The Lawyer Asia Pacific 150 is the only research report to provide a ranking of the top 100 independent local firms and top 50 global firms in the region. The report offers critical review of some of the fastest growing firms and their strategies, a country-by-country guide to leading legal advisers and legal services market trends, plus exclusive insight into the current business development opportunities in the Asia Pacific. Read more
This year, The Lawyer’s annual ranking of the largest UK law firms by turnover is available as an interactive, digital benchmarking tool. For the first time this will allow you to manipulate each data set against the metrics of your choice.
The Accountancy & Actuarial Discipline Board v (1) Deloitte LLP and Maghsoud Einollahi
March, 4 weeks, Tribunal TBC
For the claimant AADB:
Fountain Court Chambers’ Tim Dutton QC leading Outer Temple Chambers’ Nicholas Medcroft, instructed by Russell Jones and Walker partner Rod Fletcher
For the defendant Deloitte:
4 New Square’s Sue Carr QC leading Blackstone Chambers Ben Jaffey, instructed by Freshfields partner Andrew Hart
Tim Dutton QC
Fountain Court’s Tim Dutton QC will go head to head with 4 New Square’s Sue Carr QC in this hotly anticipated trial that will examine Deloitte’s involvement with the collapse of the MG Rover group. Maghsoud Einollahi, a retired corporate finance partner at Deloitte, is also joined as a defendant.
The Accountancy and Actuarial Discipline Board (AADB) has called Deloitte’s UK arm before a public tribunal to answer for a series of alleged failures. The accountancy giant billed £31m for advice, including corporate finance advice, to the ‘Phoenix Four’ on their ill-fated attempt to resurrect MG Rover.
The allegations concern Deloitte’s relationship with the four - John Towers, John Edwards, Nick Stephenson and Peter Beale. They were all disqualified as directors in 2011 following controversy over financial awards they took from the MG Rover before its collapse in 2005.
The AADB claims the auditor had become too close with the men. It alleges that Deloitte acted where there was a clear conflict of interest and failed to act in the public interest. In essence, Deloitte is alleged have put the interests of the Four ahead of MG Rover or the public.