DLA Piper appoints Matt Tweedie as CFO
UK law firm DLA Piper has appointed Matt Tweedie as its new CFO, effective 1 July 2025.
Tweedie, who will be based in London, joins from Knight Frank, where he served as group CFO and head of business services.
'He brings valuable experience to support the firm's growth strategy,' DLA Piper said.
Tweedie joined Knight Frank, real estate consultancy, in 2018 and was promoted to group CFO and head of business services in 2019.
Prior to his tenure at Knight Frank, he spent two decades at Arup, including 13 years as group CFO.
DLA Piper international managing partner and global co-CEO Charles Severs said: 'Matt is a highly accomplished financial leader who will help us drive efficiency and achieve our strategic growth plans. His extensive experience makes him the ideal candidate to lead our finance function.'
Tweedie added: "DLA Piper is a leading brand in the legal sector. Its strong client base, sector expertise, global reach and culture make the firm stand out. I look forward to working with Charles and the leadership team to contribute to the firm's continued success.'
DLA Piper has offices across the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and the Asia Pacific region.
The firm is involved in various advisory services, including recent engagements with multiple organisations.
Among its recent advisory roles, DLA Piper advised on the warranty and indemnity (W&I) insurance for a 'leading' insurer.
This was in connection with the acquisition of a majority interest in the JET fuel stations network in Germany and Austria by a consortium of Stonepeak and Energy Equation Partners.
Additionally, DLA Piper advised Benchmark Holdings on its proposal to return capital to shareholders, the cancellation of the admission to trading of its ordinary shares on the LSE's AIM market and Euronext Growth Oslo, and its subsequent registration as a private limited company.
In another development, DLA Piper advised Rhino Federated Computing in closing its $15m Series A financing round.
"DLA Piper appoints Matt Tweedie as CFO " was originally created and published by International Accounting Bulletin, a GlobalData owned brand.
The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Dr. Oz pushes back on criticism that GOP is cutting Medicaid
President Donald Trump's favorite celebrity doctor is standing behind his new boss on an issue that has sparked opposition even among some Republicans. Dr. Mehmet Oz, the Trump-appointed administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, wouldn't concede in an interview with POLITICO'S newest podcast that the budget megabill passed by the House will cut Medicaid. Oz arguedin an interview on The Conversation with Dasha Burns that the Medicaid work requirements in the sprawling legislation will 'future proof' the program — in line with administration goals to protect social services. 'Every great people takes care of their most vulnerable, and we're a great nation,' Oz said in the interview scheduled to run Sunday. 'We're gonna do that. So there's a lot of sensitivity about being accused, accused of not taking care of people who have disabilities or seniors without money or children.' Trump's mission, Oz said, is to ensure the program remains solvent. 'I'm trying to save Medicaid,' he said. 'That's the president's goal as well. He said over and over again, he wants to love and cherish these programs and we need to keep them viable.' When Oz was sworn into his post in April,Trump insisted there would be no cuts to Medicaid. But aCongressional Budget Office report from May estimated that 7.6 million people would become uninsured if the Medicaid portions of the GOP megabill go into effect. Even some top Republicans, including Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, worry the cuts will hurt the party. A wing of "corporatist Republicans,'Hawley claimed in a May New York Times op-ed, 'wants Republicans to build our big, beautiful bill around slashing health insurance for the working poor. But that argument is both morally wrong and politically suicidal.' GOP Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine are also expressing reservations with the House bill's Medicaid cuts. Democrats, meanwhile, are capitalizing on the issue — withads hammering House Republicans for voting to cut spending set to begin running next week. Oz pushed back, telling Burns the vast majority of Americans agree with the White House push to enact work requirements in exchange for healthcare. 'We're not cutting Medicaid,' he told Burns. 'I've seen the proposals. There is no proposal I've seen, in fact, in fairness, that doesn't increase spending on Medicaid.'
Politico
3 hours ago
- Politico
Dr. Oz pushes back on criticism that GOP is cutting Medicaid
President Donald Trump's favorite celebrity doctor is standing behind his new boss on an issue that has sparked opposition even among some Republicans. Dr. Mehmet Oz, the Trump-appointed administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, wouldn't concede in an interview with POLITICO'S newest podcast that the budget megabill passed by the House will cut Medicaid. Oz argued in an interview on The Conversation with Dasha Burns that the Medicaid work requirements in the sprawling legislation will 'future proof' the program — in line with administration goals to protect social services. 'Every great people takes care of their most vulnerable, and we're a great nation,' Oz said in the interview scheduled to run Sunday. 'We're gonna do that. So there's a lot of sensitivity about being accused, accused of not taking care of people who have disabilities or seniors without money or children.' Trump's mission, Oz said, is to ensure the program remains solvent. 'I'm trying to save Medicaid,' he said. 'That's the president's goal as well. He said over and over again, he wants to love and cherish these programs and we need to keep them viable.' When Oz was sworn into his post in April, Trump insisted there would be no cuts to Medicaid. But a Congressional Budget Office report from May estimated that 7.6 million people would become uninsured if the Medicaid portions of the GOP megabill go into effect. Even some top Republicans, including Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, worry the cuts will hurt the party. A wing of 'corporatist Republicans,' Hawley claimed in a May New York Times op-ed, 'wants Republicans to build our big, beautiful bill around slashing health insurance for the working poor. But that argument is both morally wrong and politically suicidal.' GOP Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine are also expressing reservations with the House bill's Medicaid cuts. Democrats, meanwhile, are capitalizing on the issue — with ads hammering House Republicans for voting to cut spending set to begin running next week. Oz pushed back, telling Burns the vast majority of Americans agree with the White House push to enact work requirements in exchange for healthcare. 'We're not cutting Medicaid,' he told Burns. 'I've seen the proposals. There is no proposal I've seen, in fact, in fairness, that doesn't increase spending on Medicaid.'
