Linklaters faces £115m Credit Suisse claim over Parmalat advice
Credit Suisse is set to sue Linklaters for €136m (£115m) for professional negligence over advice it was given for a deal with Italian food giant Parmalat.
Linklaters
The claim dates back to a €500m convertible bond issued by Parmalat’s Brazilian subsidiary Parmalat Brazil in 2001, to which the investment bank subscribed, and a complementary forward sale agreement (FSA) that saw the company pay the bank €248m in return for future share entitlement.
Capital markets partner Simon Firth led the Linklaters team on the deal, which came two years before Parmalat went into administration in December 2003.
The terms of the FSA meant that Credit Suisse was liable to repay some or all of an advanced payment of €248m to Parmalat’s administrator. The administrator brought a recovatory action against the company to unwind the 2001 transaction, with Parmalat ultimately settling for €154m.
A letter before action sent to Linklaters’ counsel Clyde & Co and seen by The Lawyer states that Credit Suisse feels that the magic circle firm’s advice on the transaction was negligent and, as a result, the bank alleges that it was denied the chance to negotiate better terms.
Allen & Overy is advising Credit Suisse with litigation partner John O’Conor believed to be leading. The bank has also taken advice from Brick Court silks Jonathan Sumption QC, Mark Howard QC and Tom Adam QC. Italian firm Chiomenti Studio Legale is also advising the bank.
The letter further states that Credit Suisse would not have entered into the original deal if it had known that the advanced payment was recoverable by Parmalat’s administrator.
The claim centres on what circumstances needed to apply for Parmalat’s administrator to reclaim money paid to Credit Suisse under the FSA.
Firth sought advice from Linklaters’ then Italian alliance partner Gianni Origoni Grippo & Partners and concluded that Credit Suisse would only be liable for claw back proceedings if it had, or should have had, prior knowledge of Parmalat’s insolvency. Credit Suisse alleges that this advice was negligent.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (25)
Anon | 11-Feb-2011 1:47 pm
Catastrophe is not too strong a word to describe this development.
Linklaters could certainly afford the claim, but if it loses the damage to its reputation will be severe, long-lasting and potentially fatal.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11-Feb-2011 2:12 pm
"severe, long-lasting and potentially fatal" - a severe case of schadenfreude, my friend!
I'm no Links apologist, but one piece of bad advice on one deal is hardly going to ruin the whole firm's reputation.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11-Feb-2011 2:26 pm
@Anonymous | 11-Feb-2011 2:12 pm - Clients go to Linklaters to ensure that issues such as this do not occur. Ever. If this case is lost it shows a shocking lack of internal controls.
The sad thing is, this couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of people. Money is the last thing that these people care about, their staff and the wider community ALWAYS come first for Linklaters partners.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11-Feb-2011 3:14 pm
What happened to the Levicom professional negligence claim that Linklaters lost in the Court of Appeal last year? The last I heard was that Linklaters was seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Anyone know the outcome?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Stephen Pipes | 11-Feb-2011 3:22 pm
Such a pity that this should happen to Linklaters after the partners showed such loyalty to their staff during the recession.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11-Feb-2011 3:45 pm
Interesting that most assume that Links are liable. Loss of an opportunity to negotiate better terms doesn't sounds like the greatest claim, backed up by Credit Suisse shopping for QC advice and leaking this to The Lawyer. Storm in a teacup?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11-Feb-2011 5:57 pm
The Supreme Court refused permission to appeal in Levicom, so the case is due to go back to Andew Smith J for a quantum trial.
As for shopping for QC advice, I infer from the article above that the letter of claim must have "name-dropped" the redoubtable trio of Sumption, Howard and Adam (why else would the article mention them?). Litigators tend not to name-drop the name(s) of counsel in correspondence unless the barristers concerned have advised favourably and (normally) have approved the final draft of the letter mentioning their names. I suspect all three of them have advised and have advised favourably, If they have, CS are clearly not sparing the horses in terms of costs!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11-Feb-2011 6:18 pm
@Stephen Pipes - loyalty to their staff during the recession?? in 2009 they made 200 people redundant...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11-Feb-2011 7:22 pm
@Anonymous 2:26 "The sad thing is, this couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of people". I am sorry if I failed to pick up the sarcasm here: Links culled 18% of their Associate body, excluding those managed-out or terminated. A number of partners given their marching orders too. They care about nothing EXCEPT money.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11-Feb-2011 11:22 pm
Agree with Anonymous | 11-Feb-2011 3:45 pm. Very quick to equate a claim with a verdict/outcome here. Pipe down
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment