case for lawyers. I want to set that up as a sort of overarching headline.
So as people will be aware, legal aid was originally instigated because it was understood that democracy is meaningless unless everyone has access to justice. In criminal aid, that meant that it was a complete given that you would not be given just any lawyer, but equal and opposite firepower to the capacity the state had to bring a prosecution against you. I think this is something worth reflecting on when people are perhaps a little bit sceptical about the implications of the European Convention – the Human Rights Act, as it became. What that meant was that you were guaranteed equality of arms. That meant, of course, that anybody confronted by a criminal allegation would be entitled to a defence, means-tested or not.
We as a legal community are ... shockingly bad advocates for ourselves as a legal community.
That became increasingly difficult to defend when people named had money. But the reality of the situation was that it was understood that you could not have a fair trial without that guarantee - that our legal landscape demands, requires and expects that in order to ensure any kind of fairness, it cannot be dependent on the capacity for an individual to pay.
So, when you are talking about losing somebody's liberty, that is criminal legal aid. And again, it seems to me that that is a very straightforward case to make, but we as a legal community, for a variety of reasons which no doubt we will come onto, make a case badly.
In civil legal aid, again, the pot used to be large. In other words, there was a broad landscape of civil legal aid available to a broad range of people. Now, it was not the case that anybody could just go and get civil legal aid, either for family disputes or for housing matters. This was not some sort of bonanza. it was never means-tested in the way it is now. You could go into it and find out in rich detail about how this has eroded over time, but the reality is that we went from a position where the powerless, or those who had the least access to network – which is the critical currency in getting a problem resolved – would have access to a lawyer, usually at first instance with one letter that could solve that particular problem, to the reverse. To use an example, in family law you may now have a toxic breakup where there are a range of issues – violence, for example – towards one of the spouses, usually the female spouse: no legal aid.
I have become an ambassador for Shelter, and I can tell you personally the number of cases where access to a lawyer at first instance would have resolved somebody's problem, when they are living not just in bad housing but in housing which is in breach of every conceivable regulation imaginable. Special educational needs is another area of absolute critical importance that is now beyond the reaches not of some people, but of most people, and that is completely scandalous.
I have become an ambassador for Shelter, and I can tell you personally the number of cases where access to a lawyer at first instance would have resolved somebody's problem
What I often wonder is, if you have a problem, who in your firm could you get in touch with that would be able to assist you, that could act as an advocate on your behalf, that could know the law? Could you, for example, come up with the money to pay that person? For most people, and it bears infinite repetition, that is simply not the case. We, then, as a legal community, need to ask ourselves a very challenging question: what does it say about access to justice? What does it say about those individuals?
Yes, there are a number of corporations and various law firms who are responding, but I am afraid to say it is nothing but scratching the surface of a very, very deep problem. Again, I hope you will forgive me for repeating it; we as lawyers need to make the case for why it really, really matters. Not just the straightforward principle case, but the economic case too: the amount of court time that is wasted. Judges will tell you this; even good research from the Department of Justice will tell you this now, as we do now have a slightly more on-side chancellor in the form of Dominic Raab, or so it seems to me. The reality is that where people do not have access to law, it is uneconomic, it is unfair, and it is an affront to our basic principles of having access to justice.
That is a really interesting statistic. I used to prosecute cases of financial corruption – we were obsessed by those statistics of “how corrupt you are”, which really depended on the external criteria that they applied over the government. Imagine if we sat here as a community and said that, when it came to being the cleanest government, we ranked 79th in the world. That would be a matter of national scandal.
That is a good question. I do not think they are poor advocates for legal aid, and forgive me if I put it that way. I think lawyers are poor advocates for being lawyers. And I understand why. After a period of time working as a professional – it certainly happened to me after 15 years or so – if you are a criminal lawyer, you are used to the usual question: how do you defend people when you know they are guilty? There is an obvious and easy answer to that question: everybody is entitled to a fair hearing, and so on and so forth. But I think as a profession, whatever aspect of the law you are in, be it as a solicitor, a legal executive or a barrister, for too long we have been in retreat. We have failed to remember how important what we do is.
