Judgments, awards, enforcement proceedings, and firm news, including matters from before the 2010 reconstitution. Confidential matters are described without naming the parties, which is most of the arbitration work.
Commercial Court, King's Bench Division. A US$2.1 billion claim on a structured reinsurance programme was dismissed in full. The case turned on whether the aggregation language reached losses notified under a separate treaty; the judge accepted our client's construction on all four issues and awarded costs on the indemnity basis, holding that the claim should not have been pursued past disclosure. Permission to appeal was refused on the papers and again on renewal. Adaeze Okonjo led the advocacy, instructed by Eileen Halloran and Rebecca Stern.
Expropriation and fair treatment claim for a Gulf infrastructure investor, seated in Paris, heard over eleven days. The tribunal found the licence revocation was not a bona fide regulatory measure. Recognition was opened in three jurisdictions within a fortnight. Élodie Marchand and Anton Brandt were counsel.
Claims valued by the plaintiffs at US$900 million were dismissed in full on scienter and loss causation, on a motion filed eleven weeks after the consolidated complaint. Leave to replead was refused. Marguerite Cole argued the motion.
Two commercial litigation partners and a partner in the recovery group joined the London office, taking the London partnership to six.
Assets in four jurisdictions were identified and restrained pending satisfaction of a US$410 million judgment we obtained in 2024. Disclosure orders were made against two corporate service providers. The continuation was contested on the ground of material non-disclosure at the without notice hearing and that challenge was dismissed. Priya Raval and Callum Reid.
Acting for minority holders. The controller failed to carry its burden on entire fairness: the special committee was constituted after negotiations had begun and its financial adviser had been retained by the controller three months earlier. Rescission was ordered rather than damages. Tomás Reyes tried the action; Wen Li Tan ran the books and records campaign that produced the record.
Guidance for award creditors on the narrowing of the commercial use exception and its effect on attachment strategy, by Priya Raval.
Sixty-three cases tried to judgment or final award since 2010, with first instance, appeal, and enforcement outcomes broken out and the counting rules stated.
Authorities in two jurisdictions closed their files against a listed industrial group and three of its directors without charge, following a voluntary disclosure and an internal investigation we conducted. The company and the individuals were separately represented throughout. Jun Koda and Samuel Ochieng.
The challenge to the tribunal's jurisdiction and to the constitution of the panel was rejected on every ground. Enforcement followed in two further jurisdictions. Anton Brandt.
A closed session for general counsel and heads of litigation from twenty six companies, on award enforcement against sovereign counterparties.
A follow-on claim valued by the claimants at £540 million was struck out in its entirety, with costs. The claimants had relied on a concealment argument that the court held was inconsistent with their own regulatory filings. Yewande Adeyemi.
Appointments were obtained in two offshore jurisdictions on the same day, after an eighteen month tracing exercise by our recovery group. Callum Reid.
Interim relief was obtained six weeks after the request for arbitration, preserving supply to our client's European operations pending the final award. Klaus Zeller.
Three forensic accountants and a former financial intelligence analyst joined in New York and London, taking the group to seven.
We were instructed after the claimant's summary judgment application had already been listed. The application failed, and the matter was tried the following autumn. We record it because the outcome we were retained to prevent was avoided at the second attempt rather than the first.
Defence of an industrial group over a dispute running to five years and four preliminary applications, with costs awarded to our client on the indemnity basis.
A three week trial on a US$240 million contract and fraud claim. The jury rejected the claimant's damages model in full. Eileen Halloran and David Aronow.
Bench trial in New York on guarantees given by a group holding company. The judgment is the one now being enforced across four jurisdictions.
Settled after the hearing on jurisdiction and before the merits hearing, on terms that are confidential. We list it because roughly two thirds of what we do ends this way rather than in a judgment.
The appeal was argued by David Aronow, who had been on the trial team from the pleadings. The court dismissed all three grounds.
A gas supply price review that had been through two prior arbitrations. Klaus Zeller was counsel in all three.
From the Pakt era. A price-fixing class was denied certification on predominance after a four day evidentiary hearing, and the individual claims settled for a fraction of the exposure. Nils Pakt argued it at seventy-one.
From the Pakt era, and the origin of the firm's enforcement practice. The award was obtained in Stockholm and enforced against vessels in two ports over the following four years, after the debtor state had declared the award unenforceable against it.
An order we had obtained without notice was discharged on the ground that the affidavit had not fairly stated the debtor's arguments. We reapplied on a corrected basis and the relief was granted again. It changed how we prepare without notice applications, and it is why Callum Reid handles that part of every recovery matter.
Amounts stated are aggregates across related matters and represent the value of claims resolved, defended, or recovered rather than sums received by any single client. We publish an entry only where our client has consented and where reporting restrictions allow. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
We accept a limited number of new instructions each year, and we run conflicts before any substantive discussion. Please do not send us confidential information until we have confirmed in writing that we can act.