Can I Appeal a Personal Injury Judgment?

If a claimant feels that the outcome of their personal injury verdict is unjust, then they have the right to appeal the matter in a higher court. You’ll need to be ready to convince the appeals judge of the reasons why the law wasn’t used correctly the first time around. If you succeed in convincing the appeals judge, you’ll have successfully won the appeal.

Given that most personal injury claims are settled during litigation, personal injury appeals are rare occurrences. A personal injury lawyer in the Bronx can help you win your appeal; by working closely with professionals like them, you’ll be in the position to have your appeal received with integrity and honored to the highest standards of the court.

Personal Injury Appeals: An Overview

There are times when a verdict is seen as a miscarriage of justice or simply wrong. While our legal system has many advantages, it is far from perfect, and mistakes happen. Thankfully the legal system does include a network of Appeals courts. These courts allow our legal system to fix mistakes that can happen during the trial period.

Appeals are the stuff of bleak legal circumstances. At all costs, claimants and their attorneys should seek to avoid the need to file for an appeal.  Most appeals do not succeed, thus they should be avoided. They are the legal longshots. In the case of a personal injury claim, it’s better to avoid trial through litigation and subsequent settlement agreements.

When to Appeal

So, the trial is over, and the verdict isn’t in your favor. Now it’s time to consider filing for an appeal. There are two instances when proceeding with an appeal is the right thing to do:

  • When you can afford it
  • When not doing so will cause you great harm

Most scenarios like these are “nothing to lose” circumstances. Thus, filing for an appeal cannot hurt and should be done promptly according to legal protocols.

Strictly speaking, for personal injury appeals, the best reason to push for an appeal is that it gives your lawyers another chance to negotiate. If the verdict included a weak settlement, you could use an appeal to apply some pressure to the defense, which may result in a better settlement offer. This is how appeals can be used strategically in your favor.

Time Limits

Usually, you have between 30 and 60 days to file an appeal. For this reason, it’s best to file for an appeal as soon as a verdict comes out. Some lawyers have even been known to have appeal paperwork ready in advance before a trial verdict has come out.

Confirmation From Consultation

The decision to appeal comes after consulting with at least one reputable legal expert on the judgment. The attorney will then review the verdict and the case details to decide how an appeal is possible. If the attorney sees that the appeal has legs to stand on, then the process for filing the appeal can begin. Things can then move on to the next phase.

Regarding Representation

It is essential to keep in mind that appeals can be brought to the court using the same lawyer from your trial or a different lawyer. The decision to do either depends on the verdict’s details and the appeal.  It could also be the case that your attorney from the previous trial has a good relationship with the judge who will hear the appeal.

Generally speaking, if you had a trial lawyer with a good reputation who couldn’t secure a favorable verdict, you have a better chance of winning your appeal with an attorney that specializes in that area. It could even be the case that your lawyer refers you to another attorney who is an excellent appeals lawyer.

How to Appeal

After consultation with legal experts, a motion to appeal will be filed and presented to the court. The defense will file a motion to dismiss the appeal. The court must acknowledge the defense’s motion. Your attorney is then granted the opportunity to argue why the verdict against you was erroneous or unfair. The judge hears the appeal and has the final say.

Grounds for Appeal

Grounds for appeal are reasons why a case deserves a second look. They are the conflicts that your lawyer will say determine the verdict against you to be unfair or erroneous. Without sufficient grounds, an appeal cannot survive for very long before it is defeated.

It’s best to have multiple grounds for appeal. An appeal with only one conflict is too easy to defeat. Multiple grounds for an appeal also give multiple ways to win. Attorneys usually present between three and five grounds for appeal. In this way, things happen on a case-by-case basis.

Many different grounds for appeal can be brought to court. It depends on the details of the case and the verdict. Here are some of the reasons known to be part of personal injury appeals:

  • Misconduct on the part of the jury
  • Jurors were unqualified to serve on the jury
  • The prosecution somehow violated your rights
  • Evidence used against you was supposed to be inadmissible
  • The judge in the previous trial made an error
  • Evidence that would’ve helped you wasn’t allowed during the trial

What to Expect

Proceedings won’t look like they did in the trial. In the appellate court, your lawyer will make the case to the judge as to why they should overturn the last verdict. The judge is there to hear the case made by your attorney, and to decide if the verdict was unjust. If the judge agrees with your attorney and decides to overturn the verdict, your appeal has succeeded.

