Lydia Williams studied at York University and started her training contract with Travers Smith in September 2017. Here, Lydia reflects on her experience of the application process and offers 10 insightful tips on choosing a law firm that’s right for you.
1) Get in Touch
Speaking to lawyers within firms can give you a great insight into the culture of the firm as well as the work that they do on a daily basis. It looks fantastic on an application if you’ve shown the initiative to speak to someone before you apply and people are often flattered when you show an interest in what they do, so don’t be embarrassed to ask for advice. If you speak to someone at a careers fair or an open day make sure to get their name and send them a follow-up email, and make the most of LinkedIn to start getting connected.
2) Do a Vacation Scheme
Not only is this a much more assured way of getting a training contract, vacation schemes are also the best way to judge if a law firm is right for you. They provide you with more time to get a feel for the firm, and more opportunities to impress them and show off your capabilities than a short interview would. It’s much easier to get an idea of what working there will really be like by experiencing it for yourself.
3) Be Genuine and Relaxed at Interviews
It’s important to be well prepared for interviews, but don’t let this take away from how you conduct yourself on the day. If you rote learn answers this may show that you aren’t able to think on your feet, and it may also take away from giving an accurate reflection of your personality. Try to relax and be yourself; the interviewers are looking for capability but also for people that they want to sit in an office with.
4) Consider the Firm’s Selection Process
Although it can be difficult to remember whilst you’re trying to impress at interviews, open days and on vacation schemes, it’s important to consider how contact with the firm impacts on your impression of them. Law firms all have different methods of recruiting, and this can be a good indication of their treatment of trainees. Some law firms may really challenge you intellectually at interviews, or try to get the best out of you at vacation schemes by setting up interesting challenges whilst providing support. These experiences can be a good indication of what life as a trainee would be like with them.
5) Look Further than Online Brochures
It’s easy to be taken in by glamorous promises on law firms’ websites, such as doing overseas seats. However, the best way to find a firm that’s the best fit for you is to consider what kind of work you want to do and culture you want to work in on a daily basis. If you don’t enjoy the particular culture or practice areas of a firm in London, it won’t make it much better if this environment is transplanted somewhere more exotic.
6) Base your choice on Practice Areas
The work you do as a lawyer will be entirely different depending on which practice area you work in. As a trainee you will sit in four (or sometimes six) seats and after two years you will specialise in one of these areas, so it’s important to consider the practice areas that may interest you.
7) Read the News
Reading the news will provide an insight to the deals and disputes that a firm is currently involved in and help you understand which practice areas work on those transactions. It may also provide an insight into recent or potential future development within the legal world. For example, if you are looking for a small or medium-sized firm you may discover that the law firms that you are considering could be facing a potential merger with a larger firm.
8) Training Contract Structure
Training contracts are structured very differently across firms, as some firms structure their offices so that a trainee is always seated with a partner and/or an associate, whilst others give trainees their own office. Consider the structure that you feel would provide you with the best way to grow and develop as a lawyer.
9) Use Your Resources
From your university’s careers service to the vast amount of advice available online, there is plenty of research that you can do to gain an insight into firms before you apply. Make the most of all resources available to you as this will improve your applications and ensure you are selecting firms that will be best for you. Some online careers advisors even offer contact with lawyers within various firms, and are willing to provide extensive advice to you personally concerning applications. Be willing to listen and take their advice on board.
10) Be Selective
Being selective by choosing five or six firms to apply to will mean that you have more time to tailor each application to the criteria specified in the brochures. Highlight that you not only want to be a lawyer but also that you specifically want to be a lawyer at that firm; offering someone a training contract means investing a huge amount of time and money in them, so showing commitment is key.
Akin Gump has announced that the firm’s London trainee salary will be increased to £48,000 in the first year of training and £52,000 in the second, effective September 2017.
Akin Gump’s London Newly Qualified Lawyer (NQ) pay will not be changing at this time and remains at US$180,000, until the firm chooses to review associate/NQ salaries.
