'Know When To Hold 'Em [/ Know When to Fold 'Em]

Equitable Law (Mr. Dan Johnson) was recently asked (on a bulleting board) :-

Can anyone offer some guidance on this query:

1) The buyer of a company has discovered that the seller took confidential information in respect of key suppliers prior to completion.

2) This suggests that the seller will breach their restrictive covenants.

3) There is nothing in the contract saying this, but can the buyer withhold monies owed post completion for the company if the buyer has evidence that the seller is in breach of confidentiality and non-compete obligations?

Dan Johnson replied:-

This falls squarely into the realm of  'possession is nine-tenths of the law'. 

The buyer should withhold cash and 'force' the seller in writing to acknowledge their historic breach and obtain a written undertaking from the seller to destroy confidential information and observe their obligations in the future. 

If the seller doesn't - this is likely to strengthen the case for an injunction - but provides a counter-claim (of likely estimated losses from breach of confidentiality) to any claim by the seller to unpaid consideration. 

Plenty of other steps to potentially take with the written undertaking(s) - whether or not signed (!) but you'd need to buy me lunch for this 'grey beard's' experience in such matters. 

Let me know if you would appreciate my input (I've seen it before!) = As was once said of me in an appraisal - "You undertake non-contentious work in a very contentious manner". "Thank you", I said! 

Dan.Johnson@EquitableLaw.com

Solicitors -v- Lawyers / Legal Advisors = Do you know the difference?

I would always suggest that you would be wise to want to access professional legal advice & assistance from an experienced, expert legal advisor that you can rely upon - such as an English Solicitor - while always ensuring that they are appropriately qualified and legally practising in England & Wales (part of the United Kingdom) via the Law Society's 'Find A Solicitor' service.

My firm and my personal details are at:-

http://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk/office/545878/equitable-law-limited

http://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk/person/9511/daniel-robert-johnson

If others who approach you don't trade under both of these registrations (individual & business entity) then they are likely to lack some element of competency and / or professionalism – most likely leading to them not being appropriately insured (whatever they may claim!).

Certainly - they are not able to call legitimately call themselves ‘Solicitors’, nor trade as such in private practice (without committing criminal offences under U.K. legislation!).

Describing yourself as a ‘lawyer’ or ‘legal advisor’ means absolutely nothing under English law, and there are a large number of un-authorised / un-regulated (largely / if not wholly un-qualified) individuals operating in the U.K. = Trust me, I often see the ‘horror stories’ after the event!   

I do appreciate that legal advice & assistance from laymen / non-Solicitors (or people with less experience and/or expertise than me) may (at first instance) appear to be cheaper than my services - but I would encourage you to buy on 'cost-effectiveness' -v- not absolute price - since in life it is a general truth that 'you tend to get what you pay for' (and you may well not discover the deficiencies in others' advice & assistance etc. until it is too late!)

Forwarned is forearmed / You know where to find me!

Regards

Dan.Johnson@EquitableLaw.com

+44 (0) 7788 537 187 (U.K. Cell. Tel.)

www.EquitableLaw.com

Equitable Law's : Heads of Terms - Convertible Loan Note = Revised & Ready For Use

Please feel free to contact us if you would like a copy / to discuss it's use.

contact@EquitableLaw.com

+44 (0) 333 390 3525

www.EquitableLaw.com 

LexisNexis Video - Share Capital & Trends

Our Principal, Mr. Dan Johnson recently contributed to LexisNexis' webinar on Share Capital - Issues and Trends (2017)

Further details are available at:-

http://www.lexiswebinars.co.uk/legal/corporate-law/share-capital-issues-and-trends

A summary is :-

In the pursuit of greater profits, clients are increasingly open to ever more complicated share structures. In this webinar, out expert speakers will take you through all the key issues and trends from the past 12 months, helping to ensure you're fully equipped to advise your clients on their options. Topics discussed will include:

Historical Context.
Issues with Share Capital Structured Companies.
Different Share Classes.
Issuing shares to Founders/Stakeholders/Employees.
Employment-related securities legislation.
Investors and share capital.
SEIS & EIS - Tax Advantaged Investments For 'Business Angels'
Share dealings.
Share buybacks.
Company constitution.
Share Option Schemes.
Operational and tax benefits of different share classes.
Privileged relations transfers.
Restrictive covenants in shareholder agreements.
Fair value of share price.
Shares and employee incentive schemes.

