Latham Advises DailyPay in Financing Deals

DailyPay, a leading financial technology company, has announced it has secured US$560 million of capital to fuel growth domestically, expand internationally, and further invest in product innovation. The funding is divided between a revolving credit facility provided by Barclays and Angelo Gordon, and new term loans from SVB Capital and a fund managed by Neuberger Berman.

DailyPay first announced a US$300 million revolving credit facility from Barclays in March 2022. The additional revolving credit facility capacity (US$100 million provided by Barclays and US$60 million from Angelo Gordon) provides DailyPay with more capital to service its ever-growing roster of clients. The up to US$100 million in term loans will be invested to fuel DailyPay’s continued product innovation and to accelerate growth.

Latham & Watkins LLP advised DailyPay in the term loan financing with a deal team led by Bay Area partner Haim Zaltzman and Los Angeles/Bay Area partner Elizabeth Oh, with associates Dan Ovadia and Tyler Davis. Latham also advised DailyPay in the US$460 million securitization transaction with a deal team led by New York partner Loren Finegold and Bay Area Partner Haim Zaltzman, with associate Maeve Chandler. Advice was also provided on tax matters for both financings by New York partner Elena Romanova, with associate Ron Moore.

Kirkland Advises Apex Group on Acquisition of Bank of America Custodial Services (Ireland)

Apex Group Ltd. (“Apex” or “The Group”), a global financial services provider, announces today the planned acquisition of Bank of America Custodial Services (Ireland) Limited (“BACSIL”), the Irish depositary business of Bank of America. Apex Group will acquire BACSIL through its subsidiary European Depositary Bank (“EDB”).

BACSIL is a depositary solution for onshore and offshore funds servicing a multitude of blue-chip clients consisting of UCITS, Alternative Investment Funds and offshore depo-lite fund structures, across a wide range of strategies. The BACSIL business, based in Dublin, provides depositary services to client assets of $71.4bn (as at December 31, 2022).

Apex Group’s existing depositary services delivered by EDB, support a range of regulated fund types, underpinned by top-tier technology and workflow systems. The addition of BACSIL deepens the delivery of Apex Group’s independent depositary services in Ireland, with the Group also offering depositary solutions in Luxembourg, UK, Malta, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands through its subsidiary European Depositary Bank (“EDB”) and specialist local entities.

BACSIL’s experienced and high-quality team will join Apex Group in Dublin, ensuring consistency of exceptional service levels for existing and future clients. As part of Apex Group, BACSIL’s clients will benefit from the simplicity and efficiency of a single relationship with a global service partner across the full value chain of their business; including custody, digital banking, fund administration, super ManCo and ESG Rating & Advisory solutions.

This is the latest in a series of strategic global acquisitions for Apex Group to broaden the geographical scope of depositary services in the European market with the addition of Darwin Depositary Services in the Netherlands.

Peter Hughes, Founder and CEO of Apex Group comments: “The addition of BACSIL continues our strategic priority of strengthening the local delivery of our independent depositary services in Europe. BACSIL’s clients will continue to receive all the existing solutions they require and a continuity of service, while also benefitting from access to our full range of global solutions. We look forward to welcoming BACSIL’s clients to the Group, with our single-source model removing the necessity for multiple service provider relationships, delivering efficiency and flexible solutions to all operational requirements of regulated funds.”

Transaction close is subject to customary conditions, including regulatory approvals expected to be granted in 2023. Terms of the transaction are undisclosed.

Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Arthur Cox LLP served as legal counsel to Apex Group, Macquarie Capital acted as financial advisor.

About Apex Group

Apex Group Ltd., established in Bermuda in 2003, is a global financial services provider. With over 80 offices worldwide and 11,000 employees in 38 countries, Apex Group delivers an expansive range of services to asset managers, financial institutions, private clients and family offices. The Group has continually improved and evolved its capabilities to offer a single-source solution through establishing the broadest range of services in the industry; including fund services, digital onboarding and bank accounts, depositary, custody, super ManCo services, corporate services including HR and Payroll and a pioneering ESG Ratings and Advisory solution. Apex Group’s purpose is to be more than just a financial services provider and is committed to driving positive change to address three core areas; the Environment and Climate Change, Women’s Empowerment and Economic Independence, Education and Social Mobility.

