‘Creating value and preventing value destruction are two sides of the same coin’ – Livingbridge GC Jeremy Dennison

Jeremy Dennison – General counsel, Livingbridge

Year of qualification: 2009
Travers Smith, 2007-12
Goodwin Procter, 2012-14
MUSTO, 2014-15
Travers Smith, 2015-18
Livingbridge, 2018-present

Why did you want to become a private equity lawyer?

My first exposure to private equity was during my training contract at Travers Smith, which has one of the leading mid-market private equity practices in the City. I was working with an amazing team of lawyers and loved the buzz of the deal and the elegance of the PE model. I knew early on that this was the area of law I wanted to focus on. Continue reading “‘Creating value and preventing value destruction are two sides of the same coin’ – Livingbridge GC Jeremy Dennison”

From powerlifting to DJing: the City partners finding that elusive work/life balance

The challenge with law, especially in big firms, is that it can be all-consuming, taking everything you have. As an individual, you must maintain some level of control and ensure there’s enough left for yourself.’ 

As Herbert Smith Freehills global energy co-head Lewis McDonald sums up, being a successful lawyer is a demanding business. But now, perhaps more than ever before, there is a growing recognition of the need to avoid over-work and burnout.

Despite the obvious challenges of achieving that goal, more and more lawyers are shunning the workaholic clichés of old and openly acknowledging the importance of carving out personal time to maintain some semblance of balance in the world of Big Law. 

Continue reading “From powerlifting to DJing: the City partners finding that elusive work/life balance”

‘Do not wait until creditors are banging down the door’ – why preparation is key as restructurings pick up

Restructuring partners have been predicting a surge in corporate restructurings and insolvencies for years. But despite Covid, conflict and rising inflation the boom in such work has yet to materialise to any significant level.

Continue reading “‘Do not wait until creditors are banging down the door’ – why preparation is key as restructurings pick up”

Labour and employment: what the new government means for workers’ rights

After 14 years of Conservative rule, the Labour Party swept into power on 4 July 2024, setting the stage for transformative changes in UK employment law. Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay promises a bold agenda of reforms aimed at boosting worker protection, ensuring fair pay, and modernising workplace practices. These sweeping changes will have significant implications for employers across various sectors. But what do these reforms mean for employers and their in-house lawyers, and how can they stay ahead of the curve?

Continue reading “Labour and employment: what the new government means for workers’ rights”

Retrenchments in Singapore

The first half of 2024 has been marked by mass retrenchment exercises by major companies in the technology and finance sectors worldwide. The same has been observed in Singapore, although the layoffs have occurred in the wholesale trade and electronics manufacturing space as well.

There has also emerged a TikTok trend of Gen Z employees filming and posting videos of them reacting to being laid off over video call. Such videos can sometimes obtain millions of views. This viral TikTok trend demonstrates that an increasing number of younger employees are not afraid of speaking up against what they perceive to be unfair practices in the workplace – and seeking to hold their employers liable by harnessing the effect of social media. Companies who are shown to be unempathetic to employees may struggle to attract top talent in future, and at the very least, may face a period of intense public backlash and scrutiny.

Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchments

So how should employers conduct retrenchments? Unlike some jurisdictions, Singapore does not have any specific laws dealing with retrenchments that impose specific obligations on employers.

Instead, what employers are expected to do in the event of a retrenchment are set out in the ‘Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchment’ (Advisory), an advisory issued by the tripartite partners in Singapore comprising Ministry of Manpower, the National Trades Union Congress, and the Singapore National Employers Federation. This tripartism approach is a unique feature of Singapore’s employment landscape. Many of Singapore’s labour policies, guidelines and advisories are formulated through consultation and collaboration amongst the tripartite partners.

Employers need to note that non-compliance with these tripartite advisories frequently trigger investigations and regulatory action by the Ministry of Manpower, who can impose administrative punishments such as curtailing an employer’s work pass privileges. In 2019, a well-known retailer laid off around 50 staff with immediate effect, without complying with the Advisory – the employer provided no prior warning of the retrenchment and employees were offered retrenchment benefits below those stated in the Advisory. The retailer’s mishandling of the retrenchment exercise garnered extensive media coverage and even drew public criticism from the Minister of Manpower who commented that the retailer ‘could have better handled’ the retrenchment. Consequently, many retrenched employees voiced their complaints and frustrations through the media which gave the incident extensive coverage. In addition, the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices also stepped into the matter to engage with the retailer who eventually increased the retrenchment benefits offered to the retrenched employees.