FREE BRANDING ADVICE FROM A SOLICITOR !

Strangely, for a generation who habitually consider David Fincher's 2010 film 'The Social Network' (a loose telling of the 'Facebook' founding myth) to be their inspiration (if not their business plan?)!, I continue to see the same mistake made by early stage web-based businesses - that Mark Zuckerberg (played by Jesse Eisenberg) and / or his colleagues made (and which was only rectified at a relatively late stage in that venture's development).

The clip is 'here' and if you are time constrained - Watch just before '3:00' minutes into the video :-

https://youtu.be/dU6scly2AFU

I would strongly recommend to any new business start-up (that is considering it's name) NOT to include the definitive article (i e the word "The") within your name or web-addresses etc.

It adds nothing for the consumer, but causes endless confusion over how to find your venture in search engines, how your venture should be alphabetized in third party's lists etc.

Don't take my word for it, in the semi-fictional words of 'The Social Network' script, Sean Parker, the founder of 'Napster' (played by Justin Timberlake) made (what is acknowledged by a character to be) his biggest contribution to Facebook with the words :-

"Drop the 'The', Just 'Facebook' - It's cleaner".

Sean Parker's net worth in Facebook immediately after the IPO was over USD $2 Billion.

I've just provided that 'tip' to you for free (but it is secondhand)!

Does anybody disagree with me?

Feel free to comment below.

Regards

Dan.Johnson@EquitableLaw.com

+44 (0) 333 390 3525 (Global Roaming e-Voicemail)

www.EquitableLaw.com

Lexis Nexis - Webinar - Equitable Law (Mr. Dan Johnson) - Share Capital - Issues & Trends (2017)

Equitable Law are delighted to report that our Principal, Mr. Dan Johnson took part (at LexisNexis' request) in their recent webinar recording 'Share Capital - Issues & Trends (2017)'

Do please ask Dan.Johnson@EquitableLaw.com - if you would like access to the webinar and / or our slides.

Digital Legal Advice In The 21st Century = [Your] Money For [Next To] Nothing ?!

More & more frequently I am encountering individuals involved in business - who have got themselves into a significant commercial mess, by virtue of wholly defective historic 'legal advice' (which anyone can freely provide in the UK) which they have received from a 'lawyer' (a title which can be used without restriction by any layman and which means absolutely nothing in terms of authorisation, regulation, experience, expertise, skills or professional indemnity insurance under British legal practice).

At best the relevant individuals find themselves with agreements that are either entirely inappropriate, nonsensical and / or unenforceable (in whole or part) - such that their historic spend upon legal services has been wasted -  but in a small (but significant) number of cases, I have seen those individuals having lost significant sums of money and / or had a valuable asset's value significantly impaired.

Often the problems arise from 'digital lawyers', being on-line sellers of 'legal advice' and 'template agreements' made available over the internet.

Many of these are absolute garbage, often being sold into the jurisdiction of the UK while not even having been prepared by reference to intended use in this jurisdiction.

If you are considering obtaining your 'legal advice' from such 'lawyers', then do please take the time to understand the terms and conditions you will be agreeing to, for example (and with the relevant business' name removed to avoid their embarrassment) edited extracts from which read:-

[Although we will charge you fees (of course!)]

"[Digital Lawyer] is not a law firm, and our employees are not acting as your solicitor. [Digital Lawyer] does not practice law and does not give legal advice. [Our] Website is not intended to create a solicitor-client relationship and, by using the Website, no solicitor-client relationship will be created with [Digital Lawyer]. Instead, you are representing yourself in any legal matter you undertake through the Website’s legal document service. The Website is not a substitute for the advice of a solicitor.

...

The legal information on the Website is not legal advice and is not guaranteed to be correct, complete or up-to-date. Because the law changes rapidly, we cannot guarantee that all the information on the Website is completely current. The law is a personal matter, and no general information or legal tool like the kind [Digital Lawyer] provides is suitable for every situation. The documents available on the Website are templates reasonably fit for use by you as a starting point for the preparation of legal documents. They are only intended to be used as templates, to be adapted by you to meet your individual requirements. Therefore, if you need legal advice for your specific problem, or if your specific problem is too complex to be addressed by our tools, please consult a suitably qualified lawyer.