About European Depositary Bank

European Depositary Bank (“EDB”) was founded in 1973 in Luxembourg. It was originally established as a subsidiary of Hamburg based private bank M.M.Warburg & CO (AG & CO) KGaA and was acquired by Apex Group Ltd (“Apex”) in 2019. EDB is supported by Apex’s strong global network of over 50 offices worldwide in addition to its extensive European presence with circa 2,000 employees across the region and is one of the largest providers of depositary services in Europe for regulated UCITS and alternative funds with over $160bn Assets under Depositary (as of September 30, 2022).

About Bank of America Custodial Services (Ireland) Limited

BACSIL is a limited liability company operating since 2007 and is incorporated under the laws of Ireland and authorised under Section 10 of the Investment Intermediaries Act, 1995 (as amended) and is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland to undertake custodial operations involving the safekeeping of specified investment instruments. BACSIL provides custody and depositary related services to collective investment schemes established in a range  of jurisdictions. The Depositary is incorporated in Ireland with registration number 430806 and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation. Bank of America Corporation stock (NYSE: BAC) is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.

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.”

Pressing Charges After An Assault: An Essential Guide

If you’ve been the victim of an assault, you have the right to file a lawsuit against the offender. Pressing charges against them can ensure you get fair compensation and that they will be held accountable for their actions. Assault is a federal criminal offense in the United States.   

It might seem intimidating to begin a legal process, especially if you fear for your safety or that you may face retaliation. However, you can follow a standard procedure and learn more about it to understand better how to approach your case and what to expect.   

You can begin by reading this essential guide for pressing charges after an assault.  

What Is An Assault Charge?  

Pressing charges means filing an assault case against an offender who has assaulted you. This is the first step in the process of pursuing an assault charge. Thus, your role is to report the assault, and it’s ultimately up to the prosecutor to decide whether or not to charge the offender. 

This may leave you wondering, “is it worth pressing charges for assault?.” The best way to seek justice through the law is to do so; therefore, the answer is yes. A criminal case can result in the offender doing jail time, paying a penalty fee, or undergoing court-ordered rehabilitation or probation.  

In a civil case, for instance, monetary compensation is sought from the offender to cover medical expenses for assault injuries, loss of wages, and emotional trauma.    

What Are The Types Of Assault?   

Assault is a criminal offense classified into various categories to determine the punishment that goes with it in each state. Whether the charges you file against an offender will be dropped depends on the distinctions between what constitutes assault and how the exceptions of self defense laws in NC will be applied. 

As a general definition, assault is any act or threat of physical violence committed against another person with the intention of harm. Here are some of its most common types:   

  • Simple assault: This is an attempted assault or threat. The offender intends to carry out threats of physical harm, and the victim has a reasonable case to fear for their safety.   
  • Aggravated assault: This is when an offender has inflicted physical violence on a victim by hand or with a weapon and has caused them serious injuries that need medical attention.   
  • Sexual assault: The offender has committed a physical and non-consensual sexual act against a victim. It also applies to individuals unable to consent to sexual contact.   
  • Domestic violence: An offender has caused harm to their spouse, intimate partner, or family member through physical force and attack.   
  • Assault with intent to kill: An assault charge where the offender has inflicted physical violence onto a victim with the intent to kill. This assault charge can be coupled with an attempted murder charge.   

The assault conviction can either be a misdemeanor or a felony charge, depending on the above case conditions. For instance, if weapons are used and if the victim is disabled or a minor, the penalties are at their most severe.   

How To File An Assault Case   

To begin pressing charges, you need to visit or call your local police station to inform them that you want to press assault charges against an offender. The police will then give you a form to fill out or interview you; this is a report where you provide information and the details of the assault.  

Questions include your name as the victim and the offender’s name, address if you know it and how and when the events of the assault occurred, and any witness statements. From here, the law enforcement officers and a prosecutor will review and investigate your case.  

While waiting for your review, you should consult a lawyer with experience in personal injury cases, as they can help you navigate and understand legal matters and possible court proceedings.   

The Assault Prosecution Process   

Once law enforcement has handed your case to a prosecutor, they will examine the evidence and strength of the case and decide whether to move forward and charge the offender with assault.  

Therefore, it’s essential to include as much evidence and witnesses as possible. You can submit pictures of your injuries and corroborating statements that support your version of events if you’re in the right emotional state to present them.   

Suppose the prosecutor believes there’s sufficient evidence to support a conviction. In that case, they will issue an arrest warrant to detain the offender until they post bail or appear in court to plea. The results of this trial will determine if the offender will be charged with criminal assault and given the due penalties.   