Something to keep in mind is that negotiations can continue during the appeals process. If things are going well with your appeal and the defense takes note, they’ll be keen to entertain a deal to keep from losing the appeal. Generally speaking, lawyers want to avoid a reputation for being ruled against in court. So if negotiations open up again, it’s usually in your favor.

How an Attorney Can Help

This is work reserved for knowledgeable legal professionals. With the right attorney, the verdict against you can become a verdict in your favor, but without one it’spractically impossible that your appeal will succeed. The guidance of legal professionals is there to help you regain normality in your life as quickly and seamlessly as possible.

Engaging in the appeals process without a lawyer is plain inadvisable. Winning an appeal is already hard enough with a lawyer. Most appeals don’t succeed because most judges will rule in favor of upholding the previous court’s decision. The tendency of judges to uphold previous verdicts is rooted in their agency as loyalists to the law.

Many details go into filing an appeal, and you will want to let your lawyer handle them personally. It is their business to understand deadlines, legal specifications, document details, and other aspects of the appeal.


Ashurst: What’s ahead: Key Milestones in Financial Services Regulation in Australia for 2023

The financial services regulatory landscape continues to undergo a number of significant changes. To help you stay on top of the key milestones, we have created a timeline of the changes throughout 2023.]

Our timeline maps out the dates for the commencement of new obligations, changes to existing ones, important reports and key enforcement matters.

We hope you find it a useful reference for the year ahead.

Please click the PDF (below) to view the Financial Services Regulatory Timeline.

Authors: Morgan Spain, Partner; John McKellar, Senior Associate; Kyle Dolbey, Lawyer; and Alyssa Croce, Paralegal.



In a changing world, our vision is to be a highly progressive global law firm. For over 200 years we have advised corporates, financial institutions and governments on their most complex transactions, disputes and projects. We offer the reach and insight of a global network, combined with the knowledge and understanding of local markets.

The firm has three leadership teams, the Board, Executive Team and Regional Leadership. The three teams work together to implement the firm’s strategy, financial performance, risk management, operational issues, as well as working to ensure excellent services to our clients and staff.

Our values

Our shared values help define our culture and drive the way we work with one another, our clients and wider stakeholders.

Cybersecurity and Data are Key Disputes Concerns in 2023 says New Survey from Baker McKenzie

  • 82% of respondents expect the number of disputes in 2023 to either stay the same or increase.
  • 62% of respondents expect cybersecurity and data disputes to present a risk to their organization in the coming year.
  • 58% of respondents expect ESG disputes to present a risk to their organization.
  • Over 85% of respondents are concerned about internal or external investigations.
  • The economic cycle is perceived to be the greatest external factor posing a disputes threat.
  • Only 22% of respondents felt fully confident or very confident in their organization’s level of preparedness for litigation.

New research from Baker McKenzie, surveying 600 senior legal and risk leaders from large organizations (annual revenue greater than USD 500 million) based in the UK, USA, Singapore and Brazil, has shown that 82% of respondents expect disputes volumes to stay the same or increase in 2023. The sixth annual edition of ‘The Year Ahead: Global Disputes Forecast’ also highlights disputes volumes in a variety of industry sectors. 90% of respondents in the Industrials, Manufacturing & Transportation (IMT) sector, 86% of respondents in the Financial Institutions sector and 85% of respondents in the Consumer Goods & Retail (CG&R) expect disputes volumes to stay the same or increase in 2023.

External Factors Posing Disputes Threats
Last year, COVID-19 was the greatest external factor posing a disputes threat, however concerns about the pandemic have now receded, and have been replaced with other anxieties around disputes. 45% of respondents see the economic cycle as posing the greatest threat to their organization in terms of increased exposure to disputes, whilst 38% saw stock market volatility as a key driver.

Other rising threat factors include the competitive environment (25%) and geo-political issues (24%). Amongst those citing geo-political issues, the dominant responses were around the US, Brexit and China, with Russia featuring lower down the list.