... [and then 'hidden away' at the bottom but in BIG CAPITALS (in an attempt to support enforce-ability of the abrogation of responsibility claimed)] ...

Liability Disclaimer

THE INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, PRODUCTS, AND SERVICES INCLUDED IN OR AVAILABLE THROUGH THE WEBSITE MAY INCLUDE INACCURACIES OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS. CHANGES ARE PERIODICALLY ADDED TO THE INFORMATION ON THE WEBSITE. [DIGITAL LAWYER] AND/OR ITS SUPPLIERS MAY MAKE IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR CHANGES IN THE WEBSITE AT ANY TIME. INFORMATION AND OPINIONS RECEIVED VIA THE WEBSITE SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON FOR PERSONAL, MEDICAL, LEGAL OR FINANCIAL DECISIONS AND YOU SHOULD CONSULT AN APPROPRIATE PROFESSIONAL FOR SPECIFIC ADVICE TAILORED TO YOUR SITUATION.

ALTHOUGH [DIGITAL LAWYER] WILL USE ITS REASONABLE EFFORTS TO KEEP THE WEBSITE AVAILABLE AND THE INFORMATION ON THE WEBSITE REASONABLY ACCURATE, [DIGITAL LAWYER] AND/OR ITS SUPPLIERS MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE SUITABILITY, RELIABILITY, AVAILABILITY, TIMELINESS, AND ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, PRODUCTS, SERVICES AND RELATED GRAPHICS CONTAINED ON THE WEBSITE FOR ANY PURPOSE. ALL SUCH INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, PRODUCTS, SERVICES AND RELATED GRAPHICS ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF ANY KIND. [DIGITAL LAWYER] AND/OR ITS SUPPLIERS DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS WITH REGARD TO THIS INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, PRODUCTS, SERVICES AND RELATED GRAPHICS, INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT.

GUEST USERS – YOU USE THE WEBSITE AT YOUR OWN RISK. NEITHER [DIGITAL LAWYER] NOR ANY COMPANY WITHIN OUR GROUP, AND OUR AND THEIR RESPECTIVE AGENTS, EMPLOYEES AND SUB-CONTRACTORS, SHALL BE LIABLE TO YOU OR ANY OTHER PARTY FOR ANY LOSSES OR DAMAGES WHATSOEVER OR HOWSOEVER ARISING IN CONNECTION WITH THE WEBSITE (WHETHER UNDER THESE GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OR OTHER CONTRACT OR AS A RESULT OF ANY MISREPRESENTATION, MISSTATEMENT OR TORTIOUS ACT OR OMISSION, INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE).

FEE PAYING MEMBERS – [DIGITAL LAWYER]’S LIABILITY TO YOU FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE IS LIMITED TO DAMAGES OF AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE SUBSCRIPTION FEE RECEIVED BY [DIGITAL LAWYER] FOR THE TWELVE MONTH SUBSCRIPTION PERIOD PRIOR TO THE DATE ON WHICH THE LIABILITY AROSE.

UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH:

• "[DIGITAL LAWYER]’S LIABILITY" INCLUDES THAT OF ANY COMPANY IN OUR GROUP AND OUR AND THEIR RESPECTIVE AGENTS EMPLOYEES, SUB- CONTRACTORS;
• "YOU" INCLUDES ANY OTHER PARTY CLAIMING THROUGH YOU;
• "LOSS OR DAMAGE" INCLUDES ANY LOSSES, DAMAGES, COSTS OR EXPENSES WHATSOEVER OR HOWSOEVER ARISING IN CONNECTION WITH USE OF THE WEBSITE, WHETHER UNDER THIS AGREEMENT OR OTHER AGREEMENT OR AS A RESULT OF ANY MISREPRESENTATION, MISSTATEMENT OR TORTIOUS ACT OR OMISSION, INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE."

Basically, the Digital Lawyer will take your money but then claim not to be providing the service / product you thought you had acquired and adding that if anything goes wrong - 'you are on your own' (as far as they are concerned)!

