Linklaters faces £115m Credit Suisse claim over Parmalat advice

  • Print
  • Comments (25)

Readers' comments (25)

  • 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

  • "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 2:12 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • @Stephen Pipes - loyalty to their staff during the recession?? in 2009 they made 200 people redundant...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @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

  • 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

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 (25)