Russia’s invasion of Ukraine added gale force to the economic storms already picking up in early 2022, and has produced a spate of sanctions work as well as at least one ultra-high-value insurance dispute. Meanwhile, group litigation, litigation funding, and ESG remain at the forefront of lawyers’ minds.
And, of course, that flurry of countercyclical disputes may yet come to pass, with recent ructions in the banking sector highlighting a new and palpable source of pressure.
The development of the collective actions regime remains one of the major stories in the UK disputes market. While no case is scheduled to go to trial until 2024, 2023 will see several hearings that could define the shape of the emerging group litigation market.
First, Merricks v Mastercard is scheduled for a hearing to establish causation in July. A victory for Mastercard here would massively slash the value of the claim from its current figure of £17bn and could decrease funders’ appetite to pursue similar claims in future.
Then, in autumn, the Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT) is set to decide whether to grant a collective proceedings order (CPO) to prospective class representative Liza Lovdahl Gormsen in her claim against Meta, after refusing certification in a 20 February ruling that gave the claimant six months to reformulate her claim.
The CAT has largely taken a light-touch approach to certification since the Supreme Court upheld its certification of Merricks in 2021, and this has seen funders and claimants package an ever-wider range of issues as competition claims. Its decision to push back on the Meta case could signal a move away from this liberal approach, and either a refusal to certify or a grant of certification only to a far narrower claim would likely discourage such broad claims in future. The train tickets cases will also be watched closely, following the CAT’s indication in Boyle v GTR that it may revoke certification if the proposed class representative fails to address concerns with their economic methodology.
Keep on trucking
The Trucks follow-on cartel damages litigation continues to roll through the English courts. June 2022 saw the Road Haulage Association granted the first opt-in CPO to date, allowing RHA to pursue the claim on behalf of over 17,000 truck operators – a decision, unsurprisingly, immediately appealed by manufacturers. Leave was allowed by the Court of Appeal to appeal whether a conflict of interest exists between purchasers of new and used lorries, questioning the validity of the claim, and highlighting the risk of paying compensation. These questions are set to be addressed by the court later in spring 2023.
Described by Mark Sansom at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer as the ‘biggest competition litigation there’s yet been in Europe geographically,’ it’s no surprise there are multiple trials relating to it this year. The Supreme Court heard arguments in February considering the validity of the litigation funding agreements which promised a fixed percentage of recoverable damages. If the agreements are found to be damages-based agreements, these – and most other existing litigation funding agreements – would be unenforceable, in a potentially serious blow to the litigation funding industry. However, if the court does find the funding agreements unenforceable, many in the market believe that Parliament may legislate to allow the market to continue to develop.
‘The total estimate of the number of lost aircraft ranges from 400 to 600, with a commercial value of between $10bn and $13bn.’
Stuart Dench, Stewarts
ESG continues to gain traction, with Martin Davies, global vice chair of Latham & Watkins’ litigation and trial department, seeing ‘the growth in ESG in transitioning to more environmentally friendly markets, green bonds, and so on, inevitably feeding into the contentious side,’ with the firm being among many to report significant growth in this area.
One such matter, the largest group claim in English legal history, sees 700,000 claimants bringing BHP Group and Vale to trial over Brazil’s worst environmental disaster. The collapse of the Fundao dam saw 19 people killed with over 40 million cubic metres of mud and toxic waste sweeping into the Doce river, wiping out villages and reaching the Atlantic Ocean after 400 miles. The case was initially thrown out, with the Court of Appeal overturning the decision, ruling that it can proceed. The liability of Vale will be watched closely by publicly listed companies, for its effects in determining the extent to which companies can be held liable for events in other jurisdictions.
Another significant case relating to ESG is ClientEarth’s litigation against Shell, which sees the activist group allege that the energy giant is in breach of its duty to its shareholders by failing to adopt a climate strategy that aligns with the Paris Agreement goal of keeping global temperature increase below 1.5°C by 2050. ClientEarth rests its claim on two provisions of the Companies Act 2006 that have never before been litigated, and victory over Shell would open the way for similar derivative actions against other companies in future. The case remains in its early stages, with the Chancery Division yet to grant initial permission.
Expecting to fly
Looking ahead, the High Court is scheduled to hear a raft of claims concerning aircraft left stranded in Russia after the invasion of Ukraine, with a weeks-long trial set to begin in October 2024. Three main law firms are set to represent the claimants, with Falcon, KDAC, and DAE represented by Clifford Chance, Aercap by Herbert Smith Freehills, and Merx relying on Morgan Lewis. HFW, Clyde & Co, Ince, and RPC are among the firms acting for the defendants.
Stuart Dench, managing partner at Stewarts, summarises: ‘In response to the initial wave of sanctions imposed by the west, Vladimir Putin enacted a new law entitling Russian airlines to retain and operate aircraft rented or leased from foreign lessors. The total estimate of the number of lost aircraft ranges from 400 to 600, with a commercial value of between $10bn and $13bn.’
The sheer scale of the pending litigation has shaken the aviation insurance industry, which has historically not needed to price in the risk of losing such large numbers of aircraft in one incident. Insurers are thus eager to fight the claims on every front that they can. This will require the English courts to engage with novel and complex issues, including those relating to the role of the Russian state in expropriating the aircraft.
Cases have also been brought in jurisdictions including New York, Florida, and Minnesota, as well as in the Republic of Ireland, and litigators may seek to bring further claims directly against Russian insurers. Lloyd’s of London is reported to have set £1.4bn aside to cover both the aircraft claims and novel claims linked to ships trapped in the Black Sea, which have begun to be filed since 24 February.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine has also generated disputes in relation to sanctions. Matthew Shankland, Sidley’s London head of dispute resolution, highlighted both the speed of this development and the breadth of its impact. ‘In contrast to other crises such as the 2008 financial crash or the Covid pandemic, the additional sanctions that came into force in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine have resulted in an almost immediate increase in litigation activity.’
He continues: ‘The reach of the new sanctions in terms of the number of businesses, individuals and sectors impacted and their immediate effect, instantly caused major disruption, leaving counterparties highly uncertain as to their rights.’
However, Stephenson Harwood’s fraud and asset recovery team head, Ros Prince, notes that sanctions have also cut off a stream of work for London disputes lawyers. ‘There is obviously the other side of that coin’, she says, ‘in that there is going to be a reduction in Russian disputes before the English courts.’
For Stuart Dutson, international head of arbitration at Simmons & Simmons, this decline extends beyond English law litigation to arbitrations seated in the UK. ‘Russian counterparties are far more reluctant to use London than they would have been, due to sanctions, and due to what they see as anti-Russian sentiment in the west.’
‘In contrast to other crises such as the 2008 financial crash or the Covid pandemic, the additional sanctions that came into force in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine have resulted in an almost immediate increase in litigation activity.’
Matthew Shankland, Sidley
The invasion of Ukraine also rendered the Privat Bank litigation untenable in 2022, with the judge adjourning the case until June 2023. The landmark fraud case will see Igor Kolomoisky, Gennadiy Bogolyubov, and six corporate defendants face allegations of the misappropriation of $1.9bn through sham loans, in a case governed by Ukraine law.
In line with the trend of major increases in securities-related litigation, Glencore is attempting to defend the claims of 400 institutional shareholders, all alleging they suffered multi-billion-pound losses due to statements made to the investing public. The largest of the multi-holder stock loss claims to date sees five major law firms representing clients based on alleged knowingly dishonest statements.
Breaking the bank
The collapse of Credit Suisse and its acquisition by UBS in March have seen firms including Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and Pallas Partners declare that they are bringing litigation on behalf of holders of additional tier 1 (AT1) bonds, who saw $17bn of the instruments written down to zero by Swiss regulators as part of UBS’s takeover. Both firms have indicated that they are exploring the possibilities of litigation in a range of venues, including the English courts as well as courts in Switzerland and the US, and Quinn Emanuel has had a multidisciplinary team instructed on behalf of one group of bondholders.
AT1 bondholders may also seek to bring claims against the Swiss state under bilateral investment treaties (BITs), which were also on the agenda in the Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.A.R.L. and Energia Termosalar B.V. v The Kingdom of Spain arbitration enforcement dispute, which was heard in the Commercial Court in April, with judgment expected in the summer.
