Tag: litigation

‘Thoughtful about where and how we grow’ – Latham sets out stall for City litigation push

While its London transactional credentials are undeniable, it is fair to say that Latham & Watkins has not to date boasted a similarly heavy-duty reputation on the contentious front.

However, the firm is doubling down on its efforts to shift this perception, with a series of recent eye-catching hires pointing to a renewed push in the capital, as the US giant continues its efforts to dig into a market still largely dominated by UK heritage firms.

Earlier this year, the disputes practice saw a significant shift with the departures of Oliver Browne and Stuart Alford KC to Paul Hastings.

Browne had spent 18 years at firm, co-leading the London litigation and trial department for the past six, most recently alongside Oliver Middleton, while fellow former co-head Alford had been at the firm since 2016, after joining from the Serious Fraud Office (SFO).

While the duo had championed ambitious expansion plans for the US firm’s London litigation practice during their time at the helm, those ambitions remain firmly in place.

Now under the leadership of Middleton, the London litigation and trial department is continuing its growth trajectory. The team’s headcount now stands at almost 70, including 19 partners – up from seven partners and 24 associates in 2017.

Speaking to Legal Business, Middleton and white collar specialist Pamela Reddy, who joined from Norton Rose Fulbright at the start of the year, are clear that litigation growth is a strategic priority for the firm, which is targeting a mix of lateral hires and organic growth.

As Middleton (pictured) underlines: ‘We are focused on attracting top talent that enhances our firm’s growth, success, and culture.’

Alongside Reddy, other key appointments in recent years have included former Orrick partner James Lloyd, who joined in October 2021 to focus on litigation and investigations relating to cybersecurity and privacy, and last year’s hire of Linklaters partner Simon Pritchard, who has brought substantial credentials on the competition litigation front.

The firm has significantly bolstered its City white-collar credentials with the hire of Reddy, who Middleton notes has ‘hit the ground running.’ Her recent work has included advising a consortium in a multijurisdictional SFO investigation, as well as securing the dismissal of a criminal probe against a prominent shipping company by the Insolvency Service.

Looking ahead, Reddy anticipates a ‘significant uptick’  in corporate crime investigations driven by forthcoming failure-to-prevent fraud offences under legislation such as the Bribery Act and the Criminal Finances Act, given that ‘the failure-to-prevent fraud offence is incredibly broad, covering anything under the Fraud Act.’

Competition litigation is a key growth area for Latham, building on last year’s addition of Pritchard, who joined after 15 years at Linklaters and Allen & Overy, before which he spent five years as senior director at the .

As Middleton highlights, the growing complexity of competition litigation plays to Latham’s strengths in managing large-scale litigation. ‘Handling large-scale litigation is just as crucial as having specific competition experience,’ he explains. ‘We excel in this area with our extensive team of litigators who are adept at managing enormous class action cases and other large-scale litigations.’

On the defence side, Middleton and London deputy managing partner Andrea Monks are leading teams from the firm representing Barclays in two high-profile cases: one involving allegations of misleading statements about its trading system and another related to foreign exchange market manipulation.

The firm is also aiming to push into other key areas such as shareholder claims, as well as disputes relating to data privacy, AI, ESG, and crypto.

On the data front, Ian Felstead, vice chair of the firm ‘s complex commercial litigation practice, has advised Meta on contentious matters concerning data transfers from the EU, while in the ESG realm, London disputes partner Samuel Pape was recently part of a team which secured victory for the Republic of Colombia at the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, defending the Colombian government’s ban on mining in the sensitive páramos ecosystem in the Andes.

While expansion of the broader disputes offering is a clear strategic priority for Latham, Middleton argues the firm does not want to ‘pursue growth for growth’s sake’.

‘As the firm continues to expand, we will grow organically, focusing on key areas such as data privacy, ESG, and complex commercial disputes,’ he explains. ‘We want to be thoughtful about where and how we grow.’

Alongside these external hires, the firm’s contentious bench in London has also seen a healthy degree of organic growth, with four partner promotions in the past two years – an increase on previous years, after none from 2016 to 2019, and just one in both 2020 and 2021 – Middleton and litigator and arbitrator Robert Price.

New names joining the partnership since 2021 include Pape, white collar specialist Clare Nida, competition partner Gregory Bonné, and Nell Perks, who focuses on disputes and contentious regulatory investigations.

