Addleshaw Goddard loses in mammoth CFA case Berezovsky v Abramovich

  • Print
  • Comments (34)

Readers' comments (34)

  • No surprise as to the verdict!!
    Why on earth AG did this on a CFA basis is beyond me - silly silly mistake!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A hard-hitting verdict no doubt, but no reflection on the superb effort and skill by the Berezovsky legal team. Addleshaws are a commercial firm who are prepared to take a gamble; that they have guts and are prepared to take a loss occasionally will now be evident to all they come across. It will do them little harm in the long run. And there is always the inevitable appeal...It isn't all over yet.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I thought they took out insurance to cover this eventuality, so not so silly?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Appeal? Seriously? Have you read Gloster J's assessment of Berezovsky as a witness? I can't remember reading a more damning assessment.
    As this case all boils down to one guy's version of events against another's, the fact that the trial judge has made these findings of fact makes the judgment pretty much unappealable.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • But that will only cover thier opponents costs and disbursments not thier own.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The insurance is almost certainly just to protect Beresovsky against adverse costs orders and to cover his own disbursements. I'd be amazed if the cover extended to AG's costs.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The question is, how did they find an insurance company willing to take the risk. . . perhaps they are the silly ones?
    No bonus's at AG next yr then no doubt. . .

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It will be interesting to see if the gamble continues and who pays for the lost income.
    Is it all covered by by the CFA ?
    Will some heavy weights join the list of 24 ?
    Will they act for B....... again on this basis ?
    Only time will tell - However AG are a decent firm at end of day and will live to fight another day.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Presumably this will be a charge in the accounts that depresses profits. More redundancies next year?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This must have cost the firm several million in fee's. I would imagine redundancies are almost certain.
    Shame as AG is a great firm.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I assume AG did it on a CFA becuase it is the only way a low tier litigation firm like them would get the instruction

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It is a short sighted and commercially suicidal view to think that CFA always equals no win, no fee. It has to be a value proposition for both the law firm and the client.
    Any significantly reduced fee (perhaps that just covers the standard cost of the legal team doing the work) that then has an additional (and conditional) fee on success, would be a CFA and sounds a more likely route that a commercially astute law firm would take, don't you think?
    And as to anons comment at 12:09, surely the reduction in fee income would already for the most part have have been factored in to last years accounts?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Wasn't the background to the CFA something like: Berez ditches Stephenson Harwood and turns to star AG litigation partner. Star litigation partner miffed at not making Senior Partner leaves to set up boutique firm with a view to taking Berez case. AG management panics and offers Berez CFA deal to keep the work.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous | 31-Aug-2012 12:52 pm: that's exactly the background apart from the bit where AG offer up-and-coming partner who has the real relationship with BB an equity partnership so he doesn't jump ship with star partner. Also the bit where BB has no liquidity despite being filthy rich, owes squillions to AG and everything gets renegotiated so AG has a pop at a fee uplift to offset the inevitable write-off if BB loses. Hasn't paid off and this is one non-appealable judgment.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • So you're saying this was not a partial CFA (where AG still get paid a discounted base rate even in the event of a loss) but a full CFA (i.e. AG don't get paid any base costs at all if they lose)? Jesus......

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Many commercial clients insist on CFA's for such cases - I know of one large City firm in particular who undertake CFA work (but plainly do not promote the fact).

    Let's hope that the ATE insurer has the capital adequacy to sustain such a heavy loss.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 1. Is Anonymous | 31-Aug-2012 2:01 pm absolutely sure that AG are not on a discounted fee arrangement? 2. Does anyone know who the ATE insurer was?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The BBC is quoting a costs lawyer saying that the combined costs could be £150 million. I wouldn't want to be on the losing end of a CFA of any kind at that sort of level

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I see that in the Gazette Addleshaws are hurriedly peddling the line that this was no win, smaller fee. Ahem, much smaller fee? And is it ever recoverable from their client? Their PR advisers seem to have been onto the Lawyer too, as this has now been added in to the story above. Great firm, but no need to protest too much surely?... Better to take it on the chin and just accept you lost?! Will the other cases be ditched now though?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • My understanding is that AG are on a discounted fee arrangement of some sort. They had no choice but to agree to this once it became clear that BB couldn't pay the bills but tried to spin it as being "creative" with funding solutions to their clients. Very substantial (but not total) write-off now in prospect because BB's liquidity position has not improved. These are the rumours - who knows whether they are true.

    "Anonymous | 31-Aug-2012 2:01 pm"

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (34)