Claudia Benavides, the Global Chair of the Dispute Resolution practice at Baker McKenzie said, “As we have navigated the challenges of COVID-19, lockdowns, war in Europe and high inflation, it seems that uncertainty is the new certainty. New legal developments around the world have further complicated the commercial environment. In 2023, we expect to see corporations experiencing greater numbers of disputes mainly in the areas of cybersecurity & data, ESG, post-M&A issues and tax. Against this, our research shows that despite the risks, organizations still feel unprepared for litigation and should be encouraged to involve disputes practitioners as early as possible on matters as complex as those found in the cybersecurity, ESG and M&A sectors.”

Key Disputes Issues
1. Cybersecurity and data disputes

For the second year running, cybersecurity and data (62%) topped the list of dispute types presenting a risk. The perceived hazard was unsurprisingly highest in the Technology, Media and Telecommunications (TMT) industry, with 73% of respondents concerned about such disputes. Cybersecurity incidents involve financial, operational and reputational damage, and they are becoming ever more frequent. Ransomware attacks saw a 13% increase last year, with a move towards more sophisticated methods.

There is also a trend for attacks targeting non-personal data such as trade secrets and other commercial data. Other attacks ignore data altogether and target control systems. These may be against critical infrastructure systems, such as power generation, water treatment and food processing facilities.

Although the majority of data claims still relate to breaches that result from hacking, there is an expanding number of class action claims being pursued against business models that use data, including claims against proprietary databases that have value and can be licensed to others, cases around third-party cookies used for ad tracking, particularly against data brokers, and claims against services, such as social media sites, who employ data for other purposes, such as advertising.

Cyrus Vance, Global Chair of the Cybersecurity practice at Baker McKenzie said, “We are in a global cybersecurity pandemic, but without a vaccine. Unfortunately, the current forecast in cybersecurity favours the criminal and state-sponsored actor over society’s ability to fight them. And it’s not just about extracting money or data. These attacks serve to diminish trust in our most important institutions and sow fear and uncertainty across our population – one of the principal goals of our adversaries.”

2. Environmental, social and governance disputes

58% our respondents said that ESG disputes presented a risk to their organization in the coming year. The IMT sector (70% of respondents) perceived ESG disputes as the greatest threat closely followed by the EMI industry (69% of respondents). The general backdrop in the IMT sector is one of increasing enforcement from public authorities, and attention from shareholder activists. The specific risks are many, such as plastics and recycling claims which are ballooning against all members of the supply chain, particularly in the US.

Furthermore, concerns over governance disputes (36% of respondents) overtook environmental disputes (31% of respondents) for the first time this year. Governance disputes are about the way an organization is run. They may be based on broad legal duties, which effectively require directors to oversee in good faith the corporation’s compliance with relevant laws. Other broad duties include human rights legislation or anti-bribery and corruption rules.Environmental disputes remain high on the radar. Greenwashing disputes are on the rise, arriving on general counsel’s desks through a confusing array of regulatory and litigation routes, including advertising and antitrust regulators, consumer protection claims and securities litigation.

This area is dominated by concerns over climate change. The number of climate change cases continues to rise, spreading from the US to other jurisdictions. Industry trackers show that major new cases are emerging at a rate of around three per month. Many cases are brought by activists seeking disclosure of key information or to challenge climate policies.

3. Post-M&A disputes

With record volumes of global M&A deals in 2021, triggered by low costs of borrowing and high valuations post-COVID-19, many deals were done at speed and with limited due diligence. The likely consequence is that we will see a rise in post-M&A disputes, particularly as buyers try to recoup valuation gaps as deals underperform expectations in a challenging market. Sellers see reduced earn-outs and buyers see lower returns. Ultimately, they look for legal answers.

In the coming year, we expect to see a rise in post-closing contractual disputes, largely this will be seen through purchase price adjustments, but we also expect to see a rise in breach of representations and warranties claims both against Sellers and W&I insurers.  Typical claims against, indemnities will continue but we also expect to witness closer scrutiny of pre-close covenants, pre-contractual disclosure and post-closing cooperation provisions. We will also see related tortious claims, which take various forms in different jurisdictions but have at their core a wrongful act against shareholders.

