Posts

Why Vietnam Has Become Appealing for US Businesses in Asia

  • Vietnam and the United States celebrated 25 years of diplomatic relations in July this year – a testament to improving bilateral and economic ties since the Vietnam War.
  • Vietnam has emerged as an ideal alternative manufacturing destination to China for US businesses, in part due to the US-China trade war and disrupted supply chains due to the coronavirus pandemic.
  • Vietnam Briefing discusses trends in the Vietnam-US relationship, growing economic ties, and how US businesses can leverage and benefit from moving their production to Vietnam.

Following four decades since the end of the Vietnam War, Vietnam’s relationship with the US has changed significantly.

After the Vietnam War in 1975, the US and Vietnam announced normal diplomatic relations on July 11, 1995. This year in July, the US and Vietnam commemorated 25 years of diplomatic relations – with the US congratulating Vietnam on its ASEAN chairmanship and reaffirming its support for Vietnam including peaceful resolution of disputes, rule of law, freedom of navigation, and unimpeded commerce among others.

Since formalizing diplomatic relations, the US and Vietnam have strengthened their relationship with bilateral trade increasing from US$450 million in 1994 to US$77 billion in 2019. The US had become Vietnam’s largest export market with Vietnam becoming the US’ quickest growing export market.

Vietnam launched major economic reforms known as ‘Doi Moi’ in 1986, prioritizing building a market economy and creating opportunities for private-sector competition. With a growing population, this presented a sizeable investment for international businesses. The US and Vietnam worked for several years negotiating a bilateral trade agreement, which came into force in 2001.

The deal helped lift several non-tariff barriers while lowering tariffs on a variety of goods on an average between three and 40 percent including on agricultural, animal products, and electronics. Vietnam was also granted the most favored nation (MFN) status, which was important to become a part of the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Former US President Barack Obama pushed for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – a free trade agreement (FTA) involving ASEAN countries as well as the US and Australia. Vietnam was seen to be one of the biggest beneficiaries of this FTA, gaining access to the US market. However, all this came to a halt in 2017, when current US President Trump, disbanded the deal, claiming it would undermine US businesses and jobs.

Nevertheless, Vietnam and 10 other countries went ahead without the US and signed the Comprehensive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) in March 2018. Despite the setback, bilateral trade between the US and Vietnam has grown and analysts expect the trade relationship between the two countries to continue thriving.

Positive relationship but not without its setbacks

Nevertheless, there are challenges. In 2019, Trump in an interview said that Vietnam was “almost the single worse abuser of everybody,” prompting concerns from investors that Vietnam’s favorable relationship with the US was over. Trump has also complained about the US trade imbalance with Vietnam. Vietnam’s trade surplus with the US had grown to US$600 million, according to a Bank of America Merrill Lynch study.

The US in May 2018 imposed duties on Vietnamese steel products that originated in China. Earlier in December 2017, the US imposed duties on steel products specifically on Vietnam that originated from China as they evaded anti-dumping rules. Most recently, on August 25 this year, the US Treasury Department determined that Vietnam manipulated its currency in 2019, possibly opening the door to tariffs.

Apart from this, the US has pointed to other barriers to trade including inadequate intellectual property protections and food safety regulations, restrictions on the internet and digital economy, and other governance issues.

Security relationship adds stability to improving bilateral ties

In 2018, the USS Carl Vinson – a US Navy aircraft carrier – made a historic port of call in Vietnam. That same year, Vietnam also participated for the first time in the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) – a maritime military exercise hosted biennially by the US. The US lifted a ban on legal arms sales to Vietnam in 2016; both countries have been forging closer military ties and high-level military exchanges.

For Vietnam, this has been to oppose China’s assertive stance in the region, particularly in the South China Sea. Building upon this relationship, Hanoi was also picked for the of the US-North Korea summit in February 2019, further cementing Vietnam’s stature on the world stage.

Alexander Vuving, an expert on Asia security at the US Defense Department Institute said that “Vietnam holds a key to the regional balance of power”. If this view is shared by the US, it will continue to have a positive and budding relationship with Vietnam, particularly if Vietnam is seen as a counter to China.

It’s ‘advantage Vietnam’ while US-China trade dispute lingers

The trade dispute between the US and China has had a cascading effect on Vietnam. Vietnam’s exporters have seen an increasing demand for their products, especially garments and textiles. Vietnam has emerged as an alternative to China for investors benefitting from the China plus one strategy that involves investors shifting or expanding to other countries to increase market access.

