Freshfields Criticised By Shareholder of Major Client For Cum-Ex Role
A shareholder in Infineon has called out the company for breaching its code of conduct by mandating the firm.
February 12, 2020 at 10:28 AM
4 minute read
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer is facing fresh criticism for its alleged role in the ongoing cum-ex tax scandal, after a shareholder at long-standing Germany-based client spoke out against the company for using the Magic Circle firm.
Jakob Ziemes, a shareholder at electronics giant Infineon, claimed that the company's decision to mandate Freshfields last year in light of the negative press it has received as a result of the cum-ex scandal contravened the company's code of ethics, according to documents seen by Law.com International.
In a letter written in German, Ziemes said that the company "had to ensure compliance with the ethical standards" and that it is difficult to understand why a firm who "cheated the State, including all shareholders present by multi-millions or even billions" had been selected.
The criticism follows the arrest and charging of former Freshfields tax partner Ulf Johannemann in November following his alleged role in a scandal that involved well-known companies double-claiming on tax rebates.
Ziemes had brought a counter motion to deny the discharge of the board's CEO Reinhard Ploss and chairman Sven Schneider. If a board is discharged at the end of a fiscal year, it signifies that shareholders agree with the decisions made by the board in the year.
Ziemes states that Infineon's code of ethics has clear processes for the selection of service providers that are "based on ethical criteria".
The Freshfields mandate in question relates to Infineon's acquisition of U.S. chipmaker Cypress Semiconductor Corp in July 2019. A Freshfields team made up of finance partner Frank Laudenklos, corporate partners Christoph Seibt and Christoph Gleske and competition partner Aimen Mir advised.
Freshfields has advised Infineon—which has revenues of €8 billion—numerous times, according to the firm's website.
Infineon's management dismissed Ziemes' claims in a public statement, stating that it had no reason not to mandate the firm and that Freshfields confirmed to the company that the lawyers currently working with Infineon are not involved in the cum-ex dealings.
Whether or not the counter motion will be discussed in the AGM later this month remains to be seen, with two people close to the German legal market describing Ziemes as a "critical spirit", thereby questioning the intention behind the counter motion.
Infineon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Either way, the criticism by a shareholder of an unrelated client is significant for Freshfields, which is keen to draw a line under the cum-ex saga.
There is disagreement among people in Germany about the extent to which Freshfields' reputation will be affected. One partner at a rival Magic Circle firm in Germany said they "certainly do not expect Freshfields to go down [the rankings]" given that it is a "immensely powerful and leading firm" in Germany.
However, a recruiter suggested that in a worst-case scenario, the reputational damage could see growing reluctance among clients to mandate Freshfields.
Freshfields declined to comment.
Last month, Johannemann had charges brought against him in relation to "serious tax evasion" for developing and advising on the so-called "cum-ex" transactions while "knowing the actual structure of the cum-ex transactions and deliberately issuing a maturity report in order to make the business seem supposedly legal".
Frankfurt-based Johannemann left Freshfields in November and was arrested a week later. He was in custody until just before Christmas when he was released on €4 million bail, according to one person with knowledge of the situation and various press reports.
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 AllNew Frontiers: Gaillard Banifatemi Shelbaya Launches in Cairo and Abu Dhabi
4 minute readTravers Gives Holiday Bonus, Ropes & Gray Reduces Time Off Allowance
1 minute readJapan’s Mori Hamada Joins Funder LCM for $150M Credit Suisse Bonds Claim
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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