Victoria Widdows, Director of International Legal Recruiting & Development at Akin Gump in London, commented: “Training as a lawyer in our London office offers an inspiring and immersive environment. Akin Gump trainees quickly become an integral part of the London office and we want to ensure that salaries are reflective of this at the top end of the market, as is the case with our NQ salaries.”
Shearman & Sterling has posted an 87% retention rate for trainees due to qualify this autumn, down from 100% retention last year.
Shearman will retain 87% of its London trainees due to qualify in September 2017, as 13 out of 15 trainees were offered and accepted newly qualified (NQ) positions at the firm. This represents a drop from both its 2016 and 2015 retention rates, when all 13 of its September qualifiers accepted full-time positions at the firm’s London office. This year’s figure remains above its 2014 rates, however, when the firm retained 75% of its final-year trainees to NQ positions.
The US firm’s September NQ lawyers join the mergers and acquisitions, finance, financial Institutions advisory and financial regulatory, project development and finance, and antitrust global practices. Three members of Shearman’s NQ intake this year will take up international secondments in Brussels, Abu Dhabi and Singapore.
Other firms to have announced their retention rates for this autumn include Burges Salmon and Blake Morgan. Burges Salmon announced in April this year that it will retain 100% of its 28 trainees, while Blake Morgan will keep eight of nine trainees who will qualify this September.
Jones Day has substantially boosted its NQ City lawyers’ pay by 18%, rising by £15,000 from last year to £100,000. Its trainees will also receive increased pay in this year’s review, with Jones Days first years earning an extra £2,000, raising their salaries to £47,000, while second year pay jumped 8% to £54,000.
Travers Smith also increased its associate salaries across the board, with newly qualified lawyers (NQ) now receiving a base salary of £75,000, a 5% hike on last year’s pay.
The UK firm raised its pay for its 1 year post-qualification (PQE) lawyers, who will now receive £82,000, an additional £3,000 on last year’s figures. Its 2 year PQE lawyers received a £1,000 raise, bringing their base salary to £92,000; and an additional £2,000 has been awarded to 3 year PQE lawyers, who will be paid £102,000 this year.
Trainees at the firm have seen a rise in their base salaries, with first years awarded an extra £1,000, while second year trainees will earn a further £1,500 up from last year. Their base salaries will now reach £43,500 and £49,000 respectively.
Across the City, Macfarlanes NQs can now earn between £81,300 and £90,000 a year, based on individual performance bonuses, which are expected to range between 8% and 15%. The figures have shot up from its previous band, which ranged between £71,000 and £75,000. All fee earners will have the chance to earn an extra bonus of up to 10% of their base salary for ‘exceptional’ performance.
Although London-based CMS associates have missed out on a systematic pay rise, CMS has increased pay levels for NQs in both Bristol and Scotland, who will receive £49,000, up £1,500 and £39,000, a £1,000 increase, respectively.
London-based associates base salaries at Herbert Smith Freehills (HSF) remain unchanged. However, HSF associates will have a chance to earn greater pay with a new bonus system for top performers.
HSF is currently looking to review its salary structure to ‘be able to consider an associate’s wider contribution to the firm, alongside their performance and skills’, a spokesperson said The new reward structure will aim to ‘provide greater flexibility for the firm to make reward decisions less directly linked to PQE.’
This article first appeared on The Lex 100‘s sister publication, Legal Business.
An Allen & Overy (A&O) team is advising UK company Worldpay on its £9bn sale to US payment processor Vantiv, the largest US merchant acquirer by transaction volume, in its bid to cover the global market.
The A&O team is led by corporate partner Duncan Bellamy, who also led A&O on London Stock Exchange (LSE) listed Worldpay’s 2015 initial public offering (IPO), and is joined by M&A partner Seth Jones.
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom represented Cincinnati-based Vantiv on the deal. In 2016, the company processed 25 billion transactions with a combined $930bn value.
In a joint statement, Worldpay and Vantiv said they saw a ‘compelling strategic, commercial and financial rationale’ for the combination, which will create a global company with a ‘strong position’ in the four core regions: the US, Europe, Asia-Pacific and South America.
