Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Law Firm Events
Law Firm Deadlines
TCLA TV
Members
Leaderboards
Premium Database
Premium Chat
Commercial Awareness
Future Trainee Advice
Forums
Aspiring Lawyers - Interviews & Vacation Schemes
Commercial Awareness Discussion
Commercial Awareness Update - October 2019
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Bugsy Malone" data-source="post: 14021" data-attributes="member: 201"><p><strong>Hello everyone, </strong></p><p></p><p><strong>Welcome to this week’s commercial update!</strong></p><p></p><p><strong>The topics covered:</strong></p><p></p><p><strong>1. John Lewis Partnership Outlines Restructure (by ELA)</strong></p><p></p><p><strong>2. US Discussions to Delist Chinese Stocks (by Flora)</strong></p><p></p><p><strong>3. PayPal’s Exit From Libra (by Sairah)</strong></p><p></p><p><strong>4. London Stock Exchange Delistings (by Moni)</strong></p><p></p><p><strong>5. UK Listings at a Ten-Year Low (by Alice)</strong></p><p></p><p><strong>6. Back to Basics: US-China Trade War (by Jaysen)</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>1. <u>John Lewis Partnership Outlines Restructure ([USER=1562]@ELA[/USER])</u></strong></p><p></p><p><strong>The Story</strong></p><p></p><p>Last month, John Lewis Partnership – which owns and operates John Lewis and Waitrose – announced its first ever half-year loss. Sales are down 2.1% so far this year at John Lewis stores and 0.7% at Waitrose supermarkets.</p><p></p><p>To try to tackle this deteriorating trading environment, the group recently announced a senior management restructure and a business consolidation plan that will combine the running of John Lewis and Waitrose.</p><p></p><p><strong>Impact on Businesses and Law Firms</strong></p><p></p><p>Currently, John Lewis Partnership comprises separate operating boards in three different head offices (one for Waitrose, one for John Lewis, and one for the partnership) and there are separate managing directors for John Lewis and Waitrose. After the restructure, there will instead be a single executive team with responsibility for the performance and strategy of the whole company. Moreover, the two retailers will share one common IT system and supply chain platform.</p><p></p><p>From a business perspective, the group hopes this restructure will help reduce duplication, be more cost-effective and create a more a unified leadership team. It is forecast that the restructure will save £100 million a year, but also cut head office roles from 225 to 75.</p><p></p><p>Restructuring involves modifying the corporate, operational and/or financial structure of a company. Hence, commercial lawyers would have been involved from the moment this restructuring plan started to be discussed and negotiated, and they will assist with its legal implementation. For example, employment lawyers will be needed to negotiate and modify the contracts of board members, as well as to ensure the group observes the rights of those employees it makes redundant. Corporate governance lawyers, who specialise in advising directors and executives, may advise on board structure and composition, or risk identification and management. Indeed, some have criticised the restructuring for carrying considerable risks, because John Lewis and Waitrose are very different businesses operationally. Additionally, the changes remain subject to formal agreement by the John Lewis Partnership Council – the company’s elected democratic body.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>2. <u>US Discussions to Delist Chinese Stocks (by Flora)</u></strong></p><p></p><p><strong>The story:</strong></p><p></p><p>Last week, it was reported that the US are considering delisting Chinese companies from US stock exchanges. This comes after US lawmakers put forward a bill which would force Chinese companies to comply with US stock exchange regulations or be delisted in June.</p><p></p><p>As of February, 156 Chinese companies were listed on the major US exchanges, with a total market capital of $1.2 trillion. Chinese law currently shields these companies’ financial statements from audit by US regulators, citing national security concerns as the reason for this.</p><p></p><p>US Senators advocate that delisting would protect investors by offering them financial transparency and accountability. Though, these are only preliminary discussions and nothing has yet been decided. As the trade war between the US and China continues, the US may be using this as leverage over China, ahead of talks due to take place this week.</p><p></p><p><strong>Impact on businesses and law firms:</strong></p><p></p><p>On hearing about these discussions US stock exchanges and shares in Chinese companies listed in the US, such as Alibaba and JD.com, fell. Share prices fall when there is more supply than demand, i.e. where there are more people wanting to sell shares than buy them.</p><p></p><p>If Chinese companies were delisted it could cause disruption well beyond the hundreds of billions in tariffs the US and China have levied against each other in the past year. Chinese stocks and bonds are now part of international indices, groups of securities created to represent some aspect of the global market. Investors look at such global benchmarks to get a sense of how particular funds and sections of the market are performing, evaluate risks and make informed investment decisions. Hence, benchmarks are systemic in that they affect the system they are part of. If Chinese stocks are delisted, this could cause the global benchmarks they underpin to fluctuate, which could in turn hinder investors’ ability to ‘read’ the market and affect their behaviour.</p><p></p><p>China’s stock market may move to other countries and weaken the US’s global financial and capital market. Investment bankers and lawyers who advise Chinese companies listed in the US, could lose exposure to some of the fasted growing companies and the world’s second largest economy, as well as millions in listing fees. For example, Alibaba raised a total of $25 billion in its 2014 IPO.