Tribunals have handed out a raft of arbitral awards to investors claiming that Spain’s radical overhaul of its energy policy in 2013 breached their rights under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). In this case, Spain sought to challenge the enforcement of those awards in the English courts. This challenge rests on two decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), Achmea (2018) and Komstroy (2021) which, Spain argues, establish that arbitration tribunals cannot have jurisdiction over disputes among EU member states. Arbitral tribunals have overwhelmingly rejected such jurisdictional objections.
Dutson offers a broad summary: ‘We’re saying that, as a matter of international law, the effect of the Achmea and Komstroy cases is that the English courts are not able to take jurisdiction on the enforcement of these awards.’
Although the UK is no longer part of the EU, Spain argues that arbitral enforcement in the English courts would clash with CJEU’s exclusive jurisdiction over intra-EU disputes.
While the case does not bear directly on potential BIT disputes over the AT1s, it does illustrate the complexities of international arbitrations, highlighting the challenges litigators may face in bringing BIT claims against Switzerland.
The furore over the AT1s is one more in a long line of controversies involving Credit Suisse, which is already set to appear before the high court this October in a 14-week trial over the ‘tuna bonds’ scandal. Shareholders may also seek to bring cases over the acquisition. And disputes lawyers will be watching the wider banking sector closely for further tremors. LB
ASTRAZENECA v GSK
Britain’s two biggest pharmaceutical companies, AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), appeared before the high court in February in a dispute over worldwide royalties payable on GSK’s cancer drug Zejula.
Zejula was developed in part with technology licensed from AstraZeneca by Tesaro, which was acquired by GSK for $5.1bn in a deal completed in 2019. Tesaro has been paying royalties to AstraZeneca on less than 5% of its sales of Zejula. But AstraZeneca alleges that this breaches its original licensing agreement with Tesaro, and argues that it is entitled to royalties on all sales of Zejula. GSK denies the claim and contends that the licensing agreement covers only certain uses of the drug.
The case has implications for both the scope of pharmaceutical patents and the use of the English courts as a venue for dispute resolution.
A victory for AstraZeneca would require GSK to pay AstraZeneca on all sales of Zejula, and would indicate that pharmaceutical patents should cover a broad range of uses of a drug, rather than explicitly specified narrow authorisations. A victory for GSK, on the other hand, would constitute a narrower reading of patent authorisations, and could disincentivise pharmaceutical companies’ investment in research and development and potentially encourage them to use other court jurisdictions for contracts. It would also pose the question of how courts should determine the precise amount that should be paid.
The judgment is expected to be released within the next three months, and both AstraZeneca and GSK will likely appeal a hostile verdict.
For AstraZeneca: Alan Maclean KC (Blackstone Chambers) and Katherine Moggridge (Three New Square) instructed by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer’s Christopher Stothers.
For GlaxoSmithKline: Tom Mitcheson KC and Georgina Messenger (Three New Square) and Connall Patton KC (One Essex Court) instructed by Linklaters’ Ian Karet.
LIZA LOVDAHL GORMSEN v META PLATFORMS
The CAT has given prospective class representative Liza Lovdahl Gormsen six months to reformulate her claim against Meta, in a decision that highlights the limits of the light-touch certification regime that has prevailed in collective action proceedings since the Supreme Court upheld the certification of Merricks v Mastercard in 2021.
Gormsen alleges three separate infringements, arguing that the social media giant imposes an ‘unfair data requirement’ on users, engages in ‘unfair pricing’ by not compensating users for companies’ use of their data, and created ‘unfair trading conditions’ by imposing complex and misleading conditions on how users’ data is used on a ‘take it or leave it’ basis.
But the CAT did not certify Gormsen’s claim, finding issues with both the methodology by which Gormsen’s economics expert calculated damages and the breadth of the allegations. In its 20 February judgment, the tribunal found that the unfair pricing claim had not been adequately established. Crucially, it also found issues with how the unfair data requirement and unfair tradition conditions claims could be articulated as breaches of competition law.
That the claimant was given the chance to go away and reformulate the case suggests that the CAT is not quick to throw claims out. However, the decision highlights the potential limits of the collective actions regime. And if the CAT refuses to certify the claim at the follow-up hearing, it will likely be taken by firms, funders, and claimants as a signal that future collective action claims should be limited to issues that fit within a far narrower definition of competition law than the more expansive one that underpins the claim against Meta.