Looking ahead, Middleton says the growth strategy will have an emphasis on the scale of Latham’s international platform: ‘There is a lot to be gained from having breadth of experience. It’s important for us that our people have specific expertise that we can effectively market. However, our primary strength lies in our flexible litigators who excel at handling large-scale litigation and effectively collaborate across the global platform. Our approach sets Latham apart from competitors.’

[email protected]

This article first appeared on Legal Business.

‘A significant loss’: Litigation leaders convene as Google fails in critical €4.1bn antitrust appeal

Google’s parent company, Alphabet, suffered a serious setback this week as the European Union General Court upheld a European Commission antitrust ruling against the company worth €4.125bn.

The case centred on whether Google has used its Android operating system to effectively bar competition. According to the original decision, in 2018 the Android operating system was installed on 80% of all mobile devices in Europe. It stated that Google required developers of mobile devices to pre-install its search engine and browser (Chrome) apps as a pre-condition of receiving a license to use its app store, Play.

While the Court upheld the European Commission’s original 2018 decision, it did marginally revise the fine down from €4.34bn to €4.125bn.

The court stated it: ‘Largely confirms the European Commission’s decision that Google imposed unlawful restrictions on manufacturers of Android mobile devices and mobile network operators to consolidate the dominant position of its search engine.’

The decision will have been keenly observed by the UK’s competition claimant Bar, who, notwithstanding a further Google appeal, will be eyeing lucrative follow-on damages claims. One prominent contentious EU competition partner commented: ‘There is obviously going to be some follow-on action – this decision will encourage it. This is unquestionably a significant loss for Google. They will probably appeal to the European Court of Justice which will delay prospective litigation, but if [the Court doesn’t] overturn it, they should be braced for impact.’

Tom Smith, partner at Geradin Partners and former Competition Markets Authority legal director, added: ‘For arguably the first time, the Court focuses on the way in which a big tech firm uses its ecosystems to insulate itself from competition. It also dismisses Google’s paternalistic arguments that it needs to be in control of everything that happens in its wider ecosystem, and it endorses the Commission’s findings on a status quo bias whereby users tend to stick with the app that is pre-installed. These aspects will be really helpful for the Commission and claimants in future cases.’

In a statement, Google said: ‘We are disappointed that the Court did not annul the decision in full. Android has created more choice for everyone, not less, and supports thousands of successful businesses in Europe and around the world.’

Google fielded an impressive legal line-up, with a team that included Cleary EU antitrust partner Nicholas Levy. He was joined by Allen & Overy partner and co-head of antitrust Jürgen Schindler, Garrigues EU and competition partner Alfonso Lamadrid de Pablo and White & Case competition partners James Killick, Assimakis Komninos and Genevra Forwood.

[email protected]

This article first appeared on Legal Business.

Coronavirus latest: Supreme Court goes virtual as junior lawyers plea against postponing exams

For the first time in its history, the Supreme Court conducted a case entirely through video conferencing this morning (24 March), after taking the decision to close its building to the public due to the spread of Covid-19.

The move saw the matter of Fowler (Respondent) v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Appellant) conducted virtually, with all cases and judgment hand-downs set to continue via video conferencing until further notice. The measures will see legal teams and counsel, as well as each of the justices, located separately.

The first judgment handed down under the new arrangements will be Elgizouli (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)  tomorrow morning, with the hand-down set to be streamed by the Supreme Court before becoming available through an on-demand service.

Though the new measures will remain for the foreseeable future, the Supreme Court has stated it will be keeping them under ongoing review. The move towards video conferencing comes after the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett, was among those to intervene last week calling for courts to adapt amid the worsening crisis. On Monday, Lord Burnett also revealed that no new trials will start, and ongoing trials will be paused as arrangements are put in place to ensure they can continue safely.

Elsewhere, the Junior Lawyers Division (JLD) has written to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) raising concerns about the regulator’s response to the Covid-19 outbreak, in particular the decision to defer Legal Practice Course (LPC) exams until the autumn.

The letter read: ‘We understand the SRA’s need to maintain the integrity of exams. However, we are concerned about the implications of delaying LPC exams until autumn 2020, as was the SRA’s initial response. Importantly, there is no known timescale for this virus and its implications on society. It therefore seems unworkable to suggest a later timeframe to simply postpone exams until. An alternative solution needs to be found now.’

The JLD also raised concerns that further clarification was required for trainee solicitors on issues such as working from home, sick leave, access to supervision and the availability of newly qualified positions.

[email protected]

This article first appeared on Legal Business.