Author: Edgar

Bell Yard advises ONTIER, the firm whose client, Dr Wright, authored the Bitcoin White Paper, under the pseudonym, Satoshi Nakamoto, creating the blueprint for a new digital asset over 15 years ago.

Having been ‘doxxed’ as Satoshi in 2015, he faced relentless online hostility from individuals and entities with a vested interest in alternative digital coins. Dr Wright soon determined to prove his identity through the courts, establishing and enforcing his copyright in the White Paper and numerous patents relating to the blockchain.

Bell Yard’s role has been to promote ONTIER’s incremental successes in the English legal cases being brought and/or challenged by the firm on Dr Wright’s behalf, so as to marginalise the online abusers and to achieve public recognition, through court judgments, that Dr Wright is indeed who he says he is.

We work in close conjunction with Dr Wright’s personal PR team, while remaining dedicated to our task of promoting the litigation outcomes. 

We are currently advising on the communication around a ground-breaking action against 16 bitcoin developers to establish their duty to restore access to stolen/lost private keys to those who can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of a court, their ownership of the wallet in which digital currency is stored.   We also support ONTIER in the various copyright infringement cases ongoing, as well as defamation actions in UK and Norway.  Running in parallel is a huge case (brought by ONTIER on behalf of an entity beneficially owned by Dr Wright), against digital currency exchanges Kraken and Coindesk, valued in the hundreds of billions of pounds.

Summary

Not only are these various litigations complex, involving multi-parties across multiple jurisdictions, they are also at the cutting edge of digital currency development, with Bitcoin gaining increasing traction towards mainstream acceptance.  There can be few litigation PR instructions of such novelty and magnitude and we remain fortunate to be advising such a creative and brilliantly innovative legal team and end client.

Bell Yard’s contact details can be found here.

Declan Flahive joins the Bell Yard team in the role of Consultant. Declan’s prior positions to joining Bell Yard includes being the Communications Officer for the Restorative Justice for All (RJ4All) International Institute and the PR and social media manager for Alison Jackson Studios. “I am thrilled to be joining such a well-regarded, specialist agency and I look forward to getting started on my Bell Yard journey.”  

Welcome, Declan! 

(10 January 2022)

Following new evidence recently heard at the Infected Blood Inquiry, Collins Solicitors has sent a letter before action to the Chair of the Governing Body of Treloar’s School in Hampshire on behalf of former Treloar’s pupil, Gary Webster. 

Mr Webster, now 56, claims that he suffered loss and damage as a result of negligence and breach of duty in the treatment he received at Treloar’s for haemophilia in the 1970s/80s, causing him to be infected by HIV and HCV and suffer life-long physical and mental health consequences.

In June 2021, the Infected Blood Inquiry heard deeply moving testimony from Gary, as well as shocking stories from a number of other haemophiliac former Treloar’s pupils who, as boarders, were treated with Factor 8 concentrate on a prophylactic basis without parental consent or advice on the risks involved.  Factor 8 was created from pooled plasma from up to 60,000 donors and imported from commercial entities overseas, yet crucially was not heat treated, which would have diminished the risk of contamination from then incurable viruses such as HIV and Hepatitis.

Des Collins, Senior Partner at Collins Solicitors, comments:

“It will be our client’s case that the treatment he received at Treloar’s was negligent and amounted to breach of duty of care. There was a total failure to inform and obtain consent on the risks associated with the blood products administered and a deplorable dereliction of duty in the handling of his subsequent diagnosis and after-care, despite Gary effectively being given a death sentence.” 

“Normally the time-limit for personal injury claims is three years after a child’s 18^th birthday. However, it is our position that this should not apply here given the extraordinary evidence heard – for the first time after all these years – at the Infected Blood Inquiry in June. Relevant testimonies include those by Treloar’s former headmaster, house master, care staff and clinicians in the hospital attached to the school.”  

“We recognise Treloar’s School does great work with disabled pupils today and that some former pupils have fond memories of the time they spent at the school they regarded as home for much of their childhood. However, the fact remains that in the past the school as a collective body ruined the lives of a substantial cohort of haemophilia sufferers.  Sadly, many are no longer with us to be able to evidence the appalling negligence and abrogation of responsibility that took place.  No amount of money can ever make up for a life spent on borrowed time, enduring disease that was preventable and the associated social stigma, but recompense might go some way towards easing my client’s daily struggle and provide recognition of the injury he is so deservedly owed.”   

According to Litigation Protocol, Treloar’s, or its representatives, have 21 days to respond to Collins’ correspondence.

Collins Solicitors is also engaging with other former Treloar’s clients concerning a potential group action. The firm represents some 1500 victims and family members affected by the infected blood scandal currently being exposed during the Infected Blood Inquiry, of which over 40 are either former Treloar’s pupils or their dependants.

ENDS

Media enquiries
To speak to Des Collins or Gary Webster about this proposed legal action, please contact:

Bell Yard Communications: 020 7936 2021 BellYard@bell-yard.com

Melanie Riley: melanie@bell-yard.com / Mob: 07775 591244 

Louise Beeson: louise@bell-yard.com / Mob: 07768 956997 

Sarah Peters: sarah@bell-yard.com / Mob: 07977 997927 

(19 October 2021)

Former Head of Volvo European Litigation, Kelda Groves, Joins Hagens Berman UK LLP

LONDON – Kelda Groves, former head of European litigation at Volvo Group, has joined the partnership of Hagens Berman UK, the London firm of globally renowned US class-action law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Kelda will lead the UK firm’s competition and group litigation practice and manage Hagens Berman UK’s litigation against Mercedes regarding its use of illegal emission control defeat devices which harm consumers and the environment. 

Prior to joining Hagens Berman UK, Kelda led and managed Volvo Group’s European litigations, including one of the largest pieces of antitrust litigation in Europe, the Trucks Litigation, in which the European Commission fined MAN, Volvo/Renault, Daimler, Iveco and DAF for breaching EU antitrust rules by running a price-fixing cartel for medium-sized and heavy trucks. During her more than three years at Volvo, Kelda addressed claims in over 15 countries and collective actions in the UK, Netherlands and Germany. Kelda has a proven track record in corporates, investment banks and global law firms, with extensive financial services experience from her more than 10 years at HSBC, as head of complaints and investigations, and at Credit Suisse, managing the European litigation portfolio.

Kelda will be based out of Hagens Berman UK’s London office, enlarging its robust Mercedes litigation team, which has expanded its size to more than a dozen as the case against Mercedes intensifies. The firm is the sole UK firm to have issued a claim against Mercedes and is leading the effort for those in England and Wales who were harmed by the automaker’s emissions-cheating scandal affecting its diesel vehicles sold and leased both to individuals and businesses. Hagens Berman has so far onboarded more than 9,000 clients who have been verified as owners of affected vehicles and who are able to claim compensation and continues to convert interested parties into fully registered clients.

“Kelda’s unique experience fits ideally with our firm’s objective to bring the best resources to bear for those impacted by corporate malfeasance,” said Steve Berman, Hagens Berman’s managing partner. “Her experience in group litigation on the defendant side of litigation provides insights into defence tactics and further positions Hagens Berman UK as a stand-out claimant firm in the UK, especially for those harmed by Mercedes’ diesel scandal.”

Kelda said, “As opportunities for consumer redress open in the United Kingdom and Europe, I am very excited to join a firm with such a leading reputation for winning compensation and justice for consumers.” 

“Kelda brings to Hagens Berman UK an impressive track record of leading litigation teams and managing teams to success,” said Hagens Berman UK co-managing director and partner, Michael Gallagher. “We are delighted to welcome Kelda to the team and for us and our clients to benefit from her experience and advocacy. The skillset she brings is a perfect cultural and strategic fit.”

Hagens Berman UK is headquartered in London and focuses its practice on competition and group litigation, as well as investor fraud. The firm expands the global reach of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP with offices in Seattle, Berkeley, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Phoenix and San Diego.

Ends

Media Contacts

Bell Yard Communications: +44 207 936 2021 / BellYard@bell-yard.com  

Louise Beeson: + 44 7768 956997 / louise@bell-yard.com  

Kelda Groves, Steve Berman and Michael J. Gallagher Jr. are available for interviews and can be reached at heidiw@hbsslaw.co.uk  

Notes to Editors

About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP is a consumer-rights class-action law firm operating in 10 cities worldwide. Hagens Berman UK LLP is headquartered in London. The firm’s tenacious drive for plaintiffs’ rights has earned it numerous national accolades, awards and titles of “Most Feared Plaintiff’s Firm,” and MVPs and Trailblazers of class-action law. More about the law firm and its successes can be found at hbsslaw.com and hbsslaw.co.uk. Follow Hagens Berman for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw. 

Hagens Berman Media Contact:

Heidi Waggoner

pr@hbsslaw.co.uk / heidiw@hsbsslaw.co.uk

+1-206-268-9318

(7 September 2021)

Victims of $1bn Credit Suisse fraud make open offer to new Chairman

Sunday 8 August marks 100 days since Antonio Horta-Osorio became Chairman of what was once Switzerland’s most venerated banking giant – Credit Suisse.  

• To five former clients of CS’ Wealth Management Division, that’s $10m per day of his tenure they’ve lost to fraud at the hands of the bank, due to failings of managerial oversight of Patrice Lescaudron and his colleagues;
• To shareholders, that’s a further $5.5m per day of his tenure lost to Archegos’ default due to failings of managerial oversight and a lackadaisical attitude to risk; 
• To investors that’s an additional $2.3m per day of his tenure of exposure to the Greensill supply chain financing failure and one pan-European/Asian class action;
• To creditors of Mozambique’s tuna bonds that’s 1 High Court trial and $6.2m per day of his tenure of unaccounted for loans at the hands of 3 corrupt Credit Suisse employees and poor management oversight;
• To staff that’s 2400 hours of declining morale and no doubt disappointment in the Board’s handling of mounting crises;
• To shareholders that’s 27% of 2021 with a flat-lining share price while competitors rally.

Like his fire-fighting time at Lloyds beforehand, Horta-Osorio will be finding life at Credit Suisse just as incendiary.  

However, representatives of the five victims of Credit Suisse’ fraud, investment mismanagement, and failed compliance controls are offering to meet the Chairman to help him finally extinguish the smouldering wreck of fraudulent activity at the bank, to allow Horta-Osorio to focus on the clean-up of legacy issues required of his position.  This Chairman has been unafraid to take remedial action in his previous role – the CS victims now anticipate a similarly decisive approach.

Charlie Wigan, spokesperson for the Credit Suisse victims says:

“If anyone can take command – by getting Credit Suisse to face up to, and act on, its wide-reaching failings brought to light over the past few years through regulatory reports, internal inquiries, criminal investigations and multi-jurisdictional claims – I have faith that this Chairman can. 

“Certain Board members are under increasing pressure for the part they played in the group’s neglectful attitude to risk and compliance. In order to draw a line under past wrongdoing and to give optimism to those stakeholders invested in the bank’s future, Horta-Osorio will need to tackle legacy risk issues and make good the significant losses suffered by influential international investors without further delay. This matter represents yet another significant litigation drain on the bank’s resources and will blight the Chairman’s tenure until it is resolved.”

ENDS   

For further information, please contact:

Bell Yard Communications                                      Tel: +44 20 7936 2021

Melanie Riley    BellYard@bell-yard.com             Tel: +44 77755 91244

(8 August 2022)

Bell Yard assisted the Directors of a traditional UK publishing company, based in the south of England, when they were forced to make the difficult decision to enter into administration.

Strict company and employment law requirements drove the communications process requiring timely and explanatory messaging to staff and affected customers.

Bell Yard helped shape the context messages for internal and external use. There was a core script adjusted for each of the different audiences affected.

With little preparation time to spare, announcement day brought a tight roll-out timetable of communications – with unions, staff, customers as well as local and trade media.

Following court approval, the administrator took over the reins of the business and responsibility for all communications on the company’s final wind-down strategy and implementation. However with Bell Yard’s support, the Directors could comfort themselves that they had presented sad news in as efficient and sensitive a way as possible in the circumstances, with all parties ultimately respecting that there was nothing further that could have been done to prevent the end of a printing era in this technological age.

Bell Yard advised a UK chambers on its client, internal and potential media engagement following the discovery of limited fee discrepancies. The matter was resolved without public scrutiny given the swift remedial action taken and appropriation communication provided.

Bell Yard advised a UK set on the preparation of appropriate reactive public engagement, drafting internal and potential external communications arising from an employment-related dispute, which ultimately was resolved without unwelcome media exposure.

Bell Yard’s advice was sought in respect of handling media enquiries into the extra-curricular activities of a member of Chambers, with a mandate to minimise exposure of the Set in this regard. While the media reported the conduct, by and large journalists divorced the personal from the professional and agreed it was unnecessary to embroil Chambers in the stories.

Bell Yard provided public relations support to an international law firm with offices in London, Europe and the Middle East.

Our brief was to help shift perceptions of the firm as solely a US energy specialist to a leading international law firm with broad expertise in the energy and technology sectors, in line with the firm’s strategic focus.

By collaborating with the firm’s marketing & communication team and local lawyers Bell Yard developed insightful, thought-provoking and timely partner commentary on newsworthy topics, generating coverage in media such as Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg and The Times, in addition to specialist sector media.

Providing PR support to the London branch of a global 50 US law firm for its UK white collar defence and investigations practice. Bell Yard executed a series of PR opportunities aimed at raising the profiles of the practices’ counsel members through a series of commentary opportunities, reactionary media statements and journalist meetings with key media outlets. As a result of Bell Yard’s PR strategy, our client is now considered to be the go-to firm for commentary on white collar crime issues and is often quoted extensively in Financial Times, Bloomberg, The Times Law as well as sector-specific publications.

Bell Yard provides profile-raising PR support to a UK Top 100 law firm with a strong private client practice and established reputation for its criminal law expertise.  It is often involved in high profile client mandates and its experts are keen for visibility across leading business, City and consumer media outlets from the BBC to The Guardian to Spears and Stylist magazine.

Our brief is to ensure platform opportunities on relevant topical issues, whether by tapping into the news agenda or by setting it. Bell Yard has supported this client for several years and, as a result, we are very familiar with the key people and their thinking, ensuring close synergy between the business and PR objectives.

Bell Yard provided PR support on behalf of a global 50 US law firm to manage its London launch and to develop a campaign to support the office’s strategic expansion plans. 

Following a sustained thought leadership campaign, which has seen partners quoted on regulatory, tax, real estate funds and private equity issues in leading international, national and trade media, and backed up by a steady flow of corporate and transactional announcements, our client is recognised as the go-to firm in its sectors.

A popular online retailer fell victim to a hack involving the theft of its customers’ data. The breach occurred at a particularly sensitive time, coming as it did in the wake of TalkTalk’s crisis.

Bell Yard had been called in by the client’s lawyers to assist in preparing media responses in anticipation of journalist enquiries.  However, the company itself did not call on our assistance for preparation until after a call had been received by the BBC, who had learned of the breach through an affected customer.

Bell Yard swiftly ascertained as much of the detail as possible within 2 hours of being instructed. We then prepped the CEO to be interviewed, allowing him to articulate the detail that was known and that which could not yet be known, as well as to provide the reassurance that all that could be done was being done, providing context to the situation.   Crafting the correct narrative from the outset set the tone for future reporting. Bell Yard also drafted the customer notification correspondence plus a series of FAQs for the client’s website.  Together with the legal team, we ensured the public messaging reflected the facts self-reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

A further part of Bell Yard’s engagement was to advise on optimal social media responses to answer concerned customers, to recommend steps to help re-establish reputation and minimise future trading disruption.

A critical element was the close involvement of the CEO and, given the nature of the business, as an online only retailer, rapid and relevant social media responses proved essential, affording customers the swift reassurance they were seeking.  Taken together, these aspects helped prevent national press escalation.

Post-crisis, Bell Yard recommended ways to help the company restore its reputation. The close involvement of senior management in decision–making, including public and customer communications, helped ensure responses were rapid and realistic so minimising potential escalation of the issue.

Law firm Edwin Coe LLP, acting for a 500 strong consumer group bringing a multi-million pound class action lawsuit against timeshare exchange company RCI Europe, asked Bell Yard to maximise publicity for the case in advance of its High Court hearing.

Working with some of the test claimants’ stories and the claim documentation, we were able to secure coverage in The FT, The Times, Money Mail (personal finance section of the Daily Mail), and several trade publications such as Travel Weekly, Estates Gazette and Hospitality.Net. Bell Yard also secured airing of the issue on BBC Two’s Victoria Derbyshire programme, requiring RCI to engage.

The claimants alleged breach of contract by RCI Europe due to its practice of “skimming off” premium timeshare properties from the exchange pool for profit. As a result of which, claimants said they were rarely, if at all, able to exchange their right to their property, for an alternative property of the same ‘value’ which significantly reduced the attraction to them of holding a timeshare and ran contrary to what they were told when being enticed at the sales stage.

The publicity generated in this case helped expose RCI’s modus operandi in the opaque world of timeshare exchange and potentially reached many more frustrated holiday makers who might be owed rightful compensation. Although the judgment handed down in October 2016 found RCI was in breach of contract and had misled its members, the test claimants were not found to have proved individual loss. Edwin Coe is therefore considering an appeal on this issue.

Bell Yard was hired by a European retailer to expose its copyright dispute with a UK online fashion retailer intent on expanding into the European’s home market. Our client saw the potential for customer confusion, owing to the written and oral similarities of its brand name, and mounted a full legal challenge in Europe.

Bell Yard prepared a series of storylines to garner media attention and carefully identified media targets. The aim was to fire a warning-shot across the bows of the UK retailer’s management, rather than to alert consumers to the legal dispute. We moved to unveil the dispute around the UK company’s financial results, in an attempt to hijack the headlines the retailer would be attracting at that time. The FT led with the story and follow-up items subsequently appeared in a number of UK national press. The dispute was also covered by retail trade publications (such as Drapers) and the marketing trade media. Naturally, news outlets chose to include photography of the UK retailer’s models on catwalks to accompany the story, which helped maximize the page space the dispute received.

Bell Yard was also hired by a consulting firm to assist during its intellectual property dispute with a competitor for alleged unlawful theft of its data. Our client had clear evidence to support its claim and was determined to protect its IP from illegitimate use, given its hard-earned and longstanding reputation.

The company decided to alert its employees to the legal action, to ensure uniformity of message should clients enquire about the case. Bell Yard provided messaging support and tactical communications advice until the matter was resolved. Ultimately our client was vindicated by the settlement of the copyright infringement claim and made a strong statement to that effect on its website. All further commentary on the matter was closed down, so as to extinguish the spotlight.

Bell Yard advised a company on the management of its reputation in the hospitality sector over various reputational issues that have occasionally arisen in respect of its portfolio of businesses. These issues ranged from allegations of disability discrimination against a customer with mental health difficulties which spread widely across social media, causing pick up in local and national media, to concerns raised about zero hours contracts in the hospitality and leisure industry and race discrimination in respect of a group from the travelling community. 

Throughout the management has worked quickly and effectively with Bell Yard to establish the root cause of the issue, the factual basis and to begin the engagement process not only with the complainant, but also through social and traditional media channels as well as with other interested parties such as the local MP, pressure groups etc. The swift, yet thoughtful, action taken by the group’s management with support from Bell Yard has always ensured the issues have been short-lived, without damaging the hard-earned and well-deserved positive reputation of the business.

Bell Yard was instructed by law firm Edwin Coe to secure press coverage to help develop a group of claimants for its truck price-fixing cartel litigation. Edwin Coe filed a group action in November 2018 on behalf of businesses that were seeking damages for fraudulent price-fixing by five major truck manufacturers over a 14-year period, including MAN, Volvo/Renault, Daimler/Mercedes, Iveco and DAF. It is estimated that some 10 million trucks were sold across the EU during the 1997-2011 period and that each one may have been overpriced by up to £10,000 as a result of the price-fixing cartel.

Bell Yard’s role was to generate press coverage about the filing in order to encourage further businesses to sign up, thereby expanding the claimant class. We drafted and issued a press release to announce the launch of the class action and explained the basis for the action, targeting specialist trade media in the retail, building and construction, logistics, farming and haulage industries as well as national and legal press. The task also involved explaining how Edwin Coe’s group action was distinct from four separate actions which had previously been filed.

We secured 15 hits in specialist press, 4 hits in legal press and an article in the national media.

An international commodities company had successfully sued a trader for breach of contract in failing to pay $26m for cargo received. It had since tried to secure payment using the judgment without success and so turned to Bell Yard for assistance in highlighting its plight to assist in its enforcement efforts.

We worked with the legal team to publicise the worldwide freezing order (WFO) against the high-profile trader and, unusually, a warrant for his arrest from the UK High Court.

We briefed Reuters and the WSJ, both as outlets that had a potential impact on the errant trader’s business relationships. We used creative media angles – highlighting the trader’s familial ties with discredited individuals. In the end, it was the media coverage that brought the party to the table and settlement was achieved.

Our client was satisfied that timely media engagement in support of the legal process created the conditions to resolve the issue.

Bell Yard designed the litigation PR strategy and is managing three media teams in support of a $400m lawsuit brought in Los Angeles, California, against a European rights-owning media giant, across key jurisdictions: UK, USA & France. The claim was filed by the three members of fictitious English band “Spinal Tap” and their collaborating partner, for breach of contract over non-payment of royalties over a beloved classic mockumentary film “This is Spinal Tap”, released over three decades ago.

The Vivendi group, the current rights owner, claim the creative work has made its co-creators a mere US$81 (between them) in merchandise sales and a paltry US$98 (again, to be divided by the four) in global music sales – in some 34 years – despite the film’s continued popularity. The claim also centres on alleged fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment and seeks declaratory relief in respect of abandoned trademarks and copyright reversion.

Bell Yard’s PR team combines seamlessly both with the claimant’s IP lawyer and with the trial attorney and his team to ensure public attention is focused on the accounting practices deployed by Vivendi and its subsidiaries.

Due to the growing support of artists groups following the media coverage of this dispute, we created a dedicated website (https://www.fairnessrocks.com/) which supports other artists who find themselves in a similar position. The website is a repository of information on the whole issue of copyright and talent contracts for future creative artists, so they may not to be similarly denied the rewards of their creativity in future.

Bell Yard was instructed to assist a woman whose reputation had been besmirched during the cross-fire of a privacy action brought by a premiership footballer against a national newspaper.

A court judgment upheld a temporary injunction preventing the woman (as co-defendant) and a newspaper group from naming the player with whom the woman had been having a relationship. This initially resulted in a wave of unwelcome publicity for the woman involved and yet total secrecy for the man. To make matters worse, the judge had used some particularly pejorative language against the woman, and criticised her motivation – yet she had no concurrent recourse in law to address the incorrect picture of her that he had painted.

Bell Yard advised her to give her reaction to the injunction ruling by means of a statement on the court steps. We drafted its wording. The existence of the injunction and her comments explaining the inherent unfairness were widely reported in the next day’s tabloids. Thanks to a proliferation of social media speculation and the naming of the footballer in the Commons by an MP claiming parliamentary privilege, the injunction was soon widely breached, although it technically remained in force.

Michael Jackson* & MJJ Productions* – v – Granada Media Group Limited.

Instructed the morning after Martin Bashir’s documentary ‘Living with Michael Jackson’ was aired in the UK, Bell Yard set to work devising and implementing a robust rebuttal strategy to overturn the initially hostile global media coverage.

Using MJJ Productions’ own footage of Bashir interviewing Jackson, we focused media attention on the betrayal Jackson felt at the hands of Bashir. Working closely with Jackson’s UK & US legal teams, Bell Yard led the global media handling of Jackson’s claim for injunctive relief and damages from Granada.

Bell Yard has assisted several law firms whose lawyers have been subject to investigation by the SRA. This is a public process where client, reputational and internal stakeholder considerations interplay and each requires sensitive handling throughout the various stages of investigation, and where necessary, during Disciplinary Tribunal hearings.

Bell Yard assists by recommending suitable wording for statements and handle media enquiries on law firms’ behalf during such times of intense media interest. We are also adept at hand-holding lawyers under investigation, advising on what to say to whom and at what juncture to protect individual reputations and limit personal reputational damage as far as possible.

Bell Yard was appointed by a leading international law firm to advise on communications around its dispute with a female partner at the firm.

The partner in question had made whistleblowing allegations as well as allegations of unfair dismissal and sex discrimination against the firm and issued a high profile claim attracting media attention.

The case had all the ingredients the media loves to report – namely a senior woman raising concerns about the management of operations and alleging the decision to terminate her employment related to her pregnancy. The case was also legally interesting – seeking to clarify the status of a worker under employment legislation and whether a partner was entitled to protection under whistleblowing laws. On top of this her legal advisers were well known for proactively engaging with the media on their client cases.

Bell Yard advised the law firm management and marketing team on its communications, specifically on detailed internal / media / client scripts for the matter — firstly around the complainant’s removal from the partnership, then for the initial High Court hearing about the worker component of the case, and later when this went to the Supreme Court. The strategy was to be robust and not cower at headlines designed to exert pressure. However, such was the interest in the legal issues at play, the matter grew in significance and therefore visibility. In the end an agreement was reach between the claimant and the firm prior to the employment tribunal set to hear the claim in full. Once again Bell Yard advised on the firm’s positioning.

Advised the husband during high-profile family court proceedings involving allegations of unlawful use of private and confidential information during financial remedy proceedings.

Bell Yard was instructed by a retained law firm client to publicise a High Court judgment which ruled in favour of its client, whereby a sibling challenged the contents of his parents’ will which had favoured the youngest child. Inheritance disputes are always emotionally charged and therefore require particularly sensitive handling.

On the mother’s passing in 2014 (the father had died in 2009), the family home was left to the youngest son, together with a cash sum equivalent to the nil band rate.

The elder sibling brought a claim challenging his mother’s will in early 2017, alleging that his mother could not read English, as she predominantly read and spoke Hindi, and therefore, she would not have been able to read or understand the English will.

The elder sibling also alleged there was “dominance” of the mother by the father, claiming the will was drafted at his direction, with little or no involvement from his mother.

However, the judge concluded that the elder sibling had failed to establish any suspicious circumstances surrounding the legitimacy of the will and therefore threw out the claim.

Bell Yard publicised the outcome in the Asian press, highlighting the successful defence by its client, as well as shedding light on the judgment’s significance – namely that ‘want of knowledge and approval’ claims are sometimes seen by claimants as an easier route to challenging a will than on other grounds. However, this case demonstrated the opposite.

Bell Yard was instructed to assist the widow of a gentleman killed following a motorway incident.

The widow was deeply concerned by partial reports of evidence from the coroner’s inquest. We assisted our client by providing her with an opportunity to be heard publicly to ensure a fairer portrayal of her husband’s character as a devoted partner and father, and the circumstances that lead to the tragedy that befell him, for the sake of their young child’s memory.

Bell Yard was instructed by a retained client to provide PR support to the family of a police officer killed in a terrorist attack while on duty at the Houses of Parliament. Bell Yard publicised the family’s concerns over the conduct of the Coroner’s Inquest and the Met Police’s engagement with the Inquest.

Bell Yard provided sensitive and diligent PR support to the family throughout the course of the Inquest, working with them prior to the Inquest to determine the key messages to communicate to the media. Bell Yard worked with the family to decide on the most appropriate publication to brief, to ensure their desired aims were met, whilst protecting them from the demands of an unsurprisingly keen press pack, curious as to the family’s sentiments on the matter. We secured an interview with senior reporters at The Times leading to a front-page and subsequent articles carrying the family’s story.

Bell Yard also liaised with the Sun on Sunday (SoS) over its campaign to honour the fallen hero with a permanent memorial in Westminster. Bell Yard provided the family with insight on the SoS’s plans, secured a copy of the Metropolitan Police’s statement (which the Met had insensitively failed to provide to the family in advance) and drafted a quote on behalf of the family which was then published in the SoS.

Throughout the Inquest, Bell Yard managed media requests from both print and broadcast media, the latter including Sky News, BBC News and Channel 4, who sought interviews with the family. An intensely private family, each interview request was considered in detail and opportunities for comment purposefully limited to meet the desired aim of protecting their privacy but limiting exposure to allow them the utmost discretion possible in these circumstances.

The biggest question at the start of Theresa May’s management of the Brexit process, was whether she was entitled to trigger Article 50 (the notice of the UK’s formal withdrawal from the EU) without Parliament’s authorisation.

It was not only Gina Miller who issued Judicial Review proceedings challenging the Prime Minister’s sole right to do so, but also, two other claimants, including Mr Dos Santos, who was represented by Bell Yard’s client David Greene (senior partner at Edwin Coe LLP).

Our brief was to ensure Gina Miller’s arguments were not the only ones to dominate the airwaves and print media during the run up to the pivotal High Court hearing in October 2016 and subsequently when the decision was handed down on this issue of national importance. The same applied when the case went to the Supreme Court in December of the same year.

Our client, David Greene argued proper process should be followed in the triggering of Article 50. The by-passing of Parliament would be undemocratic and against the rule of law.

When the High Court agreed with the applicants, he called this “a victory for Parliament democracy over the feudal institution of Royal Prerogative”, continuing “Today some of England’s most senior judges have ruled that Parliament must be involved in this critical decision for the nation. It shows political leaders are not above the law and that Brexit must follow due process.”

The coverage achieved at this first stage ran to some 80-pages, including quotes in The Sun, The Mail and the Financial Times through to papers all around the world from Hawaii to Bury St Edmonds and on SKY and CNN online. The fact David was the first lawyer to make a statement on the High Court steps welcoming the judgment, helped ensure high-profile coverage throughout the day on the BBC amongst other outlets.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the claimants’ position and David Greene then made a further statement welcoming the judgment and the determination made “purely on the legal issues” against such a politically charged backdrop. Once again his quotes were carried by almost all national media from the FT to Metro.

Bell Yard supported the Corby families and their lawyer, Des Collins, with the announcement of the conclusion of their long-running legal battle with Corby Borough Council over what has been described as the biggest child poisoning case since the thalidomide scandal of the 1960s and 70s.

Collins Solicitors was representing the 19 children who suffered birth defects that their families’ claimed were due to the toxic dust their mothers ingested during Corby Borough Council’s redevelopment of the old British Steel site in Corby. Bell Yard devised an “A” and “B” strategy in preparation for a constructive mediation or otherwise.

In the event, the mediation was successful. The families finally received compensation and an apology from the Council and the prospect of further prolonged and expensive litigation was stayed.

Bell Yard developed messaging documents for the families and their lawyers to set an appropriate tone for media interviews. It was agreed that the main point to emphasize was the families’ relief that the validity of their case had finally been recognized. Furthermore it was important to convey that their long fight had been more over the principle than securing financial recompense.

On the day of the settlement, Bell Yard organized a press briefing in Corby for local media, complete with a congratulatory message to the families from US activist lawyer Erin Brockovich, given the similarities between her well-known case and this. Local print, online, radio and tv news led heavily with the settlement story that evening and included interviews with some of the families, their lawyer and footage of the jubilatory gesture of releasing balloons to mark the end of this protracted case,

Nationally, the challenge was to secure coverage for the families’ good news, despite media preoccupation with election and volcanic ash stories. It made the BBC 5 o’clock tv news and national radio news and every national paper (bar the FT) ran items the next day.

Lawyer Des Collins was also quoted on The Lawyer’s website about Lord Jackson’s legal proposals potentially endangering this type of group action litigation. And his colleague Danielle was “lawyer in the news” in Law Society Gazette magazine.

Bell Yard helped ensure that the end of this landmark legal case achieved the attention it deserved.

Bell Yard advised the owner of a group of care homes following concerns raised by a relative of a former resident.

There was a Coroner’s Inquest into the death of the resident which supported the care home’s narrative. The local media were contacted by the family and the care home had been invited to participate in the segment of the case to appear on the BBC’s nightly news show: Spotlight, when Bell Yard was instructed.

Bell Yard’s support and counsel was two-pronged: we ensured transparent communications among staff, residents and their families, conveying facts to prevent an inaccurate narrative from prevailing.

Secondly, Bell Yard prepared the client to appear on local media, advising them on how best to articulate the findings of the Coroner’s report, which concluded that the care home bore no responsibility for the death of the former resident.

Bell Yard represented independent trader Rajesh Gill in his successful fraudulent misrepresentation claim against his former broker, MF Global (Parabola Investments Limited* v MF Global UK Limited).

After an extremely prosperous start to his trading career, Mr Gill transferred his high-volume account to Union Cal (later acquired by MF Global), managed by an individual broker, Matthew Bomford. Unbeknown to Gill, his account immediately began losing significant funds, allegedly as a result of a repeated and deliberate series of failings and dishonesty at the hands of Mr Bomford. Bell Yard was instructed to protect Mr Gill’s reputation in the face of aggressive denials as to MF Global’s their liability and unfound assertions by MF Global as to Mr Gill’s competency.

Mr Gill first lodged his claim in 2006, having spent the previous four years investigating the cause of the account’s haemorrhaging fund balance. Ever since Mr Gill discovered the losses in 2002, he showed great tenacity in a protracted battle to try to get MF Global to take responsibility and accept liability in respect of fraud. However, barely two weeks into the five-week High Court trial, following Bomford’s illusory testimony, MF Global finally capitulated and admitted vicarious liability for fraudulent misrepresentation and deceit. This change of heart avoided the need for MF Global’s senior management to appear in court to give sworn evidence in a case that had, through Bell Yard’s efforts, attracted an increasingly high profile in the financial media.

In May 2009, the High Court awarded Mr Gill just under £20 million compensation in what was a landmark ruling for a lost profits case. Bell Yard worked to ensure this award received wide post-verdict coverage. The judgment was unsuccessfully appealed by the defendant.

Mr Gill was represented by Peter Atkinson of Gordon Dadds Solicitors and Neil Kitchener QC of One Essex Court Chambers.

Bell Yard was appointed to represent a senior banker facing an announcement of the FCA’s prosecution against him.

The banker was a former senior manager at Northern Rock who was investigated for alleged misreporting mortgage arrears in the months prior to the bank’s collapse in 2007.

He was fined and barred from working in a regulated financial services firm in one of the first successful prosecutions by the financial regulator of a UK banker for actions during the financial crisis.

Bell Yard worked with the client and his legal team to craft a suitable media statement to respond to the FCA announcement and acted as his press officers on this matter for a period after the FCA notice was published. Unusually for someone of his seniority in his field, the client wanted to publicly express his sadness at his error of judgment and to offer his deep regret. Yet it was important to emphasis to interested journalists that the misreporting of figures was not a direct cause of Northern Rock’s collapse.

Given the inevitable attention this announcement would attract, the client agreed to read his statement to camera personally for broadcasters and print media still photos, partly to face the music in line with his personal conviction, but also in an attempt to head off the inevitable doorstepping that he and his family might otherwise have experienced.

In the event, our client was not heavily demonized on a personal level in media reports. Inevitably, the headlines were not positive, but most commentators also looked at the wider issues and processes amiss at the bank rather than focusing solely on our client’s actions.

Bell Yard was hired by a private, regulated funds management company on the Isle of Man to advise on communications following a suspicion of fraud by one of its Directors.

Initially the plan was to contain any information about the problem as far as possible whilst PwC conducted a full investigation into the extent and impact of the fraud. However client scripts were prepared in case of enquiries about why the company had applied for freezing orders to protect its funds and as to the whereabouts of the perpetrator. We also prepared for news of any arrest given the police involvement.

In the event, a local media enquiry about a possible 8 figure fraud at the company and the local financial regulator and police confirming their investigations, triggered the need for a public response and careful client communications.