Jannan Crozier, Global Chair of the M&A practice at Baker McKenzie said, “We would expect to see closing accounts as a primary area of post-closing M&A dispute as parties look to adjust value on deals. Sellers and insurers should be prepared for a rise in warranty claims and Buyers to defend against claims arising from non-payment of earn outs.  Parties should keep a good record of post-closing claim periods and preserve a good record of the transaction to facilitate in the defence or action of potential claims.”

4. Tax disputes

One in five (20%) of our survey respondents expected tax disputes to present a risk to their organization next year. The perceived risk is particularly high in the EMI sector (28%). Geographically, the figure was highest in Brazil (29%). We also found that expected risk was lower for relatively smaller or larger organizations but peaked for mid to large-sized firms with turnover in the USD 2 billion to USD 10 billion bracket.

We are seeing year-on-year increases in the number of tax disputes and audits being brought. This represents a significant challenge to organizations, stretching tax resources to respond to wide-reaching policy change.

Antonio Russo, the Global Chair of the Tax practice at Baker McKenzie said, “We are seeing year-on-year increases in the number of tax disputes and audits being brought. This represents a significant challenge to organizations, stretching tax resources to respond to wide-reaching policy change. This comes alongside a marked increase in the value of tax disputes, a trend that we expect to continue this year. While many organizations have grown through the pandemic, the financial position of many companies suffered. There remains the potential for large tax adjustments, including those relating to historic tax years due to a lag in audit periods, which represent significant challenges to tax payers’ financial performance.”

5. Employment disputes

Increased employee mobility and the tight job market, making it harder for employers to fill vacancies, are the major factors behind an uptick in restrictive covenant enforcement claims filed by employers, particularly across North America and the Asia Pacific region.

A number of risks result from the post-Covid return to the office. There is frequently a mismatch in employer and worker expectations around what hybrid working looks like in practice. Tensions between accommodating a desire for flexibility and establishing effective working relationships and culture are a potential breeding ground for employment disputes.

In North America and Europe, unions are becoming more active. The rise in industrial action, spurred on by the current economic climate and cost of living crisis, means we anticipate an increase in litigation between trade unions and employers, as well as against governments.

Michael Brewer, the Global Chair of the Employment and Compensation practice at Baker McKenzie said, “The mix of major employee layoffs, global labour unrest and workplace changes during the COVID-19 pandemic have created conditions ripe for a substantial increase in employment litigation in 2023.”

Amended Hong Kong Listing Rules on Share Schemes

Issued in July 2022, Hong Kong Stock Exchange’s conclusions to the earlier consultation on the amended listing rules regarding share schemes have been issued by the exchange following consultation. This article summarises the amendments that become effective on 1 January 2023.


Listed companies often incentivise employees and other eligible participants by non-cash means, including being linked to the value of company shares. Common types of share-based incentive schemes include:

  1. The company may grant options to participants for subscribing for new shares at a conversion price. If the market price of the shares rises above the conversion price, the participants may exercise those share options by paying the conversion price, and profit from the share price appreciation. The existing listing rules have a specific chapter governing share option schemes, including the conversion price – which has to be fixed at the market price level of the grant time – and the maximum amount of options subject to the scheme.
  2. Another type is a share award scheme, where the listed company purchases existing shares from the open market with its own money, and makes grants to participants who may or may not be required to pay for the shares.
  3. In recent years, more companies have set up share award schemes issuing new shares to participants.

The stock exchange realises the increasing popularity of types (2) and (3) of share schemes, and has decided to include them in the amended listing rules.


The mandate limit for all schemes together must not exceed 10% of the shares in issue. The limit can be refreshed after three years from shareholders’ approval of the scheme, or the last refreshment. The purpose is to control the dilutive effect of the schemes. Nevertheless, the stock exchange may grant a waiver to this 10% limit on a case-by-case basis, such as the listed company having a strategy to make large share grants to recruit or incentivise talent.


Share option schemes were supposed to reward officers and employees, but many listed companies have made grants to others including officers of their controlling shareholders and certain service providers. This wide diversity of participation aroused concerns of unjustified dilution to shareholders and conflicts of interest.

