About

Number of years practice: 20

Principal practice areas: Projects, Energy, Natural Resources, and Infrastructure group, focusing on project finance

Bar admissions: New York

Languages spoken: English, Spanish, French, Greek

What differentiates your Mexico-facing practice from those of your US competitors and peers?
My practice is unique in that I have been active in Mexico for many years and have seen the evolution of important sectors of the Mexican economy over the course of my career. This is particularly true of my work in the power sector in Mexico where I’ve seen how the PPA market has evolved over the past five to ten years, particularly with the recent PPA auctions. This historic understanding of the market allows me to advise clients operating in this dynamic region in ways that anticipate changes and appreciate where the market has been and where it is moving. This has allowed me to make a name for myself as a go-to advisor (advising both lenders and sponsors) on transactions with challenging, bespoke structures and which solutions require creative thinking in order to close.

Representing both lenders and sponsors, I have gained significant understanding of the various perspectives in any transaction. In my practice I also advise on transactions in other parts of Latin America and the US – both in markets that are less mature than Mexico and those that are equally mature – allowing me to have my finger on the pulse of what is “market” and also allowing me to work on innovative structures in Mexico based on what we have seen and done in other jurisdictions, thus pushing the market forward.

A key example of this includes the implementation of US private placements as financial solutions for project financings in Latin America, including my work advising Genrent del Peru S.A.C, a Peruvian subsidiary of F.K. Group (Israel) and VPower (Hong Kong) on its 4(a)(2) private placement in Peru (the first of its kind in the market) to refinance the Iquitos power plant in Peru. For my most recent Mexico deal advising Bancomext, BBVA, Credit Agricole, EKF, Natixis and Proparco as lenders and guarantor on the portfolio financing of wind and solar assets in Mexico owned by Engie Mexico, my team and I created a first of its kind financing structure through which each separate project is owned by a separate project company and has its own financing until construction is complete, without cross-collateralization to the other projects. In advising such a broad base of financiers, my team and I had to navigate the needs of each financier as well as work to find consensus amongst the financiers so that common ground could also be found with a heavy weight sponsor, ENGIE Mexico. This could not have been accomplished without strategic and creative thinking on how to best structure this transaction in order to make it financeable.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of advising Mexico-based clients from an office in the United States? T
here is always an advantage to being on-the-ground and in person, which is why for my Mexico deals my team and I are usually present in Mexico for negotiations and drafting sessions on a significant basis. We find this allows us to be responsive and push transactions towards meaningful milestones in negotiations by being present in person and working hand-in-hand with our clients. Further, should we need to be on the ground in Mexico, we are a short flight away and have not found this impedes us from connecting with our clients on transactions in a meaningful way.

However, being based in New York means I maintain a practice and presence in one of the most important legal centers for commercial law in the Americas, and I bring this market-making experience to bear on transactions in Mexico (and in Latin America generally). Specifically, many international players invest and lend to Mexican projects and they like having a New York lawyer that understands Mexico and also the wider context of Latin America and global trends, specifically how those forces impact upon transactions in Mexico. For example, Cubico asked us to advise on their Mexican law turbine supply agreements for the Mezquite project as we have a lot of experience with the particular turbine supplier and could benefit the transaction with that perspective, whereas a Mexican law firm would have less breadth of experience on a global scale. Being in New York also allows me to stay at the forefront of developments in the market, particularly in using innovative financing structures, which really comes from having a practice that covers Latin America as a region that also advises on transactions in the US. If we were based in Mexico, we would have less exposure and variety of transactions on a consistent basis as we do right now. Lastly, being in New York means we are not seen as competing with the top-tier Mexican firms, thus allowing us to always work with the best Mexican counsel on each transaction as a team.

What changes in the commercial and/or legal market do you anticipate in the 12 months ahead in Mexico?
Although Mexico is one of the most competitive countries in the world for productive investment (due to its relative macroeconomic and political stability, low inflation and the size and strength of its domestic market), uncertainty has weighed on economic activity. The new administration has failed to provide assurances of continuity in economic policies and has made some seemingly disruptive decisions in relation to the infrastructure and energy sectors. These actions have left many foreign investors nervous about investing in Mexico. Developments in the legal market also remain uncertain given the unpredictability of the AMLO administration’s next move.

That said, a closer look at the actual outcome of events over the last nine to 12 months does provide some basis for optimism. The AMLO administration’s actions during such period have been extremely disruptive, but have had less negative impact in the grander scheme of things than initially expected. If one looks at the outcome of such events – (1) the recent “successful” renegotiation of concession contracts with three natural gas pipeline operators appears, based on discussions with those involved in negotiations and market participants, not to have left the operators worse off and to have given the AMLO administration a “win”, (2) the retraction of claims of force majeure by CENACE under third-round PPAs that had put the future of the development of a clearing house for the energy market in Mexico into temporary turmoil, and (3) the fact that while the cancellation of the new Mexico City airport left investors, contractors and bondholders disgruntled, it did not result in their losing money – one sees the robustness of the rule of law in Mexico and the maturity of this market. In addition, one hopes that these outcomes will lead the AMLO administration to see that they should stop “playing in the sandbox” and instead should focus on policies and programs that boost both domestic and foreign investment in Mexico, such as reinstating the fourth round PPA auction.

What influence will legal technology have on US/Mexico working practices in the future?
Legal technology is something that we at A&O take very seriously, going so far as to establishing FUSE in September 2017, a physical working space in our London headquarters where we are bringing together technology companies (both early stage and mature), clients, lawyers and technologists to explore, develop and test practical solutions to legal, regulatory and deal-related issues.

This legal tech accelerator has so far been quite successful in developing technologies that have been particularly useful in legal due diligence matters, particularly for M&A deals where AI is used to review thousands of documents at a time. With the onset of legal tech, we have found that certain sectors are more open to using it than others, with most uptakes in the M&A space (at least from what we have seen). Because we are on the cutting-edge of legal tech developments, we are positioned perfectly to bring these solutions to our deals in Mexico. We are building up our repertoire of successful use cases for our budding legal technology offering, and slowly implementing it across our transactions, based on client appetite and based on how well the tech would work within the parameters of the particular transaction.

I think the US push for creating efficiencies in transactional legal work will ultimately find an audience in Mexico and in wider Latin America, as the efficiencies it creates translates into reduced legal costs and increased accuracy. As we begin to see what this technology can actually do to provide cost-effective solutions in other aspects of legal transactional work, we are slowly implementing these tech solutions with our clients. We have not
yet been able to implement this for a deal in Mexico, but we have seen this approach work quite well in the US and hope to implement further legal tech solutions in the near future throughout our Latin America practice.

What is your perception of in-house counsel’s priorities in terms of client service when working with US-based law firms?
From our perspective, in-house counsel’s priorities in terms of client service when working with a firm like A&O, and particularly with me and my team, are (1) the availability of partners with significant and market-leading experience to work on complex, often cross-border transactions, (2) precise guidance and advice based on our deep and wide understanding of the Mexican market, (3) bringing a commercial approach to negotiations while robustly negotiating for the interests of the client, and (4) providing seamless service with local counsel on these large transactions.