[ymal]
I understand that that sort of rot has set in for some time. There is that joke, “What do you call a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the sea? A good start.” But I do not think we have ever lost the social currency as lawyers, regardless of what part of our community you occupy. What I think we have done is allowed ourselves to become part of a conversation which has forgotten our pride in what we do. In other words, when you say to somebody or you meet somebody and they say what do you do, and you say, “I am a lawyer”, you can feel very often that kind of sense of apology. It happens across the board. And that might be because it has been pretty exhausting, or the work may be repetitious, or whatever it is. But if you are a personal injury lawyer, for instance, there should not be any apology there. What you do is critical.
I sat down with a group of personal injury lawyers from a large firm in Manchester, Fletchers. Listening to the stories of what they do, as they take somebody who has been critically injured from the beginning of their journey over three or four years, they become critical members of that person's family. They do not just problem-solve; they provide that long-term legal resolution that, but for them, that person would not have. And that is true in so many instances.
No, I do not think it is a panacea, but I do think as a legal community it is always worth remembering – in case you have forgotten – that what each and every one of you do, what we do as a legal community, really, really does matter. Whatever you do and wherever you do it, you provide individuals and people the right that they are fundamentally entitled to, which is the right to access to justice. Without you they would not have it. And if you leave with nothing else, I ask you never to shrug when somebody asks, "What do you do". You should be proud to be a lawyer.
Yes, but it was not just working alongside that law firm. When I first started answering questions in the Sun, I received a lot of criticism. People were quite sceptical, and they have their own reasons for that, but I have always been quite proud of it. because the mailbag has by and large been from people who have not had access to a lawyer, and they are asking first-instance questions. What has been interesting over that half decade or more has been to see how that mailbag has grown and also the types of questions that we are getting. We started off with parking and so on and so forth. What has happened now is that, each week as the questions are triaged for me, we are dealing with questions about concerns over custody. We are dealing especially with questions like "I think my child has learning challenges and they are entitled to some sort of state benefit. I do not know what that is and the school are not helping. Can you?”
Exactly. Same, of course, with housing. It is interesting with the special educational needs provision, because that really is something that we can reach for as lawyers to have a good quality example of outcomes depending and consequent on your privilege. It is just the tragic fact that if you are somebody who has access to that network and can pay for a lawyer, you can consequently muscle the relevant counsel, the relevant education or department - whoever it is you are talking to, because it is an incredibly complex landscape - if you can navigate that with that sort of legal assistance, and you can do that in time, the outcome for your child is wholly different from somebody who lacks that privilege. We are talking about a child's life. That should never, ever, be dependent on your capacity to pay for that access. Often it can be resolved with really limited money and effort.
If you leave with nothing else, I ask you never to shrug when somebody asks, "What do you do". You should be proud to be a lawyer.
Well, we need to be innovative. One of the privileges of doing Judge Rinder, other than the technical law, has been to learn and to hear the lived experiences of people outside of London, and from a range of complex backgrounds. Precisely as you say, there are whole areas of our country where, for millions of people within a broad range of communities, of every complexion, there are legal aid deserts. And what those communities have in common is exactly as you suggest: that lack of access to power. We need to be innovative in this way.
Firstly. it is not just about funding. It seems to me that some firms are doing it – Slaughter and May, and various others as well. They are growing their pro bono departments. But they only get referrals, and they have a number of criteria before they take certain cases. It certainly seems to me that, as part of one of the seats that you do as a trainee solicitor, there should be a paid requirement for you to do pro bono work, precisely because a lot of the advice that you can give is about telling somebody they do not have a legal case. That in and of itself is a critical starting point, and it is just the opportunity to help somebody that lacks the capacity to touch the face of power. That is the first thing.
One of the privileges of doing Judge Rinder, other than the technical law, has been to learn and to hear the lived experiences of people outside of London, and from a range of complex backgrounds.
Secondly, it seems to me that, again, it should be a requirement to train at the bar, but it needs to be funded alongside those firms. There should be a part of your capacity to continue to work and to continue to be regulated, alongside which there should be some element of doing pro bono, and it should be proportionate to the outcome that you have as a firm as part of our giving back as a community. Now, I want to be clear: lots of firms are doing that work. But where there are deserts, we need to be pressuring and finding funding wherever we can to go to those places and make sure they have that advice. The good news is that when you speak to MPs of both sides – of course they are politicians, so they are not going to be honest with you – but when you make this case, they will agree. All of them.
