We launched the group just before the outbreak of COVID-19 in early 2020 and despite the challenges that the pandemic presented and that our clients faced, it has been a very exciting time for the group. Over the last 12 months, we have welcomed a number of leading practitioners to the group in London, Singapore, Perth and United States, who join us from well-known commodities and shipping firms including Kate Sherrard, Robert Parson, Ivan Chia, Hazel Brewer, as well as Michael Kaye and Emily Huggins Jones. The group continues to grow exponentially as we develop global "best-in-class" practices in conjunction with our colleagues in the firm. We, and our clients, have all welcomed the collaborative culture and global platform that our firm provides.
In this edition of the CSG Quarterly Update, we provide updates on the Russian sanctions and the wider implications for commodities and shipping clients. We examine whether international trade is a key driver in the fight against climate change and how slavery is being addressed in supply chains. We then provide a bite-size snapshot on Sharp Corp Limited v Viterra B.V. and the Singapore case of The Luna [2021] SGCA 84. Finally, we share with you details on where you can meet the team and recent firm news, which highlights some of the key initiatives we are involved in within diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and environmental, social and governance (ESG) space.
We hope that you find this update an enjoyable and informative read.
Chris Swart
Practice Group Head Commodities & Shipping Group
Barry Stimpson
Practice Group Head Commodities & Shipping Group
2
Contents
Introduction.............................................................................................................................................2 Russian Sanctions and Their Wider Implications for Commodities and Shipping Clients.........................4
Russia Sanctions Update What Risk Management Steps Can Be Taken Now? The US, UK and EU Impose a Series of New Targeted and Territorial Russia-related Sanctions Russia Sanctions UK Port Closures and Wider Implications Additional US, UK and EU Sanctions on Russia
Electronic Trade Documents Moving Into a Paperless New World ......................................................5 International Trade A Key Driver in the Fight Against the Effects of Climate Change or an Obstacle in Reaching Global Sustainability Goals? .............................7 Slavery in Supply Chains .........................................................................................................................9 GAFTA Default Clause English Court Authority on the Assessment of Damages.............................. 11 The Fiction of Bills of Lading (The Luna)................................................................................................ 13 Come and Meet the Team! ................................................................................................................... 14 Our Firm's DEI and ESG Initiatives........................................................................................................ 15 Our Team............................................................................................................................................... 17
3
Russian Sanctions and Their Wider Implications for Commodities and Shipping Clients
Unprecedented global sanctions against Russia continue to be implemented as the Ukraine Russia conflict continues. Our reports on the EU, US and UK sanctions can be found here. Reviews of existing contracts, insurance policies and other impacts and contingencies will still need to be undertaken regularly in light of the changing daily landscape. See our article here for risk management considerations.
From the commodities and shipping perspective, the last month has seen a wide range of legal challenges, from dealing with destroyed or damaged facilities and plants in Ukraine, to challenging the validity of force majeure notices, and options being exercised for the origin of goods, to disputes arising under price adjustment clauses, and issues relating to increased margin calls.
For those companies leaving Russia, the legal and organisational considerations are not straightforward. Russia has endorsed administration and forced sale proposals of property belonging to Western companies leaving the country. Companies are also considering what to do with the employees in Russia on their payroll whose livelihoods depend on their business.
While the conflict continues, significant upheaval and adaptations to supply chains and contractual arrangements will need to be undertaken and kept under continuous review.
Additional Articles for Reference
1. Russia Sanctions Update What Risk Management Steps Can Be Taken Now?
2. The US, UK and EU Impose a Series of New Targeted and Territorial Russia-related Sanctions
3. Russia Sanctions UK Port Closures and Wider Implications
4. Additional US, UK and EU Sanctions on Russia
Gabriella Martin Senior Associate
4
Electronic Trade Documents Moving Into a Paperless New World
On 16 March 2022, the Law Commission of England and Wales published its long-awaited report on electronic trade documents setting out its recommendations for legislation, which will for the first time give legal recognition to electronic trade documents such as bills of lading and bills of exchange.
Existing Legislation and the Case for
Reform
Despite the size and sophistication of the international trade market, the underlying legal framework is based on practices developed by merchants hundreds of years ago. The result is that existing English legislation does not recognise the possibility of "possessing" an electronic document at the time performance is demanded. The concept of "possession" is central to a number of aspects of international trade law, as the right to claim performance of an obligation in certain documents is vested in the person in possession of that document. For example, the right to be paid under a bill of exchange is vested in the person in possession of that bill of exchange as "holder". The document does not merely contain the right, it embodies the right currently in paper form only.