Worldpay was subject to an offer from US banking giant JPMorgan Chase yesterday, but the company announced today that an agreement had been reached with Vantiv.
The deal values Worldpay’s shares at £3.85 each, with shareholders entitled to 55p per share. A Worldpay spokesperson confirmed that the value of the merger was subject to share price change, but that the ultimate value will be around £9bn.
Vantiv chief operating officer Charles Drucker will lead the group as executive chairman and co-chief executive while Vantiv’s Stephanie Ferris will assume the role of chief financial officer.
Worldpay chief executive Philip Jansen will continue as a chief executive for the combined company.
Following the merger’s completion, Worldpay shares will be delisted from the LSE. Common stock in Vantiv, which will be the ultimate holding company of the combined group, will continue to be listed on The New York Stock Exchange.
A&O, Weil, Gotshal & Manges and Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer advised Worldpay on its 2015 IPO. The float was the largest of the year. It gave Worldpay a market value of more than £5bn.
At the time, Bellamy, David Broadley and US securities partner Jeff Hendrickson advised Worldpay. Weil’s team advising Advent International and Bain Capital was led by London partner Marco Compagnoni, with Peter King, Samantha McGonigle and Simon Lyell. Freshfields advised underwriter Goldman Sachs, led by capital markets partner Mark Austin.
Eight out of 11 Mayer Brown trainees will stay on at the firm as newly-qualified (NQ) associates come September 2017.
The international firm received 10 applications and offered nine jobs. Eight of the trainees took the firm up on its offer, all of whom will be on permanent contracts.
The Litigation, Banking & Finance, Corporate & Securities, Real Estate, Pensions, Employment & Benefits and IP teams will all welcome a new NQ team member.
William Glassey, Training Principal at Mayer Brown said:
‘I want to congratulate all our September qualifiers; they have all done extremely well. We are also delighted that eight of our trainees will be staying on in permanent positions within our practices. They represent our investment in the future of the firm and we look forward to watching their continuing development as they build their careers.’
The lucky eight can expect to pocket an impressive £71,500 a year in their new roles.
The European Commission (EC) has today (27 June) fined Google €2.4bn for abuse of dominance as a search engine, illegally promoting its own comparison shopping service above others in breach of antitrust law, creating expectations of a raft of damages claims based on the finding.
The EC told the global company to end its illegal conduct within 90 days or face penalties of up to 5% of Google’s parent company Alphabet’s average daily worldwide turnover.
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton competition partner Maurits Dolmans and Brussels partners Thomas Graf and Robbert Snelders acted for Google. Julia Holz co-ordinated Google’s in-house defence.
Clifford Chance partner Thomas Vinje represented 15-company consortium Fairsearch which submitted evidence in relation to rival shopping services in the case, including as Foundem, TripAdvisor, Expedia and Trivago.
Covington & Burling’s Miranda Cole advised Expedia, TripAdvisor and Trivago.
Today, Fairsearch stated that the decision ‘sets a powerful precedent’ that the EC can use to restore competition on other specialised online search services, such as those for travel.
Competition chief Margrethe Vestager said that Google’s strategy for its comparison shopping service had not just attracted customers ‘by making its product better’ than rivals but instead had ‘abused its market dominance as a search engine by promoting its own comparison shopping service in its search results, and demoting those of competitors.’
Google’s activity was ‘illegal under EU antitrust rules. It denied other companies the chance to compete on the merits and to innovate.’ It also ‘denied European consumers a genuine choice of services and the full benefits of innovation,’ she said.
The EC also said that as a result of its practices, Google’s comparison shopping service is far more visible to consumers in Google’s search results than rivals’ comparison shopping services, which are pushed down and less visible.
A Google spokesperson said today that the company will consider appealing the decision. It said that its shopping comparison service connects ‘users with thousands of advertisers, large and small, in ways that are useful for both.’
While the EC could have fined Google up to 10% of its annual global turnover, Peter Willis, EU competition co-head at Bird & Bird described the case as ‘significant’ partly for being largest EC fine to date on a single company.
