DLA Piper's Knowles' personal investment in LawVest revealed by filings
Related images
DLA Piper chief Sir Nigel Knowles’ investment in alternative business structure (ABS) LawVest has been revealed by a Companies House filing, showing he holds around a 1 per cent stake in the company.
Nigel Knowles
News that DLA Piper’s co-chief executive Knowles and a small number of other partners and staff had a personal stake in LawVest – the parent company of fixed-fee chambers Riverview – provoked outrage in pockets of the firm’s partnership, who felt they had been kept in the dark about the arrangement (27 February 2012).
According to the filings, which were posted on 21 June 2012 and are accurate as of 27 May 2012, DLA Piper’s joint chief executive Nigel Knowles holds 333 ordinary shares as well as a further 2333 ordinary shares which are held by trustees of his pension fund, IPS Pension Builder. Shares appear to have been issued in two batches, costing either £1 or £30 each. The shares give Knowles just less than a 0.9 per cent stake in the company, which has issued 298,926 shares in total.
As a firm, DLA Piper holds 62,500 shares, equivalent to around 21 per cent of the business.
A number of other lawyers, former lawyers and directors at DLA Piper also hold shares. London restructuring head Michael Fiddy holds 833 shares while Sean Mahon, an independent director on DLA Piper’s global and international boards, holds 1666 shares. International restructuring head Stephen Halladay holds 1,166 shares and London-based corporate consultant Bruce Westbrook holds 332 shares. Former senior partner Roger Lane-Smith holds 666 shares, while DLA Piper’s Leeds corporate group head Jonathan Procter holds 500 shares.
The filings also show that Outer Temple Chambers’ strategic development head, and Riverview Law’s head of business and international teams Richard Lissack, holds 1666 shares.
LawVest’s non-lawyer chief executive Karl Chapman, meanwhile, holds 22,473 shares.
DLA Piper declined to comment.
Readers' comments (6)
Anonymous | 20-Jul-2012 4:18 pm
So DID they, or did they NOT divest themselves of the shares? If they didn't, either those involved lied to Tony Angel, or Tony Angel lied to the partnership of the firm.
Either way, isn't this YET AGAIN a sign that no matter what the partnership may say, Sir Nige still gets his way and it seems NOONE has the gumption to stand up to it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 20-Jul-2012 4:29 pm
oh, what is 1% among friends - pshaw, pshaw
the issue is whether there was transparency and whether all partners were given the opportunity to invest directly
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 20-Jul-2012 6:18 pm
Oh dear and here we are again but thankyou for the reminder - Tony Angel has failed to address this as Senior Partner of the firm. Well worth your pay cheque Tony ... NOT - you have not delivered in the role you were recruited to perform - you are not adding value but rather draining the firm of cash - Senior partners in the firm have failed to see the obvious conflict their individual investments raise and the inappropriateness of their preferred investment status relative to their supposed fellow partners - you have shown yoursleves to not be fit and proper and not worthy of the trus of your Partnership. The ex partners - their names are of no surprise - at least they are now ex partners but depressing after draining so much cash from the firm during their careers at the firm (particularly in their very protracted stipend years) they now look to try and drain yet more cash but in a much more devisive way - and Sean Mahon do the decent thing and find another directorship - But no, nothing will change and none of them will do the decent thing - the gravy train will go on. A very sad and depressing state of affairs for DLA Piper. How stupid you all were to make these personal investments and how much damage you have caused for the sake of wanting to make yet more cash. Big Clap guys !!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Perky | 20-Jul-2012 10:19 pm
Come on, who wouldn't do this given half a chance? They are the perks of being an equity partner. You can do what you like and providing the firm doesn't keel over people generally don't get to find out about it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 21-Jul-2012 5:17 am
nige, comm'n - u know you will have to make a statement on this sooner or later; o/w it will go further. Many partners are not happy. There are many good people here and this story is embarassing. You are a massive cost. This is not going away. Insider.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Self help | 22-Jul-2012 10:25 pm
What got you an invite to the party?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment