Linklaters faces £115m Credit Suisse claim over Parmalat advice

  • Print
  • Comments (25)

Readers' comments (25)

  • This article hasnt got the facts quite straight.
    The advice in question was given by Links' ex-Italian allies Gianni Origoni.
    The advice was no given by Links.
    CS are trying to make Links vicariously liable for Gianni Origoni's advice.
    So it wasnt Links advice in the first place and even if they are vicariously liable for Gianni they will presumably be able to claim on Gianni's insurance.
    A catastrophe it is not.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I wonder if A&O will be acting under a CFA - that would be some success fee!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Pipes was being sarcastic

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Advice in 2001, claim in 2003? Hope a claim form's been issued, or else Dr Limitation will be knocking at a summary judgment door.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What is the problem here? The advice was given by Italian law firm, not Linklaters. Does it mean that Links were supposed to check themselves what Italian bankruptcy law says and how it is interpreted by courts? What is the purpose of hiring a correspondent law then? Or, does it mean that whatever correspondent law firm says is automatically attributed to Linklaters? If Italians screwed up, they should be responsible for it. Or, am I missing something?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I would be careful jumping to any conclusion. First, Simon Firth is an excellent solicitor. Second, his advice would be based on Itallian law advice. Third, remember the Lehman bankruptcy report which proved to be groundless in its criticism of Linklaters.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The number is large but will be well within Links' E&O programme ~ but it might cost them on renewal. Face it, one ALLEGEDLY bad piece of advice does not mean that the fate of Andersens awaits Links. I suspect Links were not negligent and that the claim will fail; that would be my bet. And "NO" I do not work with Links!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Reading all these posts makes me laugh. Almost invariably they have been written by disgruntled former employees who clearly did not cut the mustard. As a former Linklaters associate who was there for the best part of a decade and who is now a partner elsewhere, my view remains that it is a great firm. Linklaters paid their redundant staff huge sums of money in the recession, far in excess of their competition. As far as these claims are concerned, it goes with the job. Linklaters advise clients on major transactions and litigation (Parmalat and Levicom are no exceptions). It is inevitable that there will be clients who look at suing their lawyers. As for lasting damage, I am quite sure there wont be. This is merely a minor scratch on the surface of a well run, successful firm. The ludicrously overly-emotional comments show the anger of posters who are clearly jealous and still harbour resentment for being managed out.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I believe that Linklaters appeal of the Leviton case is still pending before the Supreme Court.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous | 15-Feb-2011 5:07 pm:
    I think you work in HR at Linklaters.

    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)