Freshfields bids to limit damage after crushing M&S court blow
Freshfields defends its decision to act in M&S takeover battle, however rivals question firm's judgement
June 09, 2004 at 08:03 PM
4 minute read
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer is moving to draw a line under its controversial role on the bid for Marks & Spencer (M&S) after the Court of Appeal last week refused to lift an injunction barring the firm from acting on the £9bn bid.
The judges, Lord Justice Kay and Lord Justice Pill, ruled on 3 June that the effective use of Chinese walls in a non-agreed takeover was "wholly improbable".
The court heard how Fresh-fields set up an information barrier one month after accepting an instruction to act for Philip Green when it became clear that the employment contract of Per Una head George Davies, on which Freshfields had advised, was to be a key issue in Green's bid.
In the judgment, Kay said: "I find it surprising that it took the due diligence application to put them [Freshfields] on the alert." Pill added: "I have little difficulty in concluding there was a clear conflict of interest."
The judges also took into account other work Freshfields had done for M&S, citing knowledge of the iconic retailer's pricing policy and supply chains.
Freshfields offered to relocate lawyers working on the bid as well as signing confidentiality documents saying they would not receive confidential information from previous work for M&S on the deal. Responding to the offer, Pill said: "In my view, it is far too late in the day for promising further measures."
Freshfields had accepted the instruction in early May and took the view that its work for M&S and on the George Davies contract, which it has worked on "from time to time" since 2001, would not be seen by the corporate team working on the Green bid.
Chief executive Hugh Crisp led the conflicts check and subsequently informed Green the firm would be able to do the deal, with head of corporate finance Barry O'Brien leading the team.
The firm did not inform Green about its work on the Davies contract, but when it became aware that it would be an issue, it employed a "more formalised Chinese wall". This involved security labelling on files, separate filing cabinets and not allowing changes to team personnel.
Ashurst is now advising the Philip Green consortium, which promises to be a massive boost for the firm's corporate profile. Head of corporate Chris Ashworth is leading the team on the deal.
Ashurst secured the instruction on 3 June ahead of potential candidates, including Lovells and Linklaters, which was understood to be ready to take on the instruction from its arch M&A rival.
Slaughter and May corporate partners Nigel Boardman and Andy Ryde are leading the team for M&S, with litigation partner Sarah Lee called in on the injunction.
Michael Brindle QC of Fountain Court was instructed by Freshfields, while Slaughters turned to Kenneth MacLean QC of One Essex Court.
The episode will now be watched closely for its impact on Freshfields, with City rivals questioning the firm's stance in accepting the Green instruction.
One head of corporate at a top 10 London firm told Legal Week: "It is difficult to see how Fresh-fields will come out of this. One thing is for sure, I am very glad we are not in their shoes."
Another partner added: "Even though I am not a retail specialist, I knew that George Davies is central to the M&S bid. It is one of the issues that must have been high on their radar screen."
Talking to Legal Week, Fresh-fields' Crisp strongly defended the firm. "The judgment emphasised a perception of risk, but that risk did not come to pass," he said. "I do not believe Slaughters and M&S thought we would disclose confidential information. It is good for them to get the team of first choice off the deal." He added the firm would not be changing its conflict-checking procedure.
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‘Are You Not Profiting From Postmasters’ Misery?’—Politicians Grill HSF, Dentons on Post Office Conduct
'Not a Good Look'—FCA Fines Barclays £40M But Accused of Incompetence
Gibson Dunn Sued by Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
Australian Corporations More Concerned About Class Actions Risk, HSF Report Finds
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Skips Over Sanctions in Talc Bankruptcy: 'That’s A No'
- 2Hit by Mail Truck: Man Agrees to $1.85M Settlement for Spinal Injuries
- 3Anticipating a New Era of 'Extreme Vetting,' Big Law Immigration Attys Prep for Demand Surge
- 4Deal Watch: What Dealmakers Are Thankful for in 2024
- 5'The Court Will Take Action': Judge Upbraids Combative Rudy Giuliani During Outburst at Hearing
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