In light of this - Please, please - Take your legal advice & assistance from an authorised and regulated Solicitors practice - ideally one providing access to a highly experienced, fully qualified, expert Solicitor - such as EquitableLaw.com

We can't put every problem caused by digital lawyers right after the event!

The Solicitors profession should potentially be able to gain comfort from the fact that with in excess of three million British pounds worth of accrued & continuing losses, ventures (like that whose terms are reproduced above) should not in any rational world continue in existence. 

However, I am then reminded that the relevant venture is an Alphabet (i.e. Google) owned company, and you have to reflect that Google can stay solvent - a lot longer than the battered legal sector it would like to dominate (as it dominates advertising).

I'll let you into a secret - Google itself is quite a good legal resource (if as a qualified, experienced expert Solicitor you know how to interpret the results!).  

I'm not sure that you get much more (at all) by going to Digital Lawyers apart from wasted expense (although in relation to the one referred to above, you have to question whether at your cost - you are simply helping Google refine their 'digital legal search' algorithm!)

You know where to find me!

DanielRobertJohnson (Skype) 

Dan.Johnson@EquitableLaw.com 

+44 (0) 7788 537 187 (U.K. Cell. Tel.)

www,EquitableLaw.com

https://www.linkedin.com/in/danrjohnson/ 

Oh Dear, Talk Talk's Debt Collectors Were Daft Enough To Issue A Claim !

Defence and Counterclaim

Claim number

D6DL60K0

Claimant

JC International Acquisition LLC

Defendant

Mr Daniel Johnson

 

How much of the claim do you dispute?

I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.

 

Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it?

No, for other reasons.

 

Defence

The amount claimed in this action relates to the installation /
upgrade of my telephony / broadband services as ordered from
TalkTalk (who had been my telephony supplier for approximately a
decade) nearly five (5) years ago.

Once installed the broadband / telephony service provided was
intermittent, and when the broadband worked - it was slower than
the previous broadband provided by TalkTalk.

TalkTalk's customer service at this time were notorious for their
appalling performance - and I appear to have been no exception.

I was completely unable to have any sensible discussions about
this issues with TalkTalk, whose call centres were entirely
overseas and who were staffed by people who had difficulty with
understanding English.

After several weeks of seeking to resolve the issue, I issued an
ultimatum to TalkTalk indicating that they were in contractual
breach (in terms of not providing me with a satisfactory / working
telecom service), and that if they could not resolve the position
I would accept their breach and terminate the contract.

No satisfactory response having been received (and with two people
seeking to run a business using that broadband), I had (of
necessity) to terminate the agreement, and take service from an
alternate supplier.

That supplier indicated they were able to see the problem (badly
connected wires at the street box), and corrected the problem.

In then appears that TalkTalk sold this debt and I have been
dealing with the debt owner since that date.

They have been repeatedly told that the debt is disputed, and
their own records are hugely defective, but they are merely a debt
collection operation and take no account of that point.

For example, their claim refers to my agreeing to pay in monthly
instalments - which is simply incorrect and no doubt arises from
uniform wording being used multiple claim forms.

Even to the last, I have sought to deal with this issue, even to &
including the point at which they instructed a solicitor whose
servers reject emails (Evidence to be provided).

I completely dispute that anything is due, and hereby seek to
claim my full wasted time costs & disbursements under County Court
Rules, the basis for which and details of - I will produce to the
County Court as / when / if this matter is heard.

The claimant should note that I am a Solicitor with my own London
based practice, and that my professional time is charged at GBP
£375 (plus VAT).

 

Signed

I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true

Dan R. Johnson

08/05/2017

 

Defendant's date of birth

23/11/xxxx

 

Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you

24 Bemish Road

Putney

London

SW15 1DG

 

Telephone number

0333 390 3525

Fax number

0871 264 9515

DX number

N/a

E-mail

Contact@EquitableLaw.com

Concentrating Upon 'Price' (At The Expense of Downplaying 'Value')

When I entered the Solicitors profession - It was as a 'junior bag carrier' to an experienced, expert and (by many) trusted business counsel to a significant men of business.

Over the years, in some small way I have evolved into the latter (with certain clients), but far too often I come upon younger men who buy all the goods for their business via Alibaba, and think that you deal with professional advisers in the same way.    

