As he does every year, Stewarts’ head of commercial litigation, Clive Zietman, prepares to address an assembly of disputes partners. It is a customary annual strategy meeting, where the firm attempts to make sense of the market. But he encounters a familiar problem.
‘I’ve become notorious for saying “I don’t have a crystal ball” when predicting market trends. My wife is into all that stuff, so one year I literally took in a crystal ball. It still didn’t work. All I can say is this: things often don’t pan out the way you think they will.’
Thus the eternal difficulty of predicting the future without the aid of premonition powers is emphasised. And yet, this time feels different. Since early last year, the world has been plunged into chaos as a result of a global pandemic, bringing with it widespread economic degradation. Understandably, disputes partners are therefore quietly optimistic about a chain reaction of work to get stuck into.
This could be reminiscent of the post-financial crisis period. Litigators overwhelmingly identify the many resulting disputes from the 2008 crash as the primary stream of work that sustained them for the decade, with the after-effects still being felt 13 years later. As one Magic Circle litigator puts it: ‘Disputes practices are typically seen as countercyclical and following the last global financial crisis, when the world was suffering and M&A activity plummeted, we were more insanely busy than we had ever been.’
Landmark cases were precipitated by the 2008 crash – banks were targeted by a stream of seemingly never-ending Libor investigations as well as scrutiny related to forex manipulation, not to mention fraud crackdowns. Running parallel to this vast uptick in banking litigation was the emergence of a new breed of firm to the London market.
The well-timed 2008 arrival of US heavyweight Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan in London signalled the beginning of a new and sophisticated claimant scene, with firms like Enyo Law, Stewarts and Signature Litigation flexing their conflict-free muscles to take on the banks and other institutions that the City elite was prevented from laying a glove on. With the rise of the disputes funding market and the UK’s slow acceptance of a US-style group action culture, you had the perfect storm.
Boris Bronfentrinker, partner at Quinn Emanuel, says: ‘Pre-Covid, we saw a shift in how clients handled litigation. This is really linked to the success of the specialists and the boutiques. When I started 14 years ago there was a perception that litigation would inevitably follow corporate work, usually following the collapse of a deal. What we have seen now is an evolution to the point where clients are much savvier, where they pick horses for courses.’
But to what extent will history repeat itself with the current crisis? Will Covid-19 provide the sustenance disputes partners crave in the short and long term? If a Covid-19-fuelled disputes frenzy fails to materialise, what streams of work will come to define the current decade?
On 26 March 2020, the UK entered into a strict lockdown following the rapid spread of the coronavirus. By and large, the economy ground to a halt, with staff and businesses alike having to rely heavily on state support to keep their heads above water financially.
This was of course a massive shock to international markets, with early crises including the plummeting of oil prices. As James Baily, disputes partner at Herbert Smith Freehills notes: ‘In April last year oil prices went negative, nobody was consuming oil. People were paying to take oil off your hands and store it.’
A number – although perhaps a surprisingly small number – of large M&A deals were quickly aborted in the wake of the lockdown, as corporates re-assessed their financial priorities.
However, the English and Welsh commercial courts continued to hear cases, aided hugely by technology and flexible working methods that enabled remote hearings. Despite the stories of backlogs that have spread in European jurisdictions, UK hearings continued apace throughout 2020 (for a more in-depth review, see the ‘Virtual reality’ feature on Page 70).
‘To date, the impact of Covid-19 from a disputes perspective has largely been confined to particular sectors, in particular insurance and aviation.’ Helen Carty, Clifford Chance
RPC head of commercial disputes, Tom Hibbert, says: ‘When the pandemic hit there was a huge amount of uncertainty around how this would affect business. From our perspective, as a very court-based litigation group, a huge amount depended on how the court was going to deal with everything. Our view is that the courts have done remarkably well to keep things going, it’s adjourned very little.’
The upshot of this is that across-the-board disputes teams are reportedly busier than ever. But just how much of that is Covid-related and, more importantly, how much of it is linked to any sustainable future pipeline of disputes, is ambiguous.
Regarding disputes arising from aborted deals, Herbert Smith Freehills (HSF) claims to have acted on one of the very few genuine matters of its kind – the Travelport v Wex dispute. At the beginning of last year, US payment solutions company Wex agreed in principle a $1.7bn deal to purchase payment portals eNett and Optal, with UK company Travelport controlling eNett. As the pandemic spread, Wex informed Travelport in May 2020 that it did not intend to finalise the deal, which led to a dispute in the UK’s High Court.