Yes. And it makes people better lawyers as well. I think that really matters. My wonderful mentoree, who I am so proud of, just got pupillage. One of the things that she did is that she spent a good portion of her time leading up to her pupillage applications doing as much pro bono work as possible. Nowadays, especially with young trainees, they often get ring-fenced into high-profile work or high-value work; they specialise extremely early on. But when I first started doing legal aid at the turn of the century, what that meant was that I would be doing five cases in the morning and two trials in the afternoon. So those threads of humanity that weave themselves into the tapestry of your experience, the range of complex problems that you meet, the interface with client groups that have their own nuanced issues from across a range of communities, make you a much better problem solver and lawyer. Above all else they compel you to find language that can turn complex problems into readily available answers that an ordinary person can understand. If you as a lawyer are not able to communicate the law so that everybody can understand, then you are a bad lawyer.
Well, by making it easier and better for them to do. I do not criticise the young people – I have had to rethink the advice I give to some, and I hate it. If you look at my chambers, there might be 400 applicants and three places, and the amount of debt that our students are in... it is completely indefensible. The way we attract young lawyers to do work is by saying "We, as a corporate community, are going to support you in that work". We make it a requirement, as I say, of getting pupillage in the first place or getting a training contract. We make the training colleges work alongside us as they sometimes do, not just encouraging people to volunteer. It seems to me that they could be and should be (and in some places they already are) volunteering within those colleges as well.
If you as a lawyer are not able to communicate the law so that everybody can understand, then you are a bad lawyer.
But young people are not necessarily the answer. They need great role models. They need people in firms that have got well-funded pro bono units. Where the mission of leaving university should be to say: "Look, I am prepared to forego a reasonable amount of salary, but I still need to have the capacity to live in London." Anybody who is a legal aid lawyer does not make a lot of money. And again, the reason why I say we are bad advocates is because for too long we have allowed the media to rob us of what is the fundamental truth: yes, some barristers and corporate and commercial lawyers get a lot of money. But those who practice legal aid and do free work do not make a lot of money. They do it for the passion, they do it for the love, they do it for the calling, because they believe that there is no value in the law unless it is available for everybody. And so it seems to me that we attract young people by reminding them that they can still have a mission to do this work and still live a reasonable lifestyle, and we need a range of solutions from our government and our corporate community in order to enable and assist that.
At LegalEx, we were able to speak with Alexandra and learn more about her professional life. Below, she offers advice to solicitors who may be interested in applying for the judiciary and shares some insights into her ongoing social justice work.
Good morning everyone, thanks for coming. My name is Alexandra Marks. I am going to talk to you about my route to the judiciary, and if there are solicitors here, I really want to encourage you to apply; I am going to talk a bit about that. I also want to talk a little bit about my current job, which is chief adjudicator for the Business Banking Resolution Service.
That is right, I did. I was one of those people who wanted to be a lawyer from a very young age. I did not actually want to be a solicitor, sorry; I wanted to be a barrister. I wanted to have a flowing gown and do justice -- those of you who are old enough might remember a TV show called Justice with Margaret Lockwood, who was upholding the rights of the wronged and that sort of thing.
I had a very, very conventional career. I studied law and joined what is now Mayer Brown as you say. I was not at all convinced, actually, that being a solicitor was for me, and I was thinking about changing career, but instead decided to look at other firms. So, when I was six months qualified I moved to Linklaters, which was a very scary experience to begin with. The culture was very much sink or swim, though it is different now. And I had a very enjoyable, interesting, stimulating and sometimes very scary experience there.
I became a partner, which was again very rewarding and interesting. But I always had a real interest in social justice and civil liberties. I pursued those interests outside my day job, and indeed when I applied for my role at Linklaters I was already on the council of Amnesty International. In my interview I explained that that sort of thing was why I became a lawyer.
I was very fortunate in that I was able to balance these commitments and have a very rounded experience.
Yes, it was. While I was a solicitor, the director of Amnesty asked me at some point whether I had thought about becoming a judge and I told her no - I did not know that solicitors could. So I filed the thought away and a few years later, I began to wonder whether that might be something that I could explore.
I was one of those people who wanted to be a lawyer from a very young age.