I am going to draw you analogy with my recent engagement of a plumber.

The need for a plumber came about because I had a slow draining sink (to my belief and annoyance – due to my own foolhardiness in repeatedly emptying coffee grounds into that sink).

I was faced with spending a considerable proportion of my forthcoming weekend dealing with problem myself - removing a u-bend & cleaning it out, then possibly rodding a pipe in a wall (and hoping that cleared any blockage further into the drainage system) and that my attempt(s) to re-assemble everything went smoothly and easily = I just couldn’t face it.

Instead I engaged ‘Reg’ - a plumber with whom I have developed a mutually beneficial client / business relationship over twenty odd years of needing a good plumber in West London (+ Not easy!).

Reg knows that I will pay him a fair sum for his work, and I know that Ron will turn up on time and 'sort' my plumbing problems.

I’m sure I could have spent a considerable period of time online comparing plumbers I’d never met before (and / or would be unlikely to ever see again) over what their minimum and ongoing charge out rate was etc.

Critically, I could have had them competitively quote for the relatively extensive work - which I as an inexpert / laymen envisaged might be necessary (See above).

I’m sure many of those I might have wished to engage by that process - would have carried out the relatively extensive work that I outlined I believed was needed, presenting me with a apparently competitive (but relatively extensive) bill.      

What actually was arranged was that Reg said "Let me come & have a look at it, and I’ll ‘sort it’ on a ‘what the job deserves’ basis".  I agreed.

On arrival, Ron looked at the problem, went back to his van and produced a wood & leather plunger (which he apparently was gifted by his apprentice master in the early 1970s – although it looked Victorian = "You can't get these now" etc.); and with a ‘special trick’ (which he imparted to me) he cleared the blockage completely in under a minute.

GBP £20 ‘cash payment’ later – we both parted as content men (until the next time I need him).

The point is that I simply cannot scope or time-budget much of the necessary work which people approach me with without either sight of relevant documentation and / or a sensible initial conversation with the individual who wants assistance – which I generally offer on a no-obligation basis.

There is a danger that unless you do this - you are encouraging a person in need of assistance to focus solely upon knowing ‘price’ and downplaying (to the point of ignoring) ‘value’.

For example, I've recently been approached by a prospective client who believed he needed two transaction documents, and wanted a quote for their production.  It was rapidly clear to me that only one material document was required, for reasons that I explained in detail.  It took the prospective client rather more time than I thought it would - to realise that those others who had quoted for what the prospective client erroneously believed he needed - were clearly displaying their lack of experience & expertise!    

Too often, when asked to 'quote'  for work – based upon what I then currently know – I am being asked to ‘quote for creating a piece of string’ – when I haven’t even had a chance to consider / concur that the client needs a piece of string / let alone how long it needs to be / and (accordingly) what it might cost!
 
My offer to prospective clients is clear – But to set it out - They should ideally provide me with some documentation and I will review the same upon a no-obligation basis (and the fact that many prospective client seem disinclined and / or unable to do this – is often a worrying sign in terms of working efficiently / keeping fees economic).

Additinally and / or alternatively, I habitually offer an initial no-obligation discussion with a prospective client as to the background and current circumstances – the combination of these two actions (documentation review & consultation) allowing me to scope and time budget proposed fees.

If the prospective client is happy with my time budget proposed fees then we might develop a business / client relationship as mutually beneficial as mine & Reg’s. If not – they have nothing to lose, but we almost certainly are both the losers in the long run.  

I’ve said it before – but it’s worth repeating – if introducers help me to earn a fee, then there is business to go round –v- If introducers seek as their raison d’etre to drive down such fees I can earn = You cut your own throat!

Let me know if you wish to discuss any of the above aspects / issues

With best regards

DanielRobertJohnson (Skype)

www.linkedin.com/in/danrjohnson

www.EquitableLaw.com

+44 (0) 7788 537 187 : U.K. Cellular Tel.

+44 (0) 333 390 3525 : London Based / Global Roaming Voicemail

N.B. For the record – My plumber (Reg)’s house is worth about three times (x 3) as much as mine (a Solicitor)  = Makes you think, doesn’t it!