In October the court ruled in favour of Wex, which argued that the pandemic constituted a ‘material adverse effect’. Another high-profile dispute with similar terms centered on French luxury brand LVMH’s fraught $15.8bn buyout of Tiffany & Co in January 2021, which constituted a $425m discount following a Delaware court battle related to the pandemic.
Baily, the HSF partner who represented Travelport, comments: ‘A lot of deals were re-negotiated when people thought it would be a V-shaped economic dip. For the deals signed early last year, I wonder if the economic shock will reverberate for longer than we might think.’
But the Travelport dispute represents one of very few UK-based disputes of its kind so far, which, despite Baily’s warnings of further likewise litigation in years to come, is jarring considering the economic climate.
If a slew of M&A disputes has failed to materialise, what other Covid-related litigation has presented itself? By far the most prominent example was the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) coronavirus business interruption test case, which saw a Supreme Court judgment in January 2021.
With HSF representing the FCA, and a raft of firms including Clyde & Co, Allen & Overy (A&O), Simmons & Simmons, Mishcon de Reya, DAC Beachcroft and DWF picking up mandates on behalf of a glut of insurers, this landmark case paved the way for businesses up and down the country to exercise insurance clauses to recover funds lost during the pandemic.
Bronfentrinker also notes that the follow-on insurance claims the case will generate will also provide a boon for counsel. But overall, the message from the market is clear: it isn’t Covid that is keeping everyone busy.
Slaughter and May advised an insurer on the FCA case, however partner Richard Swallow says: ‘We have had the busiest year ever across our group. Some of that is Covid related, the FCA business interruption insurance test case being the best example, and there have been lots of disputes over deal completions, but it wasn’t a major part. We’ve been really busy with work that was already there and new non-covid instructions.’
Hibbert summarises: ‘There has been a small amount of what you might call Covid-specific litigation, but it’s been relatively limited. Obviously there was the FCA case, and some stuff around force majeure, but not a huge amount else.’ Helen Carty, head of dispute resolution at Clifford Chance, concurs: ‘To date, the impact of Covid-19 from a disputes perspective has largely been confined to particular sectors, in particular insurance and aviation.’
While it may therefore be difficult to directly attribute many disputes to Covid-19 just yet, there is a consensus that the old wisdom around disputes being countercyclical to the economy will be proven true again.
Zietman reflects on the comparisons to the 2008 crash before consulting his crystal ball once more: ‘After the 2008 crash people thought there would be a rush of insolvency litigation, but the banks actually ended up picking on their best clients rather than their worst because they knew they could recover money from them. They picked them up on highly technical breaches. I think we’re going to see the same again.’
Damien Byrne Hill, managing partner for disputes at HSF, acknowledges the Travelport and FCA cases his firm worked on but adds: ‘This was a big shock that caused a bit of activity but not a wave that will build and then break in six years’ time like the financial crisis.’ However he concedes that in a year’s time there will be inevitable ‘winners and losers’. He concludes: ‘Some of that is insolvency, but some of that is just change.’
It is rare when speaking to around two dozen disputes professionals that you receive such uniformity on a specific question. But when asked to predict the big disputes trend set to define the market for the next five to ten years, the emphatic answer was unanimously competition class actions and other group claims.
Steven Friel, chief executive of Woodsford Litigation Funding, asserts: ‘What we’re basing our business planning for the next five years on is the fact that the UK, as well as other jurisdictions in Europe, is going to become all about group action and collective redress.
‘They are both areas in which a perfect storm of substantive legal changes, procedural legal changes and market conditions (including funding) are fuelling them. Collective mass cases will dominate.’
‘This was a big shock that caused a bit of activity but not a wave that will build and then break in six years’ time like the financial crisis.’ Damien Byrne Hill, Herbert Smith Freehills
The seeds were planted in 2015 with the introduction of the Consumer Rights Act, which allowed UK consumers to seek collective redress on competition cases in a US-style class action system. Since then a number of class action claims have started to form, among the most notable being the mammoth truck cartel case, in which thousands of individual and corporate claimants are pursuing damages from several of Europe’s biggest truck manufacturers over price collusion spanning multiple years.
