Clifford Chance LLP is an international law firm headquartered in London, United Kingdom, and a member of the "Magic Circle", a group of London-based multinational law firms. It ranks as one of top ten largest law firms in the world measured both by number of lawyers and revenue. In 2019–20, Clifford Chance had a total revenue of £1.803 billion ($2.5 billion), the highest of any firm in the Magic Circle, and profits per equity partner of £1.69 million. According to Acuris, as of 2020 Clifford Chance secured the most European M&A mandates, becoming the most popular adviser to top-tier private equity clients in the continent. In the same year it was named International Law Firm of the Year at the International Financial Law Review (IFLR) Europe Awards, part of the Euromoney group.
The researchers examined recruitment and selection methods: the best practices for choosing the right candidate. In an effort to achieve the objective of this study, the researchers formulated three research questions, three research objectives and three hypotheses. Also, the researchers employed survey research design and the population of this study is made up of the entire permanent staff of IMSU, from where 262 respondents were sampled, using simple random sampling technique. Though only 240 copies of the questionnaire were returned and used. The data collected in this study were analyzed using simple percentage and Pearson product moment correlation coefficient. The result indicated that there is significant relationship between recruitment/selection policy and level of turnover in Nigeria organizations, recruitment/selection policy affects productivity in the Nigeria organizations and there is significant impact of recruitment/selection policy on industrial peace and harmony in the Nigeria organizations. Based on the findings, it was recommended that organizations seeking for employee retention should always adopt internal recruitment/selection policy, so as to reduce the rate of job turnover. Furthermore, organizations the wants to achieve high productivity and high output should use external recruitment/ selection policy.
In this article, we will answer the questions (i) what is the role and what are the rights of activist shareholders under Dutch law, (ii) how these rights relate to ESG developments, and (iii) whether the associated changes in shareholder activism will affect the existing negative image of activist shareholders and their limited rights. We will examine all of this against the backdrop of recent developments - both legislative and practical - around ESG and the broad public support for it. In other words: will the pendulum, that in recent years has placed the power in the company in the hands of the management board and the supervisory board, swing back a bit toward the shareholders? We will discuss these matters from the Dutch perspective and will focus on the rights of shareholders according to Dutch law. The structure is as follows. In Section 2, we first outline the current playing field. What and who are activist shareholders, what do they want, what strategies do they employ and what trends can be discerned in practice? In Section 3, we provide a brief overview of the legal and non-legal "tools" that activist shareholders use. In Section 4, we discuss some recent developments in the field of ESG legislation and examine whether those developments affect or should affect existing shareholder rights. In Section 5, we discuss some additional "routes of attack" that the ESG-oriented activist shareholder can take. In Section 6, we wrap up with a brief conclusion.
Israel has been selling diaspora bonds for almost as long as the country has been in existence, with the original 1951 Independence Bonds being issued just three years after the State of Israel’s establishment as an independent nation. For over 70 years, both in times of crisis and times of strength, Israel has used the Israel Bonds program to call on the Jewish diaspora — most significantly in the United States but also in Canada and across the world — to provide the country with a layer of financial security that is, in many ways, unprecedented in modern history. The importance of Israel’s diaspora bond sales has evolved over time: it functioned as a load-bearing support of Israel’s economy in the program’s early days when, in the aftermath of World War II, sovereign debt markets had essentially disappeared; it now serves a far more important symbolic function, allowing Jews across the world to develop a connection with Israel by contributing some modest amount to the country’s well-being.This analysis considers the social and historical context of the Israel Bonds program, taking into consideration the almost emotional connection that the bonds allow members of the Jewish diaspora to feel towards the State of Israel. Most importantly, this study examines the terms of the bonds themselves, comparing both how Israel Bonds mirror traditional Eurobonds and, in particular, how the two types of issuances differ. With this, the analysis hopes to shine a light on an under-studied, but incredibly significant, aspect of Israel’s economic development.
Journal Article Islamic wealth management: prospects, challenges, and the case of Singapore Get access Arif A Jamal, Arif A Jamal Arif A Jamal is a member of the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore lawaaj@nus.edu.sg Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Habib Motani Habib Motani Habib Montani is Consultant to Clifford Chance LLP, London Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Capital Markets Law Journal, kmae008, https://doi.org/10.1093/cmlj/kmae008 Published: 24 May 2024 Article history Accepted: 25 April 2024 Published: 24 May 2024
This mandamus petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) asks the Court to enforce the CVRA’s right to confer. The petition arises out of the deadliest corporate crime in U.S. history – the crashes of two Boeing 737 MAX aircraft that resulted from Boeing concealing safety issues with the planes. The petitioners are the victims’ families, who represent eighteen persons killed in the two crashes. Under a secretly-negotiated deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) between the U.S. Justice Department and Boeing, various “immunity provisions” prevent Boeing from being prosecuted for its crime of conspiring to defraud the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) about the safety of the 737 MAX. Boeing’s crime directly and proximately caused the two crashes and killed 346 passengers and crew. In the proceedings below, the district court found that the families represented “victims” of Boeing’s crime under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA). The district court also found that the Government violated the families’ rights to confer under the CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5), by covertly entering into the immunizing DPA. But the district court ultimately concluded it was powerless to enforce the families’ CVRA rights. The district court stated that it had “immense sympathy for the victims and loved ones of those who died in the tragic plane crashes resulting from Boeing’s criminal conspiracy.” But the Court concluded that it lacked authority to enforce the families’ CVRA rights to ensure that “justice was done.” The petition follows the statutorily authorized procedure for enforcing CVRA rights in the Court of Appeals. The victims’ families’ petition asks the Court to direct the district court to (among other things) afford them their rights to confer, by excising from the DPA the immunity provisions blocking Boeing’s prosecution. This relief will then afford the families their CVRA right to confer with the prosecutors handling the case.