City Firms’ Trainee Retention Rates Falling - Law Society Gazette - February 2017

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/city-firms-trainee-retention-rates-falling/5059944.article

On the basis  that the training costs for a Solicitor now run into sums of tens (if not hundred plus) thousands of British Pounds (GBP £xx+,000s), any retention rate number materially below 100% show firms suffering wasted expenditure, at least in part caused by the relevant firms predictions of near future economic activity being less than that they forecast several years before.

When the second derivative (change of retention rate) is falling (as these figures appear to show), that may well be a worrying sign in terms of forecasting a technical recession for the economy.  

English Trainee Solicitors may have to comfort themselves that at least they are not joining the Law Society of Scotland . . .      

ADVANCE SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENTS FOR FUNDING EARLY STAGE COMPANIES

Over recent periods, the venture capital industry has seen increasing use of 'advance subscription arrangements’ being used for making investments in early stage companies, in early seed rounds.

Most equity raises consist of what's known as a 'priced round', i.e. shares are issued at an agreed price per share at the point that the investment is made. Alternatively, the company or the investors may use a convertible loan note, under which the investment is initially made by way of debt, which later converts to shares when a future event takes place (for example, the next financing round or an exit).

The conversion price is usually set by that future event, for example a discount of 15-25% on the share price associated with that transaction. This has the advantage of postponing the difficult and contentious question of valuation. It also provides some downside protection for the investor, as the investment remains a debt that may become repayable, and ranks ahead of shareholders in the event of insolvency.

Tax Relief Implications

Whilst convertibles are used extensively in the U.S., they are not that common in the U.K., largely because they don't allow the investor to claim Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme (SEIS) or Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) relief on the investment.

An ‘advance subscription agreement’ seeks to address this. If structured correctly, it enables the investor to subscribe for shares, with funds being provided to the company at the date of the agreement, but with that investment converting to shares upon a future event (e.g. the next financing round).

However, the investor has no right to demand this money back. The investment has to convert to share capital at some point, which in the absence of another equity raise or exit, will be a specified date or an insolvency. This would mean that the investment no longer has the downside protection of a convertible loan, and may therefore be eligible for SEIS / EIS relief.

Key Features Of Advance Subscription Agreements

These arrangements can involve a variety of terms, although the core features to look out for are:

• Discount – the reduction in the share price for the advanced subscription investors when their shares convert into shares. We see 15% - 25% as being the market norm.

• Cap – the maximum value at which the investment will convert into shares, designed to ensure that the investor does not end up with an unexpectedly low equity percentage.

• Qualifying Threshold – a minimum size of the round that will trigger conversion (if the round is very small, the investor may prefer to wait until a more significant investment is made).

• Long Stop Conversion Price – the price per share that is used for the conversion if there is no funding or exit event to provide a third party valuation of the company.

Many early stage investors value the ability to agree specific terms governing their relationship with their investee company through a priced round. In particular, a warranty and disclosure process appeals, though of course these advantages could be delivered through a bespoke advanced subscription arrangement. It is an interesting tool for both investors and fast growing companies to be aware of.

If you'd like more information about any aspects of advance subscription agreements, please get in touch.

This publication is intended for general guidance and represents our understanding of the relevant law and practice as at February 2017.

Specific advice should be sought for specific cases. For more information see our terms & conditions.

Dan.Johnson@EquitableLaw.com

+44 (0) 333 390 3525 (U.K. Based / Worldwide Roaming e-Voicemail)

www.EquitableLaw.com

PRINTABLE PDF VERSION : https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/470a751e-8708-4f10-b089-a99a2d44cd4d

Business Law Awards 2016 - Equitable Law Awarded "Best Business Law Boutique"

We are delighted to announce that Equitable Law has been awarded :– 

Best Business Law Boutique - Commercial Law Specialist of the Year - UK 

In Corporate Vision Magazine's 2016 Business Law Awards.

The 2016 Business Law Awards recognise the success and dedication of legal service providers working across the globe and throughout this vast industry. 

These awards are a great achievement, and as such I am sure you will want to join me in congratulating the team upon this good news for 2017.

For further details, please do not hesitate to contact me :-

Dan.Johnson@EquitableLaw.com

Principal & Business Law Solicitor

+44 (0) 333 390 3525