Bell Yard continued to advise on communications in support of each new development in the story – the local paper following this issue reported when the company sought to recover funds from the Director concerned, when the family confirmed his disappearance, when the police eventually arrested him and when his case finally came to trial. Media responses and investor client scripts were required on each occasion.

In the end the fraudster was sentenced to over 10 years in prison for theft and fraud totalling around £5.5m with local papers and the local BBC reporting the news.

Babar Ahmad was arrested in London on 5 August 2004 following an extradition request from the US on allegations of terrorism, by dint of the fact that that he established Azzam.com, a website supporting Chechen and Taliban fighters that shut down in 2002. 

The ‘evidence’ supporting the US allegations was the same material that had been reviewed the previous year by the Met, and on which the Crown Prosecution Service declared in July 2004 some months before the US demand for an arrest was executed, that there was ‘insufficient evidence’ to charge him with any criminal offence under UK law. Yet this UK-based ‘evidence’ was thereafter sent to the US prosecutors who inexplicably reached the opposite conclusion.

This began the 9 year detention of Babar in the UK whilst he fought extradition to the US and for a UK trial instead – resulting in Babar becoming the longest-held person on remand in British history.

Whilst imprisoned, Bell Yard assisted his family with their campaigning www.freebabarahmad.com, to broaden his support based on the fundamental principles of fair trials for all, and highlighting the absurdity of extraditing in circumstances were the defendant, alleged conduct and ‘evidence’ all resided in the UK. A number of parliamentary briefings were organised, together with regular press releases to UK media to keep them up-to-date on the injustice that Babar was facing in order to encourage the Home Office to not accede to the US’s extradition request. Making UK legal history, BBC’s Newsnight programme aired a pre-trial interview with Babar whilst still in detention at HMP Long Lartin following a lengthy battle by the BBC against the Ministry of Justice for the right to broadcast an interview with a detainee. In another first, campaigners secured over 150,000 signatories to a parliamentary petition seeking to end the continued detention on remand and calling for Babar to be put on trial in the UK. This resulted in two parliamentary debates on the subject of his case and extradition to the US more broadly.

Unfortunately, all legal challenges failed and Babar was extradited to the US on 5th October 2012. He was held in solitary confinement in a Supermax prison, awaiting trial. Babar endured these conditions for 14 months and thereafter pled guilty to one count of providing material support to ‘terrorists’. He admitted running a website that called for financial contribution to support the Taliban and the Muslims in the Chechen war. 

He was sentenced to 12 and half years by the judge, and the 10 years he had already spent in prison would be credited against that sentence. Judge Hall’s sentencing remarks reflected the views that his campaigners had held for the previous decade or so: She ruled “There was never any aid given by these defendants to effectuate a plot. By plot, I mean a terrorist plot … Neither of these two defendants were interested in what is commonly known as terrorism …” She described Ahmad as a “good person” who she believed posed no threat to the public and stated she had weighed the seriousness of his crime with his good character after reading thousands of letters of support and hearing from British prison officials who described him as an exemplary inmate…. “It appears to me that he [Babar] is a generous, thoughtful person who is funny and honest. He is well liked and humane and empathetic… This is a good person who does not, and will not, act in the future to harm other people.”

Babar returned to the UK in 2015 eventually free to resume his life.

Bell Yard was engaged by a private school in London to assist with communications around a fraud issue. They had discovered that a business manager had submitted false expense claims over a 1.5 year period amounting to nearly £250,000. A settlement was agreed with the perpetrator for repayment of money owed, however given the police had commenced criminal proceedings, the fraud was bound to become known during a public court hearing.

The Chair of the Board of Trustees asked Bell Yard to help prepare communications to staff, parents, donors and the media.

Our advice was to present this as a shocking and blatant breach of trust by a rogue former employee but one with no negative impact on the accounts or financial viability of any of schools concerned. There was no black hole nor had the thefts disrupted any planned expenditure on pupils, staff or facilities and a plan was in place to achieve repayment of the stolen funds. We prepared various letters and statements to have ready for the possibility of a leak before the court appearance.

In the event local media did attend the court hearing triggering a letter to parents and staff. In addition Bell Yard advised how to respond to a Mumsnet thread which touched on the fraud issue and required careful handling.

Bell Yard assisted an international children’s charity when it decided to take action in London against a former UK Trustee. The claim, which involved Summary Judgment proceedings in the High Court, was bought in order to recover sizeable unauthorised payments improperly received by the Trustee.

The payments were in contravention of UK charity law and the charity’s own articles of association.

Although the charity was ultimately successful in recovering the funds, the effect of a public court case meant that its governance, internal politics and financial affairs were in the spotlight and reportable. The reputation considerations were further complicated by the defendant former Trustee choosing to use colourful and emotive language designed to attract public attention, no matter the veracity. Bell Yard’s key task was to work with the Charity to create a style of rebuttal that informed but resisted the temptation to out-shout the defendant. The Charity’s position was vindicated by the legal outcome.

In the event the dispute stayed out of the national press but Third Sector magazine closely followed the case. News reports of the judgment were amplified by an in-depth feature piece, which gave a platform to the counter accusations and defence of the former Trustee. Bell Yard ensured the Charity’s rebuttal was robust and timely.

Bell Yard was hired by a private, regulated funds management company to advise on communications following a suspicion of fraud by one of its Directors.

Initially the plan was to contain any information about the problem as far as possible whilst PwC conducted a full investigation into the extent and impact of the fraud. However client scripts were prepared in case of enquiries about why the company had applied for freezing orders to protect its funds and as to the whereabouts of the perpetrator. We also prepared for news of any arrest given the police involvement.

In the event, a local media enquiry about a possible 8 figure fraud at the company and the local financial regulator and police confirming their investigations, triggered the need for a public response and careful client communications.

Bell Yard continued to advise on communications in support of each new development in the story – the local paper following this issue reported when the company sought to recover funds from the Director concerned, when the family confirmed his disappearance, when the police eventually arrested him and when his case finally came to trial. Media responses and investor client scripts were required on each occasion.

In the end the fraudster was sentenced to over 10 years in prison for theft and fraud totalling around £5.5m with local papers and the local BBC reporting the news but the company’s reputation was upheld.

As a result of our work for the NatWest 3, Jerry approached Bell Yard to seek its support for continuing the fight against certain provisions in the 2003 Extradition Act.

In a case not dissimilar to the NW3, Jerry Crook was, until 2001, Vice-President of the European operations of Peregrine Systems, a US-headquartered technology company. Peregrine collapsed in 2002. In October 2004, unbeknown to him, Jerry was indicted in the US on fraud charges relating to Peregrine’s bankruptcy. His extradition from the UK was sought in 2006. Determined to clear his name and to uncover the supposed ‘evidence’ against him allegedly being held by US prosecutors, he attempted to waive his extradition rights and travel voluntarily to the US. He hoped to not be automatically labelled a ‘flight risk’ by the US Government, as are all those who exercise their constitutional right to contest extradition. However, the UK’s then Home Secretary refused to let him waive his rights, citing that extradition proceedings were already underway. This meant the CPS refused to hand him back his passport preventing his voluntary travel to the US, despite his decision not to contest the extradition request. He therefore was extradited by US marshals to San Diego, California in September 2006.

He was granted bail which required him to remain in San Diego, although he was allowed periodic short returns to the UK over the next 2½ years. After several trial delays coupled with the US prosecutor’s refusal to grant immunity to his witnesses thereby restricting his ability to mount a proper defence at trial (similar to NW3), the last straw for Jerry was undoubtedly the Department of Justice threatening to indict his main defence witness if she testified for him. So, like many extradites before him, and many after, Jerry felt compelled to plead guilty to one count of ‘wire fraud’ in February 2009. His ‘admission’ amounted to signing a contract with BT which others, not him, later used to manipulate the market.

In March 2009, San Diego newspapers reported that the U.S. attorney’s office dropped charges against the last remaining defendant in the Peregrine Systems case, a week after a jury could not reach a verdict in his case, resulting in a mistrial.

Jerry was finally sentenced in May 2009 to 27 months in custody plus a fine of $750,000 in restitution (despite there being no suggestion that Jerry personally profited from the contract).

The noteworthy result of this long-standing Peregrine Systems prosecution was that all four executives who took their case to trial in the US were eventually freed, as the trials ended with deadlocked juries. Fifteen former Peregrine officials entered plea bargains.

Jerry had to report to a US prison in Pennsylvania before 10 July 2009 to begin his sentence which he has now completed, following a prison transfer to the UK in 2010.

We were asked to assist Richard O’Dwyer, the 23yr old Sheffield Hallam University student who faced prosecution in the US for copyright infringement.

Bell Yard assisted Richard and his family in exposing the ongoing and very real danger of extradition that arises from the disproportionate and unnecessary pursuit of British citizens by the US Department of Justice. We also continue to demonstrate the lack of protection in the UK’s legislation against such wide-ranging extra-territorial reach.

Richard was alleged to have infringed the copyright of the Motion Picture Association of America by setting up a website (TVShack.net) which directed visitors to sites on the internet where they could download US tv shows and films for free. However, European case law suggests that by merely acting as a conduit, a website cannot be held to be infringing copyright.

Richard and his mother, with Bell Yard’s assistance, raised further awareness of the one-sided and unfair nature of Britain’s extradition legislation. To that end, Bell Yard established a website www.friends-extradited.org. Richard was supported by the founder of Wikipeadia, Jimmy Wales, and the UK’s Guardian newspaper. In November 2012 he eventually secured a deferred prosecution agreement with the DoJ with a promise not to attempt to infringe copyright and in return for a fine and no term of imprisonment, in lieu of extradition.

Bell Yard assisted Chris Tappin and his family in attracting media interest in the absurdity of his extradition to the US. After his appeal was rejected by the High Court in February 2012, Chris was extradited on 24 February 2012 to Houston and then flown to El Paso, Texas awaiting a US trial.

Chris was incarcerated pending a bail hearing at a county prison across the border in Otero, New Mexico. It was hoped that the UK government would have been sufficiently moved by Mr Tappin’s plight, a 65 year old grandfather, President of Kent Golf Union and an upstanding member of his community, so as to seek to ensure his release on bail. The UK government let Chris down. In the event, it was his US lawyer’s offer to house him in his own home, which secured Chris’ bail after 8 weeks incarceration, to allow him to begin the process of defending himself against allegations of conspiring to export controlled items (batteries) from the USA, which the US Government claims were intended for us in hawk missiles in Iran. Throughout, Mr Tappin vehemently denied knowingly being party to such an act. Moreover he contended that the case against him was misguided and results from a sting operation by US Government agents. Following months of requests to receive the exculpatory evidence from the US DoJ, after which he was informed that transcripts of the FBI taped calls had been ‘lost’, Chris decided to put an end to the on-going uncertainty of his stay in the US. He plead guilty to one count of conspiracy, which allowed him to serve most of his 33 month sentence back home in the UK, close to his family.

Bell Yard advised three former NatWest executives who faced extradition to the US, in both their Judicial Review of the decision of the Director of the SFO not to investigate the three for alleged fraud, and in their extradition appeal.

At the outset of Bell Yard’s involvement in August 2004, the media perception was one of three alleged fraudsters trying to escape justice. As a result of repeated and detailed media briefings and political lobbying, together with tactical third party endorsement, the perception evolved to one of three former bankers pleading guilty to one count of conflict of interest in the face of prolonged and disproportionate disruption to their family lives as a result of an unfair and non-reciprocal extradition treaty, poorly negotiated by the then UK government.

As a direct result of this case, the business community has now woken up to the dangers of the 2003 Extradition Act. As we predicted at the time, a raft of cases followed in the footsteps of the ‘NatWest 3’, after their unsuccessful hearings in the Magistrates Court, Court of Appeal, Judicial Review and the refusal of the House of Lords to hear matters which opponents of the Extradition Act considered to be of genuine public interest.

Bell Yard was responsible for ensuring the media were fully briefed on each of the legal rulings and their implications. We remain active, on a pro-bono basis, until such time as we and others are successful in ensuring that a fairer extradition regime is brought into play.

Bell Yard was also responsible for working with prominent entrepreneur Karl Watkin MBE to arrange a protest march to the Home Office by business people concerned by the current US/UK extradition arrangements, which attracted around 200 attendees and secured over 400 signatories to the petition to the Home Office, and secured prime time television, national and international coverage.

We also sought to change the Extradition Act to include a forum provision – which eventually was enacted by Home Secretary Theresa May, albeit the version of the forum bar to extradition she chose to introduce was weighted significantly in favour of the prosecutors and against the interests of defendants. As a result, Bell Yard continues to see unfair and disproportionate efforts by the US government to extradite British citizens and sees first hand the terror this causes innocent victims and their families. We pledge to continue to highlight these injustices until the law is more finely balanced between protecting victims of criminality and protecting defendants from disproportionate abuses of freedom and rights by the state.

Bell Yard is pleased to share news of its ranking in Chambers’ Litigation Support Guide 2021.

One client is quoted as saying: “We always recommend Bell Yard because they never let us down… the level of hard work, care and speed of accurate turnaround, coupled with deep and wide capability, is what marks them out from other litigation comms support.”

Bell Yard’s founder and Director, Melanie Riley, ranked Band 1, is referred to by peers as “hugely respected” and is praised by clients as “insightful” and “an excellent comms practitioner.” 

Melanie and senior consultant, Louise Beeson, also feature in Lawdragon’s Global 100 Leaders in Legal Strategy & Consulting 2021. 

The guide recognises the top 100 experts in crisis communications, marketing, management consulting and professional recruiting.

24 June 2021

Bell Yard is delighted to share news of its ranking as a Band 1 PR & Communications firm in Chambers’ Litigation Support Guide 2020, marking its third consecutive year at the top of the rankings, upheld each year since the Guide’s inception.

Clients have described the firm as “market-leading” and the team as “outstanding” and “the only go-to.”

Bell Yard Communications’ Director, Melanie Riley, also continues to be ranked in Band 1. She is described as “a force of her own in the field” and as giving “calm, measured and knowledgeable advice that is grounded in her huge experience.”

Melanie said: “Maintaining our pre-eminent position for a third year is reassuring and is testament to the diligence and dedication of our close-knit team. We are extremely grateful for the continued trust and belief in our counsel from our clients, peers and referrers – even more so during these unprecedented times – who challenge us daily to be the best that we can be.”

Bell Yard Communications’ founder and director, Melanie Riley and senior consultant, Louise Beeson, both feature in Lawdragon’s Global 100 Leaders in Legal Strategy & Consulting 2020 – out of only 10 UK-based consultants included in the guide.

The guide recognises the top 100 experts in management, marketing, communication and recruiting services, as voted for by legal industry leaders.

See the full list here.

10th June 2020

Des Collins, Senior Partner, Collins Solicitors, legal advisor to over 1500 people affected by the contaminated blood scandal, responding to today’s Ministerial Statement by the Paymaster General, Penny Mordaunt, said:

“It’s been three and a half years to the day since the Court granted us permission to sue the Government on behalf of the thousands of families affected by the grossly negligent actions of the state in the 70s and 80s, leading to haemophiliacs and others being infected with HIV and Hepatitis from contaminated blood products.

“Today’s announcement is a step in the right direction. Whilst an uplift to the existing financial support provision, which provides short-term help to ease the suffering of the infected and affected, is welcomed, it regrettably still does not include everyone affected, such as parents of children who have died, or children who have lost parents as a result of this scandal.

“Regarding the compensation framework, we shall be making robust representations to the Independent Reviewer, as the consultation will only achieve its aim if the infected and affected are, with expert guidance, able to play a full part in the process. The government owes that to those who are still alive yet suffering after 40 years, and by way of demonstrating respect to those whose lives were prematurely ended at the hands of the state.

“We expect the compensation consultation to have been completed and the framework agreed in principle by the time the Infected Blood Inquiry reports next Summer so that there can be no delay in implementing Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations.”

ENDS
25 March 2021

The Infected Blood Inquiry, chaired by Sir Brian Langstaff, is the UK’s largest ever statutory inquiry, established to investigate how men women and children were given infected blood and blood products by the NHS from the 1970s. It is currently continuing its hearings remotely which can be followed live on the Infected Blood Inquiry website/YouTube channel.

English claim could be worth more than £1bn.

Hagens Berman UK, the London firm of globally renowned US class-action law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, announces the latest developments in its consumer group action litigation on behalf of UK Mercedes drivers affected by emissions-cheating.

Hagens Berman UK successfully secured substantial litigation funding from Harbour as well as significant After-the-Event (ATE) Insurance to protect its claimant group. The firm has filed proceedings against Daimler AG, Mercedes Benz Cars UK Limited and Mercedes Benz Financial Services UK Limited, in order to press England and Wales Mercedes’ drivers claims arising from dirty diesel-related emissions.

Some 33,000 England and Wales based Mercedes drivers have already registered interest to have Hagens Berman represent them in the group litigation and can now formally opt in to join the group (according to GLO procedure). Other interested parties are also still eligible to join.

“British consumers have a similar right to compensation for unlawful, deceptive and defective emissions-cheating implemented by Mercedes,” said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman. “Following the $700 million US settlement against Mercedes, we spent the past year laying the foundation for equally successful litigation in the UK. We are now poised to hold Mercedes and other defendants to account.”

An estimated 1.2 million potential claimants in England and Wales owning, leasing or operating affected Mercedes vehicles – either currently or previously – have been affected, based on Mercedes selling more than 700,000 impacted vehicles there between 2008 and 20181. This includes private owners and businesses, such as fleet operators and hire-car companies, as well as lessees of relevant vehicles.

Hagens Berman’s US litigation against Mercedes, led by Steve Berman, returned more than $700 million to US owners of affected Mercedes dirty diesel BlueTEC vehicles2, and led to a $2.2 billion settlement with the US Department of Justice, Environmental Protection Agency and others in 2020.

Michael Gallagher, Co-Managing Director and partner of Hagens Berman UK, comments: “Harbour’s case-specific funding and the fact we have successfully secured ATE coverage for claimants from Top-Rated A+ insurers demonstrates a recognition of the merits of our case.

“ATE insurance is meaningful to our clients, and should be to every client claimant, as it provides an extra layer of value and security for them. We are especially proud to offer this to those who join our group litigation, in addition to a no-win, no fee arrangement.”

Gallagher added: “As a firm, we have an impressive reputation for investigating, researching and litigating against global defendants and diesel emissions-cheating fraud. We will be leveraging that expertise and applying the same tenacity and attention to detail in pursuing our litigation in the UK.”

Hagens Berman UK launched in London in 2020 and is Hagens Berman’s first international office. The firm has retained a Leading Commercial QC – David Cavender of One Essex Court – to serve as its QC in the case against Mercedes. In addition to its existing London-based solicitor team, the firm will be making further notable hires in the coming weeks.

Steve Berman comments: “We have plans to grow our brand and reputation in the UK market where there is scope to do more to champion consumer rights over corporate wrong-doing and violations and where the legal landscape is changing. Alongside our emissions and automotive case work, where we will initially focus on Mercedes-related litigation in the UK, we intend to broaden our practice and caseload into other areas of the law especially in competition, consumer, environmental, securities and civil rights litigation.”

Current and former owners, lessees and fleet operators of affected Mercedes vehicles in England and Wales who are interested in finding out more about the Hagens Berman UK Group Litigation Order may visit www.mercedes-dieselclaims.co.uk. This group action claim is being conducted on a no-win, no-fee basis, meaning that there will be no out-of-pocket cost to sign up or participate.

Ends

Media Contacts

Bell Yard Communications: +44 207 936 2021 / BellYard@bell-yard.com
Melanie Riley: +44 7775 591244 / melanie@bell-yard.com
Louise Beeson: +44 7768 956997 / louise@bell-yard.com
Sarah Peters: +44 7977 997927 / sarah@bell-yard.com

Steve Berman and Michael J. Gallagher Jr. are available for interviews and can be reached on ashleyk@hbsslaw.co.uk

Notes for Editors

About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP is a consumer-rights class-action law firm with nine offices across the US. Hagens Berman UK LLP is headquartered in London and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The firm’s tenacious drive for plaintiffs’ rights has earned it numerous accolades, awards and titles of “Most Feared Plaintiff’s Firm,” and MVPs and Trailblazers of class-action law. Hagens Berman’s track record spans many practice areas, with record-breaking settlements and victories in the areas of automotive litigation, securities, consumer-rights cases, pension protection and more.

Some of the firm’s highlights include State Tobacco Litigation ($206 billion settlement), Visa MasterCard ATM Antitrust Litigation ($27 billion settlement), Toyota Sudden, Unintended Acceleration ($1.6 billion settlement), E-books Antitrust Litigation ($560 million settlement), Enron Pension Protection Litigation ($250 million settlement), Charles Schwab Securities Litigation ($235 million settlement), NCAA Grant in Aid Scholarships Litigation ($208 million settlement), as well as many other record-setting achievements.

Read more about Hagens Berman’s victories and record-breaking settlements at www.hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw.

About Hagens Berman’s Litigation against Mercedes

Footnotes

1. Hagens Berman not only secured a $700 million settlement from Mercedes in 2020 on behalf of US Mercedes owners of affected diesel vehicles but Mercedes was also forced to conduct a nationwide recall, repair Mercedes-Benz diesel vehicles, pay more than $945 million in penalties, perform projects to mitigate pollution and revamp its procedures. Hagens Berman has also been involved in litigation against Volkswagen in the US where it was found that a comparable defeat device was used and again, the firm also secured substantial compensation for US vehicle owners.

2. Hagen Berman’s Group Litigation Action in England and Wales alleges that Mercedes used illegal emissions-cheating devices to mask non-compliant levels of pollution in the following vehicles powered by BlueTEC diesel-fuelled engines and sold from 2008 up to 2018: A-Class, B-Class, C-Class, Citan, CLA, CLS, E-Class, GL-Class, GLA-Class, GLC-Class, GLE-Class, GLS, M-Class, S-Class, SLK, Sprinter, V-Class, and Vito. (This list continues to expand as the investigation evolves so operators should register their Mercedes model.) Models include passenger and commercial vehicles and vans, such as people movers, shuttles and taxis. Not only private owners and businesses, such as fleet operators and hire car companies, but also lessees of vehicles affected may be eligible for damages. Compensation could be in the range of £5,000 to £10,000 per vehicle. To find out more visit: www.mercedes-dieselclaims.co.uk or http://www.hbsslaw.co.uk/.

UK Mercedes owners should join group action here to secure compensation

A decision released by the EU Court of Justice (CJEU) yesterday (17.12.20) (see summary press release) puts Mercedes further on the back-foot in the face of claims they engaged in diesel emissions fraud in the European market, according to lawyers at Fox Williams and Hagens Berman UK who are working together on a potential group action litigation on behalf of England and Wales Mercedes owners.

The CJEU decision, sought by the French national court in relation to the Case of C-693/18 CLCV and Others* (Defeat device on diesel engines), provides important clarification on the definition and scope of the concepts of ‘emission control system’ and ‘defeat device’ with regard to EU Regulation No 715/2007. The decision finds a defeat device is not a permissible exception to the rule and expressly prohibits the use of defeat devices which reduce the effectiveness of emission control systems under normal conditions of vehicle use.

The EU Court of Justice concluded that ‘a manufacturer cannot install a defeat device which systematically improves, during approval procedures, the performance of the vehicle emission control system and thus obtain approval of the vehicle.’

Fox Williams partner Andrew Hill, who is leading the UK based group litigation against Mercedes over diesel emissions, comments: “The EU Court of Justice’s finding is binding on the entire European Union and incredibly helpful to us. Regardless of Brexit, it strengthens our case in England and Wales on behalf of consumers who, we will argue, have been defrauded by Mercedes.”

He continues: “Our case will argue that Mercedes illegally deceived the purchasers of diesel and BlueTec engine vehicles sold here between 2008 and 2018 by programming an emission defeat device during test conditions which limited illegally high, dangerous levels of Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions normally evident in real-world driving conditions.”

“The EU Court of Justice decision provides further evidence that Mercedes owes compensation to all UK consumers who purchased or leased these vehicles.”

Fox Williams LLP is collaborating with Hagens Berman UK LLP, led by Michael Gallagher, in building its group claim in England and Wales. The firms have received funding terms and will be operating the case on a no-win, no fee basis.

US class action firm Hagens Berman pioneered a successful class action lawsuit in the US over similar fraud claims which this summer saw more than US$700m being paid out to US Mercedes owners. Hagens Berman also led litigation against Volkswagen in the US where it was found that a comparable defeat device was used and again, the firm secured substantial compensation for US vehicle owners.

Steve Berman, Managing Partner, Hagens Berman comments: “Mercedes denies there are parallels between the emissions control system used in US vehicles and European models. However, our extensive investigations show that Mercedes has been using emission defeat devices for over a decade in both the US and European markets. They have similarly misrepresented the environmental pollution levels of their engines, contravened local regulatory requirements and deceived consumers. They need to be held accountable in Europe as well as the US.”

Fox Williams and Hagens Berman UK is encouraging owners of Mercedes diesel models sold from 2008 up to 2018 to register with a view to joining their group action litigation. These models include passenger and commercial vehicles and vans, such as people movers, shuttles and taxis.

Earlier estimates suggested that approx 1.2 million potential claimants owning (or having owned) impacted vehicles purchased in England and Wales have been affected by the Mercedes Dieselgate scandal, based on Mercedes selling more than 600,000 impacted vehicles here between 2008 and 2018. However, Fox Williams and Hagens Berman, through further investigation, now believe this number could be higher given additional models are also likely emitting dirty diesel emissions.

Not only private owners and businesses, such as fleet operators and hire car companies, but also lessees of vehicles affected may be eligible for damages.

Andrew Hill adds: “Mercedes vehicle owners and lessees in England and Wales will likely have good claims for losses caused to them from unwittingly owning or leasing dirty diesels. Compensation could be in the range of £5,000 to £10,000 per vehicle.”

Those unsure if their Mercedes vehicle is affected by the dirty diesel technology, can contact Fox Williams at www.mercedes-dieselclaims.co.uk.

The Fox Williams-led group action claim will be conducted on a no-win, no-fee basis, meaning that there will be no out-of-pocket cost to sign up to or participate.

## ENDS ##

Media Contact

Louise Beeson, Bell Yard Communications: 07768 956997 / louise@bell-yard.com

Notes for editors

*Case C-693/ 18 CLCV and Others involved a car manufacturer alleged to have marketed vehicles in France equipped with software capable of distorting the results of approval tests for emissions of gaseous pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides (‘NOx’). That company is alleged to have deceived the purchasers of diesel engine vehicles as to the essential qualities of those vehicles and the controls carried out before they were placed on the market.

About Fox Williams

Fox Williams is a leading London City law firm known for its ambition, great culture and good sense. The litigation team is recognised for its independent market position as well as for the quality of its work. The firm’s litigation lawyers advise on a wide range of disputes, employing legal strategies that minimise the risks and realistically assess the potential rewards for clients. Fox Williams has considerable experience in bringing civil fraud claims, and of cutting-edge, high-value group action litigation for institutional investors and shareholders of wrong-doing public companies. For more information, see www.foxwilliams.com.

About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP is one of the largest and most renowned plaintiff-side group action law firms in the United States. The firm’s tenacious advocacy for plaintiffs has earned it numerous national accolades, including “Most Feared Plaintiff’s Firm,” and consistent rankings among a handful of elite plaintiffs’ law firms. More can be found at www.hbsslaw.com.

Hagens Berman originally filed its dirty diesel emissions-cheating litigation against Mercedes in the US on 25 February 2016 and secured a US$ 700m payout on behalf of owners and lessees of affected diesel Mercedes vehicles in August 2020. This settlement is in addition to the further US$1.5 billion settlement and penalty Mercedes must pay the US Department of Justice and Environmental Protection Agency.

Hagens Berman was also one of the lead firms that worked to achieve the US$14.7 billion Volkswagen Dieselgate settlement in the US in 2016 (having been the first firm to file suit against Volkswagen in that matter). The firm has also pioneered emissions-cheating litigation against Audi, BMW, Fiat Chrysler, Ford and General Motors for affected US consumers, and conducted extensive independent research and testing in each case.

Hagens Berman is currently eyeing the potential for bringing further emissions related fraud actions in the European market.

Hagens Berman Media Contact
Ashley Klann: +1 206-268-9363 / pr@hbsslaw.com

Mercedes’ recent and further recall of diesel vehicles in the UK adds fuel to claims of emissions fraud

Vehicle owners should still join consumer group action even if vehicle is ‘fixed’

London……Mercedes-Benz’s latest recall of additional diesel vehicles in the UK for an emissions related software update is a strong indication the manufacturer knows it has a larger dirty diesel problem here, according to lawyers working on a potential group action litigation on behalf of UK Mercedes owners.

London law firm Fox Williams LLP, in collaboration with US class-action law firm Hagens Berman, is building a group claim in England and Wales that will allege Mercedes deliberately engaged in emissions fraud in the sale of its diesel and BlueTec vehicles by programming an emission defeat device during test conditions which limited illegally high, dangerous levels of Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions normally evident in real-world driving conditions.

This follows Hagens Berman’s multi-year investigations of a similar fraud in the US and its successful role in leading a class action lawsuit there which has paid out more than US$700m to US Mercedes owners. Hagens Berman has also been involved in litigation against Volkswagen in the US where it was found that a comparable defeat device was used and again, the firm also secured substantial compensation for US vehicle owners.

As far back as 2018, and on several occasions since then, the German Federal Motor Transport Authority (KBA) has required Daimler to conduct mandatory recalls of Mercedes-Benz vehicles with diesel engines in Europe in order to implement an emissions related software update. Fox Williams’ and Hagens Berman’s legal teams have learned that pursuant to a further KBA order in August 2020, Daimler has now added additional models to the recall exercise (see link and list here). Since as recently as 4 September 2020, Mercedes-Benz has been sending out recall notices to UK Mercedes diesel vehicle owners which prescribes an update to engine control unit software in order to help to “further reduce the average nitrogen oxide emissions while driving on the road”. The UK recall process is being overseen by the UK DVLA in compliance with the Code of Practice on Defects in the UK.

Andrew Hill, the Fox Williams partner who is leading the UK based action, comments: “This latest recall exercise is yet further compelling evidence Mercedes diesel and BlueTec vehicles have a nitrogen oxide problem that needs fixing. Any UK vehicle owners that have the software repair are still eligible to join our claimant group given the alleged deception and fraudulent representation occurred at the original point of sale or subsequent purchase.”

Michael Gallagher, Co-Managing Director of Hagens Berman UK, comments: “The fact Mercedes is doing this at the instruction of the German Transport Authority is telling. Of further note is the scope of the recall. We believe Mercedes is developing software updates for almost the entire Euro 6b and Euro 5 diesel fleet in Europe and that the cheating impacts more vehicles than we originally thought. We absolutely don’t accept Mercedes’ argument that the emissions control system of US vehicles is materially different to European models.”

Fox Williams and Hagens Berman UK had previously appealed to owners of the following Mercedes models powered by BlueTec diesel-fuelled engines and sold from 2008 up to 2018 to register with a view to joining their group action litigation: A-Class, B-Class, C-Class, Citan, CLA, CLS, E-Class, GL-Class, GLA-Class, GLC-Class, GLE-Class, GLS, M-Class, S-Class, SLK, Sprinter, V-Class, and Vito. These models include passenger and commercial vehicles and vans, such as people movers, shuttles and taxis.

Earlier estimates suggested that approx 1.2 million potential claimants owning (or having owned) impacted vehicles purchased in England and Wales have been affected by the Dieselgate scandal, based on Mercedes selling more than 600,000 impacted vehicles here between 2008 and 2018. However, Fox Williams and Hagens Berman now believe this number could be higher if additional models are also likely emitting dirty diesel emissions.

Not only private owners and businesses, such as fleet operators and hire car companies, but also lessees of vehicles affected may be eligible for damages.

Steve Berman, Managing Partner, Hagens Berman and Co-Managing Director Hagens Berman UK comments: “We have already seen Daimler settle with the US authorities and US vehicle owners over its Dieselgate problem. The evidence strongly suggests that Daimler and Mercedes have been involved in similar practices in England and Wales and that British consumers also have a right to compensation for unlawful, deceptive and otherwise defective emission controls implemented by Mercedes.”

Andrew Hill adds: “We believe Mercedes vehicle owners and lessees in England and Wales will likely have good claims for losses caused to them from unwittingly owning or leasing dirty diesels. Compensation could be in the range of £5,000 to £10,000 per vehicle.”

Those unsure if their Mercedes vehicle is affected by the dirty diesel technology, can contact Fox Williams at www.mercedes-dieselclaims.co.uk.

It is intended the Fox Williams-led group action claim will be conducted on a no-win, no-fee basis, meaning that there will be no out-of-pocket cost to sign up to or participate.

# # #

Media Contact: Bell Yard Communications – BellYard@bell-yard.com
Melanie Riley – 07775 591244 – melanie@bell-yard.com
Louise Beeson – 07768 956997 – louise@bell-yard.com
Sarah Peters – 07977 997927 – sarah@bell-yard.com

NOTES TO EDITORS

About Fox Williams
Fox Williams is a leading London City law firm known for its ambition, great culture and good sense. The litigation team is recognised for its independent market position as well as for the quality of its work. The firm’s litigation lawyers advise on a wide range of disputes, employing legal strategies that minimise the risks and realistically assess the potential rewards for clients. Fox Williams has considerable experience in bringing civil fraud claims, and of cutting-edge, high-value group action litigation for institutional investors and shareholders of wrong-doing public companies. For more information, see www.foxwilliams.com.

About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP is one of the largest and most renowned plaintiff-side group action law firms in the United States. The firm’s tenacious advocacy for plaintiffs has earned it numerous national accolades, including “Most Feared Plaintiff’s Firm,” and consistent rankings among a handful of elite plaintiffs’ law firms. More can be found at www.hbsslaw.com.

Hagens Berman originally filed its dirty diesel emissions-cheating litigation against Mercedes in the US on 25 February 2016 and secured a US$ 700m payout on behalf of owners and lessees of affected diesel Mercedes vehicles in August 2020. This settlement is in addition to the further US$1.5 billion settlement and penalty Mercedes must pay the US Department of Justice and Environmental Protection Agency.

Hagens Berman was also one of the lead firms that worked to achieve the US$14.7 billion Volkswagen Dieselgate settlement in the US in 2016 (having been the first firm to file suit against Volkswagen in that matter). The firm has also pioneered emissions-cheating litigation against Audi, BMW, Fiat Chrysler, Ford and General Motors for affected US consumers, and conducted extensive independent research and testing in each case.

Hagens Berman is currently eyeing the potential for bringing further emissions related fraud actions in the European market.

Hagens Berman Media Contact: Ashley Klann +1 206-268-9363 pr@hbsslaw.com

The UK’s largest ever statutory inquiry, The Infected Blood Inquiry, chaired by Sir Brian Langstaff, will reopen on Tuesday 22nd September with former Health Minister Lord David Owen due as its first witness of this session.

Lord Owen’s evidence comes ahead of a new 90-minute ITV documentary about the contaminated blood scandal which will air on Sunday 27th September at 22:20pm.

Lord Owen was Minister of State for Health from 1974 – 1976 , pledging that the UK would become self-sufficient in blood products. That never happened, and instead, the UK imported large quantities of Factor VIII from high-risk sources overseas.

Factor VIII is a clotting medication for Haemophilia. It infected around 4,000 people with Hepatitis C in the 1970s/1980s, and over 1,200 of those people were also infected with HIV. At least 1,500 have since died as a result. It is estimated that one victim continues to die every four days.