It is important to note that this was already happening, but the trade war accelerated the process. Dustin DaughertyHead of North American Desk for Dezan Shira & Associates says, “Even prior to the start of the US-China trade war and more recently the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, Vietnam offered the most cost-competitive China alternative for general manufacturing in Asia.

Noted advantages such as a relatively efficient and stable governing structure, regulatory and some cultural familiarity for companies accustomed to doing business in China, highly competitive labor costs, business-friendly tax profile along with generous incentives, and proximity to pre-existing Asian supply chains all recommended Vietnam for foreign investors. These advantages have coupled with significant developments this year to further strengthen Vietnam’s competitive allure for FDI, especially for US business.”

Driven by rising labor costs, the need for diversification and the government’s focus shifting from labor-intensive sectors to high-tech industries, US firms operating in China have slowly shifted their manufacturing activities to Southeast Asia, especially Vietnam.

Vietnam US growing trade over the years

Due to its geographic proximity, lower wages, skilled labor, trade agreements, and regional connectivity, Vietnam has emerged as one of the most preferred alternatives for manufacturers. Major US firms such as Apple, Intel, Qualcomm, Universal Alloy Corporation (UAC), Nike, and Key Tronic EMS have already moved production lines to Vietnam due to costs associated with the trade war.

All these factors have helped increase trade between both countries since the normalization of diplomatic relations.

  • Vietnam exports to the US (2019): US$61.35 billion
  • Growth (compared to 2018): 29.1 percent
  • Share in total exports: 23.2 percent
  • Vietnam imports from the US: US$14.37 billion
  • Growth (compared to 2018): 12.7 percent
  • Share in total imports: 5.7 percent

Vietnam’s trade with the US grew at the fastest rate in 2019 at 23 percent compared to 2018.

Top exports to the US from Vietnam include:

  • Phones and spare parts;
  • Computers, electronic products, and components;
  • Garments and textiles;
  • Agricultural products; and
  • Footwear.

Vietnam US trade in 2019

COVID-19 and FDI: How has Vietnam fared?

Vietnam has garnered international praise for its swift and effective response to the COVID-19 outbreak. Vietnam fought the pandemic early, closed its border to foreigners, and imposed social isolation measures on April 1. It lifted these measures on April 22, reopening its economy for business. A recent outbreak in Da Nang showed that Vietnam is not shy and imposed a lockdown on the city to get a grip on additional cases.

Although the country is not immune to the global economic downturn, its prospects for recovery remain positive and are the brightest among Asian countries. This view was also shared by the financial service firm UBS in a research note. In the first half of the year, Vietnam recorded 1.81 GDP growth. Despite being modest, these rates are encouraging considering that Vietnam is one of few countries that achieved positive net growth during the pandemic.

Vietnam’s control of the pandemic and its continued growth has further cemented its position as a safe business environment compared to others. And US businesses have noticed. Apple has planned to shift significant production of its products including its AirPods to Vietnam.

US businesses seek alternative production locations

Even before the pandemic – furniture businesses such as US-based Lovesac and Wanek Furniture – affiliated to US supplier and retailer Ashley Home began moving production to Vietnam. US company Nike now makes most of its shoes in Vietnam while US tech giant Google plans to produce its Pixel smartphones from Vietnam instead of China.

Most recently, US chipmaker Intel, which has already invested US$1 billion in Vietnam is looking to increase its investment at Ho Chi Minh City’s Saigon Hi-Tech Park. Universal Alloy Corporation – a US-based global manufacturer of aircraft components for aircraft companies such as Boeing and Airbus, inaugurated its facility in Da Nang earlier this year.

All these factors make Vietnam a ‘trade war winner’ and an ideal place to do business and attract investment. Yet, Vietnam’s gains have not been contingent on deteriorating US-China ties alone. Vietnam’s skilled and low-cost labor force, infrastructure, stable government, safe environment, and free trade agreements are what US investors are looking for during this unpredictable time. This trend is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. And Vietnam is also well placed to capitalize on disrupted supply chains elsewhere due to the pandemic.

While the trade war and pandemic have created enough push factors to encourage manufacturing businesses to relocate, Vietnam’s great challenge now will be how to manage its growth sustainably.

