Developed from our previous Dispute Resolution Team of the Year award, this category recognises an outstanding piece of commercial litigation work undertaken by one team. The key requirement is not necessarily a substantial award of damages but rather an impressive result for the client, which could include an important out-of-court settlement or avoiding a costly appeals process.
2017 WINNER: Boies, Schiller & Flexner
Acting for Barclays in its dispute with Taberna Europe, one of the first cases to go to the Financial List, and the first to obtain a summary judgment from this court. The risky move of calling for a summary judgment led to a favourable settlement on both claims.
CHARLES RUSSELL SPEECHLYS
Advising the creditors of Awal Bank on the recovery of billions of dollars of assets, including the largest ongoing fraud trial in the Cayman Islands. The team has secured the largest professional negligence settlement against a Big Four firm in the Middle East, a $780m judgment in Bahrain and $437m in asset recoveries to date.
CLYDE & CO
Advising East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust in a dispute concerning the client’s alleged failure to detect a chromosomal abnormality in pregnancy. This landmark judgment redefined a previous ruling and saved the NHS in excess of £8m.
Representing 11 financial institution members of ISDA’s European Credit Derivatives Determinations Committee in the first-ever ISDA external review process conducted in the EMEA region, used to resolve serious issues in European financial markets with potentially far-reaching consequences.
Obtaining an £800m settlement in the RBS rights issue litigation on behalf of 313 institutional clients. The firm originated and developed the case in 2010, starting with five clients with losses of £50m, ending with losses totalling £1.5bn in what was the largest English dispute conducted under a group litigation order.
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES
Successfully representing Ingenious Film Partners in a major dispute with HMRC, in which it was decided the fund was not set up for tax evasion purposes. This followed the high-profile exposure of partnerships through which third party investors contributed towards film production costs.