You can press charges against an offender by reporting it to your local police. The law enforcement officers will take your statement, witnesses, and details of what happened to a persecutor’s office for investigation.   

Then if your case is pursued, your offender could be charged with a specific type of assault. Since assault is a criminal offense, the offender could face jail time or pay you compensation if convicted, among other punishments as stated by the law.   

Blood And Alcohol Testing For Solicitors: A Complete Guide

The parent’s rights to visitation or custody of the child are frequently at issue in care proceedings. As such, the court regularly orders drug or alcohol testing in care proceedings. If the court thinks substance abuse has interfered with a party’s life, it may require drug and alcohol testing. These results often influence a parent’s right to visitation or custody.

Most of the time, clients and solicitors get tested for drugs and alcohol in testing facilities such as Lextox Testing to present evidence of the clients’ sobriety in court. So what’s the process for blood and alcohol testing in these cases?

Techniques For Detecting Alcohol Use

A testing facility often analyses alcohol usage history with blood, hair or urine samples. Here are ways how facilities detect alcohol or drug usage with these samples:

Hair Test

Alcohol intake leaves telltale signs in the hair. These signs include fatty acid ethyl ester (FAEE) ethyl palmitate and ethyl glucuronide (EtG). Combining EtG and FAEE tests allows testers to determine how long-term alcohol use can affect your health adversely. Simultaneously, hair analysis can tell how much alcohol the individual drank three to six months before the test.

Blood Test

A blood test can also determine if someone has used alcohol or narcotics recently, usually within the last few hours. Due to its high cost, blood testing sees little use. The medical technician draws blood from the patient’s arm or the tip of their finger. They then send the sample to the lab for analysis.

Urine Test

Urine testing measures ethanol in the urine. If the donor consumed alcohol in the previous 24 hours, the test would show a positive result.

Fermentation tests are performed afterwards on all positive samples. This test rules out the possibility of samples contaminated with alcohol or another substance and rules out a medical cause for the positive result.

Drug And Alcohol Testing For Solicitors

A positive or negative drug test record can be the deciding factor in a family law matter. Specially designed drug testing procedures can find alcohol, illegal drugs and even some legal medications. Because of this, regulatory agencies sometimes require drug and alcohol tests before making important decisions.

In family law, children’s law and child protection cases, solicitors use blood and alcohol tests to determine if parents have been using drugs for months. A blood and alcohol test can give vital evidence for making informed judgments in various situations, including residence and contact settlements, adoption and guardianship and social services participation.

How Does A Blood Or Alcohol Test Work?

Solicitors’ offices are the typical sites for collecting samples for analysis. These meetings can occur at a contact centre or a client’s home. An experienced nurse or other certified professionals must take the sample.

The nurse or certified professional usually takes a hair sample from the nape of your neck. But arm and leg hair, fingernails and urine could be used instead of head hair if head hair isn’t available or if you meet certain circumstances.

Though hair on different body parts grows at varying rates, the average growth rate for head hair is about 1 centimetre each month. This means that, depending on the hair sample length, the testing facility can establish drug use over a specific period. Hair analysis can reveal a person’s drug and alcohol use for the past year. 

Blood Analysis Results

Analysis of Mean Corpuscular Volume (MCV) is part of the haematology report (whole blood count). The facility can gauge the amount of alcohol a person has consumed by measuring the size of their red blood cells. Consistent and excessive alcohol consumption causes these cells to swell to abnormal proportions. Consequently, a high haematocrit level may be indicative of chronic alcohol abuse.

Biology Lab Report

Liver function testing (LFT) and carbohydrate-deficient transferrin (CDT) testing are part of the biochemistry analysis. The LFT checks the levels of liver enzymes in the blood. 

If a marker level is outside the normal range, it could affect how well the liver works. A high transferrin concentration (CDT) may indicate alcoholism in people who don’t consume carbs. When chronic heavy drinking is the root cause of abnormal LFTs, the CDT research looks at a period of about two weeks.


Solicitors and testing facilities must get the client’s permission before any testing occurs. Unless compelled by a court of law, third-party consent must be in place to meet GDPR standards while working with a private client. As a result, the testing laboratory must let its clients sign a third-party consent form. If laboratories have this information, they can talk to licensed solicitors about the next drug or alcohol test.


Drug testing could play a significant part in any legal case involving parental rights, child custody or domestic violence. If your client is willing to get tested for drugs, you should also be aware of the likelihood of drug use by anyone living in the same house as your client. The more prepared you are, the better your client’s chances of winning their case.