Moreover, before sizing up Vietnam as a potential destination for relocation, US investors must do their due diligence and consider several factors, such as identifying a location, raw materials, sourcing partners, and supply chain logistics.

Baker McKenzie Named World’s Best Law Firm Brand

Leading global law firm Baker McKenzie has been named as the best law firm brand for the 10th consecutive year by Acritas’ Global Elite Law Firm Brand Index. The Firm once again ranked top for each of the measures that make up the Index – awareness, favorability, consideration for multi-jurisdictional deals and for multi-jurisdictional litigation. Baker McKenzie also once more widened its lead over its nearest competitor, receiving an overall score of 100, which is 57 points ahead of the firm ranked in second place

The ranking is based on interviews with 1,596 senior legal buyers across the world’s largest multinationals with revenues in excess of $1bn.

Milton Cheng, Global Chair of Baker McKenzie, said, “Market disruption is an accepted reality for business, as new competition and technologies drive the pace of change faster than ever before. Our clients want lawyers who are prepared to lead, differentiate and adapt in a constantly changing world.

“We are unquestionably the leading cross-border law firm that large, global clients trust for complex transactional and other matters involving multiple jurisdictions. That’s why we are top of mind across so many countries and areas of law. Topping this ranking for the tenth consecutive year underlines that.”

Lisa Hart Shepherd, vice president of Research and Advisory Services at Thomson Reuters, commented: “For firms, choosing an overarching focus and sticking with it is essential to developing a differentiated brand. Baker McKenzie has shown that commitment to a long-term strategy that is in line with evolving client needs will deliver financial success. This strategic focus on global reach makes for a clear purpose that its people can get behind and that its clients can easily understand.“

A decision regarding the interest clause in credit contracts

On 19th December 2019, the European Court of Justice gave a judgement for consumer protection concerning the interpretation of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23rd April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers in the case C‑290/19 (RN vs. Home Credit Slovakia a.s.)

The main issue was whether Article 10(2)(g) of Directive 2008/48 must be interpreted as precluding, in a consumer credit agreement, the annual percentage of the total amount of credit from being expressed not as a single rate but as a range referring to a minimum and a maximum rate.
It should be noted that the indication of the annual percentage of the total amount of credit in the form of a range of two figures is not consistent with the wording of several provisions of Directive 2008/48, in particular Articles 3 and 19, nor with the general scheme of that directive. It follows from those provisions that the annual percentage of the total amount of credit must be expressed as a percentage, by reference to a precise figure.

Moreover, according to the Article 3(i) of Directive 2008/48, which defines the annual percentage of the total amount of credit as ‘the total cost of credit to the consumer, expressed as an annual percentage of the total amount of credit’, requires a precise percentage to be fixed.
It is apparent from Article 19(1) of Directive 2008/48, read in conjunction with Part I of Annex I to that directive, that the annual percentage of the total amount of credit is calculated in accordance with the mathematical formula set out in that annex and should reflect, to one decimal place, all existing or future commitments agreed by the creditor and the consumer. In addition, the second subparagraph of Article 19(5) states that the annual percentage of the total amount of credit must be calculated in a uniform manner.

In its judgment the European Court has considered that in case of annual percentage of the total amount of credit does not have a precise percentage the consumers’ right to information is broken. Considered from that perspective, the obligation to provide information set out in Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/48, under which the credit agreement is to specify in a clear and concise manner, the annual percentage of the total amount of credit, contributes to the attainment of the objective pursued by that directive.

The Court has pointed out that, for a consumer, the total cost of credit, presented in the form of an annual percentage of the total amount of credit calculated according to a single mathematical formula, is of critical importance. That rate enables the consumer to assess, from a financial point of view, the extent of the commitment associated with the conclusion of the credit agreement. It should be noted that, if it were permissible to provide in a credit agreement that the attainment can be expressed by reference not to a single rate but to a range referring to a minimum and a maximum rate, the criterion of clarity and conciseness laid down in Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/48 would not be met. That criterion is essential for the consumer to be able, as stated in recital 31 of that directive, to know his rights and obligations under the credit agreement. The use of such a range may not only make it more difficult to assess the total cost of credit but may also mislead the consumer as to the actual extent of his commitment.

