mARCH 2012
www.lawyer-monthly.com Marsh
Even if it is a UK transaction there tends to be a cross-border angle to it as it is very rare these days to find a company that operates solely in just one jurisdiction.
Daniel Max
operates solely in just one jurisdiction. The deals might be led out of the UK, which is something we often see because a lot of PE firms that we deal with have a major focus on London, but most tend to have an element of cross-border activity within them.”
Daniel went on to discuss the
inevitable challenges that can arise within cross-border deals and the legal and regulatory implications that can accompany such deals. He explained: “There are a few challenges related to cross border deals, firstly there is the issue of dealing with different cultures - people have different expectations and different ways of doing things. For example, in different jurisdictions people are used to expecting different retention amounts or limitations under a sale and purchase agreement. Culturally people do deal slightly differently in different parts of the world.
“Another point is related to specific
areas such as tax. Tax is very different in different jurisdictions and so negotiating cross-border deals where particular tax regimes have to be taken into account, there is high importance attached to the level of understanding and diligence that is involved with that.
“Additionally, getting a good feel for
the fundamental negotiation aspects such as disclosure is critical - when we are considering insurance placements to back up M&A deals, we place a lot of reliance on the quality of the disclosure
process based on a detailed knowledge of the advisors and lawyers that are involved in the deal. What we see now as we are going into less tried and tested jurisdictions, is that sometimes questions are raised as to whether or not that jurisdiction can support the same standards of diligence and disclosure as others. That is not to say that they can’t, just that people tend to be more wary of it. As we end up working on more and more deals that have multi-jurisdictional aspects to them, we have to factor in to the process the fact that people are going to build a higher level of conservativeness in to the deal structure to take into account the fact that they cannot have quite the same level of comfort as they would normally because of uncertainty or lack of experience of a certain jurisdiction.
Trends have recently seemed to show
that there is increased interest in investing in SMEs. When asked about this, Daniel answered: “I don’t know whether or not there is an increased trend, but what I would say is that the last few years have seen PE firms reduce the enterprise value of deals they are prepared to look at. For example, where three years ago a mid-to-large buyout firm would be looking at deals of around £300million, they are now perhaps looking at deals of around £100million. The deal values may have reduced and it is a given now that the debt component will be a smaller percentage of the overall deal value
than before. Similar trends exist with advisors; top tier law firms are taking on or being invited to run a process on deals that are a fraction of the size they would be working on back in 2008 or before. We are seeing that quite regularly now, you have advisors traditionally associated with very large deals acting on what is not actually a particularly large transaction.
“This is a direct result of less large
deal activity and the fact that multi- billion pound acquisitions and club deals are few and far between these days.” LM
For more information on Marsh, please visit
www.marsh.com.
31
Daniel Max
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114