Big 4 Hit Back at India Over Bans to Practice
The Bar Council of Delhi has barred the Big Four from practicing law in India until further notice.
May 09, 2019 at 06:04 AM
2 minute read
Big Four accountancy firms Ernst & Young and KPMG have responded to the Bar Council of Delhi's decision to ban them from practicing law in India, denying allegations made by the country's Law Society president.
The duo have hit back after claims made by President Lalit Bhasin that they practice law in India were upheld by the Bar Council, which wrote to EY, KPMG, Deloitte and PwC last week to bar them from practicing law.
The council also requested the accountants provide details of all their lawyers.
KPMG and EY have now hit back against the decision. KPMG said in a statement to Legal Week that it denies the allegations as “completely baseless” and “incorrect.”
Bhasin first made a complaint to the Delhi Bar Council (BCD) in 2015. KPMG's statement adds: “We maintain our response provided to BCD for the same complaint raised in 2015 by the complainant. In our response, we specifically stated that the firm does not represent or hold itself out to be a legal firm or a firm of lawyers or legal experts nor is it engaged in the practice of law.
“Given the matter is baseless and incorrect, we would refrain from commenting on it further. ”
EY has also said it will defend itself against the claims. Its statement to Legal Week said: “We have received the enquiries from the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) following the complaint filed by the Society of Indian Law Firm (SILF). We deny the allegations in the claim and will strongly defend.”
Last year the Supreme Court of India in 2018 ruled that foreign law firms are not permitted to establish permanent offices in the country, but that they are allowed to advise on non-Indian law matters on a temporary basis.
A hearing is set to take place July 12. Bhasin declined to comment in response to EY and KPMG's responses to Legal Week until then.
PwC declined to comment and Deloitte did not respond to requests for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
From 'Confusing Labyrinth' to Speeding 'Roller Coaster': Uncertainty Reigns in Title IX as Litigators Await Second Trump Admin
6 minute read
New Class Action Points to Fears Over Privacy, Abortions and Fertility
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
