Networking Event PHOTO

3 Simple Steps to Becoming a Better Networker

I’ve always been a natural extrovert in school and in business. I find it easy to socialise with others and connect with them personally and professionally. When I first embarked on my entrepreneurial journey and left the practice of law, I used to attend as many local networking events as possible. I deemed it important to get out there and connect with other business professionals to build both my brand and network for prospective clients, speaking engagements, and other business opportunities.

I realise that networking is not easy or simple for everyone. There are some who fear being in large crowds of people they do not know at networking events and being forced to strike up a conversation with someone they have little synergy with. Whether you are an introvert or an extrovert, you can build solid networking skills through these 3 simple steps:

Attend as Many Networking Events as Possible

I am sure you have heard many say, “You need to put yourself out there if you want to meet the right person.” Networking is a lot like dating. In order to find a date, you need to put yourself out there in the limelight, and practice makes perfect.

First, find out where the local networking events are in your community. A great place to start is your local chamber of commerce and other leadership organisations that are industry-specific. Many groups will offer the first event free to all guests. Some events may be as high £180 for a lunch. Either way, if you meet your next business contact or potential boss, suddenly that fee becomes pennies and the reward outweighs the risk. But don’t forget to dress professional to the networking event. Treat it like a series of mini interviews.

Bring Business Cards & Don’t Forget to Take Business Cards from Others

Every person you meet is an opportunity. A key step to networking is having your own professional image and brand. Don’t make the mistake of showing up to a networking event without a stack of professional business cards.

Make sure the business card has your name, professional title (i.e. Managing Director) or industry (i.e. Finance), phone number, email (keep it professional), and Linkedin URL. Before you put your Linkedin URL on your new personal business card, ensure that you have a customised URL.

When you go to networking events, take a business card from each person you meet and give them your business card. Easy and done, right? Not so fast.

Following-up is the most important part of networking. Always follow-up with each person you meet. Get on their contact list. Tell them you hope to see them at the next event (which may open the door to them inviting you to an event you didn’t know about!). Invite them to have lunch or coffee the next week. Being consistent and committed is key.

Connect on Linkedin & Beyond

If you are going to attend networking events and build connections on Linkedin with attendees from the events (which of course I highly recommend), make sure your Linkedin profile is fully optimised with a powerful headline, compelling summary, and details of your experience. It’s important that the image you put out at the networking events matches your digital footprint — i.e. your personal brand aligns. You never know where this connection may lead.

Develop a rapport with other professionals and connect on a greater level through Linkedin. Share and comment on each other’s content. Engage with one another beyond just being a connection. Join groups they are members of and possibly connect with their connections.

Elder Law

Hazen Law Group to Host Estate Planning Discussion at Walden Way

Hazen Law Group will host a free informational session and discussion at Walden Way 55+ Community in Mount Joy, Pennsylvania on April 3, 2019.

Marielle F. Hazen, Esq., will lead an information-packed session on Elder Law & Estate Planning for senior citizens, their loved ones, and anyone who wants to learn about proper estate planning, asset protection and elder law.

Marielle Hazen is a Certified Elder Law Attorney (CELA). She is also the founder of Hazen Law Group, a firm dedicated to the practice of elder law, estate planning and administration, nursing home planning and special needs law.

The session will take place at the Walden Way Community Center from 2:00 to 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 3. For more information about Walden Way, contact Jean Young at 717-928-4432.

Marielle Hazen is a founding member and past president of the Pennsylvania Association of Elder Law Attorneys (PAELA) and a past president of the Special Needs Alliance.

Hazen Law Group provides expert guidance in elder law, special needs law and estate planning in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and surrounding communities. For more about the firm or to schedule a consultation, call Hazen Law Group at 717-540-4332.

If you would like to find out more, please visit http://www.hazenlawgroup.com/

Rainer__Michael_75A1492_advisory_excellence

Rechtsanwälte GRP Rainer

Criteria for Assessing Whether GmbH Managing Directors are Subject to Mandatory Social Security Contributions

According to a decision of the Bundessozialgericht, Germany’s federal court of appeals for social security matters, GmbH managing directors are ordinarily deemed to be employees of the company and hence subject to mandatory social security contributions.

