A new dawn in London
Talk of regulation and the supposed threat of emerging markets should not deter offshore law firms from setting up camp in the British capital, say Walkers' Deborah Poole and Alexandra Corner
June 21, 2012 at 07:03 PM
7 minute read
Talk of regulation and the supposed threat of emerging markets should not deter offshore law firms from setting up camp in the British capital, say Walkers' Deborah Poole and Alexandra Corner
There are an increasing number of voices that claim London's hegemonic position as the leading international financial centre is being undermined.
Emerging markets are becoming more competitive and are increasingly challenging the capital as a credible venue for financial transactions and to list international companies.
There is a boom in Eastern financial centres, with the Global Financial Centres Index now ranking Hong Kong, Singapore and Tokyo as third, fourth and fifth financial centres respectively.
On another front, the European Union and UK Government are in the throes of introducing rafts of new legislation aimed at changing the financial landscape and remoulding the shape of the banking and financial services sectors.
In the UK, we are seeing the Financial Services Bill pass through Parliament and are expecting the implementation of the Vickers proposals.
On a European level we see, among others, negotiation on Basel III and Solvency II as well as ongoing discussion about a financial transactions tax which would make profound changes to the European financial landscape.
Regulation headache
Regulation is being pushed through at breakneck speed, and risks being cumbersome, inconsistent and expensive to implement and comply with. Politicians across the eurozone and in the US have become more protectionist in their push for regulatory changes.
Recent meetings of European finance ministers to discuss Basel III have, for example, resulted in arguments with Chancellor George Osborne seeking to protect UK implementation of the rules.
Arguments centre also around the current formulation favouring German and French banks, compared to what was agreed in the Basel accord.
In the midst of this, there is a persistent public perception that offshore jurisdictions are detrimental to the health of the UK banking sector.
Anti-offshore rhetoric adds to the groundswell of criticism of the activities of London's financial services industry. It is easy to see how this has happened: the current obsession with the financial crisis appears to be motivating – to the exclusion of everything else the actions and –perceptions of regulators, financial industry participants, politicians and the mainstream press.
Changing perceptions
It is clear that the view of financial institutions is becoming more critical in the public arena, the political sphere and also with investors in UK companies.
Consider, for example, from the media furore over banking bonuses and the 'shareholder spring', with the boards at Barclays, Aviva and Man Group protesting against pay awards for top executives and, in some cases, overturning them.
So on the face of it, there are multiple threats being posed to the sustainable growth of financial services as the UK's premier export. But do these threats translate as a problem for international financial centres (IFCs) firms with a presence in London? Firms with principal offices in jurisdictions such as Jersey, the Cayman Islands, the British Virgin Islands and Ireland have maintained a London presence throughout the recent financial tumult.
We will continue to do so and many believe that the case for London offices is growing stronger. Far from constituting problems, the development of emerging markets, increased regulation and the difficult economic climate in fact serve as motives to continue a London presence.
There are many factors that mean that London is well placed to take advantage of the boom in emerging markets and the shift of wealth from west to east.
With three out of the five truly global banks being based in the UK (HSBC, Barclays and Standard Chartered), the UK has a huge opportunity to structure transactions that bring investment to the UK and facilitate reciprocal investment and trade links.
These transactions can help rebuild banks' reputations and improve popular and political opinions. They can aid investment into the UK, boost export potential, and allow British companies to flourish. All hot topics on the agenda for those concerned about the UK economy.
But taking advantage of these opportunities often requires complex financial structuring. One key strength of IFCs is that they assist in the efficient and flexible use of capital in cross border deals. The neutral IFCs can facilitate corporate flows to assist in the creation of trade and economic growth and jobs.
New horizons
As the landscape of finance and financial regulation changes, we will see an increasingly complex and onerous regulatory burden for banks come into effect.
The shape and structures of transactions are likely to change to deal with this, while shadow banking can provide alternative routes to and sources of funding.
IFCs are well placed to help minimise the impact of these changes. Jurisdictions including Jersey, the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands are well regulated and easy to work with, and they are becoming more important to London-based financial institutions.
IFCs can provide insurance (through their captive insurance models) for strategically important risks and to fund illiquid assets. Through private equity leveraged loan arms created in the IFCs, leveraged finance can be made available.
Niche hedge funds and money market funds established in the IFCs can, meanwhile, take advantage of their greater capital flexibility in credit-constrained environments to provide low-cost liquidity and maximise investment returns for investors and in particular under-performing pension funds.
Benefits
There are opportunities in London for IFC firms. But do those firms need to be physically located here? There is clearly a huge wealth of talent in the City.
The expertise and quality of legal and financial services professionals in London is second to none, and many lawyers trained in London before, say, being admitted in the IFC jurisdictions.
In London, we are well placed to tap into that professional experience that comes from lawyers who have worked in some of the capital's major City firms.
With responsiveness being crucial in today's market, the central time zone location in the capital is also a key driver for offshore firms' choice of location.
Particularly on the types of transactions that Walkers often works on – cross-border, and across continents – that is extremely useful.
Law firms that deal in IFCs work both with London-based law firms that practice English law and also with London financial institutions and companies.
Having an office that is close by to these clients is valuable as it helps with the smooth running of the transactions – the ability to easily organise face-to-face meetings and move physical documents from organisation to organisation quickly.
In an email and digital obsessed world, there are still many instances where these are no substitute for face-to-face contact with clients and other business partners
But crucially, we find ourselves as part of the London world – moving in the same circles as our clients, attending the same events and sensitive to their concerns.
Being part of that community also gives us access to new business networks and we're available to meet with potential clients at the drop of a hat.
The physical proximity with financial institutions and London law firms leads to a proximity of understanding and appreciation of their businesses.
Although the Global Financial Centres Index ranks Eastern financial centres highly, London still sits as number one.
The capital is here to stay for the long term, it is robust and it is sustainable as a global financial centre – and we are glad to contribute.
Deborah Poole and Alexandra Corner are partners at Walkers.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSlaughter and May Leads As Government Buys Back £6 Billion of Military Homes
2 minute readLatAm Moves: DLA Piper Chile, Brazil’s Demarest Build Out Disputes Muscle
Kingsley Napley and Lord Pannick Spearhead Private Schools' Challenge to Government VAT Policy
Spain Loses Appeal as London Court Rejects Claim of Immunity in €101 Million Arbitral Award Enforcement
Trending Stories
- 1'It's Not Going to Be Pretty': PayPal, Capital One Face Novel Class Actions Over 'Poaching' Commissions Owed Influencers
- 211th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 3Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 4'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 5Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250