However, thanks to shrewd defence tactics, these mass claims have stuttered and faltered. That was until the end of last year, when the Supreme Court provided a landmark judgment in the Merricks v MasterCard case. Worth around £14bn, the case brought by consumer rights activist Walter Merricks sought to reclaim funds for MasterCard customers who were overcharged on transaction fees between 1992 and 2008. The Supreme Court found in favour of the claimants, certifying collective actions in general and paving the way for
a full hearing at the Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT) later this year.
Bronfentrinker, who represented Merricks in the case, underlined the importance of the decision: ‘Following Merricks, the CAT is now in a position to open the floodgates on this. Do not underestimate how much the government has been talking about this decision. A lot of lobbyists for big businesses are concerned. The Supreme Court has shown itself to not be as conservative as previously thought, it seems willing to support group action.’
Stewarts competition partner Kate Pollock agrees with this assessment, citing the ‘strong philosophical bent’ behind the Supreme Court’s decision ‘to emphasise the fact that the class action regime is for consumers, individuals whose claims would be too small on their own.’
However she cautions litigation funders against cracking open the champagne bottles just yet: ‘One of my funding contacts was talking about class action regimes, and they said the Merricks judgment is great for lowering the bar. But a lot of the points in the case have not been argued yet, and this just means they will be debated further down the road. As a funder, would you rather lose at the certification stage or three years down the line?’
Steven O’Dowd, senior director at Harbour Litigation Funding, concedes that the big theme is the ‘continuing evolution of group claims and class actions’, but prickles at the suggestion of floodgates bursting open: ‘It is a lazy argument that the floodgates are somehow going to smash open and we’ll be overwhelmed by a tsunami. The truth? Take the UK – you have some very important and effective checks and balances in our legal system against frivolous or meritless litigation. The huge deterrent is the loser-pays principle. We only make money if a claim succeeds and if we can recover damages, which means we’re careful to back only the strongest claims.’
As Friel correctly identifies, the previously mentioned ascension of the litigation funders is another factor in competition class actions becoming so widely-touted. Funders like Woodsford, Burford Capital, Therium, and Harbour have drastically risen in prominence over the last decade, to the point that often the line is blurred between funders following the market and funders creating the market.
As Friel admits: ‘In 2010, 100% of the matters we funded were brought to us externally. By 2020, the number of matters brought to us is by far the minority. Businesses like ours are now at the forefront of identifying collective redress, securities, CAT cases and bringing them to law firms.’
There are already a number of concrete examples of these types of cases, that were stayed pending the Merricks result, coming in the immediate future. Both the Merricks and truck cartel cases are set to be heard in the summer of 2021. Woodsford is funding a £100m claim on behalf of rail passengers against a number of London train operators who were allegedly overcharged on fares. It is claimed that the operators deliberately obscured Travelcard users from ‘boundary fares’ that would have made their journeys cheaper when travelling beyond their allocated travel zones.
There is also a huge foreign exchange (FX) cartel case due to be heard this year, in which any UK individual or business that entered into a relevant FX trade between 2007 and 2013 will be seeking damages on an opt-out basis from five UK banks fined over €1bn by the European Commission for manipulation. This claim is backed by Therium, and is led by litigation boutique Scott+Scott’s UK arm.
Elsewhere, Mishcon has launched a £600m group action on behalf of over two million customers allegedly overcharged for landline services, in a Harbour-funded claim against BT. Hausfeld is leading on a claim against Facebook on behalf of around a million customers whose personal data was allegedly mishandled, funded by Balance Legal Capital.
On the subject of data, the future may not just be limited to competition group actions – solicitors and funders alike are eagerly awaiting the Supreme Court’s judgment in the pivotal Lloyd v Google case, which will assess whether an opt-out representative group action can proceed against Google on a breach of privacy laws. A claimant-friendly judgment in this case is widely predicted to lead to a new stream of privacy-related group claims against big tech companies. Friel says: ‘I know from my pipeline that there are a significant amount of people waiting for the Lloyd v Google decision. Assuming it goes the right way, there’s a whole glut of those cases that will be released as well.’