The amended listing rules require share schemes to have only three types of eligible participants, namely:

  1. Employee participants, being directors and employees of the listed company and its subsidiaries;
  2. Related entity participants, being directors and employees of the listed company’s holding companies, fellow subsidiaries and associated companies; and
  3. Service providers who provide services to the listed group on a continuing or recurring basis. They may be independent contracts where the continuity and frequency of their services are akin to those of employees. Placing agents and financial advisers providing advisory services for fundraising or mergers and acquisitions are ineligible, and so are auditors and valuers who provide assurance or services with impartiality and objectivity.


The listing rules will expect that each participant may only fully exercise the share options or obtain the shares after at least 12 months following the grants. However, grants to employee participants may be made with a shorter vesting period under specific circumstances set out in the scheme rules. This exception is not allowed for related entity participants or service providers.


Scheme rules will be required to describe the performance targets (if any) attached to options or awards, and to disclose the clawback mechanism (if any) to recover or withhold any awards or options granted. Where grants are made without performance targets and/or clawback mechanism, the board of directors or its remuneration committee must provide their views on the reasons for making such grants.


Shareholders’ approval is required if a grant is made to:

  1. An individual participant in excess of 1% of the shares in issue;
  2. A director (other than an independent non-executive director) or the chief executive of the listed company of awards which will result in shares issued (and to be issued) in all awards granted in the 12-month period representing more than 0.1% of the shares in issue; or
  3. An independent non-executive director, or a substantial shareholder of the listed company of awards or options, which will result in the shares issued (and to be issued) in all awards and options granted in the 12-month period representing more than 0.1% of the shares in issue.

When a grant is made, the listed company must make an announcement. Disclosure must be made on an individual basis for:

  1. A connected person;
  2. A participant with grants in excess of the 1% individual Limit; and
  3. A related entity participant or service provider with grants in excess of the above-mentioned 0.1% threshold;

The amendments include disclosure requirements in the listed company’s annual and interim reports, and the work performed by the remuneration committee in the corporate governance report.


The amended listing rules will become effective on 1 January 2023. Any share scheme to be adopted from this effective day onward must comply with the new rules. Grants may be made from that day under the pre-existing schemes, but only to the three types of eligible participants.


First published in October issue 2022 of China Business Law Journal.

Note: This material has been prepared for general information purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as professional advice for any cases. Should you need further information or legal advice, please contact us.

2023 Global M&A Transactions: Cautious Optimism Amid Challenging Outlook

2023 Global M&A Transactions

Despite the uncertain geopolitical landscape, inflationary pressure and rising interest rates we are cautiously optimistic for the varied opportunities the next 12 months will bring.

Our trends to monitor, compiled from data modelling by our research team and insights from global partners, include a strong year ahead for energy and infrastructure; hotspots of activity in the Middle East and Japan; renewed interest in digital assets; and further efforts by private equity funds to create value through complexity.

Key highlights:

  • USD3.7tn total financial sponsor dry powder at the end of November 2022, a new high. With syndicated leveraged debt hard to access, 2023 will see sponsors create value through more complex transactions such as carveouts or aggressively going after two or more complementary assets at the same time
  • +28% rise in Japanese M&A in H2 2022, one of the few markets globally to see an uptick. We expect robust activity in 2023 as Japanese corporates embrace sales and Japan’s central bank battles to control inflation
  • Crypto assets in North America are one-to-watch – crypto-related M&A volumes remained strong in 2022 and despite the FTX collapse we expect trading platforms to be among the most active buyers in coming months. We’re also seeing strong interest from consumer businesses looking to copy the success of brands such as Nike
  • USD192.4bn – total energy and power M&A in H2 to the end of November, making it the biggest sector by value. We expect a strong year in 2023 amid the ongoing energy crisis and drive to decarbonise production
  • The success of energy producers has a regional dimension, too, with the Middle East one of the most buoyant markets for both M&A and IPO activity in 2022. In the period to mid-November, private equity funds invested more than USD14bn in a record 64 buyouts in the region. We expect this trend to continue as, for example, gigaprojects in Saudi Arabia create significant opportunities for overseas investors

View the full report.