For Liza Lovdahl Gormsen: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan’s Kate Vernon and Leo Kitchen instructed Ronit Kreisberger KC and Nikolaus Grubeck (Monckton Chambers), Greg Adey (One Essex Court), and Benjamin Smiley (4 New Square Chambers).
For Meta Platforms, Meta Platforms Ireland, and Facebook UK: Herbert Smith Freehills’ Stephen Wisking and Kim Dietzel instructed Marie Demetriou KC and David Bailey (Brick Court Chambers).
MERRICKS v MASTERCARD
Mark Sansom, Freshfields
As Freshfields’ Mark Sansom puts it, ‘the poster child of the competition collective actions regime’ is set to continue this year, involving nearly the entire UK adult population between 1992 and 2008. Currently valued at almost £17bn, critical trials of the largest competition damages class action take place in July, focused on the crucial issue of causation. Mastercard denies the claim of the class representative that European interchange fees caused interchange fees in the UK to be higher. If this can be proved, roughly 95% of the claim will be defeated. If Merricks sees success, proceedings continue to the quantum stage of the trial.
To date, the case has allowed for wider clarification around the eligibility of class representatives, whether a class can include deceased persons, and if a claim for compound interest was suitable to be brought into collective proceedings.
For Merricks: Marie Demetriou and Victoria Wakefield (Brick Court Chambers) instructed by Wilkie Farr & Gallagher’s Boris Bronfentrinker and Nicola Chesaites.
For Mastercard: Sonia Tolaney KC and Matthew Cook KC (One Essex Court) and Hugo Leith (Brick Court Chambers) instructed by Freshfields’ Mark Sansom (pictured) and Ricky Versteeg.
PHILIPP v BARCLAYS BANK
Sonia Tolaney KC, One Essex Court
The latest development surrounding the liability of banks and financial institutions to reimburse customers who fall victim to fraud makes its way to the Supreme Court. An elaborate ‘authorised push payment’ fraud saw Fiona Philipp duped into transferring £700,000 over the course of three days, instructing Barclays, which complied with the request. Barclays was then taken to court on the premise that it should have spotted the fraud, or failing that, taken adequate steps to subsequently recover the payments. At first, Barclays was successful, claiming the Quincecare duty didn’t apply due to the lack of agent; Philipp transferred the money of her own volition. This was overturned on appeal, with the Court of Appeal asserting that the bank may owe a duty.
The judgment is awaited with bated breath by the banks – a win for Philipp would significantly increase the duty of care owed to customers. Current case law dictates that a bank is only on enquiry when there is dishonesty involved, on the part of the signatory. The Court of Appeal has extended this to dispel the dishonesty requirement, mandating fraud is the crucial element for Quincecare to apply. Interestingly, the Supreme Court is interested in the very basis of the Quincecare duty.
For Barclays: Patrick Goodall KC, David Murray and Ian Bergson (Fountain Court) instructed by Clare Stothard at TLT.
For Philipp: Hugh Sims KC, Christopher Hare, Lucy Walker, and Jay Jagasia (Guildhall Chambers), instructed by Grant Squire of Squire Biggs Law.
For UK Finance (intervening body): Sonia Tolaney KC (pictured) and James Ruddell (One Essex Court) instructed by Lawson Caisley at White & Case.
For the Consumers’ Association (intervening body): David McIlroy (Forum Chambers) and Tristan Jones (Blackstone Chambers) instructed by Michael Brown at Penningtons Manches Cooper.
PRIVATBANK v KOLOMOISKY & ORS
Landmark fraud case PrivatBank is finally set to see its day in court this year, following an adjournment after the invasion of Ukraine prevented expert witnesses from appearing. The case sees PrivatBank, Ukraine’s largest bank, claiming damages against former owners Igor Kolomoisky and Gennadiy Bogolyubov along with six corporate defendants. The case centres on transactions in 2014, when the bank loaned money to various borrowers, with the prepayments never returned and goods not supplied. The bank claims that funds were misappropriated fraudulently, with the corporate defendants receiving close to $2bn as a result of sham transactions involving fraudulent loans. The defence largely rests on the money having since been returned.
With jurisdictional issues answered following the Court of Appeal’s intervention in October 2019, the case is set to be one of the highest value – and profile – in the English courts this year, raising complex questions of Ukrainian law. After years of waiting, the matter will run from June to November.
