Posts

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.

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.

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.

HC PHOTO

UAE Legal Update: Regulatory Alert (Healthcare)

Federal Law No.2 of 2019 – Using IT and Telecommunications in the Healthcare Sector

The United Arab Emirates Government Promulgate Federal Law No.2 of 2019 – Using IT and Telecommunications in the Healthcare Sector (“the Law”), which for the first time regulates healthcare data processed, controlled, transferred and stored electronically.

The Law contains 22 Articles, which includes, but is not limited to the creation of a central data base system, obligations in respect of data privacy and use of IT and telecommunication technology when processing, transferring and storing data. In addition, obligations are placed on media licensing, training and violations for breach of the Law.

The Law is unique insofar that it is the first federal privacy law relating to healthcare data and protection of personal and sensitive data in the UAE.

Healthcare providers, insurers, insurance intermediaries, third party medical claims administrators, technology companies in the healthcare space and others dealing with healthcare will need review an audit their current practices and comply with the Law.

The Law is expected to be gazetted in the coming weeks and will be implemented three months from that date.

BSA will provide a follow up detailed analysis of the law in due course.

About BSA Ahmad Bin Hezeem & Associates LLP

BSA is a law firm originally founded in Dubai with the primary mission of delivering top-tier legal services based on our comprehensive knowledge of local, national, and international law.

Since our inception in 2001, we have rapidly expanded to a leading full-service law firm, with offices throughout the Middle East and France. Our lawyers are internationally educated, bi-lingual in languages such as English, Arabic, and French, and dual-qualified in both regional and international jurisdictions, having rights of audience in every country within which we operate.

BSA is a law firm that truly reflects the energy and ambition of the Middle East.

FW PHOTO

Law firm significantly strengthens Securities Litigation practice

Fox Williams has today announced that Andrew Hill, a dispute resolution partner specialising in securities litigation, has joined the City law firm. Andrew joined the firm from Stewarts Law LLP, where he was a partner.

Andrew is at the forefront of developing securities litigation in the UK, helping clients who are shareholders in UK public companies seek compensation when they have been misled. He drove the launch of the UK’s first such claim against a public company – the high-profile and ground-breaking case against Tesco PLC for a large group of institutional investors, following Tesco’s admission of a profit overstatement.

“We are delighted that Andrew has joined us. Andrew has deep expertise advising on complex, cutting edge and high-value litigation for sophisticated financial institutions and institutional investors including in group or ‘class actions’. His experience and capabilities complement our expanding dispute resolution practice and bolster our financial services sector expertise” said Paul Osborne, senior partner at Fox Williams.

“Andrew is a very experienced, accomplished and highly regarded litigator. He has been proactive in the new area of securities litigation in London. His expertise and proven ability in this area will enable Fox Williams to obtain redress for institutional investor claimants against public companies who mislead the market. Andrew is a valuable addition to the Fox Williams team,” said Gavin Foggo, head of the firm’s dispute resolution and litigation department.

Andrew Hill commented: “I am excited to join Fox Williams, a firm which already offers business clients a breadth and depth of experience and expertise that is an increasingly compelling alternative to the magic circle. Together, we can now help our clients protect the value of their investments, foster a more transparent market, and drive better corporate behaviour.”

Fox Williams has also appointed Adam Fortune, a barrister by background and an experienced litigator and arbitrator, to join the firm’s senior associate ranks. Adam has acted on a range of domestic and cross-border commercial disputes and specialises in corporate and investment banking litigation and IT disputes. He also has experience in civil fraud litigation and adds to the strength and depth of the firm’s offering to clients.