Under the Advisory, employers’ responsibilities in managing retrenchments can be categorised into three main areas:

Pre-retrenchment considerations

As a starting point, retrenchment should be considered only as a measure of last resort. Employers are required to explore job preservation and cost-saving measures before deciding on retrenchment. For example, employers should consider reskilling, training and redeployment opportunities for employees.

Where such options have been exhausted and retrenchment is inevitable, employers must use objective criteria when selecting employees for retrenchment. Objective criteria include the ability, experience, and skills of the employee to support the company’s sustainability, workforce transformation and/or future business needs. Discrimination on grounds such as age, race, gender, religion, marital status, family responsibilities, or disability is strictly prohibited. Additionally, employers are encouraged to maintain a strong Singaporean core and should not have a reduced proportion of local employees after the retrenchment.

Notification to employees, unions, and the government

Employers should notify affected employees of retrenchment in a sensitive and responsible manner. Before notifying individual employees of their retrenchment, employers should communicate early about the company’s efforts to manage business challenges, the circumstances necessitating the retrenchment exercise, the process involved in the retrenchment exercise, and the assistance that will be provided to affected employees.

For unionised companies, employers should notify and consult with the relevant unions early, before affected employees are notified. This collaborative approach ensures that employee interests are represented and considered throughout the process.

Companies with at least 10 employees have a statutory obligation under the Employment Act to notify the Ministry of Manpower on the retrenchment of any employee within five working days after the employee is informed of their retrenchment. Failure to comply constitutes a civil contravention under the Employment Act and administrative penalties may be imposed.

Supporting displaced employees

Employers are strongly encouraged to provide support for employees displaced by retrenchment, including retrenchment benefits, employment facilitation measures and outplacement assistance.

Retrenchment benefits, if stipulated in employment contracts or collective agreements with the unions, must be disbursed accordingly. Where retrenchment benefits are not contractually provided for, employers are still expected to offer retrenchment benefits to employees with two or more years of service. The prevailing norm is to pay a retrenchment benefit varying between two weeks to one month salary per year of service, depending on the financial position of the company and taking into consideration the industry norm. Employees with less than two years of service could be offered an ex gratia payment.

Re-employment support scheme

Looking forward, a new re-employment support scheme is set to be rolled out by the Singapore government by the end of 2024. The scheme aims to provide retrenched employees with temporary financial support, so that they can focus on upgrading their skills to secure a good long-term job. The Minister of Manpower has said that the government has reviewed best practices globally and is close to finalising the scheme parameters.

The importance of fair and responsible retrenchment practices in Singapore cannot be overlooked. Such practices not only ensure compliance with legal frameworks and advisories but also reflect a company’s commitment to ethical standards and social responsibility. By prioritising transparency, fairness, and employee welfare, employers can mitigate the adverse impacts of retrenchments on affected employees, safeguard their own reputation and credibility, and build trust and loyalty among remaining and future employees. In today’s competitive and rapidly evolving business landscape, employers that embrace these principles will be better poised to navigate economic challenges and emerge stronger than before.

‘If it frees up my time to be more strategic and more creative, then that’s great’

Generative AI is set to transform the way in-house lawyers work. Legal 500 London editor Cameron Purse moderated a recent panel discussion in Edinburgh sponsored by Addleshaw Goddard in which Candice Donnelly, director of corporate (legal) at Skyscanner and Colin Telford, senior legal counsel, NatWest, joined Addleshaw partner Ross McKenzie and head of innovation Kerry Westland to share their experiences. Continue reading “‘If it frees up my time to be more strategic and more creative, then that’s great’”

‘There is total support for getting this done’ – funders and litigators react to King’s Speech litigation funding snub

The King’s Speech this July included an ambitious total of 40 bills – but there was no mention of the litigation funding bill that the last government introduced in March.

Now, the government has confirmed that it will not legislate to overturn the effects of the Supreme Court’s July 2023 PACCAR decision, which prohibited litigation funding agreements (LFAs) that allowed funders to recover a percentage of damages, until summer 2025 at the earliest.

Legal Business caught up with those who know the market to explore what this means for the sector.