I had always been very interested in miscarriages of justice. I spent my teenage years in Guildford, which was a place of some significance in that time because the Guildford Four, who had been accused of the pub bombings there, were notoriously victims of unsafe convictions. I found that whole issue fascinating, and therefore thought, "Maybe I could do something directly in that area," though I had never had anything to do with criminal law.
I became a recorder in the Crown Court and a part-time circuit judge -- that was a bit of a baptism of fire, I would say. Again, quite a scary and stretching experience, and very rewarding. As the judge, you can do what you think is the right thing. Of course, there is a good deal for jurors to take on board before they can find defendants guilty or not guilty, and as the judge I certainly always make sure that my summations are totally neutral. All of that I found very gratifying, in a way.
Indeed. All of my roles can be said to involve a sort of David and Goliath dynamic. A criminal trial obviously involves the defendant going against the state, and the other judicial roles that I have taken on more recently, including in the High Court, include an element of this. Some of the work may sound incredibly dreary, but many of you can nonetheless appreciate that the judicial review is actually extremely interesting anywhere, because public authorities – including government parties, ministers, etc – are held to account by individuals who challenge the way they have made their decisions.
Then there is, as you say, the awesome responsibility of dealing with someone who is due to be deported as an illegal immigrant, or someone who has been convicted of a criminal act and is being sent back to their country of origin nearly decades after they have arrived in the country, against the home secretary. Or indeed, the mother of a disabled child seeking to get formal education for their child, or homeless individuals desperate to find accommodation. Again, trying to do the right thing within the neutral borders of the law, and of course you have to make very difficult decisions – particularly if you feel very sympathetic to the applicant, but unfortunately the law does not enable you to do what they are asking you to do.
All of my roles can be said to involve a sort of David and Goliath dynamic.
Yes, being able to do the right thing, hearing from people who are there in front of you, is something that I never, frankly, had experienced in my previous roles. It enhanced my practice, because it gives you a different skillset.
Although it is true to say that senior managers at my firm could not really see the relevance of my criminal law work in my day-to-day practice – because I am actually a property and finance lawyer by background – it did have relevance in other respects. One was being able to hold your own in a very difficult situation. Another was being able to speak in complete sentences because every word you say is transcribed, and it is quite embarrassing to see transcribed half-sentences. There were other things too: being able to listen, but not necessarily fill in the silence.
And aside from that, I was totally surprised by the fact that the property and finance people actually found what I did at the Court really fascinating. It meant that there was something to discuss that was of interest to them. Unexpectedly, my children – who were then primary school age – actually, for the first time ever, understood and were interested in what I did during the day. Criminal trials in particular are everyday stories of burglaries, robberies, assaults, and the human cost and experience of those, which is something that everyone can relate to.
As I said, I did not even realise that solicitors could apply. I think it is important to be inspiring people in this community to apply, even if, like me, you are not a litigator and not an advocate. It is also true that whilst becoming a judge is a competitive process, it now works on an open application basis. It is a competency-based process, so it is not your experience that counts, but what competencies you have and can demonstrate. That is why I would encourage people who do not have direct experience to apply regardless. However, you do need to be able to show how you deal with difficult legal problems, communicate well, manage work efficiently and work well with others. These are all things, of course, that solicitors have to do every day as part of their jobs.
I think it is important to be inspiring people in this community to apply, even if, like me, you are not a litigator and not an advocate.
I am pleased to say that there are now far more solicitors applying for judicial roles – everything from deputy district judge (which means part-time county court judge) to tribunal judge to Deputy High Court Judge. I think tribunals are an excellent place for solicitors to sit, as you will be working with colleagues who have different viewpoints and different expertise. Also, the sitting pattern is relatively easy to accommodate with your day job, as it is usually at a time of your choosing. You can accept or decline an invitation to sit; I had one this morning asking if I would be available on 16 January, so you have quite a lot of time to say no. It is also much less formal. A court is obviously quite a formal environment and an intimidating one.
Crucial, I think, is to prepare. There are quite of solicitor applicants who do not really understand what the role that they are applying for is. They do not prepare good examples to show that they know how to do the various things that I have just described. So it is not enough just to say "I have been a senior partner at such and such a firm for donkey's years, I could do this in my sleep". You have to give real-life examples of what you did in a particular situation to demonstrate that you can do it.