It is not uncommon for disputes to arise over whether GmbH managing directors are subject to mandatory social security contributions. We at the commercial law firm GRP Rainer Rechtsanwälte note that it can prove to be a costly affair for the company if it is determined that the managing director is subject to mandatary social security contributions but no payments have been made to this end and therefore supplementary contributions become payable.

In rulings from 14 March 2018, the Bundessozialgericht set out clear criteria for assessing whether GmbH managing directors are subject to mandatory social security contributions (Az.: B 12 KR 13/17 R and B 12 R 5/16 R). According to these judgments, the managing director of a GmbH is ordinarily deemed to be an employee of the company. The Court held that they are only considered not to be employees if they own more than 50 per cent of the company’s share capital and are thus majority shareholders. The Court went on to state that if they have a 50 per cent stake in the share capital, a presumption in favour of self-employed status is then only possible if the articles of association clearly confer a full blocking minority on the managing director and this enables him or her to prevent instructions from being issued by the general meeting of the shareholders. The Court therefore concluded that the decisive factor for the managing director’s status as self-employed is whether he or she has the legal power to determine the fate of the company by influencing the general meeting of the shareholders.

In doing so, the Bundessozialgericht has set high standards for recognizing managing directors as self-employed. It also made clear that the crucial factor in assessing whether the managing director is an employee and thus subject to mandatory social security contributions is not how he or she acts in relation to third parties. Even if he or she is granted broad powers and freedoms, this alone does not indicate that they are self-employed. Instead, it is the extent to which the managing director has recourse to legally enforceable measures for the purposes of influencing resolutions of the general meeting of the shareholders that is the key factor.

Companies should keep in mind the issue of mandatory social security contributions for managing directors as early as when agreements are being drafted in order to avoid unpleasant surprises at a later date. Lawyers who are experienced in the field of company law can provide companies as well as shareholders with expert advice on matters that go beyond mandatory social security contributions.

If you would like to find out more, please visit https://www.grprainer.com/en/legal-advice/company-law.html

Firm-PwC-1280x621

Potential impact of Brexit on the law firm market

With Brexit negotiations continuing in the United Kingdom (UK), there is little clarity as of yet on how businesses will be able to operate both in mainland Europe and cross border once the UK leaves the European Union (EU) in March 2019.

As a regulated profession, law firms potentially face greater uncertainty — the regulations directed by each individual bar association must be carefully considered in conjunction with any agreement reached between the UK and the EU.

What’s happening at present in law firms with UK offices?

Brexit remains high on law firms’ agendas, particularly with respect to the uncertainty surrounding firms being able to provide legal services as normal after March 2019. Conversations around restructuring have been brought to the forefront.

Many law firms, UK-headquartered firms in particular, are approaching their final accounting period of trading before the two year Article 50 process expires in March 2019. For some businesses, it is therefore impractical to wait to see how Brexit negotiations progress and how local countries’ bar associations respond. Any action is likely to take a period of time and require HMRC (and potentially other) clearance or clarification.

What should your law firms be doing?

Each business will need to consider its current legal structure, the tax and regulatory rules (including around management, control and profit sharing) in the locations in which it operates, and the profitability of the local offices.

Some firms will wish to restructure, and those most likely to consider restructuring may have:

  • EU operations held within a UK incorporated entity (i.e. an EU branch of UK LLP);
  • EU operations held within a non-UK incorporated entity (i.e. an EU branch of US LLP); and/or,
  • EU incorporated entities with UK solicitors having a level of management and control.

Despite Brexit primarily affecting UK businesses, it is important to note the impact that this may have on US-headquartered law firms. As a result of current regulations, US-headquartered law firms usually operate as a UK LLP, or a branch of the US LLP depending on the EU country in question. However, a by-product of Brexit could see the harmonization of regulation across EU territories so it is possible that neither of these structures will be permissible post-March 2019.

While not certain, to the extent that any grandfathering provisions are introduced there may be benefits in a firm being established in the appropriate country(ies) in the appropriate form before March 2019.