And so the overwhelming prediction is seemingly backed up by the evidence. But Pollock offers another notable warning against firms looking to capitalise on the market: ‘There is not going to be a sudden explosion of class-action claims, there are still so many checks and balances in place. There are very few firms in the market with the necessary expertise to bring those class action claims. You have to consider the suitability of class representatives and the structure of the claim. We don’t want a stream of unstructured claims and funders getting dissuaded from funding these types of claims.’
Carrot or stick
A majority of those consulted for this feature also cited an emerging trend of climate change litigation. Exact definitions vary, but the essence is law firms seeking to capitalise on the ever-increasing ESG agenda, in whatever way that may manifest itself in disputes.
A litigation partner at a leading full-service firm, who purports to offer these services, says: ‘You have to be very careful with the term “climate change litigation”. There are many different types of work under that banner. Claims for compensation against major oil companies are probably what people think about most prominently, but that is not going to be the most important issue.’
The other main areas predicted to fall under the climate change litigation umbrella are activist shareholder disputes (shareholders holding public companies to account for failing to fulfil environmental obligations) and NGOs bringing cases against governments on matters of public policy.
HSF arbitration partner Craig Tevendale argues: ‘It should be branded more as decarbonisation than climate change litigation really. Some of that will be arbitration. Oil and gas and coal – anyone who has an interest in that will be upset by changing legislation.’
Gazprom is currently pursuing an arbitration case against the EU under the Energy Charter Treaty, alleging that its latest amendments to its gas directive discriminates against its Nord Steam 2 gas pipeline. HSF is representing Gazprom in the dispute, and Tevendale identifies this a prominent example of what might come to be known as climate change litigation.
Slaughter and May’s Swallow reports he has received a significant uptick in climate change litigation enquiries, although for the time being they seem to be contained to the continent. His fellow partner Ewan Brown highlights a landmark climate case, termed ‘the trial of the century’ in France, which may indicate the future direction of travel for the UK. In February, the Paris administrative court ruled in favour of four NGOs who sued the French government for ‘climate inaction’, ordering the state to pay a symbolic €1 to each of the four claimants.
Harbour’s O’Dowd describes the predicted uptick as ‘inevitable’ because ‘the environment is a big issue.’ Woodsford’s Friel asserts that the future of climate change litigation boils down to a simple equation: carrot or stick. He argues that up until now, the prevailing method of promoting positive ESG policies in big corporates has been the carrot: ‘If you do the right thing, I will invest in you and be a good shareholder.’
He is bullish about the upcoming change: ‘But ESG requires a stick, it requires that these businesses be held accountable for their failings, and there’s a huge gap there. Climate change litigation is one of the sticks that will be brought.’
Of course, there will be other key areas of disputes arising in the next few years. Fraud is oft-cited as a safe bet, especially considering the strained economy. As Zietman observes: ‘When a company goes down, the shit floats to the surface.’
Geraldine Elliott, litigation partner at RPC, confirms the firm is actively recruiting fraud specialists to keep up with demand. Her colleague Hibbert says: ‘During a recession, people act in a dishonest manner to keep the company going, or the recession itself uncovers fraud that wouldn’t have been uncovered otherwise.’
In relation to the anticipated Lloyd v Google dispute, there is an expectation of an increased focus on how corporates handle personal data, whether or not it leads to substantive class actions. A&O disputes partner Lawson Caisley points to a burgeoning group claim on behalf 420,000 British Airways customers who had their data compromised in a breach between August and September 2018. In October 2020,
Marriott Hotels & Resorts was struck by a data breach that potentially compromised the data of up to 339 million guests – and a follow-on damages claim seems inevitable.
Arbitration is also potentially in line for a boon, with Tevendale predicting an uptick in investor-state work as ‘economies are tanking’. Meanwhile, Slaughter and May’s Brown also questions whether clients will increasingly prefer arbitration in London over litigation due to post-Brexit fears over jurisdiction.
But going back to Zietman’s original crystal ball conundrum, it is easy to forget after a year of lockdown that this crisis is still in its infancy. There are bound to be twists and turns in the coming months. As RPC financial disputes partner Simon Hart observes: ‘There are unprecedented levels of state support in the economy, that is what is allowing for the liquidity. Assuming the government is going to turn off the tap at some point, that will start draining liquidity. Where that effects and how is very difficult to predict. The crisis isn’t even in the rear-view mirror yet.’
