I recently read Tom Bangay’s blog post on how the UK arm of international energy company E.ON reduced its pool of external legal advisors from around 40 to just one: Pinsent Masons. The post highlights four key themes that will resonate with businesses.
Corruption is now centre stage in international politics. Even before the anti-corruption summit in London this month, countries as diverse as Guatemala, Malaysia and Brazil have seen huge demonstrations as citizens expressed their anger at perceived corruption. In Nigeria and Tanzania, electors chose “clean hands” candidates to be their Presidents and clamp down on bribery. And, of course, the Panama papers and Luxleaks have increased public awareness of how companies in high-secrecy jurisdictions can be abused to avoid tax, facilitate bribery and expedite money laundering.
The international anti-corruption summit took place in London last week.
We’ve all had those weeks where we feel like we’ve been in constant meetings and, probably more than once or twice in your working life, you may have found yourself lamenting to colleagues that: “I’m in meetings so much, I just don’t have enough time to get any actual work done!”
Part of making meetings effective starts right here: with a shift in attitude towards them. If we approach meetings as being outside of the day job, a necessary evil, as opposed to one of several important elements of our work, we’re already on the back foot, with the chances of executing them effectively slim to none.
Key developments on the agenda for businesses in May include the approval of a new EU Trade Secrets Directive, a consultation on the E-Privacy Directive and changes in the recruitment industry.
In a recent case coming out of the administration of high street retailer HMV, the High Court has held that a tenant may not assign its lease to its guarantor. The decision, if followed, will reduce the options for organisations carrying out intra-group reorganisations of their property portfolios, making it critical that a lease is granted to the “right” tenant company at the outset.
One of the first questions when a dispute arises, regardless of the merits of the claim, is: “can we afford to fight this?” Faced with potentially large costs, many businesses are forced to consider compromise, particularly if the costs in money and management time are likely to be disproportionate to the sum in dispute. And, let’s face it, taking the settlement option when you have a strong claim can be galling; particularly if the main reason for avoiding court proceedings is the potential legal bill or the time it might take to resolve the issue.
The recent Solar Century case gives an important warning to in-house lawyers about the government’s ability to change policy at short notice, despite potentially devastating effects on a particular sector.
This round-up summarises the developments that generated the most interest with in-house lawyers in the first three months of 2016, including the new PSC register requirements, Brexit, gender pay gap reporting, EU and US privacy shield and the 2016 Budget.