It should be noted that it is possible that a firm may wish to restructure twice: the first time to satisfy the applicable regulations during an interim period to ensure continuity of operations, and once again after a final agreement has been ratified to give a more permanent solution. As we approach the March 2019 deadline there is likely to be an increasing need to have plans in place to manage the uncertainty and satisfy stakeholders.

Potential tax consequences of restructuring?

PwC UK has noted that firms currently considering restructuring their EU operations may consider transferring their EU book of business into a separate EU legal entity. This could involve a demerger of a business within a UK LLP, which poses a number of UK tax considerations, including:

  • whether there has been a cessation of trade in the UK LLP;
  • for UK income tax purposes, whether this could trigger the closing year and opening year rules of taxation to apply to the equity partners (basis period adjustments). Quantification of overlap profits would be required to understand the funding requirements;
  • a UK capital gains tax event could arise on the equity partners upon transfer of partnership assets to a new legal entity;
  • there may be non-UK income tax consequences, for example if an EU office has to move to an accruals basis of accounting; and/or
  • overseas capital gains tax events may also crystallise on the equity partners.

It is clear that restructuring, if necessary, could result in both “dry” tax charges and an acceleration of tax, which may provide challenges around funding for both the firm and the individual partners.

EUC PHOTO

€2 billion to fast forward the creation of European Innovation Council

Ahead of the 21-22 March European Council discussion on innovation, industry and competitiveness, the Commission takes decisive steps to set up a European Innovation Council.

Global competition is intensifying and Europe needs to deepen its innovation and risk-taking capability to compete on a market increasingly defined by new technologies. That is why the Juncker Commission is introducing a European Innovation Council (EIC) to turn Europe’s scientific discoveries into businesses that can scale up faster. Currently in its pilot phase, the European Innovation Council will become a full-fledged reality from 2021 under the next EU research and innovation programme Horizon Europe.

Carlos Moedas, Commissioner for Research, Science and Innovation said: “With the European Innovation Council, we don’t simply put money on the table. We create a whole innovation system to place Europe at the forefront in strategic technologies and innovation that will shape our futures such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology and zero-emission energy. We must focus on the needs of the innovators, who are the ones who will generate jobs, strengthen our global competitiveness and improve our daily lives.”

The Commission launched in 2017 the pilot phase of the European Innovation Council, introducing open competitions and face-to-face interviews to identify and fund Europe’s most innovative start-ups and SMEs.Since then, 1276 highly innovative projects have already benefitted from an overall funding of over €730 million.

Today the Commission announces important steps that will ramp up the remaining two years of the pilot phase of the EIC:

Over €2 billion of funding in 2019-2020: covering the innovation chain: “pathfinder” projects to support advanced technologies from the research base (opens tomorrow); and “accelerator” funding to support startups and SMEs develop and scale up innovations to the stage where they can attract private investment (open in June). Under the “accelerator” funding companies will be able to access blended financing (grants and equity) of up to €15 million.

The Commission will appoint 15 to 20 innovation leaders to an EIC Advisory Board to oversee the EIC pilot, prepare the future EIC, and champion the EIC globally. Innovators from across the ecosystem are invited to come forward by 10 May.

The Commission will recruit a first set of “programme managers” with leading expertise in new technologies to provide full-time, hands-on support for projects. The call for recruitment will be published shortly.

Also today, the Commission announces 68 additional startups and SMEs selected for an overall funding of €120 million under the existing EIC pilot. The companies are for instance developing a blockchain-based online payment technology, new energy efficient screens and a solution to fight traffic noise (breakdown of beneficiaries per country and sector).

Given the growing economic importance of breakthrough and disruptive innovation, and based on the early success of the EIC pilot, the Commission has proposed to dedicate €10 billion to the EIC under Horizon Europe, the EU research and innovation funding programme for 2021-2027.

Background

With only 7% of the world’s population, Europe accounts for 20% of global R&D investment, produces one third of all high-quality scientific publications, and holds a world leading position in industrial sectors such as pharmaceuticals, chemicals, mechanical engineering and fashion. But Europe needs to do better at turning that excellence into success, and generating global champions in new markets based on innovation. This is particularly the case for innovations based on radically new technologies (breakthrough) or markets (disruptive).