‘It’s likely to be portrayed as another instance of the Commission bashing US tech companies’, but the EC’s position ‘will be that it has fined Google not because it is a large US tech company, but because it has abused its dominant market position by squeezing out its rivals in related markets’, he added.
There is likely to be ‘a series of damages claims brought by the rivals that were excluded from the market by Google’s conduct. They will be able to use the decision as the basis for a damages claim before the national courts.’
The EC’s decision will ‘establish Google’s liability and a damages claim will in principle be limited to establishing the loss,’ Willis added.
In 2004, the EC fined €497m Microsoft for illegally leveraging its dominant position.
Google’s search engine provides search results to consumers who pay for the service with their data, according to the EC. Nearly all of Google’s revenues come from advertising, many shown on a consumer search.
The EC said that Google’s search algorithms had ‘systematically’ promoted its own comparison shopping service to consumers at the top of the page on a Google search while demoting rival comparison shopping services.
The decision followed a seven year investigation into Google’s online shopping comparison service.
Foundem originally accused Google in 2009 of lowering its ranking on the search engine in favour of its own companies. In July 2016, the EC released a statement of objections that Google abused its dominant market position by ‘systematically favouring its comparison shopping service in its search result pages.’
Google later sought to defend its position on the basis that the accusations and evidence represented just ‘the interests of a small number of websites.’
Kent Walker, general counsel at Google, has blogged that the EC’s case ‘doesn’t fit the reality of how most people shop online.’ Walker argued that rather than looking for products on a search engine, consumers reach merchant websites in many different ways such as social media websites and online advertisements.
There are currently two separate investigations pending into Google, one regarding its use of the Android operating system and another into its AdSense service.
The lure of secondment overseas is a carrot dangled by many international law firms to entice the most talented trainees to their firm. But is a seat abroad merely a six-month jolly, or a genuine boost to your career? Kate Durcan spoke to TWVs (trainees with visas) to find out.
To be fair, there aren’t many graduate careers where just months into the job you’re relocated to uptown Manhattan, or sampling the hedonistic nightlife of the Far East. But if you’re considering a training contract with an international law firm, the chances of a seat abroad are high, thanks to the continued globalisation of legal services and a philosophy among firms that it’s never too early for young lawyers to begin networking.
Sarah Burson, graduate recruitment and development manager at Holman Fenwick Willan LLP, which tops the current Lex survey for international secondment opportunities (see box), says: ‘From a firm perspective, international secondments allow our trainees to develop a global perspective to the law. They also equip trainees with a better understanding of our international network, new contacts and an ability to cross sell across our geographies.’
A handful of firms, such as Holman Fenwick Willan LLP and White & Case LLP, actually guarantee all trainees an international secondment during their training contract, while others have limited secondments available and run an internal application process to decide who gets to travel. ‘All of our trainees complete a secondment to one of our international offices,’ continues Sarah. ‘We think that the availability of international secondments is a real USP of our training contract.’
Travel benefits
It’s easy to see the appeal of an all-expenses paid, six-month trip to some glamorous and far-flung destination, but does it actually benefit your career? According to trainees who’ve been seconded, there are a host of benefits, both professional and personal. Number one is that you’ll be given greater responsibility and more challenging work while abroad, because you are likely to be one of just a few, if not the only, trainee in the office, and foreign offices themselves are usually smaller than in London.
Jean Renaldy is a second-year trainee at White & Case LLP and recently spent his third seat in the firm’s New York office working within the M&A team. He explains: ‘They don’t have the concept of trainees there, so you get associate-level work straight way, which is really interesting. I got to do things I wouldn’t have done in London, such as drafting sections of the SPA (Sale and Purchase Agreement) for example.’ He continues: ‘Deal teams tend to be smaller out there, just my supervisor, a mid-level associate and me, so I got great exposure to clients and work.’
At Holman Fenwick Willan LLP, recently-qualified dispute resolution solicitor Alex Andreou spent six months at the firm’s Dubai office during his training contract: ‘I got so much more experience and exposure to clients and matters than in London,’ he recalls. ‘When you arrive, it’s all go from day one – no one says, “you’re just a trainee, here’s basic work”. So it was refreshing.’
