Midsize Firms: Key Trends Affecting Competitiveness And Profitability
In conducting strategic planning studies and facilitating numerous strategic planning retreats, I regularly discuss long-term trends affecting law firms with dozens of members of executive committees and managing partners. These trends of interest differ somewhat, of course, for firms of different sizes. More importantly, sometimes the same trend has very different implications for firms of different sizes.
$10K Raises For Philadelphia Associates
Three more Philadelphia law firms have joined in the parade to raise starting salaries. Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin and Saul Ewing both moved their starting wage from $105,000 to $115,000, and Fox Rothschild is jacking its rate from $100,000 to $110,000.
EU Corporate Guidelines
The first challenge and most important need is to know what the relevant EU corporate guidelines are, to know where they apply and to know how to find them. Unlike the United States, where corporate matters are generally covered by individual state law, in the European Union these matters have long attracted centralized legislation from Brussels, which affects the entire EU (now 25 countries, which in 2007 will be joined by Bulgaria and Romania). Norway and Switzerland (although not in the EU) often legislate regarding these matters much as EU member countries do and thus, for our purposes here, we can talk about 29 countries in Europe rather than the 25 that currently make up the EU.
Due Diligence: Beyond the Financial Statements
Due diligence of an acquisition always begins with the careful examination of the financial statements, but now demands a complete evaluation of internal controls and transaction integrity. Unlike finely polished financial statements, internal controls and transaction integrity are hard to spin; any varnish quickly wears off when scrutinized. After living through failed acquisitions and now an increased regulatory environment, corporate risk executives are refining their due diligence processes. By measuring transaction integrity and the effectiveness of internal controls, this new due diligence provides a view into the selling company's operational discipline and overall culture for tolerating policy violations.
The Devil in the Details
In theory, a borrower's issuance of junior secured debt is a boon for its senior secured lender. The borrower obtains additional capital, and the claims of the junior lender against shared collateral, since "subordinated," don't diminish the senior lender's prospects for repayment. In practice, however, a senior secured lender should view proposed junior secured financing skeptically because the existence of such debt can become highly problematic for the senior lender. The key to protecting the senior lender lies in properly negotiating and documenting the intercreditor agreement with the junior lender to eliminate, or at least minimize the myriad of ways in which the junior lender's rights may, in practice, limit -- or even trump -- those of the senior lender.
In Search of the Holy Grail
<b>Part Two of a Two-Part Article.</b> In our article that appeared in last month's issue, we discussed the special rule contained in Section 382(l)(5) with respect to the use of net operating losses by a company that has restructured under the protection of the bankruptcy court. Where the stock, debt and claims against a bankrupt company are traded, companies execute lock up agreements with their stockholders or request orders from the bankruptcy court to restrict trading in the stock, debt or claims so as to protect its net operating loss carry forwards. Often, out of an excess of caution, the orders requested have been overly broad and have disrupted trading in such debt and claims. On Nov. 22, 2004, The Bond Market Association and The Loan Syndications and Trading Association announced that in a joint effort they had developed a model NOL order to address these disruptions. Part Two discusses the results.
World Trade Center Attack Held to Constitute Two Occurrences
On Dec. 6, 2004, a New York federal jury determined that the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center involved two "occurrences" under policies issued to leaseholder Larry Silverstein. As a result, Silverstein could get up to $1.1 billion more than if the attacks had constituted a single occurrence.