We also put in a test. Literally, there is a role-play in the selection process which is pretty daunting. You play the character of the judge and there are actors playing two characters apart from you. Of course you are given a scenario where things go wrong, and you are invited to do and say what you think would be right in the circumstances.
The process has a lot of support online, and I do say to anyone who is seriously thinking of it: do prepare, do talk to people about it. The Law Society has an excellent scheme of solicitor judges who are prepared to support you. So there are a lot of people who can help give you a better shot.
[ymal]
The BBRS is, again, very much the David and Goliath dynamic, because it deals with small businesses who are now going up against their bank. It should not take much to appreciate that they are not going to be able to sue their bank very easily, even if they have the money. Some of the cases that we are looking at rise from the financial crisis of 12 years ago, where many businesses feel that they were forced into insolvency by banks calling in their overdrafts or loans in situations where trading was problematic and finance was difficult to come by.
What we are to do, then, is try to resolve these disputes based on what would be fair and reasonable for the circumstances. So we are totally independent, we are neutral; we are an ombudsman service. I am the chief adjudicator, which means that I am responsible for the way we work out what counts as fair and reasonable.
It is a free service for any small business that has an outstanding complaint against their bank but is too large for the Financial Ombudsman Service and has not already taken their complaint to court or another redress scheme. They have to have taken that complaint to their bank first and been dissatisfied. When they bring it to us, we provide expert support, helping them to articulate what their complaint is, organising their documentation, and generally supporting them all the way through the process.
We only launched in February, so we are still a very new service, but we are very optimistic that we can provide a much-needed service to businesses.
With the residence nil rate band (‘RNRB’) to remain frozen until April 2026, now there is all the more reason for you to review your existing wills and explore inheritance tax (‘IHT’) opportunities to maximise the availability of this valuable exemption, Flora Nelmes, Associate at Hunters Law, explains.
The RNRB was introduced back in 2017 to protect the family home from IHT. The RNRB, currently set at a maximum of £175,000 per person, is an additional IHT free amount over and above the standard IHT nil rate band (‘NRB’), which is currently set at £325,000 and also frozen until April 2026.
The potential IHT savings can be significant. The RNRB, together with the standard NRB, gives each individual a potential IHT free allowance of £500,000 (£325,000 + £175,000), or £1 million for a married couple or civil partners.
However, the RNRB is ‘tapered’ at a rate of £1 for every £2 of excess if the overall net value of the estate on death exceeds £2 million. Where the estate is worth £2,250,000 or more, the RNRB is lost completely. For IHT planning purposes, it is worth noting that this value does not take into account lifetime gifts (even if those gifts were made within the last seven years), but does include business and agricultural property.
To qualify for the RNRB, the deceased must have held a qualifying residential interest (‘QRI’) at death or the downsizing provisions must apply.
A QRI is broadly an interest in a residential property that has been the deceased’s residence at some point. A QRI does not have to be the deceased’s main residence and could include a variety of less conventional types of homes if they have been used as their residence. Whilst buy-to-let properties cannot qualify as QRIs, a property that was once lived in by the deceased, but has been subsequently let to tenants, can be. Holiday homes – whether in the UK or overseas – could also qualify, provided that they are not ‘excluded property’ and have been used as a residence by the deceased.
Where the deceased owned more than one QRI, only one can qualify and the deceased’s personal representatives must make a nomination. To claim the RNRB, the QRI must be ‘closely inherited’ in that, on the deceased’s death, it passes to any one or more of:
If the deceased has already sold their home or downsized, they may still be able to claim the RNRB if they satisfy the ‘downsizing provisions’. The calculation formula is complex, but in brief, the RNRB will remain available to set against the original higher value of the former QRI provided that higher value is still represented in the deceased’s estate at their death and is closely inherited.
Lifetime planning
To increase the chances of qualifying for the RNRB, you could consider:
Trusts may be used for several reasons in connection with the home. The types of trust used could have an impact on the availability of the RNRB. To preserve the RNRB, the main condition is that the property is part of the deceased’s estate, and on death, it becomes included in the estate of a direct descendant. Where a parent wishes to leave their property on trust for their children because they are too young, or because they do not want them to inherit outright, the following trusts can ensure that the RNRB is preserved:
Leaving property to children with an age contingency could render the estate ineligible for the RNRB as the gift is not absolute and consideration should be given to restructuring the gift, using one of the trusts above.