The bottom line however is London’s disputes counsel are and expect to be as busy as ever for the foreseeable future. As Friel concludes: ‘I was a private practice partner during the last financial crisis and there was just so much work available. We could have done double or treble the amount of work had we had more sophisticated funding then.’ LB
MORRISONS GROUP LITIGATION
In another hotly anticipated class action, Wm Morrison Supermarkets defeated a privacy claim brought by 9,263 of Morrisons’ current or former employees whose data was published online by the supermarket’s former internal auditor.
In an unexpected twist, the Supreme Court unanimously disagreed with the lower courts’ rulings, finding that Morrisons’ could not be held liable for the conduct of the rogue employee in leaking employee data.
This will come as a sigh of relief for Morrisons and employers across the UK as the court made the distinction between circumstances where an employee is acting in the interest of its employer and when, as in this case, the employee was instead ‘pursuing a personal vendetta’.
For Morrisons: DWF’s Andrew Harris instructed Blackstone Chambers’ Lord Pannick QC and 11KBW’s Anya Proops QC.
For the claimants: JMW Solicitors’s Nick McAleenan instructed 5RB’s Jonathan Barnes and Victoria Jolliffe.
MERRICKS v MASTERCARD
This highly anticipated judgment could transform the landscape for follow-on damages class actions.
In the latest chapter of Merricks, the Supreme Court laid out the approach for claimants seeking Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT) collective proceeding certification. In the judgment handed down in December 2020, the majority agreed that the CAT should consider cases’ suitability for collective proceedings as relative to their suitability as individual proceedings – a more expansive test than previously used.
This permissive approach will be welcomed by litigation funders (including Innsworth Litigation Funding which is backing the claim) which are geared up to take advantage of an influx of opt-out follow-on damages claims.
The claim was brought by former Financial Ombudsman Service head Walter Merricks who is attempting to reclaim funds for consumers aged over 16 who had used Mastercard and were overcharged on transaction fees between 1992 and 2008.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan will now get another shot at the £14bn action which is to be remitted to the CAT for a re-hearing.
For Mastercard: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer’s Jonathan Isted, Nicholas Frey and Mark Sansom instructing Brick Court Chambers’ Mark Hoskins QC, Hugo Leith Brick Court Chambers and Jon Lawrence and Matthew Cook at One Essex Court.
For Merricks: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan’s Boris Bronfentrinker and Nicola Chesaites instructing Monckton Chambers’ Paul Harris QC, Marie Demetriou QC and Victoria Wakefield QC at Brick Court Chambers.
THE TRUCK CARTEL LITIGATION
In July 2016, the European Commission fined six of the world’s largest truck manufacturers €2.9bn for price fixing. Nearly five years on, the aftermath continues to keep many of the City’s top disputes lawyers occupied as the manufacturers face mammoth follow-on damages claims.
In November 2020, the Court of Appeal quelled the attempts of five of the manufacturers to keep the admissions made in their European Commission settlements inadmissible in the follow-on trials. A win for claimants – and third-party backer Therium – which will not carry the burden of proving facts previously admitted.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Merricks, the CAT will now hear the application for a collective proceedings order for the follow-on damages claims in this case.
For the defendants: Jonathan Hitchin (Allen & Overy); Bea Tormey and Nicholas Frey (Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer); Caroline Edwards (Travers Smith); Kim Dietzel and Gregg Rowan (Herbert Smith Freehills); Boris Bronfentrinker (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan); Richard Swallow, Damian Taylor and Holly Ware (Slaughter and May).
Kelyn Bacon QC, Mark Hoskins QC and Sarah Ford QC (Brick Court Chambers); Brian Kennelly QC (Blackstone Chambers); Daniel Beard QC and Meredith Pickford QC (Monckton Chambers); Nicholas Bacon QC (4 New Square).
For the claimants: Mark Molyneux (Addleshaw Goddard); Tristan Feunteun (Weightmans); Edward Coulson (Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner); Scott Campbell and Anna Morfey (Hausfeld); Steven Meyerhoff (Backhouse Jones); Euan Burrows and James Levy (Ashurst).
James Flynn QC and Marie Demetriou QC (Brick Court), Rhodri Thompson QC (Matrix Chambers); Tim Ward QC (Monckton).