In recent years, contractual workarounds to this abstract legal problem have emerged for use with electronic platforms. Parties can agree that the transfer of an electronic version of a trade document will put the transferee in a similar position to that of the party in possession of the paper document by signing up to the contractual terms of the electronic platform. The problem with such workarounds is that they require extensive platform terms and conditions and can only bind the immediate parties to the platform. In other words, they create personal rights between the parties to a multilateral contract, not proprietary rights. Not all market participants in a trade will be willing or able to sign up to these types of platforms.
In publishing its report, the Law Commission seeks to address this problem.
Scope of the Law Commission's Review
and Key Drivers Behind Its Approach
The scope of the report was limited to solving the problems caused by the existing legislation's approach to "possession" in other words, to resolve an issue that prevents electronic documents from functioning in the same way as their paper equivalents.
Importantly, the Law Commission
recognised that the "possession"
problem could be solved in a manner that
leaves centuries of well-established and
internationally followed case law around
bills of lading and bills of exchange intact.
The goal was, therefore, not to rewrite the legislation. Equally, the Electronic Trade Documents Bill is not intended to affect the validity or operation of existing contractual workarounds, which will continue to play a key role in developing the digital trade marketplace. In this sense, the Law Commission sought to adopt the "least interventionist" approach possible.
The Law Commission has also been careful to ensure its recommendations are "technology neutral". The mechanics of the Electronic Trade Documents Bill are not predicated on the functionality of a particular technology, to the exclusion of all others. In theory, therefore, the recommendations should be able to accommodate any existing or future technologies.
Finally, the Law Commission has been conscious of the importance of international compatibility, notably with the Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records (MLETR) published by UNCITRAL, which has already been adopted by a number of countries, including Singapore, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi Global Market and the United Arab Emirates. MLETR provides a prototype for law reform at national level and aims to enable use of electronically transferable records by establishing legal equivalence between "control" of an electronic transferable record and "possession" of a paper document. The Law Commission's approach and legislation proposal align with the aims and policy of MLETR.
5
The Bill
The Electronic Trade Documents Bill, which it is hoped will be enacted by early 2023, only seeks to change the law in relation to a limited category of documents, which are set out in the following list (with scope to amend later via delegated legislation): Bills of Exchange Promissory Notes Bills of Lading Ship's Delivery Orders Marine Insurance Policies Cargo Insurance Certificates Warehouse receipts The Bill recognises an electronic trade document as being a document in electronic form, which is one of those documents listed above and which satisfies certain criteria pertaining to reliability, integrity and uniqueness. The implication is that where a document satisfies such criteria, it is an electronic trade document and is capable of being "possessed" in the same way that a piece of paper can be possessed. The core premise of the Law Commission's legislation proposal is, therefore, that the common law concept of "possession" can be extrapolated to include electronic trade documents.
Jessica Kenworthy Partner
A Game Changer in the ElectronicTrade Platform Market?
The availability of fully enforceable electronic trade documents recognised by the most commonly used jurisdiction for trade, English law, will be significant in itself. The most obvious and immediate impact will, it is hoped, be a sharp rise in the number of participants in electronic trade transactions, although until critical mass is achieved in terms of significant trading nations adopting a MLETR or English law style adoption of electronic trade documents law, there will be continued reliance on the established platforms offering electronic trade document equivalents.
The potential for other Commonwealth countries to follow, either on a modified MLETR basis as in Singapore or following the English law model, is also a real prospect. Other non-Commonwealth jurisdictions may also see the commercial benefits of keeping pace with the forerunners in adoption of legislation for electronic trade in what will be an increasingly competitive race to be at the forefront of the technological revolution in international trade.
Timeline
Legislation could begin its journey through the UK parliament as early as May 2022, with enactment by December 2022, subject to political will.
Given that the Law Commission does not foresee the need to establish any certification body for determining fitness to provide the service of issuance and transfer of an electronic trade document, in principle, any product that is ready to go live once legislation is in force will be able to be promoted.
Robert Parson Partner
Henry Spence Trainee
6
International Trade A Key Driver in the Fight Against the Effects of Climate Change or an Obstacle in Reaching Global Sustainability Goals?