Continue reading “‘There is total support for getting this done’ – funders and litigators react to King’s Speech litigation funding snub”

Paul Weiss continues to add Kirkland alumni in London as TDR GC Holdsworth joins

Paul Weiss has continued its rapid London expansion with the hire of TDR Capital general counsel David Holdsworth, who is returning to private practice after less than two years at the private equity house

He is set to join as a partner in the US firm’s London private equity group, bringing the firm’s London partner headcount to 27, according to its website.

Continue reading “Paul Weiss continues to add Kirkland alumni in London as TDR GC Holdsworth joins”

‘There are not many cases like this’ – the lawyers in Olympic boxer Imane Khelif’s corner

Algerian boxer Imane Khelif made headlines around the world when her Olympic bout against Italy’s Angela Carini ended after just 46 seconds, prompting a heated public debate about gender and eligibility in women’s boxing.

Khelif had been permitted to fight at the Olympics despite being disqualified from the IBA Women’s World Boxing Championships in March 2023, after the IBA claimed she had not met the female category eligibility criteria.

Carini’s post-fight comments about Khelif’s strength, combined with renewed media interest in the earlier disqualification, sparked a culture war frenzy, with everyone from Elon Musk to the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls weighing in on the controversy.

Behind the scenes, a multidisciplinary team from Withers, led by Milan-based sports head Luca Ferrari and including London employment and sports specialist Libby Payne and disputes partner Andrew Fremlin-Key, had been working pro bono for Khelif for many months, helping her to challenge her disqualification.

Legal Business caught up with Payne (pictured) to discuss working with an athlete caught in the eye of a storm.

When did you start working with Imane Khelif?

We started working with Imane in March 2023, just after she was disqualified from the IBA Women’s World Boxing Championships. One of Imane’s managers knew our head of sports, Luca Ferrari – when this issue came up, he knew he needed a really good sports lawyer, and so he picked up the phone to Luca and asked us to help. We were only too happy to oblige.

Are you free to give your opinion on the on the IBA disqualification?

At the point at which Imane was disqualified, there were no rules about gender in qualification or eligibility criteria and there was certainly no testing protocol or well-defined policy such as the one World Athletics has. I would describe the decision to exclude someone without having a policy in place as being very open to challenge.

What is it like having such a high-profile client?

It’s not an unusual situation for us to have high-profile clients who are under the media glare, but I don’t think I’ve had a client who’s had the same amount of coverage for such a sustained period as Imane did. Whenever we advise a high-profile client, we are aware of the potential for press intrusion and that is a factor we take into account when advising.

Do you have any issues with Imane’s press coverage?

The big thing that I think people have misunderstood is the difference between an individual whose gender or sex has been questioned, who it’s reported has either chromosomal or hormonal differences, and someone who is transgender. The two issues are both complex, but they’re very different, and I think that conflating those two completely separate issues has been really unhelpful because they need different approaches and different considerations.

What is your opinion on some of the commentary surrounding the case?

I do think that some of the things that have been said about her really shouldn’t have been said. There’s been a lot that was ill-informed, and I think there’s a lot of people who perhaps if they had a full understanding of what happened, would probably really regret what they had said. There’s so much focus now on protecting athletes and their mental health. And for whatever reason, that all seems to have gone out of the window.

Do you think there will be a clear-cut resolution to cases like this?

That’s difficult to answer. Do I think governing bodies will need to have a think about how they deal with situations where there are questions raised about the gender of a competitor and potential differences in sex development (DSDs)? I think they probably do need to have an answer to that question, at least in terms of how they respond to those questions even if not a policy or criteria. Will that be the same answer across all sports? I’m not sure it will be.

At the moment, the only sport I’ve seen with what I would call a comprehensive policy is World Athletics. You may or may not agree with the rules it contains, but it is comprehensive. The new IBA policy isn’t comprehensive at all – I think it’s a couple of sentences.

Do you think this case will lead to a greater understanding of the issues involved?

Perhaps the biggest disappointment of the whole thing is that we’ve seen athletes in a similar position before. Everyone knows about what happened to Caster Semenya, and there’s a whole range of other athletes who have faced similar issues. For me, there were a lot of lessons that really could have been learned from those cases about how to treat athletes who are subject to such questions about their gender and eligibility. It’s shame that we need to have more women go through this type of situation in order for people to listen.

Conducting tests or procedures without consent and outing someone in quite a public way (e.g. at an event, as has happened before) is not how these things should be done. There are absolutely better ways of approaching these issues. To have athlete’s private medical information discussed in the newspapers feels very intrusive.