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Don't Fall for Trump's Crocodile Tears Over ‘Judicial Tyranny'
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION REVELS in both-sidesism. Trump is weaponizing DOJ? So what? We are just responding to what Biden did. It's a common trope. But it is a trope that should be rejected whenever it lacks a factual foundation. More often than not, President Trump's both-sidesism is based on a false equivalency. The current debate about 'universal injunctions'—when federal district judges issue injunctions applicable nationwide—is just such a case. Trump wants you to think that he is the victim of district court judges gone crazy enjoining his actions. To make that case he also wants you to think that what is happening to him is the same thing that happened to Biden's policies—district court judges interfering with executive prerogative. But that's just not the case. And diving into the facts makes it clear that this argument really isn't about universal injunctions—cases where a district court judge grants interim equitable relief that applies across the entire country. The argument is really about forum-shopping and judicial gerrymandering. MAGA has done these things. Trump's opponents don't. The facts on the ground are that the universal injunctions against Trump are truly universal. As of today, more than twenty different federal district court judges have issued injunctive relief in at least 180 different cases (and the number goes up with every passing day). There is no good evidence that Trump's opponents are forum-shopping—bringing cases before courts where there is the greatest expectation of having judges who will rule in their favor. The political valence of those judges is across the board. One of the most stunning of the rebukes to Trump came from a Trump-appointed conservative judge in South Texas who was the first judge in the nation to reach the merits of Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans and declared it unlawful. Another was when conservative icon J. Harvie Wilkinson from Virginia condemned Trump's assault on the judiciary. Support our independent political journalism by signing up for a free or paid subscription. Likewise, Trump has lost all across the country. He has lost in Massachusetts, where his assaults on Harvard have been rejected. He has lost in San Francisco, where his wholesale reorganization of the federal government has been paused. In the immigration field he has lost not only in Texas but in Maryland, Vermont, and New Jersey. By contrast, the overwhelming majority of the universal injunction cases against Biden polices were forum-shopped to specific judges. In Texas, there are a couple of locations where a single federal district court judge presides over a division of the district (a division being a subunit). By filing a case in a particular division, a litigant could almost guarantee drawing a particular judge. It is no accident, then, that dozens of injunctions were sought by MAGA Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in two separate one-judge divisions. By March 2023, Paxton's office had filed 28 lawsuits against the Biden administration in federal district courts in Texas; of those, 18 were filed in single-judge divisions, including Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk's division and a single-judge division held by another Trump appointee, Judge Drew Tipton. Judge Kacsmaryk is a Trump-appointed judge who opposes abortion. He tried to universally ban the use of mifepristone—a ban that was unanimously reversed by the Supreme Court. Judge Tipton, meanwhile, ruled against Biden's immigration policy—a decision that was overturned by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Reed O'Connor—another one-judge division holder—has become the MAGA go-to judge for rulings on guns (his ban on regulating receiver banks was overturned by the Supreme Court) and opposition to the Affordable Care Act (described as a 'lawless . . . mockery of the rule of law' that was, again, overturned by the Supreme Court). To be sure, some of the injunctions against Trump have, been overturned by the Supreme Court—most recently and notably in affirming Trump's authority to fire the members of independent boards (like the NLRB) under his executive authority. Not all injunctions issued against Trump deserve to be sustained. But what is striking is that it is only now, when universal injunctions bite against conservative initiatives, that the Supreme Court has begun to think about reining in their use. It's almost as if, dare one say it, sauce for the liberal goose tastes more bitter when used to season the conservative gander. TO BE FAIR, SOME ASPECTS OF THE ARGUMENT really are principled discussions of judicial power and the scope of equitable relief. Some conservative jurists, like Justice Neil Gorsuch, have been complaining about the actions of district judges since before the Biden administration. And there are good-faith arguments to be made that the power to enjoin the entire nation is somewhat ahistorical (though there is equally good evidence to the contrary). More to the point, as a practical matter there are good reasons for legal analysts—liberal and conservative alike—to oppose the arrogation of judicial power that allows a single judge to block federal policy. In a world in which we could have confidence in the good faith of an administration and a presumption as to its regularity of operation, universal injunctions would be a little-used safety-valve check on executive authority. But today, we live in a different world. One where MAGA gamesmanship and judicial forum-shopping were instrumental in frustrating various Biden initiatives. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, it seems quite possible that the Court will depower judicial opposition in the service of conservative policy. Share