Another major benefit of international secondment is the boost to your confidence, both in terms of professional capability and the personal maturity that comes from living abroad by yourself for a length of time. ‘I came back feeling a lot more confident and sure of myself,’ reveals Jean. ‘If an associate tells me to do something, before I would just do it; but now, if I don’t agree, I am more confident to have my own opinion and will say so.’
Networking too, is one of the key advantages of secondment. The colleagues you meet, work and socialise with while overseas will never be forgotten, and throughout your career they will remain just a phone call away, which is a huge advantage when working on multijurisdictional legal matters. As a qualified solicitor, Alex is reaping the benefits of his time in Dubai, a location that often co-ordinates legal work involving neighbouring countries. He explains: ‘It is incredibly useful having contacts across the firm. I can comfortably pick up the phone to the Dubai office – it happened recently when I needed Egyptian advice and Jordanian advice. Being able to call them and get advice is invaluable.’
Spotlight on: Name: Jean Renaldy Firm: White & Case LLP Degree: Law, Nottingham University Current seat: fourth Secondment: New York (M&A) Travel mantra: ‘It’s definitely a really great learning experience, especially because you are not treated as a trainee.’
Passport to success
Whether or not a firm is able to offer an international secondment is basically down to number crunching: firms with large trainee intakes in London but just a handful of foreign offices will obviously have limited opportunities. At firms with a greater office-to-trainee ratio, there will be a higher chance of secondment, but of course, not all of a firm’s overseas destinations will be on offer to trainees.
Clyde & Co has 45 offices and associated offices worldwide and currently offers trainees secondments to Hong Kong, San Francisco, Dubai and Tanzania. Trainee Martin Plowden spoke to Lex direct from San Francisco, where he is half-way though his secondment there.
The history and Spanish graduate, who also did a Masters in American Studies, reveals that the opportunity for secondment was ‘one of my top-two reasons, even the top reason’ for joining the firm. ‘The fact that it offered international secondments and the amount of offices it had around the world really appealed to me,’ he says, ‘because I’ve always felt I’ve had an international focus. And the fact that the firm is expanding across the Americas made Clyde’s different to the other firms that do shipping and insurance, which mainly focus on the Middle East.’
Typically, secondment usually takes place during a trainee’s third or fourth seat, but Martin is still only in his second seat. He managed to convince the firm he was ready to go after completing the internal application process, comprising an interview and writing a business case for the secondment, setting out the skills he could offer the San Francisco team. ‘I thought San Francisco was the most interesting [of destinations on offer], and the office handles work I had previously learnt about, so it was my first choice,’ he says.
Martin is working in the area of cyber security insurance, a hugely relevant and burgeoning area of law, and a topic he was already familiar with, having researched the area while on a vac scheme with the firm in 2015. Three months into the secondment, is it living up to expectations? Martin reveals: ‘The team here is very hospitable and the work is exactly what I was hoping for; I’m given so much responsibility, for example drafting reports to clients and letters to policy holders – I’m given sole responsibility for this. I also have my own cases, even as a first-year trainee. My supervisor will check my work, but it is brilliant responsibility and great for my development and training. I get a lot of client contact too and I’m building contacts.’
Spotlight on: Name: Martin Plowden Firm: Clyde & Co Degree: History and Spanish, Durham University Current seat: second Secondment: San Francisco (insurance and reinsurance: cyber security) Travel mantra: ‘You may get a little homesick at the very beginning but you adapt and adjust. And the office has been so welcoming it has made the transition very easy – I won’t want to leave!’
Office escape
Of course, it’s not all work and no play while on secondment. Despite the infamously-long hours of a New York M&A practice, Jean at White & Case LLP found time to fully explore the city and take full advantage of the perks made available to staff of the firm, including free entry to New York’s museums and galleries, for example. In Dubai, Holman Fenwick Willan LLP’s Alex was able to hook up with university friends and travel throughout the United Arab Emirates and neighbouring countries, such as Oman. And Martin at Clyde & Co is currently soaking up the Californian culture with team-building trips to the baseball and basketball, and visiting the stunning Yosemite National Park in the Sierra Nevada mountains.