</p><p></p><p>Chinese companies could lose access to the world’s deepest pool of capital (the US) and the stock market of choice (New York).</p><p></p><p><strong><u>3. Paypal's Exit From Libra ([USER=1550]@Sairah[/USER])</u></strong></p><p></p><p><strong>The Story:</strong></p><p></p><p>Last week, PayPal became the first company to exit from the Libra Association, the 28-member non-profit organisation established in June to oversee the cryptocurrency project.</p><p></p><p>The reason behind the exit was due to two concerns. Firstly, the increasing regulatory scrutiny, and the lack of attention Facebook executives have paid to this considerable backlash. Secondly, how the Libra platform will combat money laundering activity. Despite this concern, Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg expressed the opportunity of Libra - to build an asset that can fight against money-laundering, rather than being a facilitator.</p><p></p><p>By way of background, banks (including investment banks) currently approach money-laundering by relying on “electronic monitoring” to identify suspicious activity (e.g. large cash deposits). Many will view this as a neutral approach, as information is often kept across multiple systems. As a result, providing neither banks or regulators a comprehensive view over the whole network of interconnected payments, deposits and money transfers.</p><p></p><p>The nature of Libra (a blockchain), as a single connected ecosystem means that information can be shared across a network, allowing banks to develop a more concrete view of money-laundering activity. By joining together activities which might not on their own seem suspicious, but taken as a whole indicate a criminal activity. With PayPal no longer supporting Libra, Facebook actually has an opportunity to change its mind and deliver on its intention to advance anti-money laundering enforcement in the digital currency industry.</p><p> </p><p><strong>Impact on Businesses and Law Firms:</strong></p><p></p><p>Although losing PayPal certainly does not present Libra’s future well, there are still plenty of high profile companies in the Libra Association - including the likes of MasterCard, Uber, Spotify, Visa, and others. Libra is also still on schedule for a release in the beginning of 2020, and it will be interesting to see if any other companies follow in PayPal’s footsteps between now and then.</p><p></p><p>But, with the loss of PayPal, regulators have started to warn they would block the launch of Libra in their respective territories, citing concerns over the stability of the traditional currency markets. To avoid this situation, Facebook will need to act fast and provide sufficient answers to the European Commission, who last week issued a questionnaire. This was done in an effort to assess whether projects such as Libra should be regulated, if new EU regulation is required or whether the cryptocurrency should be allowed to operate. Another way, Facebook can voice its positivity about Libra, and its commitment to making the cryptocurrency a success for the financial and business markets, is on 14th October when the Libra Council meet for the first time.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bugsy Malone, post: 14021, member: 201"] [B]Hello everyone, [/B] [B]Welcome to this week’s commercial update![/B] [B]The topics covered:[/B] [B]1. John Lewis Partnership Outlines Restructure (by ELA)[/B] [B]2. US Discussions to Delist Chinese Stocks (by Flora)[/B] [B]3. PayPal’s Exit From Libra (by Sairah)[/B] [B]4. London Stock Exchange Delistings (by Moni)[/B] [B]5. UK Listings at a Ten-Year Low (by Alice)[/B] [B]6. Back to Basics: US-China Trade War (by Jaysen)[/B] [B]1. [U]John Lewis Partnership Outlines Restructure ([USER=1562]@ELA[/USER])[/U][/B] [B]The Story[/B] Last month, John Lewis Partnership – which owns and operates John Lewis and Waitrose – announced its first ever half-year loss. Sales are down 2.1% so far this year at John Lewis stores and 0.7% at Waitrose supermarkets. To try to tackle this deteriorating trading environment, the group recently announced a senior management restructure and a business consolidation plan that will combine the running of John Lewis and Waitrose. [B]Impact on Businesses and Law Firms[/B] Currently, John Lewis Partnership comprises separate operating boards in three different head offices (one for Waitrose, one for John Lewis, and one for the partnership) and there are separate managing directors for John Lewis and Waitrose. After the restructure, there will instead be a single executive team with responsibility for the performance and strategy of the whole company. Moreover, the two retailers will share one common IT system and supply chain platform. From a business perspective, the group hopes this restructure will help reduce duplication, be more cost-effective and create a more a unified leadership team. It is forecast that the restructure will save £100 million a year, but also cut head office roles from 225 to 75. Restructuring involves modifying the corporate, operational and/or financial structure of a company. Hence, commercial lawyers would have been involved from the moment this restructuring plan started to be discussed and negotiated, and they will assist with its legal implementation. For example, employment lawyers will be needed to negotiate and modify the contracts of board members, as well as to ensure the group observes the rights of those employees it makes redundant. Corporate governance lawyers, who specialise in advising directors and executives, may advise on board structure and composition, or risk identification and management. Indeed, some have criticised the restructuring for carrying considerable risks, because