Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer has secured a gagging order against The Guardian on behalf of Barclays Bank, forcing the newspaper to remove some of the bank’s internal documents from its website.
Paul Lomas
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer has secured a temporary gagging order against The Guardian on behalf of Barclays Bank, forcing the newspaper to remove some of the bank’s internal documents from its website.
The newspaper published the documents, which are alleged to show that Barclays avoided UK tax bills worth millions of pounds, in its print edition on Tuesday.
Mr Justice Ouseley granted the injunction on Tuesday after Freshfields partner Paul Lomas (pictured) complained on behalf of Barclays that seven documents revealing details of ‘Project Knight’ were the property of the banking giant. In addition, Lomas argued, the documents would have been obtained wrongfully and the whistleblower who had leaked them was in breach of confidentiality.
At a High Court hearing today, Hugh Tomlinson QC of Matrix Chambers argued that The Guardian should be allowed to put the documents back on its website. Brick Court’s Charles Hollander QC represented Barclays.
The newspaper will find out tomorrow morning whether it can publish the seven disputed documents.
The Guardian argued that Project Knight was a codename given by Barclays to a tax scheme put together in a $4bn deal with US bank Branch Banking & Trust Co.
The newspaper alleged that Barclays’ structured capital markets (SCM) division sought approval for the 2007 plan, which would have seen its Luxembourg operation Barlux invest $16bn (£11.4bn) in US loans.
The scheme, which Slaughter & May advised Barclays on, would have created significant tax benefits through a complex structure that spanned Cayman Isle companies, Delaware in the US and Luxembourg subsidiaries, The Guardian reported.
The documents published by The Guardian showed that Barclays was advised by US firm Sullivan & Cromwell that it would not need to disclose the scheme to the US authorities, although the bank said it voluntarily disclosed the scheme to HM Revenue & Customs.
The newspaper obtained the memos from Liberal Democrat deputy leader Vince Cable after they had been leaked by a Barclays insider.
It is understood that The Guardian, represented by Olswang head of media litigation Geraldine Proudler, plans to appeal the injunction.
Winners and Losers
Given that Slaughter & May is the chosen firm of the government shouldn’t it be doing something to promote diversity in the work place as opposed to choosing law graduates who are likely to have attended red brick universities after receiving a privileged education from a private school paid for by mum and dad.
Nobody is saying that these students don’t deserve a place on S&M training scheme, but rather it should be setting an example to others and be proud of its diversity statistics.
And the government should be doing more to encourage those it pays for legal advice to be more diverse in their selection process.
Winners and Losers
The article clearly shows that Slaughter’s decision has been made due to the sheer number of excellent and exceptional NON-LAW candidates already applying. Law firms always allocated percentage of intakes from both non-law and law backgrounds and it is clear that the non-law candidates have applied in their abundance already showing their quality. It is important to get a mix of backgrounds and skill sets in a modern firm, or for any business for that matter, so recruiting from both backgrounds is important and diversent.
But what do I know? I’m just an interested, if bemused, reader.
A solidity defying the crunch?
For all those who are slating Law graduates, I would say try actually completing a law degree yourselves.
I am currently at university, ok its a red brick one but I did not get paid for private school by mummy and daddy, I worked hard to get a scholorship and deserved my place. It took two years to get onto this course for me and I can say I am wholly committed to a career in law, it is not just a opportunity for a good job when one realises their degree leads nowhere. Sadly this is the view of many of my friends stuyding for english/history degrees, now they are worried about employment they see law as a good career option. So good on S&M for realising those who have been committed to law and study ten times harder than in other degrees, deserve a training contract in these hard times.
Freshfields
To say that ‘Oxbridge students at least’ undertake the most work intensive degree under the supervision of the undisputed world experts is far too much on the side of arrogance. Does he presume that law students at other universities cannot compare to the intellectual rigour of Oxbridge? Or that law elsewhere is just not as hard-working, intense or rewarding as an Oxbridge degree in it? I couldn’t disagree any more and know that many students would be greatly offended his snobbish remarks. I go to a decent University and I am sure I spend just as much time in the library as he does and just as little of a social life as him yet I’m quite sure I’ll have just as equal a comprehension of the subject matters that he brags about. Not only is he dismissive of other universities but also of other degrees in his rash comments about subject periodicals. I personally think non-law student intake is a good thing that adds further perspective to the job and gives a lawyer further experience in life which can often out-value an experience in law, something which the author clearly does not have.
eh?
Here’s the trainee recruitment batting order to maximise legal and commercial skills and f-e value added:
1. non-law grads who have studied for a degree in a subject directly related commercially to legal practice;
2. law grads; 3. non law grads in esoteric subjects.
Field Grieb
It’s just a thought, but – why does one have to be better than the other. This debate about law versus non-law sounds ludicrous to me. There are numpties on every course just as there are geniuses on every course and those who will work hard to struggle through. I reckon it’s what you do once you’re actually in the job that counts and I frankly don’t care if you did Arabic studies at Cambridge followed by the GDL at BPP or law at Manchester. If you’re no good when actually faced with a client then no one’s going to care. Equally, if you’re excellent as a practising lawyer no one will care how you got there.
Blank-eyed ignorance
Max North: I think the Oxbridge courses are more work intensive. I did an LLB at a top 10 law school, but only ever had to write essays in exams or, occasionally, for coursework. Friends at Oxford had to write essays almost weekly, and had sessions with 2 students to a tutor. In a 2:1 (rather than 15:1) situation, there’s simply no getting away with anything other than rigourous preparation. I tended not to bother with much prep and hid in my seminars as I was perfectly content meander along to a 2:1 that got me a TC at a top firm in the City. Also, I believe Oxbridge students do all their exams at the end of the 3 year course, so clearly need to know everything inside out even 2 years after they last studied it. I could barely remember having studied anything in the first year by the time I was a final year student, let alone pass an exam in whatever it was I took!
Field Grieb?
I’d only recruit those with law degrees. All those taking non-law subjects (most of whom i’m guessing couldn’t get into law at university otherwise), are making a mockery of the system. Who ever heard of a doctor (also a profession) who had a history degree but then took a one year conversion course before he’s allowed to start administering ‘care’ to patients?! pah! The system has gone mad. The whole process of allowing non-law graduates to enter the profession is just reducing the worth of the proper law degree. In fact, I’d go as far as saying that only a few universities, worthy enough of passing intelligent people, and who meet a certain standard, should be allowed to provide it in the first place (much like the BVC/ LPC!). Might deal with the problem of shortages of pupillages/ training contracts places.
Big ticket
How on earth can you sensibly prohibit the publication of documents that are to be found all over the web? This makes the judge involved look a complete fool! The fact that Barclays has already taken plenty of taxpayers money in the form of insurance on bonds sales makes this even worse.
Isn’t it time the legal and banking professions started thinking a little more about the wider public interest? The alternative is not pleasant (i.e. put yourself in the shoes of a Russian tax expert circa. 1915)