Slaughters racked up bills of more than £8m for Carillion advice in 18 months before collapse
Letter from magic circle firm's senior partner reveals details of Carillion billings
May 18, 2018 at 10:18 AM
2 minute read
Slaughter and May billed Carillion £8.4m for advice in the 18 months prior to its liquidation in January this year, a newly-released letter from the firm has revealed.
The figure is revealed in a letter from Slaughters senior partner Steve Cooke, sent to MPs after the magic circle firm was asked in February to provide information to the Work and Pensions and Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy committees, which launched a joint inquiry into Carillion's liquidation at the beginning of 2018.
The letter, dated 20 February but only released this week after the publication of a final report into the construction company's high-profile collapse, states that Slaughters racked up fees of £8.387m for work carried out between July 2016 and January 2018, of which £6.894m has been paid.
The letter, which states that a further £1.2m was unbilled, adds that "in the leadup to and following" Carillion's July 2017 profit warning, which saw shares crash 40%, the firm billed £6.915m, of which £5.468m was paid. This figure includes fees for advice on a rights issue that the firm started working on in May 2017.
The letter states that the fees do not include disbursements or VAT, and adds that the firm was not paid any success fees. Cooke wrote: "Had our work relating to Carillion's financial position concluded, we would have then had the ability to seek an uplift on our fees."
The publication of the letter comes after MPs published a critical report this week on Carillion's collapse. Slaughters, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer and Clifford Chance were among the law firms accused by MPs of "squeezing fee income" from the company as it collapsed amid "recklessness, hubris and greed".
The report, released on Wednesday (16 May), details how Carillion's directors were supported by an "array of illustrious advisory firms" which, as it unravelled, were "squeezing fee income out of what remained of the company".
This content has been archived.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 AllLinklaters Sees Latest Partner Exit as UK Leveraged Finance Partner Walks To Simpson Thacher
2 minute readEx-Dewey & LeBoeuf Banking Lawyer on Trial in Germany’s Cum-Ex Tax Scandal
DLA Piper & Hogan Lovells Expand German Construction and Property Practices
2 minute readWhite & Case, Cleary Among Firms Gearing Up for Biggest London IPO Since 2022
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Growing PFAS Morass: Why Insurance Should Cover These Products Liability Claims
- 2Dallas Jury Awards $98.65M in Botham Jean Killing by Dallas Officer
- 3In Talc Bankruptcy, Andy Birchfield Skipped His Deposition. Could He Face Sanctions?
- 4Pharmaceutical Patents: Benefits and Challenges
- 5Where Do Web-Tracking Class Actions Belong? 8th Circuit Weighs the Issue
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