Linklaters Enhances Regional Dispute Resolution Practice with Zhao Sheng Law Firm Hire of Ellen Zhang

Linklaters’ China joint operation partner, Zhao Sheng Law Firm, today announced the hire of Ellen Zhang who joined as a partner in the firm’s Dispute Resolution practice, based in Beijing on 26 December 2022.

Ellen joins Zhao Sheng from Fangda Partners where she was a counsel in the dispute resolution practice, prior to which she worked at Kobre & Kim in New York.

Ellen is a PRC and New York law-qualified lawyer with extensive experience advising both Chinese and international corporations on complex commercial and financial disputes, cross-border investigations and regulatory compliance.

Linklaters’ Partner and Asia Head of Dispute Resolution Jelita Pandjaitan, commented:

“Ellen is a fantastic addition to our Asia dispute resolution team and expands our coverage of the important China market. Her extensive experience in advising both PRC and multinational corporate and financial institutions on their most complex cross-border, commercial disputes will benefit our clients in China and far beyond. Ellen is well-placed to guide clients in litigation, arbitration and investigations of all kinds in support of their strategic objectives.”


Our clients want a law firm they can trust, one that stands out for a commitment to investing in them and empowering our teams. We want to stand out for our distinctive Linklaters mind-set so our clients want to work with us above all others.

Delivering excellent client service and using our global capabilities to help them pursue the right opportunities means they benefit from long and lasting relationships.

To put clients at the heart of all we do, we recruit and develop exceptional people empowering them to do and think differently. We serve our clients as a team, with a common focus on innovation, efficiency and agility.

Eversheds Sutherland Advises on Complex Insurance Business Transfer

Eversheds Sutherland has advised China Taiping Insurance (UK) Co Ltd (CTI), a subsidiary of the Fortune Global 500 China Taiping Insurance Group, on a complex insurance business transfer scheme which utilised a saving provision introduced by the UK Government prior to Brexit.

The transfer comprised the assignment of China Taiping’s EU insurance business to a leading international insurance and reinsurance group, DARAG.

This provision allows so-called Part VII transfers that were begun prior to Brexit to be completed, subject to all elements of the transfer being concluded before the end of December 2022.

The Eversheds Sutherland team was led by insurance Partners Martin Mankabady and Adriana Cotter and comprised Partner Paula Gaddum (Insurance & Reinsurance) and Senior Associates Henry Dean (Financial Services) and Edward Moss (Insurance).

High Court approval for the business transfer was obtained on 28 November 2022, and took into account a number of factors including the impact of inflation and the war in Ukraine.

Martin Mankabady, Partner, Eversheds Sutherland, commented:

“We were delighted to support our long-standing and important client, China Taiping, on this transfer, which involved utilising a new and temporary legislative provision and represented unchartered territory. Considering the current economic and geo-political environment, we are proud to have delivered a deal which helps our client to focus on and invest in its UK activities whilst safeguarding the interests of policyholders.”

Adriana Cotter, Partner, Eversheds Sutherland, commented:

“We are thrilled to have delivered this highly strategic transition for China Taiping, one that will reinforce its foundations to support its ongoing growth and progress within its key markets.”

Weimin Zheng, Deputy General Manager, China Taiping, said:

“Eversheds Sutherland brought much welcomed clarity to an extremely complex process. The technical excellence they displayed, particularly in relation to the regulatory and transactional elements of the deal, was evident throughout. The team was diligent and professional in its approach and drew on deep sector knowledge and experience that was second to none.”


Pinsent Masons – Global Infrastructure Survey Seeks Views on Decarbonisation Agenda

Organisations operating in the infrastructure sector around the world have been asked to share their views on the opportunities and challenges associated with transitioning to and operating in the ‘green’ economy.

Contractors, suppliers, and infrastructure asset owners and operators are among the organisations encouraged to participate in the Pinsent Masons 2023 global infrastructure survey, along with governments, consultants, lenders, investors and technology providers.The survey asks participants about the opportunities and challenges for their organisation associated with the green transition and the global green economy.

Opportunities listed include growing revenues and profits, accessing new clients and markets, attracting talent and investors, and raising profile and brand reputation. Challenges listed include internal appetite to embrace the global green economy, accessing capital to support investment, supply chain readiness, litigation and data and intellectual property (IP) risks.