Corporate and Commercial Law – Stay Informed on Recent Legal Developments across 37 Jurisdictions

We are pleased to present the latest edition of EY Corporate and Commercial Law global update.  The articles in this global update reflect the global reach and diversity of EY Law services, from corporate law to civil law and commercial law to regulatory aspects across 37 jurisdictions, covering Western Europe, Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe and Asia-Pacific.


HONG KONG (page 22)

Revised Hong Kong listing regime for foreign issuers

The Hong Kong Stock Exchange enacted on 1 January 2022 a revised regime for issuers incorporated in any foreign jurisdictions. Previously, listing applicants had to be incorporated in recognized jurisdictions (Hong Kong, Mainland China, Cayman Islands and Bermuda) or in jurisdictions accepted by the Stock Exchange. The new regime removes the distinction between recognized and acceptable jurisdictions. All issuers now have to meet the core standards of shareholder protection, which cover different aspects including directors, proceedings at shareholders’ general meetings, variation of rights, amendment of constitutional documents, auditor appointment, removal and remuneration, proxies and corporate representatives, inspection of branch register, and voluntary winding up.

Such protections should be set out in the issuer’s constitutional documents unless the relevant domestic laws and regulations provide the same protections. Existing listed issuers must fully comply with the new core standards or make necessary amendments to their constitutional documents by their second annual general meeting following 1 January 2022.The new regime introduces a revised Chapter 19C in the Main Board Listing Rules to consolidate secondary listing requirements for overseas issuers primary listed on a qualifying exchange (i.e., New York Stock Exchange, Nasdaq or Main Market of the London Stock Exchange).

The new Chapter 19C also sets out the eligibility for dual primary listing by a Grandfathered Greater China Issuer (i.e., an overseas issuer with its center of gravity in Greater China primary listed (a) on a qualifying exchange on or before 15 December 2017 or (b) on a qualifying exchange after 15 December 2017 but on or before 30 October 2020, and controlled by corporate beneficiaries as of 30 October 2020 under a weighted voting rights structure) and a Non-Greater China Issuer with a weighted voting rights or variable interest entity structure that does not meet the usual primary listing requirements.

By Rossana Chu (, Fai Li (

LC Lawyers LLP is an independent law firm. It is a Hong Kong law firm member of the global EY network, in collaboration with other law firm members.


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.

Edwin Coe Advises on UK Acquisition for Xynergy Groupe SAS

Edwin Coe is delighted to announce that it has advised Xynergy Groupe SAS, an European leader in the production health products and provision of health programmes based in France, on its acquisition of a majority interest in Jane Plan, a UK leader in the weight loss industry.

Edwin Coe’s cross-practice team was led by Corporate Partner, Alexandre Terrasse, along with Nilufar Shahpanahi (Corporate Associate) and members of our EmploymentProperty, Intellectual Property and IT teams. Alexandre commented “We are pleased to have had the opportunity to work with Xynergy Groupe, and delighted that the success of the transaction will allow them to move forward with their plans in the UK.

London-based Jane Plan offers bespoke diet food delivery programmes, which are portion and calorie controlled, supported by psychological support and guidance from a team of nutritionists and behaviour change psychologists.

About Edwin Coe

Edwin Coe LLP is a full service law firm based in the heart of London’s historic legal district in Lincoln’s Inn. Founded in 1913, we have grown from our litigation origins to become a thriving and dynamic practice, providing a comprehensive range of legal services to meet the needs of a wide variety of businesses, individuals and organisations based throughout the UK and internationally.

With 44 Partners, we are ranked 115 in the 2021 edition of The Lawyer ‘UK 200’ law firms and are recommended in all the major legal directories. We provide clients with innovative, tailored and integrated legal services and combine a highly personal and responsive service with industry leading expertise.

Agency, Distribution, Franchise and Licence Agreements – what are they?

Do you want to start or expand your business and need advice on which approach is best?

Kuldeep Clair, the most experienced solicitor at Sterling Law, looks at the differences between various types of commercial agreements.

For many companies, considering whether to establish an agency, distribution or franchise relationship, the differences between these expansion models may not always be immediately clear.

Whereas an agent acts as a facilitator for contracts between the business and the customer, distributors buy from the business to sell to their own customers – while franchisees essentially run a near-identical copy of the franchisor’s business in a new location while paying for the right to use the branding and intellectual property.