Now a life peer, Owen has publicly called the scandal a cover-up and has said that legally, “The government hasn’t got a leg to stand on.” His testimony could prove explosive and put on the official record what those impacted have been waiting to hear for decades.

Des Collins (Senior Partner, Collins Solicitors) who represents over 1,500 victims and affected families, comments: “The resumption of the Infected Blood Inquiry is a new opportunity for politicians and medical professionals to come clean as to their involvement in the biggest medical scandal in living memory. We applaud Lord Owen for giving his testimony – he has long stated his disapproval of the way Whitehall has treated those who were infected with Hepatitis C and HIV from contaminated blood products in the 1970s and 1980s.

“It’s high time successive Health Secretaries and Ministers, each with responsibility for an apparent abrogation of duty, showed similar resolve and came to the Inquiry to give detailed and honest testimony. After some 40 years, the infected and affected deserve to hear the truth from those in charge at the time.

“We also renew our calls for the Government to accept liability and pay immediate, meaningful compensation to all those whose lives have been destroyed by the contaminated blood scandal – the victims and their families have a right to justice now, rather than waiting until the Inquiry reports in a couple of years’ time.”

Jason Evans (Founder of campaign and claimant group Factor 8) said: “Victims and families have waited a long time for this moment and I think Lord Owen also has. He has long been a supporter of our campaign and has made several attempts over the years to expose wrong-doing. We hope that following this evidence; the government will not delay any further in accepting its clear liability.”

Hearings take place at Fleetbank House, London, EC4Y 8AE and can also be followed live on the Infected Blood Inquiry website/YouTube channel.

ITV’s “In Cold Blood” is a new 90-minute feature-length documentary in the award-winning Exposure current affairs strand which examines the biggest treatment disaster in NHS history. Directed by Grierson winning documentary maker Marcus Plowright, this documentary investigates claims that thousands of British haemophiliacs were infected and died from HIV and Hepatitis C after being prescribed tainted blood products by the NHS. With access to thousands of previously unpublished documents from inside government – revealing the thinking of its medical, scientific and public health leadership – the film examines claims that warnings were systematically ignored, and that the story was subsequently covered up.

In Cold Blood airs on ITV – Sunday 27th September at 22:20pm

Media enquiries

Bell Yard Communications: 020 7936 2021 – BellYard@bell-yard.com

Melanie Riley: 07775 591244 – melanie@bell-yard.com

Louise Beeson: 07768 956997 – louise@bell-yard.com

Sarah Peters: 07977 997927 – sarah@bell-yard.com

Factor 8 claimant group

Jason Evans: 07949 333631 – jason@factor8scandal.uk

Fox Williams LLP investigating litigation against Mercedes following US settlements totalling $2.2 billion for dirty diesel emissions fraud

London law firm, Fox Williams, pursuing possible dirty diesel emissions claims for Mercedes owners in England and Wales in collaboration with US law firm, Hagens Berman, which spearheaded an investigation and consumer group action lawsuit leading to more than $700 million for US Mercedes owners.

Fox Williams LLP, in collaboration with US class-action law firm Hagens Berman, is investigating possible claims against Mercedes in England and Wales, with a view to bringing group action litigation for suspected dirty diesel emissions fraud in Mercedes’ line of BlueTEC diesel vehicles, which are believed to pollute at illegal levels resulting in economic and environmental damage.

It is estimated that up to 1.2 million potential claimants owning (or having owned) impacted vehicles in England and Wales are affected, based on Mercedes selling more than 600,000 impacted vehicles here between 2008 and 2018. This includes private owners and businesses, such as fleet operators and hire car companies.

According to Hagens Berman’s investigations, Mercedes programmed its BlueTEC vehicles to release illegally high, dangerous levels of NOx emissions via a defeat device similar to the one used by Volkswagen. This defeat device turned off or limited emissions reductions during real-world driving conditions but not during vehicle emissions tests.

Today’s announcement follows the news last Thursday (13 August) that the US investigation against Mercedes has culminated in a $2.2 billion agreement in principle with the US Department of Justice, Environmental Protection Agency and others including consumers. Hagens Berman’s claim, bolstered by its independent testing and research, will return $700 million or more to US owners of affected Mercedes dirty diesel BlueTEC vehicles.

The size of these settlements in the US (with Mercedes’ parent company, Daimler AG) is, in our opinion, a clear indication that Mercedes-Benz and Daimler have been selling dirty diesel-fuelled cars and vans in the US for many years. The evidence strongly suggests that Daimler and Mercedes have been involved in similar practices in England and Wales. Fox Williams is collaborating with Hagens Berman, the firm that led the successful Dieselgate claims against both Volkswagen and Mercedes in the US, to seek to hold these companies to account in England and Wales for the alleged environmental damage and economic disadvantage which these dirty diesels have caused their customers.

Mercedes owners and lessees in England and Wales who may have dirty diesel emissions claims

Certain of the following Mercedes models powered by BlueTEC diesel-fuelled engines and sold from 2008 up to 2018 are affected by the alleged unlawful, unfair, deceptive and otherwise defective emission controls utilised by Mercedes: A-Class, B-Class, C-Class, Citan, CLA, CLS, E-Class, GL-Class, GLA-Class, GLC-Class, GLE-Class, GLS, M-Class, S-Class, SLK, Sprinter, V-Class, and Vito (however, additional models are also likely emitting dirty diesel emissions). These models include passenger and commercial vehicles and vans, such as people movers, shuttles and taxis.

We believe that Mercedes started committing this alleged fraud in about 2008 and continued for some 10 years.

Fox Williams is investigating claims for business and private owners and lessees of these models in England and Wales.

Fleet owners, private owners and lessees who are unsure if their Mercedes vehicle is affected by the dirty diesel technology, can contact Fox Williams at www.mercedes-dieselclaims.co.uk.

Andrew Hill, the Fox Williams partner who is leading this action, comments: “Like many members of the general public, I have been shocked at the allegations of deception and fraud made against some of the world’s largest and most prestigious automotive manufacturers, including Mercedes-Benz. We believe business and private owners in England and Wales will very likely have good claims for the damage caused to them from unwittingly owning or leasing dirty diesels. We are delighted to be collaborating with the team at Hagens Berman, who have been at the forefront of bringing the claims against VW and Mercedes in the US. Hagens Berman will bring to Fox Williams’ case years of in-depth scientific evidence and legal experience from their cases in the US, which will be highly relevant in England, together with their experience of obtaining a successful multi-million dollar settlement from Mercedes-Benz and Daimler.

“As with our securities litigation practice, we see an opportunity to use the group action litigation legal framework which exists here for claimants to hold major corporations to account for their actions, sitting alongside any public enforcement action which regulators in this jurisdiction may choose to take. Hagens Berman has a similar approach and that’s why our collaboration will prove highly effective for those impacted by this apparent fraud this side of the pond.”

Mercedes owners interested in joining our possible claim should be aware that it will be conducted on a no-win, no-fee basis, meaning that there will be no out-of-pocket cost to sign up to or participate. More information can be found at: www.mercedes-dieselclaims.co.uk.

US lawsuit serves as “sparkplug” for further claims and litigation in England and Wales

“We’re pleased to see that the US Department of Justice’s investigation, which was spurred by the claim which we brought and our independent studies of Mercedes’ BlueTEC vehicles, will culminate in a just punishment for Mercedes’ deception,” said Steve W. Berman, co-founder and managing partner of Hagens Berman. “It is our belief that our investigation and lawsuit served as the sparkplug for the DOJ’s case and its conclusion of a US$1.5 billion agreement, and we’re hopeful that owners in England and Wales who have been deceived by Mercedes will also be able to obtain compensation. We’re pleased to be collaborating with Fox Williams to help them help those affected by dirty diesel emissions fraud.”

The evidence suggests that Mercedes was committing the same deception in England and Wales, and Mercedes has already been the subject of regulatory sanction and large fines in the EU for using the defeat devices in the cars it was selling in Europe.

If you own a Mercedes BlueTEC vehicle or fleet of affected vehicles, find out more about your rights against Mercedes.

Ends

NOTES TO EDITORS

About Fox Williams

Fox Williams is a leading London City law firm known for its ambition, great culture and good sense. The litigation team is recognised for its independent market position as well as for the quality of its work. The firm’s litigation lawyers advise on a wide range of disputes, employing legal strategies that minimise the risks and realistically assess the potential rewards for clients. Fox Williams has considerable experience in bringing civil fraud claims, and of cutting-edge, high-value group action litigation for institutional investors and shareholders of wrong-doing public companies. For more information, see www.foxwilliams.com

Media Contact
Bell Yard Communications: 020 7936 2021 – BellYard@bell-yard.com

Louise Beeson: 07768 956997 – louise@bell-yard.com

Sarah Peters: 07977 997927 – sarah@bell-yard.com

Melanie Riley: 07775 591244 – melanie@bell-yard.com

About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP is one of the largest and most renowned plaintiff-side group action law firms in the United States. The firm’s tenacious advocacy for plaintiffs has earned it numerous national accolades, including “Most Feared Plaintiff’s Firm,” and consistent rankings among a handful of elite plaintiffs’ law firms. More about our law firm and its successes can be found at www.hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw.

Hagens Berman originally filed its dirty diesel emissions-cheating litigation against Mercedes in the US on 25 February 2016, and Hagens Berman was one of the lead firms that worked to achieve the US$14.7 billion Volkswagen Dieselgate settlement in 2016 (having been the first firm to file suit against Volkswagen in that matter). The firm has also pioneered emissions-cheating litigation against Audi, BMW, Fiat Chrysler, Ford and General Motors for affected consumers, and conducted independent research and testing in each case.

Hagens Berman Media Contact
Ashley Klann: +1 206-268-9363 – pr@hbsslaw.com

Bell Yard Communications’ founder and director, Melanie Riley, was quoted in Financial News, alongside other PR gurus, on the importance of championing racial diversity in companies that have come out in support of the #BlackLivesMatter movement.

***

Engaging on race? You’ve got to do more than add a hashtag

“Don’t make any more excuses. Don’t think this doesn’t affect you. Don’t sit back and be silent.”

The white words flash across a black screen. A sombre piano plays in the background. Alongside the tweet, Nike says: “Let’s all be part of the change.”

The killing of a 46-year-old black man, George Floyd, pinned beneath three police officers in Minneapolis on 25 May has sparked anger around the world. The surge in protests since have created an urgency around conversations about race and inequality, bringing them to the fore and eclipsing the Covid-19 pandemic headlines.

Read the rest of the article here.

5th June 2020

London’s High Court today granted HIGA – the hospitality sector-wide insurance action group – the right to intervene in the FCA’s test case, which concerns the extent of business interruption coverage afforded to policyholders affected by the UK government’s lockdown during the Covid-19 pandemic. The group acts for a number of QBE & Aviva policyholders, represented by Sonia Campbell of Mishcon de Reya.

Leading Counsel, Philip Edey QC, of Twenty Essex Chambers represented the HIGA group at today’s second case management conference. The Counsel team also includes Susannah Jones (of Twenty Essex Chambers) and Josephine Higgs (of 7 King’s Bench Walk).

Sonia Campbell, Partner and Head of the Insurance Disputes Practice at Mishcon de Reya LLP, comments:

“We’re grateful to the Court for allowing our application to intervene, to make submissions in the FCA test case hearing in July, insofar as they are relevant to the QBE and Aviva policyholders for whom we act and represent; we are also grateful to the FCA for consenting to our application. Whilst Aviva is not a Defendant to the proceedings, it underwrites a materially similar wording to the Material Damage and Business Interruption Resilience wording that is being tested, which is underwritten by RSA. Our participation will enable us to ensure that points we wish to advance for our clients can be made in the way we wish to make them.”

Any hospitality business that is insured by QBE UK Limited or Aviva Insurance Limited that still wishes to participate in this case should in the first instance email higa@mishcon.com

• HSBC was behind Eclipse investors being told they were going to exploit the rights to a number of Disney’s most popular films, including Pirates of the Caribbean 2 & 3, National Treasure 2, Enchanted, Underdogs and Confessions of a Shopaholic

• But none of the rights to any of these films were in fact ever to be actively traded or genuinely exploited

• As a result, far from achieving investment returns and legitimate tax deferral, investors have ended up with huge losses and potential liabilities.

Edwin Coe LLP, a UK law firm specialising in fraud and group litigation, this week filed a claim on behalf 371 investors against HSBC UK Bank plc (“HSBC”) for the losses caused by its private bank’s role in the conception, development, and marketing of a series of Disney film financing schemes known as the Eclipse Partnerships (“Eclipse”). The Claimants allege they were induced to invest on the false promise that Eclipse represented a genuine opportunity to invest in blockbuster Disney films and that HSBC is liable for fraud.

HSBC is believed to have received over £25m in fees for its role in Eclipse. In contrast, many investors have entered bankruptcy and/or are facing HMRC demands for millions, sometimes as much as ten times their original investment, on non-existent tax relief or deferrals, simply as a result of investing in these partnerships in good faith.

Eclipse was open to investors between 2006 and 2008 and was marketed as a legitimate, tax efficient, investment. It is believed some 750 individuals including dentists, doctors, accountants, bankers and footballers as well as police officers invested c.£2.3bn of capital in Eclipse, all of whom obtained loans to supplement their investment, the interest on which was to be covered by the eventual return on their film exploitation rights investment.

However, no trade in film rights were ever actually made by Eclipse with Disney.

“It is now clear Eclipse was a passive pass through model via which the rights to Disney’s films circled back to the studio. Eclipse was a sham investment opportunity,” comments David Greene, Senior Partner at Edwin Coe LLP.

“Although the investment was touted as having the blessing of leading tax counsel, the conduct of these schemes veered away from that advice,” David Greene continues. “It appears the investments made by our clients were simply transferred between funder and Disney entities in a circular, self-cancelling fashion. It was a risk-free income stream for Disney, HSBC and the lending banks – but financially catastrophic for its unwitting investors. At no point did Eclipse actually exploit, or otherwise trade in, any meaningful film rights of any value from Disney.”

Retired policeman and lead claimant Chris Upham comments:

“My wife and I were attracted by an opportunity to invest in films which had the backing of major banks, Disney and City tax lawyers. It seemed a great opportunity and exciting to be involved with blockbuster films. My wife and I invested £25,000 of our own money in 2007.

“It was marketed to us by professionals and seemed totally above board. It is beyond disappointing to discover that the investment was not as it had been purported to be, In simple terms, we have been deceived. To find out that a bank like HSBC was sitting behind all this increases the anger we feel at having been cheated. The whole thing became an absolute horror story when the taxman demanded tax at stratospheric levels resulting from HSBC’s management of the investment – yet we didn’t earn a bean and our money has been lost.

“It is outrageous that once-revered institutions such as HSBC can behave in such a dishonest way in pursuit of profit but we’re the ones being chased by the taxman, in some cases into bankruptcy.”

The current claimant group is seeking in excess of £1.3bn in loss and damages. Trial is not expected to be heard until 2021 at earliest.

Other Eclipse investors not yet party to the group action are invited to join by contacting Edwin Coe on Thomas.Johnson@edwincoe.com.

ENDS

NOTES TO EDITORS:
The Eclipse scheme’s architects were Neil Bowman, formerly of HSBC Private Bank UK, and Tim Levy, of Future Capital Partners Ltd, a UK company, which purported to provide film advisory services to investors and is now in voluntary liquidation. In 2009, having profited from the Eclipse schemes, HSBC shut down the team in its Private Bank division that was dedicated to activities that included marketing this improper investment.

TAX-DEFERRAL STRUCTURES BACKGROUND:
Tax-deferral structures in film investment were established by Rt Hon Gordon Brown’s government and were intended to encourage investment in the UK film industry (via Section 42 of the Finance (No 2) Act 1992 and section 48 of the Finance Act 1997). Investors in authorised film finance schemes could offset the investment against their taxable income from other sources received across a number of tax years using sideways loss relief under section 380 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (ICTA 1988) (latterly section 64 of the Income Taxes Act 2007), and expenditure incurred in such venture was treated as revenue expenditure rather than capital expenditure and so could be deducted from income.

After the Finance Act 1997, a common way to access these reliefs was through a leveraged sale-and-leaseback structure by which a film was acquired from a film studio by a special purpose partnership and then leased back to the studio over a period of time, usually 15 years. Investors would qualify for a deferral of tax for that period of time. To maximise their tax relief, investors would often borrow to fund their capital investment in the relevant partnership.

Section 125 of the Finance Act 2004 and section 73 of the Finance Act 2005 amended ICTA 1988 to curtail the tax relief granted under sections 42 of the 1992 Act and section 48 of the 1997 Act. Relief was further curtailed by the removal of references to films in the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 (ITTOIA 2005).

In broad terms, the cumulative effect of these restrictions was that sideways loss relief became limited to those actively involved in film rights exploitation. This precluded the original sale-and-leaseback structure from attracting relief because, in those structures, investors were passive and not actively carrying on a trade in exploiting films.
The Eclipse Partnerships were conceived, developed and marketed by HSBC as a solution to the narrowing of tax relief for film finance schemes.

Unbeknown to investors, the transactions actually undertaken by Eclipse failed to adhere to what was promised. Far from providing a tax deferral opportunity by way of legitimate trade (see the Court of Appeal’s decision in Eclipse Film Partners No 35 LLP v HM Revenue and Customs [2015] EWCA Civ 95, the exploitation rights to certain blockbuster Disney films, such as Pirates of the Caribbean 2 & 3, were never acquired by the Eclipse Partnerships or its operators, HSBC and Future Capital Partners (the film advisory entity involved) – contrary to assertions made in the marketing materials. Quite simply there was no exploitation of the films’ rights by Eclipse at all and therefore no revenue stream.