On top of a trainee’s usual salary, many firms provide an additional allowance to help with living costs while away, and of course, accommodation is both located and paid for by firms. ‘The way it is set up for you is ridiculously good,’ notes Alex. ‘There is an apartment there ready for you to move into and you’re in the office the next day. It’s like your whole life changes overnight.’
‘The firm provides the accommodation and I feel so grateful,’ agrees Martin. ‘The human resources team identified an apartment for me to stay in and it’s in a really nice, uptown part of the city. San Francisco has just overtaken New York as the most expensive city to live in, it’s even dearer than London, but the firm covers it.’
Spotlight on: Name: Alex Andreou Firm: Holman Fenwick Willan LLP Degree: History, St Andrews University Qualified: September 2016, Shipping litigation Secondment: Dubai (shipping and commodities litigation) Travel mantra: ‘One of the most interesting aspects was that you got exposure to different legal cultures, for example, helping with criminal law matters in the UAE courts. It is completely different to the rule of law in the UK and it’s really interesting to experience a different approach.’
Go global
If you’re considering applying to an international firm and have aspirations to go on secondment, it helps if you can demonstrate an international awareness and convey your desire to work overseas when applying for your training contract. Recruiter Sarah at Holman Fenwick Willan explains: ‘Because all of our trainees complete an international secondment, we actively look for individuals who want to have a global career and who have an international outlook. This does not necessarily mean that they need to have lived or worked abroad before, but they must be enthusiastic about the possibility of spending time working overseas. Some of our trainees choose to qualify outside of London at the end of the training contract – into one of our international offices – and that is encouraged.’
Clyde & Co’s Martin has not yet completed his secondment and is already thinking about future opportunities with the firm overseas. ‘I would like to work abroad again,’ he admits. ‘I’ve always been internationally focused, that’s why I studied languages at university, and the firm’s most recent office opening is in Mexico, which is a really attractive proposition.’
Jean also refers to his international background and how that influenced his decision to join White & Case LLP, having been born in Indonesia and educated in Singapore, before doing his law degree at Nottingham University. In turn, his experience while on international secondment has helped determine which department he would like to qualify into this September: ‘I was fortunate enough to get an international secondment in M&A, and now I really want to do that. So, it has definitely been a really great learning experience.’
The merits of a secondment abroad are clear: trainees return from the experience feeling that they have so much more to offer their firms on qualification. In turn, firms benefit from more culturally aware, independent and confident young lawyers, who may even boast the beginnings of a network of overseas contacts.
‘I’d definitely recommend taking the opportunity whenever you could,’ sums up Alex. ‘Both professionally and personally it is an amazing experience.’
City white-collar crime specialists have been drafted in as the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) today (20 June) charged Barclays and four former executives with conspiracy to commit fraud, false representation and unlawful financial assistance in arranging a £7.3bn Qatar funding deal at the height of the financial crisis – the first such prosecution of a bank.
The SFO has charged former Barclays CEO John Varley, former senior investment banker Roger Jenkins, former chief executive of Barclays’ wealth division Thomas Kalaris and ex-European head of financial institutions Richard Boath.
Barclays is represented by Willkie Farr & Gallagher, Jenkins by Brad Kaufman at Greenberg Traurig on the US side and Jenkins by Herbert Smith Freehills in the UK, while former CEO Varley has instructed Corker Binning.
Kalaris has instructed Steptoe & Johnson and Boath is represented by Michael O’Kane of Peters & Peters.
The defendants will appear before Westminster Magistrates Court on 3 July.
Barclays, Varley, Jenkins, Kalaris and Boath are charged with conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation in relation to the June 2008 capital raising under the Fraud Act 2006 and the Criminal Law Act 1977.
Barclays, Varley and Jenkins are separately charged with conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation in relation to the October 2008 capital raising, contrary to the Fraud Act 2006 and the Criminal Law Act 1977, and unlawful financial assistance contrary to the Companies Act 1985.