Participants are also asked to rate their organisation’s readiness and maturity to take advantage of the green transition and global green economy now and how they see that evolving over the next three years. Another question asks for views on what will help stimulate demand and growth for new green products and services.

The survey also seeks to capture organisations’ maturity in relation to climate-related reporting requirements under the framework developed by the Taskforce for Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), as well as attitudes towards the role of industrialised construction in supporting the green transition and global green economy.

Other questions in the survey encourage participants to think about how they expect the green transition and global green economy to affect the availability of people and resources, impact on the type of partnerships and joint ventures their organisation will enter into, on areas of investment, and whether the green transition will effectively reverse globalisation of supply chains.

EU member states have reached a deal on the world’s first carbon border tax aimed at supporting the EU transition to net zero by 2050 and applies to iron, steel, cement, aluminium, fertilisers, hydrogen and electricity generation. A trial period starts in October 2023 and includes many of the most commonly used construction materials and is set to bring about a rethink of construction and manufacturing supply chains, which typically include China and the US as well as other countries.

The survey comes at a time when policymakers and regulators around the world are imposing increasing regulation on businesses of all kinds aimed at implementing international commitments around addressing the climate crisis.

Graham Robinson of Pinsent Masons said: “The economic effects of inaction to climate change far outweigh the costs of mitigation. This can be seen from climate related weather events across all parts of the globe totalled $2.5 trillion in the decade from 2011 to 2020 and have grown significantly as reported by the World Economic Forum citing data from the AON Weather, Climate and Catastrophe Insight: 2020 Annual Report.”

“The infrastructure and built environment sectors are responsible for around 40% of all global greenhouse gas emissions and therefore the global green economy represents one the greatest opportunities to propel growth in the construction of new green infrastructure and adaptation of existing infrastructure,” he said.

“The size of this opportunity is attractive to other sectors such as the global tech and advanced industrialised sectors and will lead to very significant opportunities for construction to form strategic partnerships and joint ventures with other industries and sectors,” Robinson said.

Infrastructure expert Ian Laing of Pinsent Masons said: “The challenges include a rethink of the entire construction value-chain as the Covid pandemic has already forced organisations across the infrastructure sector to look at the resilience of supply chains. The green transition, including the new EU carbon border tax, will only accelerate this rethink as globalisation potentially grinds to a halt for construction and could go into reverse.”

The survey closes on 31 January 2023. Pinsent Masons will collate, anonymise and analyse the results from the survey and share them in a report and at a series of global infrastructure law review of the year events early next year.

Falsely Accused Of Domestic Violence? What Are Your Rights?

While false accusations of domestic violence can be difficult to accept at first, the accused should respond quickly to mitigate the impact of the claims. They’ll need a lawyer immediately to help fight the charges and seek justice in and out of court.

A person falsely accused of domestic violence would have to dispute it in court and prove innocence. If you find yourself in such a predicament, you should get a domestic violence Attorney on your side as soon as possible. If you’re the target of malicious abuse charges, you need to take note of your rights which are listed in this article.

Assaults committed against spouses are the most well-known examples of domestic violence. To commit domestic violence is to knowingly and purposefully inflict physical harm on another household member or to put that person in immediate and severe physical fear. Also, domestic violence includes a wide range of crimes like stalking or knowingly holding another person against their will and the law.

The accused has certain rights under the law that must be upheld until a judge or jury makes a decision on the case. Listed below are those rights.

  • Presumption of Innocence

The presumption of innocence in the American criminal justice system guarantees everyone a fair trial. Because of this presumption, an accused person is given the benefit of the doubt of being innocent until proven guilty. This means that the person isn’t presumed guilty of the alleged criminal act until the court issues a decision. 

  • Right Against Self-incrimination

No one should be coerced into giving evidence against themselves in a just court of law. Many constitutions and human rights treaties affirm this idea, so it’s important to take a broad view while applying it. Torturing an accused person to get a confession isn’t only wrong but illegal. When an accused person says he wants to stay quiet, anyone who tries to force him to change his mind should be charged with a crime. Using other unethical means (such as giving the accused psychoactive substances) to get him to testify against himself is also unacceptable.

