Team Size: Three

In an increasingly complex global environment, how are you helping your organisation navigate risk while still supporting growth?

We invest across Asia — China, India, Japan, Bangladesh and Southeast Asia — and the risks we face are as diverse as the markets themselves. US tariff policy and trade tensions ripple across our portfolio countries in ways that are difficult to predict. A change of government in Bangladesh can alter the operating environment for a portfolio company overnight. Shifting tax interpretations in India can materially affect investment economics midstream. Policy changes in China — whether relating to sector restrictions, listing rules or cross-border structures — require constant vigilance and structural adaptability.

In this environment, it is impossible to anticipate every risk in advance. As both Partner and General Counsel, my approach is to stay grounded and curious — keep my eyes open, resist the inertia of not asking questions, and speak to people on the ground, because local customs, culture, and the political or regulatory mood can materially change how a risk should be interpreted. I then digest those inputs, layer them against my own experience, and make a judgement call. We are in a risk-taking business — so the question is never whether risk exists, but whether it is understood, consciously taken, and worth taking: probability, worst-case downside, and cost-benefit.

Critically, I do not stop at identifying risk. Management and the board are not looking for a thesis — they want solutions. My role is to translate risk into practical options: a preferred path, mitigants where needed, and if no elegant solution exists, the next best alternative. This applies equally to enforcement and recovery strategy in cross-border disputes, regulatory perimeter management in new market entry, and governance and fiduciary decisions on platform initiatives. In each case, the discipline is the same: structure the risk, sequence the response, and enable a decision the firm can stand behind.

How has the role of General Counsel evolved in recent years, and where do you see GCs creating the most value today?

The GC role has evolved from legal technician to judgement partner. The most important shift is recognising that boards and management do not need more analysis — they need clarity, options, and a path forward.

In practice, this requires three habits. First, diagnostic listening: the issue people raise is often a symptom of a deeper problem — misaligned incentives, fear, or loss of trust. Identifying and addressing that underlying concern is where the real value lies. Second, staying grounded: understanding how the business actually operates across functions and jurisdictions, so that advice is practical and credible. Third, solution-oriented framing: helping leadership weigh probability, worst-case outcomes and cost-benefit, then proposing concrete options — preferred path, mitigants, and fallbacks — rather than cataloguing concerns.

As a Partner and voting member of the Investment Committee, I participate directly in these decisions. My contribution often sits at the intersection of law, commercial reality and common sense: questioning assumptions, simplifying complexity, and deciding how the firm should move forward.

GCs also create critical value by maintaining trust during stress. Over the past year, I led LP communications during a period in which investor confidence, internal alignment and operational continuity all needed to be managed simultaneously — messaging, sequencing and tone had to be carefully calibrated to preserve credibility and long-term relationships.

Ultimately, the GC creates the most value not by producing the most thorough risk memo, but by enabling the clearest path forward.

What does effective leadership look like for a General Counsel today, and where do GCs have the most impact?

Effective GC leadership comes down to three things: being willing to make judgement calls under uncertainty, being clear about boundaries, and staying calm when others cannot.

I operate in an environment where accountability is concentrated and decisions have immediate consequences. In one situation, a portfolio company’s shareholder loan was in default and a significant shareholder was threatening to commence bankruptcy proceedings. Rather than allow the matter to become a value-destructive insolvency, I drove the negotiation and restructuring process directly — designing a multi-layered settlement involving sequenced payments, a debt-to-equity component, IP protections and carefully structured conditionality to prevent value leakage. The solution required commercial judgement as much as legal technique: knowing which concessions were acceptable, linking each step to concrete de-risking milestones, and securing internal approval under time pressure.

A significant part of my leadership is also helping teams develop better instincts. I use practical analogies and common-sense reasoning to show people how to think about a problem, not just what to do about it. I question assumptions — why are we doing this, why is this the answer, why not the other way — because that is often how better solutions and hidden risks reveal themselves.

Leadership also means knowing when not to act. In several situations, I have resisted actions that may be emotionally satisfying but do not change the outcome. Energy should go towards what shifts leverage, not what merely expresses frustration.

GCs have the most impact when they help the organisation remain clear-headed under pressure, absorb institutional anxiety without amplifying it, and ensure that decisions are made — not deferred — when the stakes are highest.

How has your relationship with the board changed, and where do you add the most value at board level?

My relationship with senior management has always been based on shared ownership. As both Partner and General Counsel, I do not operate as a separate legal function advising from the sidelines; I sit with the investment team, participate directly in judgement calls, and share economic accountability for outcomes.

What has become increasingly important is the nature of the issues on which that judgement is needed. At senior level, I add the most value in situations where legal, commercial, fiduciary and reputational considerations are tightly intertwined. My instinct in these situations is to look past the immediate issue to identify the underlying concern — whether it is fear, mistrust, misaligned incentives or loss of control — and address that directly, rather than treating only the surface problem.

A good example is platform-level initiatives where governance, economics and stakeholder management intersect. The legal considerations — fiduciary duties, conflicts management, investor consent, transparency on economics — are inseparable from the commercial and human questions: how do we preserve trust, align incentives, and ensure the firm remains viable for the long term? My role is to ensure these discussions happen early and with discipline, and to stay ahead of investor expectations by proactively adopting best-practice disclosure standards rather than reacting once questions arise.

I also add value in sensitive investor situations where the challenge goes beyond legal response. When serious concerns or complaints arise from LPs, credibility, tone and long-term trust matter as much as substance. My approach is to prioritise early, constructive dialogue, frame responses that are factual and measured, and ensure the firm’s position is defensible without being adversarial.

The value I add is in cutting through complexity so that leadership can make clear, confident decisions — commercially practical, procedurally clean, and capable of withstanding scrutiny from investors, regulators, counterparties and, ultimately, history.