When looking to expand, it can be difficult to know which approach is the best for your business. In this guide, we will look at what each type of relationship entails, and the legal considerations that come along with them.

What is an Agency Agreement?

An Agency Agreement allows a business (the principal) to gain access to new customers through the services of an agent.

For example, an agent might be sought for their specialist expertise with a certain market (perhaps allowing them to negotiate contracts in a different geographical location on behalf of the principal).

The standard contents of an Agency Agreement generally include:

  • Detailed descriptions of the roles and responsibilities for both the agent and the principal
  • The level of authorisation and autonomy granted to the agent
  • How and when payments are made
  • Rules for protecting sensitive information and/or trade secrets
  • Whether the agent’s rights will be exclusive
  • How the Agreement works with respect to termination or breaches
  • Non-compete clauses (‘restrictive covenants’)

It is important to note that Agency relationships in the UK are subject to the Commercial Agents Regulations of 1993. This means that:

  • Agents have a legal right to have their Agreement in writing
  • The principal must pay the agent a reasonable commission if a fee or percentage was not agreed earlier
  • There are important rules around when commission should be paid (and on which transactions)
  • Minimum notice periods exist for termination of indefinite Agency Agreements
  • Agents have a right to receive either compensation or an indemnity if terminated

Appointing an agent is often a very good and sensible move for a business looking to expand its boundaries without the expense of establishing an additional office and hiring staff in the new location. However, there is a downside in that the principal may end up accepting liability for something the agent does if they overstep their authority or make a mistake.

What is a Distribution Agreement?

In a distribution relationship, a distributor buys goods from the supplier and sells them on to their own customers (adding a margin to the sale price for profit).

The terms of this arrangement will usually be laid out in a Distribution Agreement. These Agreements can come in many forms, but will generally include:

  • Territory – where the distributor can sell the products
  • Provisions about how the distributor can promote products through different channels – including internet sales and promotion
  • Minimum purchase obligations for the distributor
  • Limits on the types of goods the distributor can sell
  • Provisions preventing the distributor from selling competitor products
  • Provisions protecting the supplier’s intellectual property such as trademarks
  • Rules around the prices they will be charged and which they can charge their customers
  • Clauses covering termination and limiting liability

On the face of it, these Agreements may seem somewhat similar to Agency Agreements. However, the distributor relationship is quite different – the distributor deals on their own behalf with the end customer, and no liability or responsibility for their transactions is passed onto the supplier, other than product liability for faulty goods.

There are several different types of Distribution Agreements:

  • Exclusive rights: This means that the distributor will be the only entity permitted to sell the products in their region. The supplier is not allowed to take on other distributors or sell their own products in this location.
  • Sole rights: The supplier can sell their own products in the territory, but is not able to appoint any other distributors.
  • Non-exclusive rights: The distributor can be one of many selling the products in their location, and the supplier can appoint others (as well as seek their own sales).
  • Selective distributorship: This means that the supplier can only appoint more distributors if certain criteria are met.

Unlike terminating an agency relationship, ending a distribution deal doesn’t legally incur any requirement to pay compensation or indemnity. However, the company will generally have less control over the activities of a distributor than it would an agent.

What is a Licence Agreement?

Licence Agreement is a legal contract that sets out the terms of a deal between a licensor and a licensee granting the licensee the right to use certain knowledge and intellectual property rights of a licensor.

This allows the licensee to use intellectual property such as trademarks and know how developed by the Licensor in their business. It allows the Licensor to benefit from passing the knowledge they have developed on to a wider network of businesses. It may or may not include the right to sue certain trademarks and brand assets.

Some of the terms commonly found in Licence Agreements of this type are:

  • Licence fees and royalties
  • Provisions protecting use of trademarks and other intellectual property
  • The duration of the agreement and provisions for termination

What is a Franchise Agreement?

Franchise Agreement is a legal contract which is essentially a more comprehensive form of Licence Agreement that sets out the terms of a deal between a franchisor and a franchisee. Essentially, it grants a franchisee the right to run their own business using the concept and brand assets of a franchisor.

This allows the franchisee to enjoy the advantages of operating under an established brand name, while the franchisor is able to extend the reach of their business and reputation to a new location.

Some of the items commonly found in a Franchise Agreement often include:

  • Franchise fees and royalties
  • The franchisee’s responsibilities towards marketing the business
  • How training will be organised
  • The rules and expectations around ‘trade dress’ (such as use of logos, decor, staff uniforms, and so on).
  • Procurement and supplies – such as whether the franchisee will be expected to buy only from the franchisor, or if they will have autonomy to make their own arrangements
  • Staff and HR policies
  • The duration of the agreement and provisions for termination

There is no specific legislation in the UK to cover franchising, so these agreements are generally governed by contract law, intellectual property legislation, and other areas.

Franchise agreements can be a good way to grow presence for the franchisor’s business in new locations and generate income. However, they may require considerable investment up front for expenses such as market research, financial projections, franchisee operating manuals, and also the cost of preparing the necessary infrastructure to get the franchise operations running effectively (such as establishing strategies for stock management, accounting, tax handling, and so on).


Many think that franchising and licensing are same, but the fact is that they are different, only the advantages of franchising are similar to those of licensing. The first and foremost difference between licensing and franchising are that the former is mainly associated with the production and marketing of goods while the latter is related to the service business.

While they might be quite different, Agency Agreements, Distribution Agreements, Licence Agreements and Franchise Agreements are all good possibilities when looking to expand your business to a new territory.

Each type of document has its nuances and considerations, but by enlisting expert legal help you can be sure you have the right contract for your needs.

Still quite confused? This is a complex topic. Please contact me for a free initial chat to discuss further on 07484 614090 or

Kuldeep S. Clair, Solicitor of the Senior Courts of England and Wales

Kingsley Napley Contributes to Significant Law Commission Criminal Justice Reform Project

The Law Commission has today published its long-awaited recommendations for reform of the UK’s post-conviction confiscation regime.

Work on the project began in November 2018, after the Home Office asked the Law Commission to review the regime found in Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

After carrying out its initial work, the Commission published a consultation paper in September 2020. Kingsley Napley was asked to contribute at an early stage of the project, and was one of only three solicitors’ firms to provide a formal response to the paper. Partner Nicola Finnerty, legal director Gemma Tombs and associate Alfie Cranmer made up the firm’s working group, drawing on their extensive experience in acting for individuals in confiscation proceedings.

The Commission’s 642-page final report on the project sets out a number of important recommendations with the common goal of improving the efficiency and efficacy of the regime, under the updated statutory headline of “depriving defendants of their benefit from criminal conduct, within the limits of their means.” Kingsley Napley’s contributions to the project have featured widely in the report, which contains recommendations aiming to:

  • speed-up confiscation proceedings by establishing strict timetables for hearings;
  • give courts the power to impose so-called contingent enforcement orders along with making a confiscation order;
  • strengthen the restraint order framework, including by codifying the “risk of dissipation” test;
  • strengthen law enforcement agencies’ responses;
  • update the provisions that factor in a defendant’s criminal lifestyle when assessing their benefit from crime;
  • give greater consideration to the defendant’s ability to pay an order; and
  • create more flexible tools for judges when drawing up orders.

The Law Commission’s full and summary reports can be downloaded from this web page. The consultation paper is available by clicking here and you can read Kingsley Napley’s response to the paper here. You can find out more about our white collar and financial crime practice by clicking here.

Dentons Strengthens UK Corporate Practice with Hire of M&A Partner in London

London—Dentons, the world’s largest global law firm, has hired an M&A partner into its UK Corporate practice.

James Vernon is experienced in both public and private M&A, joint ventures, corporate governance and corporate advisory work. He focuses on premium mid-market work covering international cross-border M&A for major corporates, private equity and institutional investors, and is an expert in public company takeovers. James joins from Eversheds Sutherland where he was a legal director in the corporate department, having previously practised at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer.

‘James’ experience of complicated, cross-border deals working with multi-disciplinary teams in multiple jurisdictions aligns exactly with the “Golden Thread” pillar of our five-year strategy, which is about supporting corporates across practice areas, sectors and geographies,’ said UK, Ireland and Middle East CEO Paul Jarvis.

‘Bringing in an experienced M&A partner so early in the year demonstrates the seriousness of our intent to support our clients on their most complex matters, as we anticipate increasing activity for domestic and cross-border M&A at the premium end of the mid-market in the year ahead,’ said Head of UK Corporate Neil Nicholson.

Recent deals for Dentons’ UK Corporate practice include advising:

About Dentons

Dentons is designed to be different. As the world’s largest law firm with 20,000 professionals in over 200 locations in more than 80 countries, we can help you growprotectoperate and finance your business. Our polycentric and purpose-driven approach, together with our commitment to inclusion, diversity, equity and ESG, ensures we challenge the status quo to stay focused on what matters most to you.