In June 2018, the Commission proposed the most ambitious Research and Innovation programme yet, Horizon Europe, with a proposed budget of €100 billion for 2021-2027. The proposal builds on the Commission’s contribution to the EU Leaders’ meeting on 16 May in Sofia “A renewed European Agenda for Research and Innovation – Europe’s chance to shape its future”, which highlighted the need to create a European Innovation Council and other steps to ensure Europe’s global competitiveness.

The conclusions of the European Council of 28 June 2018 endorsed the setting up of the EIC under the next long-term budget (2021-2027). EU leaders invited the Commission to launch a new pilot initiative on breakthrough innovation within the remaining period of Horizon 2020, in order to pave the way for a fully-fledged EIC in Horizon Europe.

The European Innovation Council is part of a wider ecosystem that the EU is putting in place to give Europe’s many entrepreneurs every opportunity to become world leading companies. Other initiatives include a Pan-European Venture Capital Funds-of-Funds programme (VentureEU), the Investment Plan for Europe (EFSI), the work of the European Institute for Innovation and Technology, the Capital Markets Union Action Plan to improve access to finance or the proposal for a Directive on business insolvency.

Emmanuel-PHOTO

EMMANUEL EKPENYONG FCIArb. (UK) 18/03/2019

The essence of civil proceedings is for the judgment creditor to enjoy the fruits of his Judgment. This may be achieved by the judgment creditor executing the Judgment by the attachment and sale of the moveable or immovable property of the judgment debtor, attachment of funds belonging to the judgment debtor in the possession of a third party under the garnishee proceedings or committal of the judgment debtor to prison for refusal to settle the judgment debt under the judgment summons proceedings. However the following are the grounds upon which a Nigerian Court will set aside execution of a Judgment;

(i) If the judgment creditor executed the Judgment against a person other than the judgment debtor;

There are instances where a judgment creditor who is desperate to obtain payment of the judgment debt, attaches the movable property of a third party in the premises of the judgment debtor. Upon the application of the third party with proof that the property belongs to him and not the judgment debtor, the Court would set aside the execution of the Judgment.

(ii) If the person against whom the Judgment was executed, was never a party to the suit.

A judgment creditor cannot legally execute a Judgment against a person who was not a party to the suit upon which he obtained Judgment. This is so even if the person against whom the Judgment was executed is the judgment debtor’s successor-in-title. For instance, if a defendant dies before Judgment is delivered, the judgment creditor ought to bring an application to substitute the defendant’s name with that of his successor-in-title and serve the successor-in-title with all the processes in the suit.

If the judgment creditor fails do so and the Judgment is delivered against the defendant, the judgment creditor cannot sustain an execution against the defendant’s successor in title. This is because the successor-in-title was not a party to the suit. In law, the defendant and his successor-in-title are distinct and different persons.

(iii) Lack of service of the processes on the judgment debtor

If the judgment creditor failed to effect service of the processes in the suit on the judgment debtor in line with the provisions of the relevant statutes on service of processes, the Court would set aside the execution of the Judgment against the judgment debtor. This is because service of processes on the judgment debtor goes to the root of the suit and affects the jurisdiction of the Court to validly enter Judgment against the judgment debtor. Lack of service is a clear breach of the judgment debtor’s fundamental right to fair hearing and makes the proceedings conducted a nullity and of no legal effect whatsoever.

(iv) Lack of jurisdiction of the Court who delivered the Judgment

Jurisdiction of Court is a threshold issue. If the Court who delivered the Judgment which the judgment creditor executed against the judgment debtor had no jurisdiction in the first place over the subject matter of the suit or exceeded its statutory jurisdiction, the judgment debtor may apply to set aside the execution of the Judgment.

(v) Execution of a Judgment outside the stipulated statutory period

Order IV Rules 8 (1) and (2) of the Judgment Enforcement Rules provides that a Judgment shall be executed against the property of a judgment debtor within 6 (six) years and against the person of the judgment debtor within 2 (two) years from the date in which the Judgment was delivered, failing which the judgment creditor must file an exparte application for leave of Court to execute the Judgment outside the stipulated statutory period.

If a judgment creditor, without leave of court, execute a Judgment outside the stipulated statutory period, the judgment debtor may apply to the Court to set aside the execution of the Judgment.