John Lewis and Waitrose are very different businesses operationally. Additionally, the changes remain subject to formal agreement by the John Lewis Partnership Council – the company’s elected democratic body. [B]2. [U]US Discussions to Delist Chinese Stocks (by Flora)[/U][/B] [B]The story:[/B] Last week, it was reported that the US are considering delisting Chinese companies from US stock exchanges. This comes after US lawmakers put forward a bill which would force Chinese companies to comply with US stock exchange regulations or be delisted in June. As of February, 156 Chinese companies were listed on the major US exchanges, with a total market capital of $1.2 trillion. Chinese law currently shields these companies’ financial statements from audit by US regulators, citing national security concerns as the reason for this. US Senators advocate that delisting would protect investors by offering them financial transparency and accountability. Though, these are only preliminary discussions and nothing has yet been decided. As the trade war between the US and China continues, the US may be using this as leverage over China, ahead of talks due to take place this week. [B]Impact on businesses and law firms:[/B] On hearing about these discussions US stock exchanges and shares in Chinese companies listed in the US, such as Alibaba and JD.com, fell. Share prices fall when there is more supply than demand, i.e. where there are more people wanting to sell shares than buy them. If Chinese companies were delisted it could cause disruption well beyond the hundreds of billions in tariffs the US and China have levied against each other in the past year. Chinese stocks and bonds are now part of international indices, groups of securities created to represent some aspect of the global market. Investors look at such global benchmarks to get a sense of how particular funds and sections of the market are performing, evaluate risks and make informed investment decisions. Hence, benchmarks are systemic in that they affect the system they are part of. If Chinese stocks are delisted, this could cause the global benchmarks they underpin to fluctuate, which could in turn hinder investors’ ability to ‘read’ the market and affect their behaviour. China’s stock market may move to other countries and weaken the US’s global financial and capital market. Investment bankers and lawyers who advise Chinese companies listed in the US, could lose exposure to some of the fasted growing companies and the world’s second largest economy, as well as millions in listing fees. For example, Alibaba raised a total of $25 billion in its 2014 IPO. Chinese companies could lose access to the world’s deepest pool of capital (the US) and the stock market of choice (New York). [B][U]3. Paypal's Exit From Libra ([USER=1550]@Sairah[/USER])[/U][/B] [B]The Story:[/B] Last week, PayPal became the first company to exit from the Libra Association, the 28-member non-profit organisation established in June to oversee the cryptocurrency project. The reason behind the exit was due to two concerns. Firstly, the increasing regulatory scrutiny, and the lack of attention Facebook executives have paid to this considerable backlash. Secondly, how the Libra platform will combat money laundering activity. Despite this concern, Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg expressed the opportunity of Libra - to build an asset that can fight against money-laundering, rather than being a facilitator. By way of background, banks (including investment banks) currently approach money-laundering by relying on “electronic monitoring” to identify suspicious activity (e.g. large cash deposits). Many will view this as a neutral approach, as information is often kept across multiple systems. As a result, providing neither banks or regulators a comprehensive view over the whole network of interconnected payments, deposits and money transfers. The nature of Libra (a blockchain), as a single connected ecosystem means that information can be shared across a network, allowing banks to develop a more concrete view of money-laundering activity. By joining together activities which might not on their own seem suspicious, but taken as a whole indicate a criminal activity. With PayPal no longer supporting Libra, Facebook actually has an opportunity to change its mind and deliver on its intention to advance anti-money laundering enforcement in the digital currency industry. [B]Impact on Businesses and Law Firms:[/B] Although losing PayPal certainly does not present Libra’s future well, there are still plenty of high profile companies in the Libra Association - including the likes of MasterCard, Uber, Spotify, Visa, and others. Libra is also still on schedule for a release in the beginning of 2020, and it will be interesting to see if any other companies follow in PayPal’s footsteps between now and then. But, with the loss of PayPal, regulators have started to warn they would block the launch of Libra in their respective territories, citing concerns over the stability of the traditional currency markets. To avoid this situation, Facebook will need to act fast and provide sufficient answers to the European Commission, who last week issued a questionnaire. This was done in an effort to assess whether projects such as Libra should be regulated, if new EU regulation is required or whether the cryptocurrency should be allowed to operate. Another way, Facebook can voice its positivity about Libra, and its commitment to making the cryptocurrency a success for the financial and business markets, is on 14th October when the Libra Council meet for the first time. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?
Post reply
Forums
Aspiring Lawyers - Interviews & Vacation Schemes
Commercial Awareness Discussion
Commercial Awareness Update - October 2019
Top
Bottom
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…