For PrivatBank: Richard Lewis, Rebecca Wales, Jenna Ralfe and Oli Humphrey at Hogan Lovells instructing Andrew Hunter KC and Robert Anderson KC (Blackstone Chambers), James Willan KC and Tim Akkouh KC (Essex Court Chambers).
For Kolomoisky: Mark Howard KC, Alec Haydon KC, Michael Bools KC and Geoffrey Kuehne (Brick Court Chambers) and Alexander Milner KC (Fountain Court Chambers), instructed by Andrew Lafferty and Arik Aslanyan at Fieldfisher.
For Bogolyubov: Clare Montgomery KC (Matrix Chambers), instructed by George Maling (Enyo Law).
For Kolomoisky: Thomas Plewman KC (Brick Court Chambers) instructed by Pinsent Masons’ Stuart McNeill and Michael Pulford.
REPUBLIC OF MOZAMBIQUE v CREDIT SUISSE INTERNATIONAL & ORS
Fiona Huntriss, Pallas Partners
The Republic of Mozambique is taking Credit Suisse and others to court over the ‘tuna bonds’ scandal, which has already spawned litigation in jurisdictions from Mozambique to New York. Mozambique brings claims in bribery, unlawful means conspiracy, and dishonest assistance against Credit Suisse, former Credit Suisse employees, and five companies based in the United Arab Emirates and Lebanon (the Privinvest companies).
The case concerns around $2bn in misappropriated loans. When the story first broke, the IMF rescinded its support and the resource-rich but politically troubled East African nation was plunged into a debt crisis. High-ranking government officials are implicated, and the litigation comes as UBS proceeds with its acquisition of Credit Suisse following its collapse in March.
As if this heady mix of international finance and political malfeasance were not enough, the case also, in the words of Pallas Partners founder Natasha Harrison, ‘underpins the importance of English law and the importance of London as a reliable and certain place for international dispute resolution.’
‘Investors want to understand that they would be able to go to the English courts to protect their interests if something were to go wrong,’ says Pallas Partners’ Fiona Huntriss. ‘An outcome that somehow allowed local law issues to override the English law validity of these instruments would significantly impact the ability of investors to invest.’
Especially crucial in this context is Mozambique’s non-compliance with disclosure requirements, which saw Mr Justice Robin Knowles, the judge presiding over the case, on 3 March order the Republic to allow the court access to documents held in state offices. A hearing is scheduled on this issue for late April.
The trial is scheduled for fourteen weeks, and is set to begin in October 2023.
For the Republic of Mozambique: Joe Smouha KC, Jeremy Brier KC, Ciaran Keller, and Akash Sonecha (Essex Court Chambers), Jonathan Adkin KC and Zahler Bryan (Serle Court), Richard Blakeley (Brick Court), Ryan Ferro (3VB), and Edward Gilmore (Twenty Essex) instructed by Peters & Peters’ Keith Oliver, Sarah Gabriel, and Jason Woodland.
For Credit Suisse: Laurence Rabinowitz KC (One Essex Court); Andrew Hunter KC and Andrew Scott KC (Blackstone Chambers); Sharif Shivji KC, Tom Gentlemen, and Emma Horner (4 Stone Buildings) instructed by Slaughter and May’s Richard Swallow, Jonathan Clark, Gayathri Kamalanathan and Megan Sandler.
For CS deal team: Peter Knox KC (3 Hare Court), Ian Smith (33 Chancery Lane), and Daniel Goldblatt (3 Hare Court) instructed by Leverets’ Rupert Butler (also appearing as counsel).
For Privinvest and Iskandar Safa: Signature Litigation’s Graham Huntley, Tom Snelling, and Neil Newing instructed Duncan Matthews KC, Philip Riches KC, and Matthew Chan (Twenty Essex); Richard Lissack KC and Jacob Turner (Fountain Court); Ben Woolgar, William Hooper, and Frederick Wilmot-Smith (Brick Court); and Tom Foxton (One Essex Court).
For Maria Isaltina Lucas (former director of the Treasury and deputy finance minister of Mozambique): Howard Kennedy’s Duncan Bagshaw instructed David Davis KC (Essex Court Chambers).