  • Right To Remain Silent

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution says that people have the right to stay silent and that they can’t be forced to testify against themselves. Although under the Fifth Amendment, every individual has the right to remain silent, it’s not always used by those accused of a crime. 

Recognizing when a person falsely accused of domestic violence can invoke their right to silence under the Fifth Amendment is crucial. It’s a common misconception that they can invoke their Fifth Amendment rights in the case of an arrest. However, that’s not necessarily the case all the time. When a suspect is in police custody and being questioned, they have the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. If you’re wrongly accused of domestic abuse, you may choose not to say anything to the police until you’re given a lawyer.

  • The Legal Right to Retain Counsel

In a criminal case, the right to legal representation begins at arrest and continues through sentencing. A legal advocate can help the accused mount a strong defense in court.

In most cases, the accused is expected to cover the cost of his own legal representation. A low-income defendant may, nonetheless, be eligible for public defender services. Occasionally, the judge will appoint a public defender at no cost to the defendant. It’s also within the accused’s rights to represent himself in court without hiring an attorney. If this is the case, the judge can assist in ensuring a fair trial by, for instance, providing a concise summary of the proceedings. The court can provide the defendant with legal representation to ensure a fair trial as well.

  • Right To Have Access to a Fair Trial and Remedial Action

Any just legal system must respect the accused’s desire to be treated as an equal party in the case. The matter cannot be resolved if the accused isn’t given a voice in a criminal case. More than that, the accused should have the right to request that authorities collect and review any new evidence that can clear their name. This is the essence having one’s day in court. You need to be given a fair trial and access to actions that proceed as the case progresses. 

In Closing

Finally, consult a domestic violence attorney who has dealt with cases of fabricated domestic violence. Your attorney will have a firm grasp of the nuances of your situation and will be able to use it to your advantage. Always remember that you have a right to be presumed innocent, against self-incrimination, to remain silent, and access to justice.


White & Case Advises Copeba on Its Acquisition of Ned Stevens

Global law firm White & Case LLP has advised Cobepa SA, a leading Belgium-based independent private equity investor, on its acquisition of Ned Stevens, one of the leading gutter cleaning and home maintenance service providers in the United States, from AVALT.

Ned Stevens, which operates in 15 states and services more than 140,000 customers, provides gutter cleaning and other exterior residential services such as dryer vent cleaning, power washing, and window cleaning. The new investment will provide Ned Stevens with significant resources to continue its rapid growth.

The White & Case team was led by M&A partners Thierry Bosly (Brussels), Luke Laumann (New York) and Morgan Hollins (Houston), and included M&A partners Arnaud Cagi-Nicolau and Thomas Glauden (both in Luxembourg), associates Ty Akkoyun, Cristen Callan, Shirley Zhang (all in New York), Yasin Khan (Houston), Olivier Poinsignon and Morgane Bieber (both in Luxembourg); Antitrust partner Rebecca Farrington (Washington, DC) and associates Naari Ha (Washington, DC) and Cassandra Calderon (New York); White Collar/Investigations partner Eric Grannon (Washington, DC); Employment, Compensation & Benefits partner Tal Marnin (New York), counsel Aaron Feuer (New York) and associate Tyrone Crawford (Washington, DC); Real Estate partner Steven Lutt and associate Christian Berger (both in New York); Environmental & Climate Change partner Seth Kerschner (New York); Technology Transactions partner Arlene Arin Hahn and associates Jarrah Al-Buainain and Andie Reyes (all in New York); Data, Privacy & Cybersecurity partner F. Paul Pittman (Washington, DC) and associate Shira Shamir (New York); Tax partners David Dreier (New York) and Christophe Goossens (Luxembourg) and associate Grayson Weeks (New York); Foreign Direct Investment partners Farhad Jalinous and Karalyn Mildorf, and associate Tim Sensenig (all in Washington, DC); Debt Finance partner Justin Wagstaff, and associates Shana White and Arthur Nahas (all in New York); and Derivatives partner Ian Cuillerier (New York). Law clerks Elizabeth Mitreski and Thomas Boulger assisted on the matter.