International trade and its relationship with climate change has been a topic that has attracted a range of extreme responses by commentators engaged in the climate change debate and for a range of differing motives. Many of us, including those advising in the trade and trade finance legal sector, are just as frustrated at the lack of leadership on climate change at a political level as many of those voices. Is climate change, however, a "big subject" that we have to leave to national governments in the hope that the tearful climax to COP26 will one day lead to real progress or is there an important role for international trade lawyers in accelerating progress in this area?
Advisors in the trade and commodities legal space can often draw fire from those leading the charge against the environmental impact of commodity extraction and the global trade in hydrocarbons. Legal advisers are too often seen as part of the defence mechanism of an industry that is perceived to be slow or reluctant to adopt more sustainable practices for fear of diluting profits. Some will argue that globalisation of trade is, taken as a whole, simply bad for the environment and a major contributor to climate change. Leaving aside the high-profile subjects of "dirty" commodities, such as coal and oil, critics will point out, for example, that any cheap foreign imported goods and foodstuffs brought by polluting cargo ships across the world's oceans will, in fact, compete unfairly with "clean" locally produced food and goods with a substantially lower carbon footprint. However, the danger of cherry-picking certain aspects of the trade/climate change discussion in isolation (sometimes as part of a wider anti-globalisation manifesto) is that it often misses the much bigger picture.
As Paul Brenton and Vicky Chemutai point out in the World Bank's recent paper, The Trade and Climate Change Nexus The Urgency and Opportunities for Developing Countries1, the "import v home grown" debate is far more nuanced than that. Fruits and vegetables produced in Africa using sunshine, manual labour and natural compost may, in fact, generate far fewer emissions than production of the same or similar foods in Europe requiring heated greenhouses, tractors and manufactured fertiliser even after factoring in the emissions from marine fuel used by the cargo ship to bring them to Europe. Therefore, the higher cost of goods produced "at home" may not just be an economical one but may also carry an environmental price tag.
International transportation needs to clean up its act and it is already doing so with major success but with more work to be done however, those advising in the international trade sector should not be shy to highlight the upside that global trade brings to the climate struggle.
Firstly, as Brenton and Chemutai argue, trade can help shift production to areas with cleaner production techniques and as the world makes the transition to a low-carbon econ omy, comparative advantages in export markets will almost certainly change, compelling countries to adapt, change and take up new opportunities. The ICC's Standards for Sustainable Trade and Sustainable Trade Finance positioning paper published in November 2021 (in a project carried out with Boston Consulting Group) is aimed at financiers and international traders and, necessarily, the legal market that serves them. The positioning paper2 sets out a prospective roadmap for defining what "sustainable" trade and trade finance is. It then looks at developing global standards for measuring compliance with sustainability goals that will be implemented throughout the industry. A first draft of the standards is to be expected in Q1 2022 and feedback is sought from the industry at large. The contribution of experienced legal practitioners to this project will be crucial.
The ICC's intervention is to be welcomed in a space where there are already multiple providers of "green" vetting services and vocal discontent in some quarters that "tickbox" compliance and "greenwashing" is rife in big business. The ICC recognises that there are a number of significant hurdles to be overcome. Should the proposed framework, for example, only recognise sustainable transactions as those that actively contribute to reaching one or more of the UN's identified 17 Sustainable Development Goals3, or should it also acknowledge those transactions that also already meet sustainable best practices in the industry? How will the standards be practically usable in real time by financial institutions and how would those standards work between financial institutions themselves when dealing in relation to underlying sustainable loans and products. Would the ICC develop the assessment standards themselves and in what form would they be made available for country-by-country adoption?
This is a step in the right direction and
leadership is much needed in a global
trade environment where cooperation
between nation states on sustainability
standards clearly cannot be taken
for granted. The contribution of legal
practitioners in the sector to this effort
will be crucial if the end result is to be
an effective set of standards by which
to measure and promote sustainable
practices across the industry.
1 https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/36294/9781464817700.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y 2 https://iccwbo.org/publication/icc-standards-for-sustainable-trade-and-sustainable-trade-finance/ 3 https://sdgs.un.org/goals
7
The Loan Market Association, in collaboration with the Asia Pacific Loan Market Association and the Loan Syndications and Trading Association, have already produced a valuable set of Sustainability Linked Loan Principles4 (SLLP) to guide how lenders and borrowers can seek to achieve agreed sustainability goals in their financing arrangements whatever the motivation for those goals. The SLLP set out how sustainability-related key performance indicators (KPI's) and sustainability performance targets (SPTs) can be chosen, how meeting those chosen benchmarks affects the economic characteristics of the loan (e.g. margin reduction) and how a credible reporting and verification regime can be established. While the apparently slow progress at an inter-governmental level may appear (and often is) heavily compromised by nationalistic/populist agendas and political vulnerabilities, the trade finance industry and the international bodies that represent it can set a more ambitious timeline.