For VTB Capital: Timothy Howe KC, Rupert Allen, Natasha Bennett, Daniel Edmonds and Orestis Sherman (Fountain Court) instructed by Weil, Gotshal & Manges’ Jamie Maples and Christopher Marks
For VTB Bank (Europe) SE: Richard Hill KC and Gregory Denton-Cox (4 Stone Buildings) instructed by Macfarlanes’ Lorna Emson.
For BCP, UBA, and BIM: Stephen Midwinter KC, Fred Hobson, Laura Newton, and Tom Wood (Brick Court Chambers) instructed by Enyo Law’s Jonathan Pagan and Edward Allen.
For Beauregarde Holdings, Orobica Holdings, and VR Global Partners: Michael Block KC and Timothy Lau (Blackstone Chambers) and James Macdonald KC (One Essex Court) instructed by Pallas Partners’ Natasha Harrison, Fiona Huntriss (pictured), and Matt Getz.
R (ANNINGTON) v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE
A judicial review launched in February challenging the legality of the Ministry of Defence’s attempt to enfranchise properties, raises intricate and precedent-setting questions of both public and property law. Set to be ‘one of the most prominent judicial reviews of 2023’, according to Martin Davies at Latham & Watkins, lawyers on behalf of Annington argue that the MoD was acting unlawfully, whereas the MoD submits the process of enfranchisement is a lawful course for the secretary of state. In the words of Richard Jeens at Slaughter and May: ‘It’s a high-profile, high-value case where there are points of principle that need to be established so as to help guide civil servants in trying to secure value for money for the taxpayer.’ In addition, he notes test cases that ‘are brought to decide points of property law that have not been tried before.’
For the judicial review proceedings: Blackstone Chambers’ Monica Carss- Frisk KC, Jason Pobjoy and Emmeline Plews, instructed by Linklaters partner Tom Cassels.
For the real estate proceedings: Landmark Chambers’ Zia Bhaloo KC, James Maurici KC, and Toby Watkin KC, and Falcon Chambers’ Mark Sefton KC and Tamsin Cox, instructed by Eversheds Sutherland partners Will Densham, Kate Poole and Charlotte Miller, and Linklaters’ Tom Cassels.
For the Ministry of Defence on property proceedings: Forsters’ Natasha Rees and Julia Tobbell.
For the judicial review proceedings: Blackstone Chambers’ Sir James Eadie KC, Ivan Hare KC, David Lowe, Tom Cleaver and Daniel Cashman, instructed by Slaughter and May partners Peter Wickham and Richard Jeens.
For the real estate proceedings: Tanfield Chambers’ Philip Rainey KC and Ceri Edmonds, Wilberforce Chambers’ Joanne Wicks KC and Daniel Petrides, and Falcon Chambers’ Adam Rosenthal KC, instructed by Forsters’ Julia Tobbell and Natasha Rees.
R (JANE STREET GLOBAL TRADING) v THE LONDON METAL EXCHANGE
The London Metal Exchange (LME) faces claims of £360m following the suspension of the nickel market when prices tripled in one day on 8 March 2022, which caused several hedge-fund managers and traders to lose out on huge profits. Over a year later, from 20-22 June, judicial review proceedings are being brought, addressing the lawfulness of the decision-making process. While the US hedge fund Elliot Management claims the decision was unlawful on public law grounds and constituted a violation of the human rights of claimants, the position of the LME is firmly that it took necessary actions in the interest of the wider market, and that its exercise of powers was in a fair and proportionate manner.
The case is one of many brought against the LME, with several hedge fund owners and trading companies filing further legal actions since. The exchange is also under investigation by the Financial Conduct Authority’s enforcement division over its decision.
For Elliot Associates and Elliott International: Monica Carss-Frisk KC and Iain Steele (Blackstone Chambers) instructed by Akin Gump’s Richard Hornshaw and Kambiz Larizadeh.
For Jane Street Global Trading: James Segan KC and George Molyneaux (Blackstone Chambers) instructed by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan’s Liesl Fichardt and Leo Kitchen.
For the London Metal Exchange and LME Clear: Jonathan Crow KC (4 Stone Buildings), James McClelland KC, Emily MacKenzie and Alistair Richardson (Brick Court Chambers) instructed by Hogan Lovells’ Charles Brasted, Matthew Bullen and Michael Thomas.