• Specifically for QBE BI Policyholders
• Interest to be registered at dentalclaims@mishcon.com by Friday 19 June 2020

Dental practices with business interruption (BI) insurance policies underwritten by QBE today are offered a viable collective route to litigation in circumstances where their Covid-19-related claims have been rejected by their insurer.

Leading law firm, Mishcon de Reya LLP, announces it has received agreement in principle from an experienced and well-capitalised litigation funder to fund a group claim against QBE for dental practices who have suffered business interruption losses relating to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Mishcon’s litigation offering to dentists comes on the back of similar group claims on which it is currently advising: the Hiscox Action Group and hospitality sector-focused claims against Aviva and QBE. Mishcon is working with a specialist insurance Leading Counsel, Jeffrey Gruder QC of Essex Court Chambers; they believe that claims under the QBE dental practice policies are ripe for challenge.

Sonia Campbell, Partner and Head of the Insurance Disputes Practice at Mishcon de Reya LLP, comments: “The issue for dentists is similar in many ways to that experienced by the other businesses whom we also advise. Dental practice owners responsibly insured themselves against the risk of financial losses, including from notifiable diseases and yet, just like those in other trades, soon learned that their claims have been rejected. Practice owners provide an invaluable service to patients in their local communities. We hope by supporting dental practices we can help them restore their vital businesses to full health.”

To express interest in joining a dental group claim against QBE, dental practice owners with Business Interruption insurance policies insured by QBE (Office Insurance Policy) should email
dentalclaims@mishcon.com by no later than 19 June 2020 to be included in the potential claim.

Ends

NOTES TO EDITORS:

Mishcon de Reya’s Insurance team has already undertaken to advise on three separate claims relating to insurers’ refusal to honour claims under their business interruption policies – the insurers concerned are Hiscox, Aviva and QBE.

Cost: There is no cost to dental businesses to participate at this stage. If a claim is progressed and is successful, the third party funder is paid by taking an agreed deduction from any compensation secured at the end of the litigation. Most reassuringly, if the claim is unsuccessful, the litigation funder covers all legal expenses, so there is very limited financial risk to Group members.

Claim size: There is no current limit on the number of potential participants in a group claim – interested parties should simply indicate their interest to Mishcon de Reya by 19 June 2020.

Process: Mishcon de Reya will respond to each interested business seeking their formal instruction (with no obligation on fees) setting out the terms on which any litigation would proceed. All the costs of litigation are met by the funder (including all legal fees). The funder receives its remuneration by way of a percentage of the funds awarded following a successful claim.

About Bell Yard: Bell Yard Communications is advising on the creation of this litigation group. We are a boutique London-based specialist litigation and legal PR agency, founded in 2002. Bell Yard has been top ranked (Band 1) by Chambers’ Litigation Support Guide every year since the guide’s formation for our litigation PR expertise.

About Mishcon de Reya: the firm has acted on a number of group actions including but not limited to: Taxi drivers against Uber, shareholders against RBS, Royal Mail (tax litigation) and an action against Google. Mishcon is also currently advising the Hiscox Action Group and HIGA (the Hospitality Insurance Group Action).

Mishcon Focuses HIGA Group Litigation On Two Insurers – QBE and Aviva – and invites all hospitality industry businesses with relevant policies to join intended group action by Friday 5 June 2020.

HIGA – the hospitality sector-wide action group today announces that its legal advisors, Mishcon de Reya, in conjunction with Leading Counsel, Philip Edey QC, of Twenty Essex Chambers, have completed their comprehensive review of over 500 business interruption insurance policies, submitted by applicants between 29 April and 6 May 2020.

The legal team has now determined that the specific coverage clauses within policies underwritten by Aviva Insurance Limited and QBE (UK) Limited, are those which HIGA is best advised to challenge through a group claim. The relevant policy wording for Aviva Insurance Limited is its Material Damage & Business Interruption Policy. The relevant QBE policy wordings are: PHOT010419 (Hotel Insurance Policy), PLSC010419 (Leisure Combined), PBCC170619 (Business Combined Insurance Policy) and PNML010119 (Nightclub and Late Night Venue Policy).

HIGA is now writing to all its applicants inviting only those policyholders with these insurers and specified types of policy wordings to confirm that they remain interested in participating in a funded group claim (its first category of HIGA registrants).

HIGA is also inviting any business in the hospitality industry not already registered with HIGA, but which has sought to claim under its business interruption policy with QBE and Aviva and has thus far been ignored or thwarted, now to join HIGA by registering here. Such businesses may include hotels, restaurants, bars, pubs, nightclubs and leisure businesses.

All existing HIGA registrants will be directly contacted to explain whether it is thought that their policies potentially offer coverage or not, however only those with the specific policies detailed above will be eligible to participate in the intended HIGA-led group action.

Sonia Campbell, Partner and Head of the Insurance Disputes Practice at Mishcon de Reya LLP, comments:

“We were overwhelmed by the expressions of interest in bringing actions against insurers from within the hospitality industry – demonstrating how hard-hit this sector has been as a result of the government-enforced lock-down and how intransigent many in the insurance industry have been towards their policyholders.

“The decision to limit a potential HIGA legal challenge to just two insurers with specific wordings was always going to be difficult and we recognise many HIGA applicants will be disappointed we are unable to act for them. However we have sought to protect their rights by contacting the FCA on their behalf, potentially affording them the opportunity to engage with the test case the FCA is to bring against as yet unspecified insurers. We wish this cohort every success.

“Whilst we are unable to act for all HIGA applicants, we do consider that many of these policyholders may want to explore other avenues of redress, including through the FCA and the Financial Ombudsman Scheme.

“Meantime, we are contacting those HIGA applicants insured by Aviva and QBE and inviting them to confirm their continued interest in participating in a group claim.

“We also encourage any other business in this sector – with a specifically-worded business interruption policy underwritten by Aviva or QBE – to contact us by no later than Friday 5th June should they wish to consider participating in HIGA’s group action. We believe this is the best way to ensure some financial recompense for these policyholders following their sudden and enforced closure.”

Mishcon de Reya is in discussions with third party funders to secure funding for the costs of this litigation and expects to be able to move forward by Wednesday 10 June, with the aim of issuing a claim as soon as possible thereafter.

Ends


NOTES TO EDITORS:

Process: Mishcon de Reya fulfilled its commitment to review the insurance policies of those registering interest in this group action by the end of May. These policies have since been categorised and Mishcon is in the process of informing all HIGA registrants into which category their policies belong. Mishcon hopes to have funding in place by 10 June 2020 to commence proceedings during July.

About Mishcon de Reya: the firm has acted on a number of group actions including but not limited to: Taxi drivers against Uber, shareholders against RBS, Royal Mail (tax litigation) and an action against Google. Mishcon is also currently advising the Hiscox Action Group.

About Bell Yard: Bell Yard Communications established and administers HIGA. We are a boutique London-based litigation and legal PR agency, founded by Melanie Riley in 2002. We have a long-established record of advising clients involved in disputes and litigation. In consecutive years since the guide’s formation, Bell Yard is top ranked Band 1 by Chambers’ Litigation Support Guide – achieving recognition from clients, the legal profession and peers alike.

BEEVERS v FICC MSB & Otrs
LONDON CENTRAL EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
CRAIG BEEVERS’ STATEMENT

Mr Craig Beevers, responding to last Friday evening’s Employment Tribunal ruling in respect of FICC Market Standards Boards (FMSB’s) strike-out application, which was rejected said:

“I welcome this ruling which allows my case against the FMSB, Mr Mark Yallop, Mr Charles Nicols and Mr Stephen O’Connor to proceed to a full trial.

“I remain resolute in my determination to expose extraordinary governance failings and various improper shenanigans at the head of what purports to be a body established to set standards of good practice for the wholesale fixed income market.

“I maintain I was ousted after being subjected to unreasonable and inappropriate pressure to withdraw from giving expert evidence in a case against FMSB member Deutsche Bank, and then blowing the whistle over that pressure. I will be asserting at trial that I (and others) were clearly told by the Chairman, Mark Yallop, that there was no conflict between my role as an expert witness to the court and my position at FMSB. My expert witness work was known to, and permitted by, the FMSB. There can be no conflict of interest in my offering reasoned witness testimony about market practice no matter the parties to a case: after all, the Board is supposed to operate for the good of the market, not simply for the interests of its bank members.

“Blowing the whistle on misconduct can feel like an isolating endeavour. However, I believe I will be far from alone in decrying the behaviour of the Board’s management when the full facts come to light at trial.”

ENDS

Notes to Editors

Mr Beevers’ claim was filed in July 2019 at London Central Employment Tribunal. The Respondents’ strike-out application was heard on 9, 10 & 13 January 2020. The decision on this application was handed down on Friday 15 May.

Mr Beevers is represented by Fox Williams LLP (Partner Jane Mann and Associate Ed Livingstone) and by Counsel Alice Mayhew of Devereux Chambers.

The case will now go to full trial at London Central and is listed for January 2021.

18th May 2020

For immediate release: 29 April 2020

Mishcon Advises “Hospitality Insurance Group Action” to hold insurers to account for UK business interruption policies

A new hospitality sector-wide action group is being launched today to hold insurance companies to account for policy pay-outs arising from lockdown and Covid-19 related losses.

Hospitality Insurance Group Action (“HIGA”) is open to businesses which have been forced to close within the sector, including hotels, restaurants, bars, pubs, nightclubs and leisure businesses, if their insurance company is silent or refusing to honour policies relating to business interruption due to this pandemic and the lockdown. Any collective claim by HIGA against the insurance industry is likely to run into tens of millions of pounds, notwithstanding often inadequate policy limits, such is the extent of members’ financial damage.

Leading litigation law firm Mishcon de Reya LLP (“Mishcon”), has agreed to advise HIGA on the parameters of bringing a collective group action against a range of insurers. Mishcon has secured external funding to cover the policy review exercise and is working with Philip Edey QC, of Twenty Essex Chambers.

There is no cost to any UK hospitality business to register with HIGA to have their existing business interruption insurance policy reviewed by Mishcon.

Trevor Ayling, owner of five Renoufs Cheese and Wine Bars in Dorset and Hampshire and HIGA registrant said:

“We’re a family-run, local independent group of award winning restaurants and feel a huge sense of duty to our community and loyal customers; we want to be able to reopen for them as much as for our staff and family, as soon as restrictions ease. In light of the difficult circumstances, we decided to claim on our insurance policy and have tried every way to get our insurer to respond – to no avail. A pay-out on our policy would go some way to making reopening a reality, helping to secure Renoufs’ future.

“We are aware others are similarly affected and, like us, don’t have the money to fight when claims are ignored or denied, as legal support can run into hundreds of thousands. So we jumped at being an early participant in what’s become HIGA – it meant we got our policy wording reviewed for free and the chance of fighting to recover at least a proportion of our losses.

“I will be urging others in the hospitality industry to look at HIGA – we need to stand united to be counted.”

Fellow HIGA registrant Dan Fox, Managing Director of Craft Locals (owner of 3 North London pubs) commented:

“If insurers don’t come through, this will have a devastating impact on not only the business and its continued survival, but the livelihood of the fantastic team members that we employ, and the local communities of which we form such an integral part.

“Our pubs not only offer a fantastic range of food and drinks but are hubs of the local community. We host everything from local book clubs, neighbourhood watch meetings, baby first aid classes to unsigned local music acts. We will do everything in our power to renew these activities and right now we’re hoping HIGA can help us get our insurers to do the right thing.”

Sonia Campbell, Partner and Head of the Insurance Disputes Practice at Mishcon de Reya LLP, comments:

“Hospitality sector businesses, large and small, have been particularly hard hit by the government-enforced closure during this pandemic and desperately need to mitigate their losses. In times of crisis they expect their insurance to respond. Yet I am hearing time and time again that insurers are either stone-walling, unfairly limiting or simply point-blank refusing to pay out under business interruption policies. This strikes us as something that is open to challenge. I look forward to assisting all members of HIGA in exploring the possibility of a group claim. There may well be some light at the end of this industry’s very dark tunnel.”

To express interest in joining HIGA, business owners should register their details at www.HIGAction.com so that a free-of-charge preliminary assessment can made of their insurance policy and specifically whether Covid-19 lockdown-related losses are covered within their business interruption clauses

Ends

NOTES TO EDITORS:

Case Studies: fuller statements from individual business owners Trevor Ayling and Dan Fox, photographs and interviews are available on request.

Eligibility: Any business interruption policyholders whose current insurance contract includes non-physical damage extensions to cover and is governed by English law are eligible to participate by having their policy reviewed by Mishcon – whether customers of Axa, China Taiping, RSA, Touchstone, Zurich or any other insurance provider (except Hiscox – see below).

Cost: There is no cost to businesses to participate at this stage. If a claim is progressed and is successful, the third party funder is paid by taking an agreed deduction from any compensation secured at the end of the litigation. Most reassuringly, if the claim is unsuccessful, the litigation funder covers all legal expenses, so there is very limited financial risk to Group members.

Group size: There is no current limit on the number of potential HIGA members – but this will be reviewed to ensure enquiry levels are manageable.

Process: Mishcon de Reya says it hopes to review the insurance policies of those registering interest in a group action by the end of May. Having reviewed the policies, the wordings are likely to fall into distinct groups, which will enable Mishcon to assess how best to bring a group claim.

Hiscox Claims: a separate group exists for all Hiscox claimants – Hiscox policy holders should contact the Hiscox Action Group for further enquiries.

About Bell Yard: Bell Yard Communications established and administers HIGA. We are a boutique London-based litigation and legal PR agency, founded by Melanie Riley in 2002. We have a long-established record of advising clients involved in disputes and litigation. In consecutive years since the guide’s formation, Bell Yard has been top ranked Band 1 by Chambers’ Litigation Support Guide – achieving recognition from clients, the legal profession and peers alike.

About Mishcon de Reya: the firm has acted on a number of group actions including but not limited to: Taxi drivers against Uber, shareholders against RBS, Royal Mail (tax litigation) and an action against Google. Mishcon is also currently advising the Hiscox Action Group.

The Personal Support Unit (PSU) has revealed plans to assist Litigants in Person more than 80,000 times over the coming year (2019/20).

The PSU, which was established in 2001, relies on a team of 755 dedicated volunteers* across 23 courts in England and Wales to help litigants who are unable to afford legal representation by sorting through paperwork, organising case notes and attending court hearings, giving litigants the confidence to represent themselves in court.

63% of PSU-assisted cases last year were family related, involving either divorce or child custody – an area particularly hard hit by legal aid reductions resulting in the closure of advice centres and increased court fees. The charity also supports individuals facing immigration, housing, employment and bankruptcy court hearings.

From April 2018 to March 2019, the PSU had 75,432 contacts with individuals. Out of a total of 7,869 users surveyed, 99% felt “better prepared” for their court hearings following support from the PSU, and significantly, 97% of 4,734 respondents felt the PSU had helped them get a “fairer hearing.”

As part of its expansion, the PSU launched a free, confidential helpline in March this year, which has so far received 2,892 calls from litigants seeking support.**

To fund this and other services the charity offers, The Rt Hon The Baroness Hale of Richmond, President of the Supreme Court and Patron of the PSU, will take part in a BBC Radio 4 appeal aired throughout Sunday 28th July.

Peter Crisp, Chair of the PSU, said:

“Almost half of us will use the justice system at some point in our lives. The PSU’s purpose is to help some of the most vulnerable in society to access justice. Almost 50% of individuals we assist are unemployed and sadly 25% have mental health problems or a physical disability.”
He adds: “Despite our growth, we know there are many Litigants in Person who still have nowhere to turn to, which is why we are striving to expand our services to reach more people. We receive amazing support from the legal profession and we currently have 22 fantastic corporate partners who support us with regular giving. We are hoping to increase this number to 30 by 2020 to ensure the PSU can continue to deliver vital support to litigants facing court alone.”

ENDS

Note to Editors

About the PSU

The PSU is an award-winning organisation with around 755 dedicated volunteers* (often retired lawyers). It operates from 23 courts in 19 different cities across England and Wales.

It was founded in 2001 by Lady Copisarow OBE with the aim of reducing the disadvantage of people facing the civil and family justice system without a lawyer, enabling them to access justice.

The PSU relies on funding from the Government, Trusts, corporate sponsors and donations from friends and individuals. In 2018/19, its annual revenue was £1,103,257.

Trustees include: Peter Crisp, Kirit Naik, Elizabeth Davies, Caroline Field, Peter Hancock CBE, Angela Camber, Elisabeth Long, Greville Waterman, David Wilkin and as of 9th July Samantha Gargaro, Stephen Adler and Tim Nash.

Patrons include: Martin Lewis OBE, The Rt Hon The Baroness Hale of Richmond (President of the Supreme Court), The Rt Hon Sir Terence Etherton (Master of the Rolls), The Rt Hon The Lady Butler-Sloss, The Rt Hon The Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony, The Rt Hon Lord Dyson, The Rt Hon The Lord Neuberger, The Rt Hon The Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, The Rt Hon The Lord Thomas, The Rt Hon The Lord Woolf, The Rt Hon The Lord Judge.
**Figure exact as of 11 July 2019

For more information on the PSU, please see: https://www.thepsu.org/

Bell Yard Communications is delighted to share news of our ranking as a Band 1 PR & Communications firm in Chambers’ Litigation Support Guide 2019. Top ranked recognition in last year’s inaugural guide was gratifying, but maintaining our pre-eminent position makes us extremely proud. We believe it is testimony to the trust and belief in our counsel, shown by our clients, peers and referrers alike, for which we are extremely grateful.

This year, the firm is described as “very effective” and “highly recommended”. In addition, Bell Yard’s founder and Director, Melanie Riley, also ranked Band 1, is referenced by peers as “professional, charming, incredibly thorough and a joy to work with.”

Melanie said: “We have a tight-knit, diligent and dedicated team here at Bell Yard who make coming to work a real pleasure. I like to think this is reflected in the service we provide, for our clients to have given us this huge vote of confidence.”