Therefore, the conclusion of the court was that Article 10(2)(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, as amended by Commission Directive 2011/90/EU of 14 November 2011, must be interpreted as precluding, in a consumer credit agreement, the annual percentage rate of charge from being expressed not as a single rate but as a range referring to a minimum and a maximum rate.

Published by

Nicholas S. Hammond (Hammond-Partnership)

HONG KONG HK

UN express concerns over Hong Kong National Security Law

Seven UN human rights experts signed a letter to the Chinese government expressing concerns about whether China is complying with its international obligations for human rights standards. The letter, made public Friday, specifically questioned The Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, or the “National Security Law.”

As noted in the letter, sent September 1, the UN has expressed concerns regarding this law before and has exchanged several communications with Chinese officials about it. The UN members who wrote this letter also cited numerous obligations imposed by the UN requiring greater care in the passage of laws, such as by encouraging specific laws so as to “prevent ill-defined and/or overly broad laws which are open to arbitrary application and abuse and may lead to arbitrary deprivation of liberty.”

The National Security Law at issue was passed on July 1, and it went into force that same day. It specifies four categories of offenses that are said to endanger national security: “secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with a foreign country or with external elements.”

Terrorism is defined broadly as including damage to physical property “such as sabotage of transport facilities or public services.” A UN Special Rapporteur released a thematic report in 2019 stating that “[d]efinitions of terrorism that include damage to property, including public property … seriously affect the right to freedom of assembly … [and] can be used against individuals engaging in social movements where damage to property is unwittingly incurred.”

In light of these and other concerns expressed in the letter, the UN requested a response to their points, an explanation of how the law does not infringe on the rights that China is obligated to provide under international law, how the country will be enforcing the law to not infringe on such rights, and the positive measures and oversight of the exercising of this law.

A Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Hua Chunying commented on the UN letter during a press conference on Friday, stating “We urge [the UN] to earnestly respect the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, discard ignorance, prejudice and double standards, and stop interfering in Hong Kong affairs and China’s internal affairs.” Chunying also stated that the law is widely accepted in Hong Kong, despite the many ongoing protests against the law throughout the region.

White & Case Advises EIG on Investment in Solar PV Pipeline

Global law firm White & Case LLP has advised EIG Global Energy Partners (EIG), a US-based investor in the global energy and infrastructure sectors, on the commitment from EIG managed funds of €135 million for ib vogt GmbH’s global solar pv portfolio.

“White & Case is a leading adviser to the global energy industry, said White & Case partner Carina Radford, who led the Firm’s deal team. “Our cross-practice and cross-border deal team on this unique transaction showcased the experience and capabilities our clients rely on when pursuing their strategically important investments.”

ib vogt is a German-based, family-owned company that has developed a global pipeline of solar pv projects in excess of 16 GWp. The investment from EIG will support the realization of ib vogt’s projects in the coming years and contribute to meeting the strong growth in global demand for clean electricity.

The White & Case team that advised on the transaction included partners Carina Radford and Richard Jones (both London), Bodo Bender, Carola Glasauer, Roger Kiem, Andreas Lischka and Markus Burianski (all Frankfurt), Riaz Janjuah (Hamburg), Alessandro Nolet (Milan), Marius Griskonis (New York), Chad McCormick (Houston) and Daniel Hagan (Washington, DC), local partners Cristina Freudenberger and Sebastian Pitz (both Frankfurt), counsel Tallat Hussain (London) and Alexander Born (Frankfurt) and associates Zsofia Cassidy and Lowrie Robertson (both London), Thorsten Rohde (Frankfurt), Kyle Ezzedine and Ariel Oseasohn (both New York) and John Forbush (Washington, DC).

Sydney

K&L Gates Hires Sydney Finance Partner From Hogan Lovells

Global law firm K&L Gates continues to expand its finance practice with the appointment of Richard Hayes as a partner in the Sydney office. Hayes, who brings a dedicated focus on acquisition and funds financings and general corporate finance, joins K&L Gates from Hogan Lovells.

With admissions and extensive experience in Australia, England, and New York, Hayes represents many international organizations with their multi-jurisdictional financing arrangements. His lender clients include global investment banks, commercial banks, and debt funds while, on the borrower side, he supports private equity and other investment firms and corporations.