UBER BV v ASLAM
In a Supreme Court judgment with potentially profound implications on the future of the gig economy, it was held that Uber drivers are workers entitled to full employment rights.
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in February that under the Employment Rights Act 1996, Uber drivers are full employees and therefore in line to receive the national minimum wage, annual leave entitlements and other legal protections afforded to workers.
The judgment also stated that drivers are to be considered workers from the time they log onto the Uber app until the time they log off. This aspect of the ruling was a bitter blow for Uber, who will now have to pay substantial sums to workers while idling.
For Uber: DLA Piper’s Adam Hartley instructed Blackstone Chambers’ Dinah Rose QC and Fraser Campbell.
For the claimants: Bates Wells’ Paul Jennings advised the original claimants, former Uber drivers Yaseen Aslam and James Farrar, enlisting Cloisters’ Jason Galbraith-Marten QC and Sheryn Omeri. Leigh Day partner Nigel Mackay represented fellow ex-Uber driver Robert Dawson, instructing Old Square Chambers’ Oliver Segal QC and Melanie Tether.
ASDA EQUAL PAY LITIGATION
With gender pay disparities increasingly in the spotlight, a group of 44,000 claimants have won a key early battle against Asda in a fight for equal pay.
The Supreme Court ruled in March that Asda shop floor workers, predominantly female, can be compared in terms of pay to their counterparts in distribution centres, who are mainly male.
This ruling paves the way for a future hearing to establish whether or not the roles are of equal value. It is also a positive sign for other similar claims that have been formed on behalf of Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Morrisons, the Co-op and Next employees.
For the claimants: Leigh Day partners Laura Lougheed, Chris Benson and Michael Newman instructed Outer Temple Chambers’ Andrew Short QC, Naomi Cunningham and Paul Livingston.
For Asda: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partners Philip Rocher and Osma Hudda instructed Blackstone Chambers’ Lord Pannick QC and Hollie Higgins and Doughty Street Chambers’ Ben Cooper QC.
UNWIRED PLANET v HUAWEI
In August last year, the Supreme Court declared the UK a destination for international telecoms licence disputes.
The long-awaited decision relates to parallel allegations of infringement by standard-essential patent (SEP) holders, Conversant Wireless Licensing and Unwired Planet, brought against Huawei and ZTE.
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the SEP holders and affirmed that the UK courts have jurisdiction to determine what are fair, reasonable and non-discriminative (FRAND) terms for a global licence of a portfolio of patents, which includes foreign patents.
Notably, the court also provided clarification on the non-discriminative arm of the FRAND requirement, confirming that this does not prohibit differential treatment of rates offered to licensees.
For Huawei: Allen & Overy’s Neville Cordell, Mark Hearney and Mark Ridgway and Powell Gilbert’s Simon Ayrton, Peter Damerell and Zoë Butler instructed Mark Howard QC, Daniel Alexander QC Andrew Lykiardopoulos QC Henry Forbes Smith and James Segan.
For ZTE: Bristows instructed Michael Bloch QC.
For Unwired and Conversant: EIP Legal’s Gary Moss and Osborne Clarke’s Arty Rajendra instructed Adrian Speck QC, Sarah Ford QC, Isabel Jamal and Thomas Jones.
PCP CAPITAL PARTNERS v BARCLAYS BANK
With the proliferation of fraud allegations in the commercial litigation market, this stand-off between businesswoman Amanda Staveley and Barclays Bank reminds defendants to be cautious when it comes to referring to privileged material in support of its case.
The claim brought by Staveley’s private equity firm PCP Capital Partners alleged that Barclays had made fraudulent misrepresentations relating to its capital raisings following the 2008 financial crisis. In the marathon hybrid trial mixing both in-person and virtual proceedings, heard between June and October 2020, the bank was held to have waived legal professional privilege over communications relating to the transaction after relying on privileged advice in witness statements.
While Staveley was ultimately unsuccessful in claiming damages, Barclays was not left unscathed by the disclosure that called into question the actions of former executives.
For PCP: Quinn Emanuel’s Richard East, Khaled Khatoun and Yasseen Gailani instructed Essex Court’s James Collins QC, James Sheehan and Owen Lloyd.
For Barclays: Simmons & Simmons’ senior partner Colin Passmore and Adam Brown instructed Fountain Court’s Richard Lissack QC and Rebecca Loveridge.