The Crisis and Litigation Communicators´ Alliance (CLCA), a global network of international Litigation PR specialists jointly founded by Bell Yard Communications, expands its success in 2019 by welcoming a new member firm to its network – the highly-respected Swiss agency Cabinet Privé de Conseils (CPC), based in Geneva and Bern.

Philippe Eberhard, founder and President of CPC, sees membership of the CLCA as having great potential for CPC´s clients to benefit from the network’s expertise:

“Since founding in 2004, we have gained considerable experience in Litigation and Crisis PR. We want to share our knowledge – especially in the Swiss market – with specialist partner agencies abroad. Switzerland is a global hub for businesses and has a strong international focus. In our CLCA membership we see substantial benefit for our clients, especially because of the ability to refer to internationally recognised Litigation and Crisis PR specialists when needed.”

Martin Jenewein from Schneider | Minar | Jenewein Consulting and Chairman of the CLCA comments:

“With our new member CPC, headquartered in Geneva, we not only add a leading Swiss Litigation PR specialist firm to our network, but also now have both the French and German speaking regions truly well covered. This will have the dual benefit of assisting international companies with interests anywhere in Switzerland, as well as supporting CPC’s existing clients with their transnational exposure.”

“I am pleased that Lloyds Banking Group has listened to me following the public release of the Project Lord Turnbull report in May of this year and has recognised the distress and inconvenience this has caused me. I am greatly relieved that the Bank has acknowledged that I acted with integrity and in good faith in raising my concerns with them.

“I am assisting Dame Linda Dobbs with her review into the actions of Lloyds Banking Group in relation to HBOS Reading following the acquisition of HBOS in 2009.

“I am satisfied that Dame Linda’s review is the appropriate forum for considering these matters, together with any subsequent investigation or enquiry by the FCA.”

ENDS

Issued 14 November 2018

Media enquiries should be directed to Bell Yard Communications:

Melanie Riley: melanie@d2932816.u700.pipeten.co.uk – 020 7936 2021 – M: 07775 591244
Louise Beeson: louise@d2932816.u700.pipeten.co.uk – 020 7936 2023 – M: 07768 956997

Lloyds Banking Group press office contacts are:

Ian Kitts: 020 7356 1347 – M: 0758 4580743
Siobhan McCluskey: 020 7661 4669 – M: 07795 611179

Disputes invariably come down to money. Whether you already have much of it and want more, or too little and also want more. Let’s face it, most of us can be swayed in pursuit of it. And it’s the defining feature of an NDA – a contract between parties in which one receives remuneration in exchange for their silence (except in relation to criminal conduct). Yet the latest furore over the use of NDAs, involving a businessman that the Telegraph sought to expose, alleged to arise from claims of sexual harassment, racial abuse and bullying, has been cast as another example of money improperly buying silence – but for how long? 

Of course there are multiple considerations in making the decision to enter into an NDA contract. Those of us involved in advising on the media interest in litigation know the extent to which any intrusion of privacy can have long-lasting impact on the lives of the individuals involved, and those close to them. No innocent but injured employee blowing the whistle wishes to be forever defined as a litigant, or worse. No boyfriend, husband, wife or girlfriend of a complainant wishes to endlessly relive the stresses placed on their partner from the initial incident(s) right through to a trial. Which hurt party wishes to have their name splashed across newspapers and archived online for their parents, children, future work colleagues, neighbours etc to comment on or gossip about? 

In our experience, complainants usually want the misconduct acknowledged, for it to stop, a sincere apology given, remedial action taken and for them to continue their lives unfettered by the original action. Media exposure is a by-product of litigation.

However there are cases in which the experiences are not properly acknowledged, no admission or apology is given, the discomfort felt by the complainant is so severe that returning to the same workplace is unpalatable, the feeling that no one believes you is palpable, and concerns that if the detail were known to the public they would rush to judge you too – and so the maintenance of privacy becomes the primary objective. In these circumstances, the NDA, with its attendant pay off, seems the least injurious end to an extremely distressing and unwarranted episode, notwithstanding a desire to call out sexual misconduct.

That’s probably why two of the complainants in the Telegraph injunction story are supportive of the claimants’ efforts to injunct media reporting.

The other side of the coin is that the public deserves to know of serial sexual harassers. While the media spotlight rises and wanes, its lifespan is usually dictated by the arrival of the next cause celebre. However during its brightest glare any expectation of privacy diminishes, and where there’s moral judgment to be had, it’s even harder to keep issues hidden in the dark. Your rights as an individual complainant risk being trampled in the cause of a public exposure of wrongdoing. Where the matter involves a movement as strong and compelling as #MeToo, anonymising your involvement seems only a partial remedy to concerns over your privacy. There are some who condemn those who decline to expose others. Being caught in this wave of the righteous is an uncomfortable place to be.

As for an alleged perpetrator, seeking an injunction to prevent publication on the back of a breach of confidence – surely someone will have warned them such action brings greater attention to the matter they are trying to prevent becoming common knowledge. Injunctions simply can’t defeat publication somewhere in the world of the internet.

Here’s an alternative approach from those in the know – hold fire on the defamation and privacy lawyers’ letters and other recourse to the law as there’s often some way to mitigate historic behaviour, or publicly learn from mistakes of the past. Schadenfreude is a powerful thing but self-flagellation has a way of allowing people, in time, to forgive the transgressions of others, depending of course on their severity and frequency, and the sincerity of the self-reflection. 

Whereas using your money and the victims’ interests as a means to stamp on the media, particularly when there’s a worldwide campaign in full swing, rarely ends well. Money may not matter in the end. 

25 October 2018

Historic Litigation Moves Forward with Fraud and Copyright Termination Claims Intact; Co-creators Introduce New Legal Team to Carry Case Forward

August 29, 2018: Harry Shearer, Christopher Guest, Michael McKean and Rob Reiner, the four co-creators of the revered band “Spinal Tap,” and the 1984 film “This is Spinal Tap,” (TIST), today celebrated the favorable ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Dolly M. Gee in their ongoing $400m lawsuit against French conglomerate Vivendi and its subsidiaries.

Harry Shearer, commenting on behalf of his co-Plaintiffs, said:

“We are pleased with the decision in our ongoing litigation involving the film ‘This is Spinal Tap,’ which allows all of our claims against Vivendi, StudioCanal and Ron Halpern, including the fraud claim, to proceed. We are also confident that we will adequately amend our claims against the defendant Universal Music, as specified by Judge Gee’s order, so we can move forward with those as well. The Court’s ruling makes clear that we can pursue damages both for breach of contract and fraud, including punitive damages, based on the defendants’ failure to properly account to us for our profits in connection with ‘This is Spinal Tap.’ It is equally important that we can pursue our right to recapture our copyright interests and other intellectual property rights in connection with the Spinal Tap film and music, so that we can control our own creative product and benefit from it, as we should have all along. We look forward to finally getting our day in court, at a trial, with the evidence that to date Vivendi has tried to hide from us.”

Further, Spinal Tap creators Harry Shearer, Christopher Guest, Michael McKean and Rob Reiner announced that preeminent entertainment litigator Stanton “Larry” Stein and his team at Russ, August & Kabat, including Bennett Bigman and Irene Lee, have been engaged as new lead counsel in the creators’ ongoing litigation against Vivendi and its affiliated defendants over unpaid revenues, breach of contract, fraud, and ownership of intellectual property rights in the landmark “This is Spinal Tap” case.

Harry Shearer, commenting also on behalf of his co-Plaintiffs, said:

“We are confident that Larry Stein and his team are the right lawyers to lead our case to victory on the merits. I have known and worked with Larry for a long time. Larry is widely recognized as one of Hollywood’s top entertainment litigators and has a long history of successfully challenging self-dealing within giant media corporations such as Vivendi. Larry and his experienced team will help us through the next phase of this litigation to show that not only have we been deprived of fair compensation for our work, but that we are entitled to ownership and control over our film, music, and the Spinal Tap brand itself. I want to thank Peter Haviland and his team at Ballard Spahr for their great work in crafting our claims, and especially for preserving our important fraud claim that Vivendi has desperately tried, but failed, to have dismissed. We look forward to Larry and Peter working together to move this case into the discovery phase, where we can shine a bright light on Vivendi’s improper and fraudulent accounting practices.”

Larry Stein added:

“We welcome the opportunity to build on what Peter and his team have done and to get to the merits of what I am sure will be ground-breaking litigation in protecting valuable rights for not only these four talented individuals, but for all creative artists.”

ENDS

Further details and a copy of the Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Defendants’ Motions can be found at www.fairnessrocks.com

About The Film

This is Spinal Tap – produced on a shoestring budget, has become a cult classic since its first theatrical run, in 1984. The film has garnered international praise and acclaim, having been included in “best ever” lists such as The New York Times Guide to the Best 1,000 Movies Ever Made; Entertainment Weekly’s 100 Greatest Movies of All Time where it appeared on the “Just Too Beloved to Ignore” list; and the 100 Greatest Movies of All Time list published by Total Film.

The band, composed of Shearer, Guest and McKean, performing as their beloved stage personae in the company of a rotating cast of percussionists willing to risk the kit (as so many of their predecessors have been accident prone), has toured the world multiple times since the film’s release. Hundreds of thousands of Spinal Tap sound recordings have been sold over the ensuing decades and the film has been released on a host of video formats down the years. Full-length Spinal Tap albums are still available for physical sale, download and streaming today.

29 August 2018

The popular British melodic rock band, Blood Red Saints have today released a single entitled “Justice for The Night”. It was written and recorded by them to support Major John Winskill, an injured ex-serviceman, husband and father of four, the band having read of his plight last month.

Vocalist Pete Godfrey, lead guitarist Lee Revill, guitarist Neil Hibbs and drummer Andy Chemney were so moved by the situation faced by Major Winskill (48) from Amesbury near Salisbury, that they set about doing what they know best, to help raise the profile of John’s case in his time of need.

John needs help to stop a misdirected criminal prosecution in Peru, after he was the victim of a road traffic accident when volunteering to support a team in the Dakar Rally.

In 2012, John volunteered to help a team of injured ex-servicemen realise their dreams by competing in the world’s toughest endurance driving event, through a charity called Race2Recovery. John was a logistics support team member and driver. Unfortunately, on the night of 9 January 2013, the Land Rover he was driving in convoy behind the race car was hit from behind, shunting his vehicle into the path of an oncoming taxi on the other side of the road. John’s Land Rover flipped and rolled after the collision, and he and his two passengers had to be cut out of the wreckage and eventually medevac’d home. Sadly the taxi driver and one of his five passengers were killed.

John thought the accident had been fully investigated in 2013. However unbeknown to him, for the past five years the Peruvian authorities have been looking to try to prosecute John for the collision, yet he was a victim, not the perpetrator. Out of the blue, in February this year his wife, Lisa, received a knock on their door to see police officers serving papers requiring John to attend court in Peru to stand trial, with a potential minimum sentence of six years’ imprisonment. This triggered a serious bout of John’s PTSD.

Since February, John and Lisa have used all their family’s savings, taken loans and borrowed from friends to try to get the prosecution stopped by demonstrating how, and why, the collision was not down to John. But the Peruvians are refusing to allow him to present his defence to get the trial stopped. He has now run out of money to continue to pay his British and Peruvian lawyers – yet the case still hangs over him. Sadly, the Race2Recovery charity failed to provide any legal insurance for its volunteers and have left him high and dry.

Despite doing a generous deed for other injured ex-servicemen, that one night in Peru has caused untold anxiety and financial ruin for John. He and the Blood Red Saints hope that the release of this single, Justice for The Night, freely available at John’s GoFundMe site will encourage the generosity of the great British public to support someone who was helping others when his life was turned upside down.

John Winskill says: “Saints not just in name, these guys have really stepped up when I was at my lowest ebb. They are truly good people and I’m more grateful than words can say. And it’s a catchy little rock number too! I hope people download it and hug their nearest and dearest just a little closer as they listen, while recognising that sometimes in life, events can be cruel and bloody hard to get over. But thank you to the Blood Red Saints for bringing a little light into my darkness.”

Neil Hibbs of Blood Red Saints said:
“I live in the same village as John and read about his dreadful situation in the paper. I couldn’t rest until the Band had done something to help. I hope the track raises awareness as I’m sure we can all do our bit to help a decent man out of his troubles.”

ENDS

The band has generously assigned all IP rights to the song and lyrics to John Winskill.

Media analysis firm Commetric has quoted Bell Yard’s senior consultant, Louise Beeson, extensively in a blog article about how law firms are promoting themselves and communicating around Brexit.

Louise talks about what tactics she has seen working well, the firms she has noticed who have been regularly quoted on Brexit topics, and some of the challenges involved given the uncertainty that still surrounds the Brexit process.

She concludes that so far no particular law firm has made itself the go-to firm on Brexit so this remains a golden opportunity!

To read the full article, click here

John Winskill served in the British Army for 11 years as an infantry officer in the Scottish Division, deployed worldwide until retirement in 2005.

Since then, John has been a passionate unpaid volunteer for service charities.

In 2012 he volunteered with a UK motorsport charity (Race2Recovery). The Charity’s aim was to help injured military veterans to take an active part in rally racing and be the first disabled team to complete the famous Dakar Rally Raid: a 9000km desert vehicle race across Peru, Argentina and Chile.

The Charity received tremendous financial support from the British public and businesses (such as McLaren and Jaguar LandRover JLR) plus a £100,000 donation from HRH Duke & Duchess of Cambridge and HRH Prince Harry (now Duke of Sussex) through the Endeavour Fund/The Royal Foundation. A main recipient of monies raised through donations was the Help for Heroes charity, whose logo adorned the rally vehicles and volunteers’ clothing, as well as for Personnel Recovery Centre at Tedworth House,

On 9 Jan 2013 and after the day’s racing had concluded, three of the team’s Land Rover support vehicles were towing one of the race cars and moving South in a controlled convoy on public roads, heading to their next overnight stop. During this road move, and at about 9.30pm, the logistics support Land Rover Defender, that John was driving, was involved in a head-on collision with a local Peruvian taxi. Tragically the driver and a passenger in the taxi were killed in the collision, four South American nationals were injured and John and his two colleagues in the Land Rover were badly injured.

Sadly like so many recent veterans, John was diagnosed with PTSD following his military service and this incident has dramatically increased his mental ill-health and fragility. John’s trauma from his experiences on military operations before the accident were exacerbated by the tragedy of this collision and its aftermath.

One month after the collision and during his recuperation, John was informed that a police investigation was underway regarding the collision. In December 2013 John was informed that the investigators were seeking a further 8 months to investigate. John was then not contacted again for over five years, and hence had every reason to believe that the investigation had been completed and the cause identified. Nonetheless, John knew his actions were not at fault.

Yet on 7 Feb 2018, more than 5 years after the collision and having not been invited by the Peruvian authorities to provide his account of what happened, John received notice from the Peruvian courts, indicting him as being responsible for the fatal collision.

John’s world fell apart once more.

A Peruvian collision investigation expert has been funded by John and his supporters to ascertain the sequence of events and using the vast amount of video footage, photographic imagery, and witness statements taken from the British and US military veterans at the scene. The expert’s findings indicate, as expected, that John bears no responsibility for causing the fatal collision. Yet the Peruvian court has not permitted this evidence to be considered.

John is determined to present the truth for all the families involved and to find the real cause of the collision for the families of those so tragically bereaved and also for his own family. To fund this quest for the truth John sought to claim on Race2Recovery’s legal insurance policy to pay for defence lawyers in both London and Peru. Regrettably John has since discovered Race2Recovery’s Trustees had failed to secure any legal insurance for the volunteers supporting the charity. Furthermore John has now found that the Charity ceased trading in 2014. John believes that the Charity’s Trustees were aware of their duty of care to their volunteers as they tried to have them sign a liability waiver at Heathrow Airport at 5am on New Year’s Eve 2013, 60 mins before they boarded the plane for Peru. John did not sign this waiver. It’s now clear that John, like all the unpaid volunteers, travelled to Peru to take part in a race known for its danger without adequate insurance cover being provided by the Charity.

John has also since learned that the French insurers of the Dakar Rally paid a significant sum in compensation to the bereaved families in 2014. In the documents submitted to the Peruvian courts in 2018, huge financial compensatory payments are being demanded from John, above those already apparently paid as settlement figures. John is described as a man fleeing from justice.

The Peruvian authorities apparently have held two court hearings regarding the collision. John was not informed of these hearings despite the authorities having been in possession of John’s contact address and passport details since 2013.

At these hearings it has been discovered that the Peru authorities instructed a defence counsel to attend on John’s behalf – without his knowledge, agreement or instruction. The Defence counsel had no defence evidence to present as John did not know of them, their existence or their instruction.

John has been indicted for the alleged crime of two counts of negligent homicide and four counts of negligent wounding. No defence case has been presented in Peru as John was not informed at any stage, that he was indicted until 2018 and yet the Peruvian prosecutor has demanded John’s conviction and incarceration in a Peruvian prison for a 6 year minimum sentence, plus compensatory payments.

The legal fees to properly fund John’s case are likely to be in the hundreds of thousands. John and his family have exhausted all their own funds.

A link to John on video explaining the injustice he faces in his own words, plus the place to donate, is here: https://uk.gofundme.com/fundjusticeforjohn2018

Bell Yard Communications is delighted to share that it has been ranked as a Band 1 PR and Communications firm in Chambers & Partners’ inaugural Litigation Support Guide.

The firm is described as “one of the earliest exponents of the craft (of litigation PR) in the UK”. The firm’s Founder and Director, Melanie Riley, is labeled a “noted practitioner” and is referred to by peers as “phenomenally discreet and capable” and “incredibly effective”. One lawyer is quoted as saying: “There are fights between law firms to get them on board. Honestly, it’s Bell Yard and then everyone else, they are really far ahead of the game.” Another contributor: “If I could have only one speed dial to a PR, it would be to … Bell Yard.”