For over 25 years, Hayes has advised clients in relation to the financing of acquisitions, refinancings, restructurings, recapitalizations, and work-outs. With current market conditions having forced these latter practices to the fore, the ability to work with the practitioners at K&L Gates was pivotal in Hayes’ decision to join the firm.

“My practice is truly international and I look forward to leveraging the strength of K&L Gates’ global platform, including collaborating with the firm’s highly regarded restructuring and insolvency, tax, and corporate teams, to the benefit of my clients,” said Hayes.

Nick Nichola, K&L Gates’ Managing Partner, Australia, stated: “Richard’s appointment provides our finance practice with a broader service offering and significantly deeper coverage in relation to the financing of acquisitions and debt capital markets generally. Richard has a reputation for taking on tough and complex work. As our clients respond to the challenges of 2020, he is the ideal lawyer to assist them in achieving the best possible risk mitigation and in seizing the opportunities that are available in today’s market.”

The arrival of Hayes builds on other recent appointments in Australia since late 2019, including Melbourne corporate partner Harry Kingsley, Perth corporate partner James Clyne, and financial services partners Kane Barnett and Paul Faure in Sydney and Melbourne, respectively. K&L Gates’ corporate practice also has continued to expand across the firm’s global platform in recent months through the appointments of new partners in BostonFrankfurtHong Kong, and Paris, with the firm having welcomed a total of more than 25 new partners and of counsel during 2020.

Recent Interview with BW Legal World

Ms. Seema Jhingan, Partner of the Firm recently spoke with Ashima Ohri of BW Legal World in an exclusive interview to shed light on the New Education Policy 2020 announced by the Government of India to initiate the long overdue reforms in the Indian school and higher education sector; franchise-model businesses in India; the advent of legal technology and its impact; challenging matters including helping her client bring the very first resort time-sharing concept of holidaying to India; her journey in law and much more.

Read more here: https://bit.ly/2YEDbqQ

Recent Changes to the Romanian Company Law

Since the Romanian Companies Law (Law 31/1990) was passed in 1990 there have been amendments to it to make it more up to date rather than continue it in its original format.

The original law was based on the French company law, and in 1990 there were very few advisors to the Romanian Government who understood corporate law or indeed commercial law.  This law was therefore a first attempt based on limited knowledge and experience of modern corporate law.  Over the next thirty years there have been changes to improve the law and the recent Law signed into effect on the 2nd July 2020 is another example of this.

Law no. 102/2020 brings major benefits and simplifies some of the registration process of companies in Romania, and the shareholders therefore benefiting from a more flexible legal framework regarding the establishment of companies.

The following are changes of which one needs to be aware in respect of formation of companies and the on-going reporting requirements.

Perhaps most important has been the removal of the prohibition and the requirement that a sole shareholder cannot hold the position of sole shareholder in more than one company.  This means that a sole shareholder can now hold the position of sole shareholder in more than one company.  This is very important to companies where they wish to have a number of subsidiaries in Romania.  Often foreign investor companies are themselves single shareholder companies and issues in the past have arisen concerning this when a Romanian company is incorporated.

Art.17.4 of the Law states that on the same premises in a building no more than one company can register their office unless the building or premises are designed in such a way to allow this.  This provision has been abolished.  This has meant that in the past there had to be compartmentation and a different room for each company.  In the previous form of the law the representatives of the company had to give a statement on their own responsibility stating that the building had separate rooms allowing for different companies to be registered.  In the new amended Companies Law such statement is no longer required.

The accommodation contracts allowing for the quick formation of companies (including the contracts using a lawyer’s office) now have to be registered with ANAF before incorporation and proof of such registration lodged with the file at the Trade Registry.  This has in our experience already caused some delay in registration, although other factors have also contributed to the delay.

In the past residential premises in block of flats have been used as office addresses.  This is now relaxed, and it is not now necessary to obtain the consent of adjoining owners of the premises if no activity is carried out at the office.

Finally, companies incorporated where the shareholders are all individuals and who are the ultimate beneficial owners of the company are no longer required to give a statement at the time of incorporation, or annually as previously if there is no change in the shareholding structure.  Companies with corporate shareholders will still be required to give such a declaration.

All these changes will allow the formation and then the on-going operation in relation to company in a more friendly and transparent manner and are changes that will be welcomed by all practitioners.

DLA Piper Boosts Australian Restructuring Practice

DLA Piper has hired restructuring partner Lionel Meehan for its Melbourne office ahead of an expected spike in pandemic-related restructures.