Where property is left to a discretionary trust, the RNRB will not be available as the property cannot be ‘closely inherited (even if the only potential beneficiaries are children or grandchildren). This may however be rectified by the trustees making an appointment, as explained below.
If the RNRB is not available on death, the following action could be taken within two years:
In doing so, the direct descendant(s) will be regarded as inheriting the property directly from the deceased for the purposes of IHT and the RNRB.
American rapper Travis Scott has hired a team of O’Melveny & Myers lawyers, led by litigator Daniel Petrocelli, to defend him as he faces hundreds of lawsuits filed after the chaos of a Houston concert in early November that led to ten deaths and widespread injuries.
Daniel Petrocelli, who has worked with several high profile clients throughout his career, will team up with O’Melveny product liability and mass torts practise partners Steve Brody and Sabrina Strong to defend Scott. The lawsuits against him include claims of negligence and failure to provide sufficient medical attention to those injured in the fatal stampede on November 5.
According to a letter obtained by Reuters, Petrocelli has already reached out to the Astroworld victims’ lawyers who have filed suits on behalf of numerous victims and their families.
Within the letter, it is said that Scott offered to cover the funeral costs of a 9-year-old boy who died from his injuries incurred at the Astroworld stampede. However, the victim’s lawyer declined the offer on behalf of his client.
The green bonds were issued under the Funding for Growth Scheme (“Növekedési Kötvényprogram” or “NKP”) established by the Hungarian National Bank, and funds raised as a result will be used solely for environmentally friendly projects and assets.
WING is one of Hungary’s leading real estate developers and investors, having developed over 1.2 million square miles of real estate in Hungary since its founding in 1999. Its issuance of the green bonds was supported by its cooperating partner MKB Consulting Zrt, a complex financial advisor that helps its partners to contribute to a greener and more sustainable economy.
Szabó Kelemen & Partners Andersen Attorneys advised MTB Bank as lead manager on covering the issuance. The Szabó Kelemen & Partners Andersen legal team included managing partner Péter Vincze. Kapolyi advised WING on the issuance with a team including partner Viktor Krezinger.
Lawyer Monthly had the pleasure to speak with Dr. Péter Vincze at Szabó Kelemen & Partners Andersen Attorneys to give us some further insight into this transaction:
The documentation of the bonds was basically drafted by the legal advisor of the issuer (Kapolyi) and our team supported the legal compliance with the expectations of the lead manager (MTB Bank) and the potential investors and provided them a second opinion about the documentation. In addition, some supporting documents (paying agency agreement and lead manager agreement) were prepared by our team.
[ymal]
Andersen Legal helped to harmonise the bond documentation with NKP Prospectus and, furthermore, supported the negotiations with the Hungarian National Bank. We prepared the necessary banking documentation (as mentioned above) and helped MTB in the auction process and issuance of the bonds.
The legal advisor of the issuer (Kapolyi) was extremely professional and the issuance process was well prepared and professionally managed. All challenges were properly managed by the issuer and its advisors, so our team was able to fulfil its basic tasks.
Yes, we see more ESG and green label-related potential issuance in the pipeline as the need to disclose ESG performance accelerates, enabling financial institutions and insurers to evaluate companies’ ESG performance and pushing investment towards sustainability-focused companies.
MTB Bank and MKB Bank are very active and serious players in the capital market and especially in the NKP bond market, so several new bond auctions can be expected by the end of this year.
MediaSchool is a France-based international leader in private higher education in communications and digital and media professions, spanning 45 schools. This new acquisition expands the MediaSchool Group’s presence to six new cities – Saint-Etienne, Valence, Avignon, Nîmes, Alès and Perpignan – and strengthens their existing presence in Marseille and Montpellier. It also allows the Group to achieve its goal of reaching 10,000 students, a target originally set for 2024.
IFC is a French group of specialised higher education institutions which has succeeded in developing from BTS to Bac + 5 since its founding in Avignon in 1990. Today it oversees more than 2,500 students across eight regional cities.
Eric Dupressoire, Chairman of the Group, was advised on the deal by Elias Abou Jaoudé and Stéphane Castelain, partners at Cobalt Avocats (following the merger between notably Haussmann-Paradis and Sextant Avocats).