Has Withers handled any similar cases to Khelif’s?

We do a lot on the equality and discrimination side, and those issues are quite common through a lot of what we do. I think Imane’s case is pretty, but not exclusively, unique. There are not many cases like this.

Does Withers often do pro bono work with athletes?

We do a lot of pro bono sports work, and we probably don’t talk about it enough. In the sport space, you’ve got this dichotomy between doing fantastic work for professional footballers and other high-profile, well-remunerated clients. But at the other end of sport, you’ve got Olympic athletes who don’t get paid anything and need grants to fund their training, but who have complex and interesting legal matters that can alter the course of their career. I tend to have one sports pro bono matter at any moment in time.

How did you get into sports law?

I’ve always loved sports. For many years I was a fencer and I also love cycling, I love tennis, and I volunteered at the Olympics in Athens for three weeks. So, it’s always been my passion. The wonderful thing about Withers is that it’s very entrepreneurial. When I started here 11 years ago, my boss, employment head Meriel Schindler, asked me: ‘What do you really like? I said, ‘I really love sports’. And she said, ‘let’s try and find you some sports work, and you can grow the practice in that area’. And that is what’s happened.

Are all the team into sports?

We’re all really into sports and talk about it all the time. We’ve all got different things that we can bring to the party. London employment associate Lana Armstrong is a big netball player. Milan senior associate Stella Riberti and our practice head Luca are both really keen on sports, and I should also mention Littleton Chambers barrister Lydia Banerjee, who worked with us on this matter. She’s also very passionate about sport and also worked pro bono. For counsel that’s a big thing to do, and I’m very grateful to her for giving her time.

[email protected]

Transport for London plans journey with new roster of legal advisers

Transport for London (TfL) is in the process of shortlisting firms for its new legal services framework, as the current roster enters the last year of its existing line-up.

The government body is reviewing submissions from firms to draw up a shortlist of bidders to be invited to tender. The successful firms are expected to be appointed this December.

The panel was last reviewed in 2019, when 15 firms were appointed. Seven of those were new to the panel at the time – Addleshaw Goddard, Burges Salmon, DLA Piper, Stephenson Harwood, Pinsent Masons, Womble Bond Dickinson and BDB Pitmans – while the other eight were reappointments; Ashurst, Eversheds Sutherland, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, Dentons, Herbert Smith Freehills, K&L Gates, Trowers & Hamlins and Gowling WLG.

The new framework, which is worth up to £120m, covers eight areas – employment law; major commercial matters; rail industry; routine commercial and real estate (contentious and noncontentious); housing; complex property and commercial development; major consents; and town and country planning and highways.

As with last time, the panel will run for at least four years, with an option to extend for a further two. The appointed firms will advise TfL and its subsidiaries, as well as TfL’s shared services clients, including the Greater London Authority.

TfL’s current general counsel is Andrea Clarke, who was appointed on a permanent basis earlier this year after serving as interim GC following the retirement of Howard Carter, who had held the top legal role for 18 years.

TfL’s biggest projects in recent years have of course included Crossrail, the railway infrastructure supporting the new Elizabeth line. Stephenson Harwood advised on a range of issues relating to the delivery of that project, with a team led by rail partners Tammy Samuel, Suzanne Tarplee and Darren Fodey, working alongside colleagues from the firm’s tax, projects and real estate, disputes and corporate practice.

The firm’s work included advising on the establishment of Rail for London (Infrastructure), a new company responsible for the day-to-day management of the Crossrail infrastructure, as well as guiding TfL through the associated regulatory requirements.

Over the duration of the current legal framework, other significant matters have included Burges Salmon advising on TfL’s efforts to power the London Tube network with renewable energy, while Pinsent Masons helped to secure consent for the £1bn Silvertown Tunnel under the Thames – described by lead partner Robbie Owen as ‘one of the most challenging and controversial infrastructure projects in London in recent years’.

[email protected]

‘Evolution not revolution’: CMS and Addleshaw Goddard post revenue growth as results season continues

CMS has reported a 5% uptick in global revenue from last year’s €1.862bn to €1.957bn in its most recent set of financial results, with PEP down 4% on last year’s estimated £771,000 to £741,559.

Despite continued financial growth, this year marks a further deceleration after revenue growth slowed from 18% in 2021-22 to 6% last year.

Continue reading “‘Evolution not revolution’: CMS and Addleshaw Goddard post revenue growth as results season continues”