Deloitte granted partial permission to appeal MG Rover tribunal decision
On 20 November 2013, the FRC announced that it has granted Deloitte partial permission to appeal the decision of the independent Disciplinary Tribunal relating MG Rover Group.
In its report issued in September 2013, the tribunal found that Deloitte and its former corporate finance partner, Maghsoud Einollahi, had failed to adequately consider the public interest when advising MG Rover Group and its owners (the Phoenix Four) on two transactions, known as ‘Project Aircraft’ and ‘Project Platinum’, in the period 2001–02.
It also found that they had that they had failed to identify and consider actual or potential conflicts of interest between the Phoenix Four and MG Rover and had failed to consider or safeguard against a self-interest threat in accepting a contingent fee for the engagements…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Withers briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
If you think that the Housing Grants Act makes payment (or not) clear, keep reading for the latest case...
You may be forgiven for thinking that as of 27 February 2015, the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (the Act), has little effect in terms of its payment and adjudication provisions.
Arnold J does battle again with the complexities of European Trade Mark law in a dispute about the trademark SUPREME for foodstuffs for rabbits and other small animals.