The MediaSchool Group was advised by De Pardieu Brocas Maffei and Volt Associés. Also involved in the deal were iXO Private Equity (majority shareholder of the IFC Group) and OBSA holders, advised by BLM Avocats and Nabarro Béraud Avocats respectively.
The parties did not disclose the value of the transaction.
With this acquisition, Statkraft adds 39 wind farms to its holdings in Germany and four wind farms in France, marking its entry to these markets. The acquisition forms part of Statkraft’s plan to build on its capabilities as a wind and solar producer and become one of the world’s leading renewable energy companies, building on its European solar base after acquiring Solarcentury in 2020.
KPMG Düsseldorf advised Statkraft on the essential tax work involved in the transactions. The KPMG team was led by Partner Ingo Rieke (International Transaction Tax) and included Senior Manager Hannes Haefele (Tax Due Diligence), Manager Mark Mischke (Tax Structuring, SPA) and Senior Associate Jens Panek. Ingo Rieke has advised Statkraft on transactions and international taxes for many years. Ingo Rieke said in a statement: “We are very proud to close this transaction after almost 18 months with a very challenging tax structuring.”
Statkraft was also advised by White & Case and Hogan Lovells. Baker Tilly, Oratio Avocats and DS Avocats advised Breeze Three Energy.
The seven-figure deal has been touted as the first chapter in SHC’s new buy-and-build growth strategy and will allow the company to increase its presence in the north of England.
Based in the South Lake District and north Lancashire, Hartley Hire is the trading name of A&W Tool Hire Ltd, a family-run business based in the South Lake District and North Lancashire. The company specialises in tools for trade and small plant equipment with branches in Carnforth, Kendal, Lancaster, Morecambe and Windermere.
SHC, a plant and tool hire supplier, expects that its acquisition of Hartley Hire will strengthen its current offering while expanding its reach in these areas. SHC managing director Neil Bravery stated that the company will roll out a new brand proposition to reflect Hartley Hire’s addition to the SHC group in the coming months.
Richard Smedley, Chartered Accountants & Business Advisors and Walker Foster Solicitors advised on the deal. Franklin Grange provided transactional support services.
Under the terms of the deal, the newly-formed Rimac Group will be the major shareholder with a 55% stake. Mate Rimac will retain his original 37% stake in Rimac Group, with Porsche at 24%, Hyundai Motor Group at 12% and other investors at 27%. Rimac’s highly regarded wings dealing with the development, production and supply of battery systems, drivetrains and other EV components will be separated into a new entity called Rimac Technology, which will be 100% owned by the Rimac Group. Rimac Technology will remain an independent company working with many global car manufacturers.
The new company will be led by Mate Rimac. As CEO of Rimac Group, he will serve as head of both Bugatti Rimac and Rimac Technology. Bugatti and Rimac will both continue as separate respective brands, retaining existing production facilities and distribution channels. Both Bugatti and Rimac vehicles will be developed by Bugatti Rimac by combining resources and expertise in research and development, among other areas.
CMS Hasche Sigle and CMS Luxembourg advised Bugatti parent Volkswagen on the transaction. KHS Kunstek Halle & Simac advised Rimac Automobili.
A one-branch builders’ merchant established in Plymouth in 2000, Perrys supplies a broad range of materials to trade and retail customers in and around the city.
This acquisition fulfils a long-standing objective for IBMG’s South West division to extend the presence of its counterpart, RGB, in Plymouth and provide it with a platform for further growth. Perrys will become part of RGB, which was itself bought by Cairngorm in March 2021, with founder Mark Periton slated to retain his position in the business while working alongside RGB managing director Andy Gamble. The acquisition also advances IBMG’s broader strategy of developing its divisions through a combination of acquisition, new site development and organic growth.
Perrys was advised on legal maters by Bright Solicitors. The team was led by partner Matt Cook, with input from the firm’s commercial property department, headed by Georgia Jones. Matt Cook remarked that he was excited for Perrys, as the transaction followed several aborted sales of the company. He added that IBMG was keen to retain Perrys’ services.
Perrys was also advised by Sheppard Accountants on accountancy matters. IBMG was advised by Wilson Partners on financial due diligence and tax aspects.