The decision is the first criminal prosecution against a UK bank and its former executives for their part in that crisis, nearly 10 years on. It is five years since the SFO began investigating the bank’s fundraising during the 2008 financial crisis.
The charges arise from Barclays’ capital raising arrangements with Qatar Holding and Challenger Universal in June and October 2008. They also relate to a $3bn loan facility made available to the State of Qatar acting through its ministry of economy and finance in November 2008.
One City partner told Legal Business the fact that this is the first prosecution of a bank as a result of financial crisis manoeuvring is ‘shameful’ for the government. ‘It takes political willpower and resources to bring these cases and there appears there isn’t a huge amount on the government side.’
‘The SFO’s existence is under threat, and it is hugely underfunded. The government does not take the SFO seriously and does not put the right resources into it,’ he said.
On the SFO’s delay in bringing the first charges so long after the event and since it launched the probe, Claire Shaw of Keystone Law said the SFO was under political pressure to make a decision, a decade after the crash: ‘There is a general feeling at the moment that we have to have charges.’
The SFO delayed because it was waiting for witnesses and documents from abroad to ensure it got over the criminal threshold required, Shaw said, adding that the SFO must ‘be careful before making charges. In a case like this, you do not want the spotlight of the world shine on you which may cause the case to collapse,’ she said.
White & Case London partner Jonathan Pickworth, however, countered that the decision to prosecute Barclays for its fundraising efforts ‘almost a decade ago’ is no longer in the public interest. ‘Who does this punish and what purpose does it serve? All the former management team moved on many years ago. This will only hurt the current shareholders and today’s hardworking employees.’
Barclays said it was considering its position ‘in relation to these developments, as it awaits further details of the charges from the SFO. The SFO has informed Barclays that it has not made a decision as to whether it will also bring charges against Barclays Bank in respect of the loan’ facility made available to Qatar in November 2008.
The European Commission’s (EC) probe of Google’s online shopping practices is reported to be closing in coming months with a potential €1bn (£875m) fine, in a case in which Clifford Chance (CC), Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton and Covington & Burling all act.
For seven years, the European regulator has been investigating allegations that Google favours its own online shopping price comparison services above others on its search engine, abusing its dominant market position in breach of antitrust law.
According to media reports, the Brussels-based agency is nearing a decision on a fine against the company.
In 2009, UK price comparison website Foundem accused Google of lowering its ranking on the search engine in favour of its own companies. At least 30 other similar complaints soon followed from companies such as Microsoft, Expedia and TripAdvisor.
The fine is expected to break the EC’s previous record in relation to an technology company antitrust breach after it fined Intel €1.06 billion in May 2009 for granting favourable rebates to companies such as Dell, HP, and Lenovo, for acquiring all or nearly all of their chips from Intel.
The EC opened this Google antitrust case in 2010. In July 2016, the EC formally stated that Google ‘has abused its dominant position by systematically favouring its comparison shopping service in its search result pages.’ Google denied the allegations and delayed its response.
The EC is concerned that Google promotes its own services its rivals’ cost to the ‘detriment of consumers’ who have to pay more due to resulting market distortion. It also claims that Google’s conduct ‘stifles innovation’ in the market for online shopping.
The EC also sent a statement of objections to Google in relation to advertising. According to the EC, Google restricted the ability of certain third party websites to display search advertisements from its competitors. The three firms are also involved in this separate investigation.
Alphabet Group, a holding company, has owned the US multinational conglomerate and other Google subsidiaries since a corporate restructure in 2015.
Cleary’s London-based competition partner Maurits Dolmans and Brussels partners Thomas Graf and Robbert Snelders act are defending Google. Google’s internal competition lawyer Julia Holz co-ordinates the company’s in-house defence.
Led by partner Thomas Vinje, CC is advising Fairsearch, a 15-strong consortium with allegations against Google in the case. Covington & Burling’s Miranda Cole acts for Microsoft, Expedia and TripAdvisor.
In December 2016, Google’s UK and Ireland legal chief Emma Jelley left the company to join tech start-up Onfido as general counsel.
Jelley had overseen the company’s legal affairs in the UK and Ireland for eight years.