“We are immensely gratified to be recognised in this way”  comments Melanie Riley. “Personally, I’m just so proud of the incredibly intelligent, talented, and diligent team of women who currently make up Bell Yard. This is a huge honour for us all. We would particularly like to pass on our thanks to our valued clients, referrers and industry friends, without whom this accolade would not be possible. We are determined to continue to meet their expectations of us.”

One other member of the Crisis and Litigation Communicators’ Alliance (CLCA), an international network of Litigation PR firms co-founded by Bell Yard, was also recognised in these prestigious rankings.

LEVICK, the CLCA’s US member firm, was ranked in Band 3 of the Litigation Support Guide, with Ian McCaleb, the chair of Levick’s legal advisory and communications practice, receiving specific praise.

18 May 2018

The PRCA is pleased to announce that Bell Yard Communications has joined the association to assist in upholding ethical and educational standards.

Bell Yard advises individuals, firms, chambers, charities, and others, on how to communicate in matters relating to the law. Bell Yard is the foremost litigation PR boutique practice in the country, with over 15 years of experience in handling the media interest in high stakes disputes. Bell Yard has also jointly established a multi-jurisdictional alliance – the CLCA – bringing together likeminded litigation PR agencies to share know-how and experience. Each CLCA member is committed to high ethical standards in all its work in every jurisdiction in which we operate.

Melanie Riley MPRCA, Founder, Bell Yard Communications’, said: “Reputation is one of the most valuable assets possessed by an entity or individual. Agencies providing communications counsel should be respected and trusted not only by those they advise, but also by their peers. The PRCA is leading the way in upholding ethical and educational standards for the PR industry and Bell Yard is pleased to play our part through membership.”

Francis Ingham MPRCA, Director General, PRCA, said: “I am delighted to welcome Bell Yard as PRCA’s newest member. Bell Yard’s commitment to upholding standards mirrors that of the PRCA and, by working alongside them, we hope to raise standards in our industry and beyond. We are also very pleased to have Melanie Riley on the PRCA Legal Group committee. Having legal and litigation PR experts like Bell Yard involved in this Group will help PRCA members to further their understanding of and positive influence in this sector.”

11 December 2017

First Published by PR Week 9 October 2017 (http://www.prweek.com/article/1446826/top-pr-industry-mans-game)

As an industry, PR is highly inclusive of women. Or so it seems. Women comprise 64 percent of the total workforce, yet only 13 percent inhabit board-level and partner positions. In an age where women occupy positions such as President of the Supreme Court, Police Commissioner and Prime Minister, why are the upper echelons of PR still perceived as unreachable for many?

Recently Spear’s published its ranking of Top Ten Reputation Managers for those who identify as High Net Worth Individuals (HNWIs).  Remarkably, female PR advisors failed to feature at all – not only absent from the Top Ten but also from the subsequent list of 16 notable names.

In marked contrast, Spear’s featured two women in its ranking of Top Ten Wealth Managers, and scores of leading female lawyers across various legal disciplines. Yet the financial sector is notorious for its underrepresentation of women though the legal services profession has cottoned on to the value of women in law.

Perhaps the absence of Spear’s-rated women in PR results less from Spear’s own unconscious bias, but more from the conduct of female leaders in the PR industry.

I know many talented, savvy and highly commercial women who manage others’ reputations.  I don’t know if they specifically advise those of high net worth. Which reminds me of that old tease – how do you know if someone’s a vegan?  They tell you.  Perhaps the reason I haven’t learned whether my contemporaries are also up to their eyes in advising the spectacularly wealthy is that my female friends haven’t felt the need to flash their big swinging handbags to say so.  They get on with the job at hand, often too self-effacingly, and hope their efforts are respected.

It would be more worrying were the rankings to imply that HNWIs prefer to seek counsel from male PRs.  Is there a level of trust, man-to-man, that may not be as prevalent between a drippingly wealthy male and a female PR?  Do the less enlightened believe girly PRs are good for some things but when the serious stuff happens, it’s time to call in the boys?

I actually believe men and women are naturally less willing to show their vulnerabilities to the opposite sex in the work environment – the understanding of which is necessary to build the most watertight and appropriate argument in defence of reputation.

Undoubtedly, though, we women are accountable for our reticence to acknowledge our place in the higher echelons of PR.  After all, Spear’s compiled its rankings through recommendations of HNWIs and self-nomination. Studies indicate that the biggest career hurdles women in C-suite positions face, is self-promotion and expressing our talents. Or to put it more poignantly, women’s self-advocacy is seen as excessive in comparison to men’s. Women who self-promote or indeed achieve recognition are less likely to be liked. The dreadful trolling of Laura Kuenssberg is a case in point.

As with any industry, there are obvious hurdles for women in PR to overcome – company culture, avoidance of work-place conflict, stigma in discussing salaries, unconscious biases and lack of transparency. But come on girls, let’s channel our inner vegan: ditch the reticence and speak proudly of what we do, or the big jobs will forever be perceived as belonging to the boys!

Melanie Riley, carnivore & Bell Yard Founding Director

10 October 2017

MEDIA RELEASE

For immediate release

Issued by:  Bell Yard Communications, London

O: +44 (0)207 936 2021

M: +44 77755 91244

8 February 2017, London:  Christopher Guest, Michael McKean and Rob Reiner, co-creators of the cult-classic film This is Spinal Tap, have today formally joined fellow creator, Harry Shearer, as plaintiffs in his lawsuit against French conglomerate Vivendi S.A..

Guest starred as the band Spinal Tap’s lead guitarist Nigel Tufnel; McKean as lead vocalist and rhythm guitarist David St Hubbins and Shearer as bassist Derek Smalls. Reiner directed the film and starred as its narrator.

The original complaint, by Shearer’s service company Century of Progress Productions, [Case No.  2:16-cv-07733], was filed on 17 October 2016 in the Central District of California USA. The lawsuit alleges Vivendi S.A. engaged in anti-competitive and unfair business practices, as well as fraudulent accounting, directly related to its management of This Is Spinal Tap.

With Guest, McKean and Reiner’s participation, the revised filed and served complaint now seeks US$400 (four hundred) million in compensatory and punitive damages from Vivendi, up from the US$125 million originally claimed.

Commenting on the lawsuit, Guest said: “The deliberate obfuscation by Vivendi and its subsidiaries is an outrage. It is vital that such behavior is challenged in the strongest way possible.”

Reiner adds:   “Fair reward for artistic endeavor has long been raised by those on the wrong end of the equation.  What makes this case so egregious is the prolonged and deliberate concealment of profit and the purposeful manipulation of revenue allocation between various Vivendi subsidiaries – to the detriment of the creative talent behind the band and film. Such anti-competitive practices need to be exposed. I am hoping this lawsuit goes to 11.”

“This is Spinal Tap was the result of four very stubborn guys working very hard to create something new under the sun. The movie’s influence on the last three decades of film comedy is something we are very proud of. But the buck always stopped somewhere short of Rob, Harry, Chris and myself. It’s time for a reckoning. It’s only right.” commented McKean.

Shearer welcomed his co-creators’ decision to join: “Their participation will help demonstrate the opaque and misleading conduct at the heart of this case. We’re even louder now.”

The amended complaint, which also incorporates Spinal Tap Productions (owned in equal share by all for co-creators), as a joint plaintiff alongside the co-creators and their service companies, details Vivendi’s alleged manipulation of certain accounting data, while ignoring contractually obligated accounting and reporting processes, to deny the plaintiffs their rightful stake in the production’s profits.

ENDS

A COPY OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND PHOTOS OF ALL PLAINTIFFS ARE AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD FROM www.fairnessrocks.com

Issued by Harry Shearer’s litigation PRs:

Paris:                          London:                                        New York/Washington:        Los Angeles:

Jean de Belot          Melanie Riley                              Ian McCaleb                                Seth Jacobson

Alexandre Levy      Louise Beeson                            Mona Amin

Violaine Naud         Sarah Peters                               Bryant Madden

Aria Partners              Bell Yard Communications          LEVICK                                                                    

O: +33 1563 37064       O: +44 (0)207 936 2021                   O: +1 202 973 5303

M: +33 607 415852      M: +44 (0)7775 591244                   C: +1 202 779 0587                          C: +1 310 592 3900

NOTES TO EDITORS

**ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT WWW.FAIRNESSROCKS.COM **

In 1982, Reiner, Shearer, Guest, and McKean signed an agreement with Embassy Pictures, Inc. for the production, financing and distribution of This Is Spinal Tap. The agreement ensured profit participation payments, at the rate of 40 percent of net receipts, to the creators based on all sources of revenue, including merchandise and music.

After two years of production, the film was released in 1984. It soon became a cult favourite, and its reputation as one of the 20^th Century’s most enduring comedies has increased exponentially in the ensuing years. The film’s accolades include being named in the New York TimesGuide to the Best 1,000 Greatest Movies Ever Made list, Total Film’s 100 Greatest Movies of All Time list, and achieving the coveted Number One spot on Time Out London’s 100 Best Comedy Movies list. In 2002, the film’s lasting appeal led the U.S. Library of Congress to designate it as a culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant film.

The film’s ongoing critical success was likewise matched by its financial success. It was produced on a shoestring budget of $2.25 million. The complaint alleges that This Is Spinal Tapgenerated millions of dollars across various revenue streams for Vivendi, its subsidiary companies, and their licensees. The music and merchandise that the film and band have spawned, earned tens of millions of dollars in revenue through re-releases, album and singles sales, merchandise sales, and distribution of the film in various formats across the globe over the course of the last 32 years.  However, these profits were not fairly shared with the four co-creators, cast, or crew.

The French conglomerate claims that the four creators’ share of total worldwide merchandising income between 1984 and 2006 was a mere $81 dollars. Likewise, total income from soundtrack music sales between 1989 and 2006 was reported by Vivendi as only $98 dollars/

Band & Movie Background

Although This Is Spinal Tap was first released in 1984 in US and UK (in 2000 in France) the band “Spinal Tap” was actually created in the late 1970s. The band’s rock musician characters “Nigel Tufnel” and “David St. Hubbins” were created by Christopher Guest and Michael McKean with Harry Shearer creating bassist “Derek Smalls”.  Spinal Tap’s comedic sole claim to fame was as “one of England’s loudest bands”.

Phrasing from the film’s script has entered the general lexicon (“it goes to 11”).  The film continues to be shown regularly on TV home viewing around the world, is available on multiple video formats and has been supported by several album/singles releases and band tours.

Litigation Background

Harry Shearer’s determination to highlight the principle of fair rights to creators led him to launch the original suit.  He is unafraid to take on vested interests in the entertainment industry in his pursuit of equitable treatment between the industry and its talent.  He is today joined by all of his co-creators of Spinal Tap the band, and the film.

This lawsuit will determine several key matters in respect of the exploitation rights to This Is Spinal Tap, including breach of contract, fraud and fraudulent concealment, breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealings and intellectual property rights.    The lawsuit raises particular concerns over the anti-competitive effects of non-arms’ length transactions among Vivendi subsidiaries in managing This Is Spinal Tap. These issues are further outlined in the Complaint.

Advisors

Lead Litigator:                                    Peter Haviland, Ballard Spahr (Los Angeles, CA.)

Lead Counsel:                                    Amanda Harcourt, Intellectual Property Consultant (UK)

8 February 2017

18 October 2016, London – Harry Shearer, renowned worldwide for his voicing of 23 characters on the long-running animated television series ‘The Simpsons’, has filed a comprehensive legal action in Los Angeles, California, USA.

The lawsuit alleges French conglomerate, Vivendi S.A., engaged in anti-competitive and unfair business practices, as well as fraudulent accounting, directly related to its management of the cult-classic film, This Is Spinal Tap. Shearer co-created the film, co-wrote the soundtrack and starred as the Spinal Tap band’s bassist, Derek Smalls.

According to the complaint, Vivendi and its agents, including StudioCanal and Universal Music Group, wilfully manipulated certain accounting data, while ignoring contractually-obligated accounting and reporting processes, to deny Shearer and his fellow co-creators their rightful stake in the production’s profits. The action seeks US$125,000,000 in compensatory and punitive damages.

As a StudioCanal executive with personal responsibility for exploitation of the film and band, Ron Halpern is named as a co-defendant in the claim. Halpern is based in Paris.

“Almost 40 years ago, Christopher Guest, Michael McKean, Rob Reiner and I created the somewhat legendary band Spinal Tap,” said Shearer. “We thought there was something real and really funny about the characters, and between that inception and the theatrical release of This Is Spinal Tap in 1984, we poured ourselves into nurturing and perfecting the paean to rock loudness that has entertained so many people, even today. But despite the widespread success of the film and its music, we’ve fallen victim to the same sort of fuzzy and falsified entertainment industry accounting schemes that have bedevilled so many other creators. In this instance, the fraud and negligence were just too egregious to ignore. Also, this time, it was personal.”

In 1982, Reiner, Shearer, Guest, and McKean – signed an agreement with Embassy Pictures, Inc. for the production, financing and distribution of This Is Spinal Tap. The agreement ensured profit participation payments, at the rate of 40 percent of net receipts, to the creators based on all sources of revenue, including merchandise and music.

After two years of production, the film was released in 1984. It soon became a cult favourite and its reputation as one of the 20th Century’s most enduring comedies has increased exponentially in the ensuing years. The film’s accolades include being named in the New York Times Guide to the Best 1,000 Greatest Movies Ever Made list, Total Film’s 100 Greatest Movies of All Time list, and achieving the coveted Number One spot on Time Out London’s 100 Best Comedy Movies list. In 2002, the film’s lasting appeal led the US Library of Congress (the world’s largest cultural collection), to designate it as a culturally, historically or aesthetically significant film.

The film’s ongoing critical success was likewise matched by its financial success. It was produced on a shoestring budget of US$2.25 million. Yet This Is Spinal Tap and the music and merchandise that it and the band have spawned, earned tens of millions of dollars in revenue, according to the complaint – through re-releases, album and singles sales, merchandise sales, and distribution of the film in various formats, across the globe over the course of the last 32 years. However, these profits were not fairly shared with the four co-creators, cast or crew.

When Vivendi acquired the rights to This Is Spinal Tap in 1989, through its subsidiary Canal, the lawsuit alleges it began a concerted and fraudulent campaign to hide, or grossly underreport, the film’s revenues in order to avoid its profit participation obligations. Vivendi’s financial reporting of income has been woefully inconsistent at best. Performance of its duties to the film’s creators dropped off entirely from 2014, the 30th anniversary of the film’s initial theatrical release. In the past two years, Vivendi has altogether failed to produce an account of any Tap revenue, according to the complaint.

The complaint alleges that This Is Spinal Tap has generated millions of dollars, across various revenue streams, for Vivendi, its subsidiary companies and their licensees. The French conglomerate asserts that the four creators’ share of total worldwide merchandising income between 1984 and 2006 was US$81 dollars. Between 1989 and 2006, total income from soundtrack music sales was reported by Vivendi as US$98 dollars, according to the complaint.

“This is a simple issue of artists’ rights,” added Shearer. “It is stunning that after all this time, two cinema releases, all the various home video format releases, all the records and CDs, and all the band-themed merchandise still widely available worldwide, the only people who haven’t shared Spinal Tap’s success are those who formed the band and created the film in the first place.”
“Vivendi and its subsidiaries – which own the rights to thousands and thousands of creative works – have, at least in our case, conducted blatantly unfair business practices,” Shearer continued. “But I wouldn’t be surprised if our example were the tip of the iceberg. Though I’ve launched this lawsuit on my own, it is in reality a challenge to the company on behalf of all creators of popular films whose talent has not been fairly remunerated. I am just one person seeking redress for blatant injustice, but I hope this lawsuit will, in its own way, help set a new precedent for faithful and transparent accounting practices, and fair artistic compensation, industry-wide.”

ENDS

A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT CAN BE DOWNLOADED FROM www.fairnessrocks.com

Hear Harry in his own words on Twitter movie clip: @theharryshearer

Issued by Bell Yard Communications, Harry Shearer’s litigation PRs:

NOTES TO EDITORS

Band & Movie Background

Although This Is Spinal Tap was first released in 1984 in US and UK (in 2000 in France) the band “Spinal Tap” was actually created in the late 1970s. The band’s rock musician characters “Nigel Tufnel” and “David St. Hubbins” were created by Christopher Guest and Michael McKean with Harry Shearer creating bassist “Derek Smalls”. Spinal Tap’s comedic sole claim to fame was as “one of England’s loudest bands”.

Phrasing from the film’s script has entered the general lexicon (“it goes to 11”) as exemplified by the Tesla car, whose audio system’s volume control goes to 11, as does that of the BBC’s iPlayer.
The film continues to be shown regularly on TV home viewing around the world, is available on multiple video formats and has been supported by several album/ singles releases and band tours. Yet, apparently, the film took 27 years to recoup.

Litigation Background

Mr Shearer has been frustrated by the difficulty in receiving a clear picture from the Vivendi group as to the revenues due from each of the various income streams – including merchandising and music sales – and by the Group’s accounting methods. He is determined to highlight the principle of fair rights to creators. He is unafraid to take on vested interests in the entertainment industry in his pursuit of equitable treatment between the industry and its talent.

This lawsuit will determine several key matters in respect of the exploitation rights to This Is Spinal Tap, including breach of contract, fraud and fraudulent concealment, breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealings and the lawfulness or otherwise of practices indulged in by a media player with market dominance. The lawsuit raises particular concerns over the anti-competitive effects of non-arms’ length transactions among Vivendi subsidiaries in managing This Is Spinal Tap. These issues are further outlined in the Complaint.

Mr Shearer has filed his litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, through his trial counsel, Peter Haviland, Managing Partner of the Los Angeles office of U.S. firm Ballard Spahr.

Advisors

Lead Litigator: Peter Haviland, Ballard Spahr (Los Angeles, CA.)

Management Company: John Power and Anna Derperseghian, