Together with

Table of Contents

• EDITOR’S RAMBLE 🗣

• FEATURED REPORT 📰

• IN OTHER NEWS 🗞

• AROUND THE WEB 🌐

• STUFF THAT MIGHT HELP YOU 👌

EDITOR’S RAMBLE 🗣

This week, I watched the Oscars for the first time.

Adrien Brody won for The Brutalist, where AI was used to refine his Hungarian accent. Some found it controversial: should an AI-enhanced performance win an award?

This same week, a thousand artists (including Kate Bush and Annie Lennox) released a completely silent album protesting the UK’s plan to let AI companies mine musicians’ work without permission (unless they opt out).

AI is already shaping film and now threatens to reshape music.

But where should the line be drawn?

In The Brutalist, AI was a tool for the creators (to improve their own work). Under the proposed UK law, the benefit is for AI companies (not the artists themselves).

Maybe the difference is control.

The challenge is finding a balance that encourages tech innovation without making human artists disposable.

I know it’s not commercial law-related, but I’m curious: where do you think the line should be?

Reply to this email and let me know.

- Idin

FEATURED REPORT 📰

⛽ BP spends more on oil (and less on renewables)

What’s going on here?

This week, BP announced it will spend 20% more on oil and gas and cut investment in renewable energy by 70%, abandoning its green targets.

The change happened because activist investor Elliott Management pushed for it after buying a major stake in the oil and gas company. It wants BP to focus on profit and still cut green energy spending even further.

Why has BP changed its strategy?

Because of pressure from Elliott Management (Elliott), a hedge fund that bought a 5% stake in the company. That made Elliott the third-biggest shareholder in BP, after BlackRock (9%) and Vanguard (5%).

Since becoming a shareholder, Elliott has been turning up the heat on BP. It has been pushing the oil giant to boost financial performance and deliver stronger returns to shareholders.

What does Elliott see as the problem? BP has lagged behind rivals Shell and TotalEnergies — both of which have prioritised profits over ESG commitments in recent years.

Elliott’s playbook is clear: BP should follow Shell and TotalEnergies’ lead by selling its wind and solar assets and cutting spending on renewable energy.

The hedge fund is also calling for a change in leadership, arguing that BP’s board chair, Helge Lund, needs to be replaced with someone willing to double down on oil and gas.

BP’s latest strategic shift is a response to this pressure, but Elliott isn’t satisfied. The hedge fund wants the company to go even further.

What is an activist investor?

Activist investors buy significant minority stakes in publicly traded companies, with the goal of changing how they operate. Usually, they’re hedge funds (like Elliott) rather than individuals.

The term activist might sound like these investors are pushing for social good. In reality, their activism is usually about one thing — profit.

Activist investors push companies to make changes that boost profits for shareholders, sometimes at the cost of social or environmental concerns. That’s exactly what Elliott is doing with BP, urging the company to ditch renewables and double down on fossil fuels because it sees oil and gas as the more profitable route.

Different activist investors will have different goals. Some try to affect management decisions, while others push for big changes like splitting up the company or replacing board members.

The table below shows the most common demands activists make.

To get their way, these investors rally support from other shareholders — leveraging both public pressure and behind-the-scenes negotiations to tilt the company’s strategy in their favour.

What’s the big picture effect?

Activist investors are on the rise in Europe.

According to research from Skadden and Activist Monitor, 84% corporations surveyed expect activist investment to increase in the next year, with nearly half predicting a significant rise.

The graph below highlights the sectors most likely to be targeted by activist investors.

The UK is at the heart of this trend. Of the 84 new activist campaigns launched in 2024, 35 focused on UK-based companies. As a result, businesses are weighing up how to defend themselves against activist pressure.

Here are some ways companies can manage this risk:

• 💊 The poison pill strategy: A defensive move to stop activist investors from gaining too much control. If an activist buys a big stake, other shareholders can buy more shares at a discount. This weakens the activist’s influence by making it too costly for them to take over.

• 🔍 Proactive action: Companies try to spot weak points that might attract activist investors and address them early, working with shareholders before any outside pressure builds.

• 🗣️ Constructive dialogue: Some companies invite activists into the boardroom to discuss strategy. In theory, this creates an open dialogue. In reality, it’s tricky — company boards focus on long-term growth, while activists usually want quick returns.

How can you use this in your applications?

During the application process, you might be given a case study which includes a public company (like in your assessment centre).

In that situation, you can discuss the impact of activist investors.

Usually in a case study exercise, you have to make a recommendation to a company.

Let’s say you’ve recommended a publicly listed company should change its strategy to balance environmental goals with profitability rather than maximising shareholder returns at all costs.

In that case, you should also think about:

• 🔄 Pushback: Activist investors might fight against the plan.

• 🎯 Their tactics: They could push for changes in leadership, demand a company shake-up, or pressure the business to sell off assets.

• 🛡️ Your response: Plan how to handle these challenges — whether through open discussions, strategic defences, or clear communication with shareholders.

Showing awareness of the impact of activist investors, and how to manage them, demonstrates commercial awareness and strategic thinking, both of which law firms value highly.

TOGETHER WITH THE HUEL* 🤝

You’re Doing Breakfast Wrong

Discover Huel Black Edition—complete nutrition without compromise.

With 40g of protein and 27 essential vitamins, it’s the perfect meal for your busy life. Whether at home or on the go, fuel up in seconds with a high-protein meal.

Even better? New customers get a bundle of savings to kickstart their Huel journey. Use code BEHUEL15 for 15% off your first order, plus a FREE t-shirt and shaker.

Get 15% Off Now

* This is sponsored content

IN OTHER NEWS 🗞

• ⚖️ KPMG got the green light to practice law in the US, becoming the first Big Four firm to do it. This is made under Arizona’s alternative business structure program. The new law firm will handle legal operations, managed legal services, and tech-driven work like sorting contracts after mergers. But there’s a catch — KPMG can’t provide legal services to its audit clients, which includes a huge chunk of the Fortune 500, to avoid conflicts of interest.

• 👋 Paul Philip, the CEO of the Solicitors Regulation Authority, is retiring after 11 years. His departure comes as the SRA faces criticism over its handling of Axiom Ince’s collapse. During his time, Philip helped the SRA become independent from the Law Society and led the introduction of the Solicitors Qualification Exam, which changed how solicitors qualify in England and Wales.

• 🤖 The UK is delaying its AI regulation plans, matching the US’s more hands-off approach. The proposed AI bill, which would have required AI companies to submit their models for safety testing, is now pushed back to at least summer 2025. The government is worried that strict rules could scare off American tech investment. Unlike the EU, which has set clear AI regulations, the UK is sticking to a patchwork of existing laws for now. Some critics warn this uncertainty could hurt innovation too, but the government says AI regulation is still a priority (just not right now).

• 👩‍⚖️ Simmons & Simmons has appointed a new managing partner. Emily Monastiriotis will become managing partner in May (taking over from Jeremy Hoyland who had 14 years in the role). Monastiriotis has been with the firm since 2017, and is currently head of dispute resolution. After being elected into the role, she praised Hoyland’s leadership — during that period Simmons’ revenue more than doubled.

AROUND THE WEB 🌐

• 🌀 Tricky: The hardest tongue twister in the English language

• 🎛️ Ethereal: A synthesiser to create your own droning soundscapes

• 🏦 Blunder: US bank Citigroup accidentally gave someone $81 trillion instead of $280

STUFF THAT MIGHT HELP YOU 👌

• 📹️ Free application help: If you're applying to commercial law firms, check out my YouTube channel for actionable tips and an insight into the lifestyle of a commercial lawyer in London.