In the meantime, trade and the trade finance that makes it possible has an immediate and positive role to play in tackling climate change.
Trade promotes the delivery of environmental goods and services that will actively help reduce emissions and improve management of the world's fragile environment. In a global merchandise market estimated for 2020 to be around US$17 18 trillion5, trade in environmental goods is estimated at more than US$1 trillion annually and is rising. On a practical level, imports of key materials are critical to assist in recovery from natural disasters (whether directly attributable to climate change or not) when essential items such as food and medical supplies are difficult to source locally.
In short, trade is and will always be key to dealing with issues such as food se curity and recovery from natural disasters whatever the politicians say or do in the background.
So when we are asked what we, as legal practitioners in the trade and trade finance sector, can do to help promote sustainability in international trade as part of the fight against climate change, the answer is that we can do a lot. A good starting point is to contribute to the collaborative effort to establish global and verifiable standards that will hold industry to account on a level playing field. There is plenty of work to be done.
Robert Parson Partner
4 https://www.lma.eu.com/application/files/8416/2210/4806/Sustainability_Linked_Loan_Principles.pdf 5 https://stats.wto.org/
8
Slavery in Supply Chains
Modern Slavery Risks
The Global Survey Index reported that over 45.8 million people are subject to modern slavery, 26% of whom are children, and 55% are women and girls. The International Labor Organization reported that the profits generated from forced labour amount to over US$150 billion per year. In addition, the G20 countries have imported over US$354 billion worth of products produced out of forced slavery per year.
Forced labour risks involve products as diverse as bricks, charcoal, coffee, cotton, diamonds and gold, among a range of other products, involving over 50 source countries worldwide.
These sobering numbers have attracted global attention and understandably raised alarm.
Global Responses to Modern Slavery
The UK: The Modern Slavery Act 2015 (the Act)
In January 2021, the UK government imposed obligations on British businesses to publish an annual statement disclosing the steps they took to ensure that there is no slavery or human trafficking present within their organisation or supply chain. The obligations apply to organisations who:
Carry on business or part of their business in the UK
Supply goods or services
Are above a certain size (currently 36 million annual global turnover)
The annual statement must confirm either:
The steps taken by the organisation to eradicate modern slavery in its supply chain and in its own business
That the organisation has taken no steps
Additionally, companies must prepare a link to their annual statement, and ensure that the statement is signed by a director and published on the company's website. Currently, we have not seen any financial penalties for failing to issue a statement; however, the Secretary of State has the power to enforce a mandatory injunction to a company to issue its modern slavery statement. As such, relevant businesses are advised to prepare their modern slavery statement and ensure that effective and transparent due diligence on their supply chain has been conducted.
The US: Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA)
The UFLPA imposes a complete import ban on goods mined or produced "in whole or in part" or made with forced labour from Xinjiang, China. The exception to the ban is for companies to prove to customs officials with "clear and convincing" evidence that forced labour was not used in their production. In addition, the UFLPA expands the US's ability to impose sanctions on foreign entities that commit "serious human rights abuses in connection with forced labour."
The UFLPA will force businesses to perform extensive due diligence to identify issues in their supply chains. This will require financial institutions to assess their potential exposure to the risk of handling the proceeds of forced labour on behalf of their clients and to implement mitigation measures as appropriate.
9
The European Union (the EU): Sustainable Corporate Governance Directive
On 15 September 2021, the European Commission (EC) announced plans for a ban on products made by forced labour to be proposed in 2022. In December 2021, the EU Executive Vice-President for Trade, Valdis Dombrovskis, warned the EC of the risks of a ban targeting only forced labour in Xinjiang being deemed as "discriminatory." He further noted that the UFLPA "cannot be replicated in the EU." Instead, he argued that including the ban within the EU's proposed Sustainable Corporate Governance Directive (SCG Directive) would be more effective. After lengthy delays, the EC's proposal for the SCG Directive is due in early 2022.
On 23 February 2022, the EC adopted the SCG Directive proposal. The proposal requires companies to report on any violations to international rules on child labour, workers' rights, or environmental damage. Firms that fail to act could face fines, as well as compensation claims. This obligation will force companies to operate their business activities, including their global supply chains, diligently. Didier Reynders, EU Justice Commissioner, stated, "With these rules, we want to stand up for human rights and lead the green transition. We can no longer turn a blind eye on what happens down our value chains. We need a shift in our economic model."
The obligations apply to EU companies with worldwide revenue of more than 150 million (US$170 million) and at least 500 employees. Additionally, the obligations will also apply to an EU company who is a "high impact" in an industry, such as clothing and mining, make more than 40 million annually, and have over 250 employees. The fines have yet to be set by each EU government; however, the EC announced that the fines should be "effective, proportionate, but also dissuasive. They will be organised by a percentage of the company's revenue."
Looking Ahead
More than ever, businesses worldwide need to work on supply chain transparency and ensure they are ready to deal with an ever-increasing regime of regulatory scrutiny. The UK, US and Germany are three major jurisdictions who are leading the way in enacting extra-territorial laws to combat modern slavery but this is an irreversible trend and the most recent announcement by the EU is evidence of this.
Jonathan Chibafa Director (Barrister)
Malak Abbas Associate
10
GAFTA Default Clause English Court Authority on the Assessment of Damages
In Sharp Corp Limited v Viterra B.V. [2022] EWHC 354 (Comm), Cockerill J considered an appeal under section 69 Arbitration Act 1996 against two awards rendered by the GAFTA Board of Appeal on 1 April 2021 (the Awards). The case provides authority on the meaning of the "actual or estimated value of the goods, on the date of default." in subclause (c) of the Default Clause in GAFTA Contract No. 24.
Background
The Awards arose out of two contracts on C&F Free Out Mundra terms dated 20 January 2017, whereby Viterra agreed to sell and Sharp agreed to purchase 20,000 mt of Canadian Crimson Lentils at a price of US$600 per mt and 45,000 mt of Canadian Whole Yellow Peas at a price of US$339 per mt.
The goods arrived at Mundra in June 2017, were customscleared and were stored pending payment by Sharp. Subsequently, Viterra held Sharp in default on 9 November 2017, India imposed tariffs that led to an increase in the value of the goods on 21 December 2017 and Viterra resold the goods to another company in the same group on 9 February 2018, as the goods were only made available to Viterra on 2 February 2018.
This raised the issue of who, between Sharp and Viterra, should benefit from the increase in value of the goods between 9 November 2017 and 2 February 2018.
The GAFTA Board of Appeal decided that, under the default clause of GAFTA Contract No. 24, the "actual or estimated value of the goods, on the date of default":
Should not be assessed by reference to the market value of the goods themselves on the Indian domestic market
Was the market value of the goods C&F FO Mundra in bulk on or about 2 February 2018
This decision gave Viterra the benefit of the increase in value of the goods on the Indian market between 9 November 2017 and 2 February 2018.
Question of Law
The question of English law at issue concerned the meaning of the terms "the actual or estimated value of the goods, on the date of default", as contained in subclause (c) of the Default Clause of GAFTA Contract No. 24 (the Default Clause):
"25. DEFAULT
In default of fulfilment of contract by either party, the following provisions shall apply:
The party other than the defaulter shall, at their discretion have the right, after serving a notice on the defaulter to sell or purchase, as the case may be, against the default, and such sale or purchase shall establish the default price.
If either party be dissatisfied with such default price or if the right at (a) is not exercise and damages cannot be mutually agreed, then the assessment of damages shall be settled by arbitration.
The damages payable shall be based on, but not limited to, the difference between the contract price of the goods and either the default price established under (a) above or upon the actual or estimated value of the goods, on the date of default, established under (b) above."
11
Findings
Cockerill J agreed with Viterra that the "actual or estimated value of the goods, on the date of default", as contained in sub-clause (c) of the Default Clause, was to be determined by considering the value of the goods sold on the same contractual terms at the default date. Following obiter dicta in Bunge SA v Nidera BV [2015] UKSC 43, this was to be determined by taking a sale by the innocent party "under a notional substitute contract" "assumed to have been entered into [...] at the market rate but otherwise on the same terms".
She dismissed Sharp's argument that the exercise under sub-clause (c) was to arrive at an approximate value for the goods and that, logically, the best evidence of this would be the market value of the goods themselves at their location on the default date. This methodology was that applicable to sub-clause (a), in the case of a mitigation sale by the seller, but not to sub-clause (c), by which the parties specifically agreed an alternative mechanism to determine the value of the goods.
Cockerill J also dismissed Sharp's argument that this approach would place Viterra in a better position than if the breach had not occurred. This dispute would necessarily leave one of the parties with a windfall, resulting from the contractually agreed valuation mechanism in sub-clause (c). Given that Sharp was responsible for the default, it would not be nonsensical for that party to be Viterra.
John Rollason Director
Commentary
It is now established that sub-clause (c) of the default clause of GAFTA Contract No. 24, which is common across the GAFTA contracts, requires a valuation of the goods based on a notional substitute contract concluded on the same terms at the time of default, and not by reference to the value of the goods themselves at their location at the time of default. As stated by Cockerill J, it requires the parties "to compare like with like", "to value the goods based on the same terms and conditions".
This leads to goods being valued on the same contractual terms as those in the unfulfilled contract (non-customs cleared and in bulk) and not on materially different terms (customs-cleared and sold exwarehouse in small parcels).
In practice, claimants usually rely on the valuation mechanism in sub-clause (c) of the Default Clause, rather than that in sub-clause (a), even when a mitigation sale is concluded. Although the valuation mechanism in sub-clause (a) could potentially lead to higher damages in case of a "below" market mitigation sale, the other party will usually oppose that valuation under sub-clause (b), which will lead in any event to a valuation under sub-clause (c).
Ruggero Chicco Trainee
12
The Fiction of Bills of Lading (The Luna)
In the landmark decision of The Luna [2021] SGCA 84, the Singapore Court of Appeal found that the certain bills of lading (BLs) issued by local bunker operators functioned neither as contracts of carriage nor documents of title, and were not true bills of lading.
While the BLs incorporated superficial hallmarks of typical bills of lading, the court took into account the parties' intention and the terms of the underlying sales contract, and found that the holders of the BLs were not entitled to bring a claim for misdelivery.
The decision in The Luna is important to players in the bunker industry and has wider implications for parties who deal with bills of lading. In the wake of The Luna, parties should reconsider the terms of their sales contracts and contemplate implementing risk mitigation strategies.
Clement Lin Associate
13
Come and Meet the Team!
Europe
John Rollason Gafta Trade Foundation Course London, 26 April
Robert Parson 8th Annual Supply Chain Finance Summit London, 26 April
Robert Parson, John Rollason, Gabriella Martin, Geraldine Butac, Jennifer Greengrass GrainCom22 Geneva, 17-19 May
Jessica Kenworthy, Robert Parson TXF Global Commodity Finance 2022 Amsterdam, 10-11 May
Americas
Emily Huggins Jones Business Network for Offshore Wind's International Partnering Forum Atlantic City, 25-26 April
Middle East
Robert Parson GTR Turkey Istanbul, 12 May Jennifer Greengrass GTR Saudi Arabia Riyadh, 31 May
Africa
Brian Gordon, Jayson Marks, Chris Swart Mining Indaba Cape Town, 9-12 May
Commodities & Shipping Group Related Articles
Shipping the Engine Room of Australian Commerce (January 2022)
Indonesia Relaxes Coal Export Ban (January 2022)
Indonesia's Coal Ban on Coal Exports (January 2022)
A Snapshot of Australian LNG (March 2022)
14
Our Firm's DEI and ESG Initiatives
Our Office of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) is led by global managing partner, Fred Nance and is committed to assuring that all personnel feel welcomed and that they have the opportunity to fully and fairly pursue their career objectives. Over the last two years, we have appointed global taskforces to analyse, recommend and implement strategies that advance women and other diverse professionals. As a global firm, we work closely with our employee resource groups to promote locally relevant strategies.
In the US, we are working towards Mansfield Rule certification that will require us to track diversity across our pitch panels, candidate shortlists, talent pipeline and senior leadership. We also participate in DiversityLab's OnRamp200 Fellowship initiative that aims to bring 200 women lawyers back to the profession following an extended career hiatus by 2025.
In the UK, we have replicated such principles with stretching targets in terms of both diverse representation and attaining certain levels of accreditation. We have communicated these targets publicly and will be reporting annually on progress.
By 2026, we aim to achieve:
25% women in partnership
19% ethnic minority representation
A Disability Confident Employer Leader status
A Top 100 Stonewall Ranking
Retaining our Top 75 employer ranking in the Social Mobility Employer Index (in 2021, we saw a 31 position improvement in our ranking to 15)
To embed our strategy, all partners have DEI objectives and UK fee earners have a 25-hour productivity target allowance against DEI activity.
What Have We Been Working On?
Our Firm Hosted an Ambitious Lineup of Speakers for International Women's Day
During the week 7 11 March, our Advancing Women's Task force held over 35 sessions across five wellbeing themes intellectual, physical, mental, career and financial wellbeing. Covering topics such as networking, mentoring, taking up space, maintaining professional boundaries, menopause, belonging and domestic violence, as well as thoughtprovoking sessions on environmental sustainability, financial planning and the use of smart technology, we welcomed 24 external speakers, as well as internal specialists, to take part in fireside chats, panel discussions and presentations.
Social Mobility, Class Pay Gaps and Why It Should Be on Everyone's Diversity Agenda
As signatories of the Social Mobility Pledge, we have a strong commitment to open access to law, as well as improve the aspiration and attainment of those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
What Are We Doing?
Ranked 15 in the Social Mobility Employer Index.
In March, hosted a North West Social Mobility Conference with speakers providing delegates with practical information on how to implement a social mobility strategy within their respective organisations, as well as providing examples of the benefits to organisations and as individuals.
Providing both a strategic and supportive function as funding partners of the Social Mobility Business Partnership securing work and employability skills insights to Year 12 students via a network of regional corporate partners.
Hosting work placements through Sutton Trust's Pathways to Law programme.
Local champions delivering a series of mentoring programmes directly with schools.
Adoption of Rare Contextualised Recruitment to enable us to contextualise academic achievement according to socioeconomic indicators.
15
Our Firm Is a Founding Member of Stronger Together, Leeds City Region
Stronger Together is a local cross-firm network that will aim to raise the profile of racial diversity, inclusion and equality in the Yorkshire professional services sector, create peer to role model relationships and encourage more people from black and other ethnic minority communities to see the professions as a viable career.
This is the first time that the Big Four accounting firms and largest six law firms have collaborated locally on the challenges around racial diversity, inclusion and equality. The network officially launched on Friday 11 March at a highprofile event at Leeds Civic Hall, hosted by Tom Riordan, Chief Executive of Leeds City Council.
"I'm delighted our professional services sector is also embracing clear commitments to equalise opportunities and conditions for people who may not traditionally have easy access to fulfilling careers in the field. When a city and its workforce are aligned, everyone wins as not only do you tackle inequality, but you also benefit from a rich diversity of people and talent."
Tom Riordan
During the afternoon, panel members shared their personal stories around how they overcame challenges in their career journey and their vision for the network.
US Black History Month Provided the Opportunity to Host a Global Conversation About Hair Discrimination
In February, we hosted a panel discussion on the issue of hair discrimination. Having recently received national and international attention with the passing of the CROWN Act in California (and a few other states in the US) and the HALO code campaign in the UK, awareness of the stigma that permeates society's perception of what is "acceptable," "professional" or "proper standards" relating to Black hair dates back to the 1700s. This was an interesting discussion and brought attention to the ways in which hair can exclude people of colour from various professional settings and why it is critical to deepen our perspectives on creating truly inclusive workplaces.
Listen to the discussion here.
LGBT+ History Month Opened up a Conversation About the Role of Art in Inclusion
In the UK during February, we celebrated LGBT+ History month, which aims to raise awareness and visibility of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, their history, lives and experiences. Our resource group hosted breakfasts in each office to update on their achievements over the last three years and the work they are undertaking to promote allyship and inclusion. We have also enjoyed their podcast series celebrating the lives and experiences of members of both our internal and external LGBT+ community exploring this year's theme of art in politics.
Listen here:
Episode 1 | Episode 2 | Episode 3
ESG
Environmental, social and governance (ESG) considerations are at the forefront for governments, regulators, consumers and employees. When it comes to developing, implementing and reporting on strategy, businesses are beginning to see ESG as central to creating long-term value.
ESG is proving a material driver of financial performance and business resilience. Businesses cannot ignore the growing momentum behind ESG and the drive to greater disclosure and transparency.
We have a dedicated global cross-practice ESG group, which provides solutions to our clients both in addressing ESG risks, opportunities and compliance, as well as ESG-related litigation.
Tom Hancocks took the opportunity to write about ESG in relation to how it is shaping our firm's strategy and how it is becoming essential to the work our firm undertakes.
Wendy Ramshaw Head of DEI & Emerging Talent E [email protected]
Tom Hancocks ESG Manager E [email protected]
16
Our Team
We have a dedicated team of commodities, shipping and sanctions experts with a track record of successfully advising clients of the legal and commercial issues. For further queries, please get in touch with your usual contact or any other persons listed below.
Simon Adams Partner, Perth T +61 8 9429 7431 M +61 4 3903 5387 E [email protected]
Hazel Brewer Partner, Perth T +61 8 9429 7412 M +61 4 1852 8853 E [email protected]
Caroline Brown Partner, Perth T +61 8 9429 7432 M +61 4 3805 7123 E [email protected]
Ivan Chia Partner, Singapore T +65 6922 8668 M +65 8389 4571 E [email protected]
Brian Gordon Partner, Dubai/Singapore T +65 6922 7878 M +65 8611 3180 E [email protected]
Tatiana Gotvig Partner W +61 2 8248 781 E [email protected]
Graham D. Harris Partner, London T +44 20 7655 1214 E [email protected]
Emily Huggins Jones Partner, Cleveland T +1 216 479 8509 M +1 540 455 4402 E [email protected]
Michael Kaye Partner, Washington DC T +1 202 457 6545 M +1 217 412 0096 E [email protected]
Jessica Kenworthy Partner, Singapore T +65 6922 7871 M +65 9733 4864 E [email protected]
Natalie Lonergan Partner T +61 2 8248 7896 M +61 4 3920 3804 E [email protected]
Jayson Marks Partner, London T +44 20 7655 1585 M +44 782 459 7250 E [email protected]
Robert Parson Partner, London T +44 20 7655 1087 M +44 777 197 7185 E [email protected]
Katie Pritchard Partner, London T +44 20 7655 1582 M +44 791 200 0583 E [email protected]
John J. Reilly Senior Partner T +1 212 872 9865 M +1 917 499 2001 E [email protected]
John Rollason Director, London T +44 20 7655 1745 M +44 751 348 0590 E [email protected]
Kate Sherrard Partner, Singapore T +65 6922 8668 M +65 9856 7084 E [email protected]
Barry Stimpson Partner, Singapore T +65 6922 7870 M +65 9111 8780 E [email protected]
Chris Swart Partner, London / Singapore T +65 6922 8668 / +44 7655 1580 M +65 9092 1883 E [email protected]
Christopher Thomson Partner T +44 207 655 1660 M +44 789 409 3605 E [email protected]
17
Kwangkyu Park Of Counsel T +44 207 655 1107 M +44 759 564 9212 E [email protected]
Geraldine Butac Senior Associate, London T 44 20 7655 1687 M +44 759 451 6289 E [email protected]
Gemma Chenik Director, Perth M +61 4 1246 0800 E [email protected]
Bernice Chia Senior Associate, Hong Kong T +852 2103 0348 E [email protected]
Michael J. Davar Senior Associate T +44 207 655 1425 M +44 754 593 5633 E [email protected]
Jennifer Greengrass Senior Associate, London/Dubai T +44 207 655 1602 M +44 787 210 0445 E [email protected]
Eviaty Jenie Senior Associate, Singapore M +65 8907 0296 E [email protected]
Jessica Tomlinson Senior Associate T +61 8 9429 7403 M +61 4 3914 5193 E [email protected]
Aik Hui Chua Associate, Singapore T +65 6922 8668 M +65 8907 0157 E [email protected]
Patrick Greaney Associate, Singapore T +65 6922 7879 M +65 8907 0186 E [email protected]
Clement Lin Associate, Singapore T +65 6922 8668 M +65 6922 8668 E [email protected]
Joseph Magoon Associate, London T +44 20 7655 1532 M +44 754 593 5559 E [email protected]
Gabriella Martin Senior Associate, London T +44 20 7655 1751 M +44 751 348 0250 E [email protected]
Jun Wei Quah Associate, Singapore T +65 6922 8665 E [email protected]
Jevgenia Serper Senior Associate, Singapore T +65 6922 8668 M +65 9663 6615 E [email protected]
Helen Vickers Associate, Singapore T +65 6922 7874 M +65 8907 0298 E [email protected]
Ellen Wang Associate, Perth T +61 8 9429 7429 E [email protected]
Ben Williams Associate, Perth T +61 8 9429 7438 E [email protected]
Yvonne Yap Associate, Perth T +61 8 9429 7486 E [email protected]
18
51154/03/22