Meeham, who starts on August 1, joins from his own boutique insolvency and restructuring firm Edwin Legal. He has experience in financial restructuring, large-scale insolvency and commercial law, and knowledge across the resources, construction, financial services and fintech sectors, DLA Piper said.

Before founding Edwin Legal in October last year, Meehan was a partner at Ashurst in Australia for a decade and a senior associate at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in London for five years.

“Given the current global economic conditions and the recently announced temporary changes to Australian insolvency laws in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we expect to see an increase in global restructuring activity,” said DLA Piper’s managing partner in Australia, Amber Matthews.

“Lionel will form a key part of our international restructuring practice, supporting clients across the Asia Pacific region.”

Meehan’s experience in front-end restructuring and special situations, as well as transactional banking and back-end insolvency, will be a valuable addition to DLA Piper’s Australian and global Restructuring practice, said firm’s Australia head of finance, projects and restructuring in Onno Bakker.

Legal Do’s And Don’ts After A Car Accident

We all hope that we’ll never end up in a car accident, but the sad fact is that there are approximately six million car accidents in the US each year. So, there’s always a probability of you or someone you know being involved.

Careful driving can massively reduce the risk of ending up in an accident, but expecting the worst and preparing for every eventuality can also be a wise move.

Depending on the situation, you might have to seek out the services of a car accident lawyer, and the moves you make right after the accident could have a massive influence on how your case pans out.

Naturally, when you find yourself in an accident, you tend to panic, and it can be hard to keep your head and think clearly, especially if you or someone you know has suffered an injury. Still, to give yourself the best chance of a positive outcome, be sure to follow these simple Dos and Don’ts.

Do: Seek Medical Attention Immediately

When the accident occurs, any injuries should be treated as quickly as possible, and this is both for your own physical benefit, as well as to help support any potential legal cases that might arise if you contact a lawyer later on.

You can develop a wide range of injuries in the wake of an accident, ranging in seriousness and risk. Recovering from a neck injury could take years for example, while other issues might not be quite as serious but still demand prompt treatment.

If you plan to use a lawyer for a claim, medical reports and records will be vital in the case, so this really is essential. It’s also wise to photograph injuries and document exactly what happened too.

Don’t: Ignore Medical Advice

After seeking medical help for any injuries sustained during an accident, you might find that your doctor recommends strict bed rest or instructs you to follow certain safety protocols to minimize the risk of any further issues or injury.

Even if you feel these instructions are exaggerated or feel like your injury isn’t as bad as it seems, it’s vital to follow this advice.

If you try to make an insurance claim later on and evidence arises to show that you were still going out, attending sporting events, playing with your kids and taking on other risks against medical instructions, your chances of success could take a big hit.

Do: Seek Legal Aid Promptly

As well as looking for medical care in a timely fashion, it’s also wise to contact a lawyer as quickly as possible too. A lot of people take too long to contact a car accident lawyer. They might, instead, spend time contacting their insurance company first or posting details about the accident online with their friends and families.

All of these actions could harm your case in the long run, as any statements you provide might be used against you, and you could accidentally or inadvertently say things that will reduce your chances of a positive settlement with your insurance company.

Before you say anything or speak with any insurance agents, get in touch with a lawyer. They’ll be able to advise you through the whole process, providing some much-needed peace of mind and helping you negotiate towards a positive outcome.

Don’t: Hide Past Injuries Or Accidents

If you’ve had any past accidents or injuries, you need to let the lawyer know about them. Opposition lawyers and insurance agents could use these accidents against you, suggesting that your current injury is simply due to a prior accident, thus negating your claim.

They might even be able to view your entire medical history upon demand in order to build a case against you, so it’s important that you let your lawyer know all they need to know in order to build a solid case, without any holes that might be exploited.

A lot of people might feel that they need to hide this kind of information, and some may try to exaggerate their injuries or lie about what they can or cannot do in order to try and strengthen their case. In reality, lying will only weaken your chances of success.

Conclusion

Car accidents are always scary situations, and it’s normal to panic at first, but if you take your time, think clearly, and try to make rational, responsible decisions, you’ll have a much stronger chance of getting a settlement from your insurance company, rather than having to deal with more stress and problems.

ARTICLE BY:

Susan Melony
susan.melony@gmail.com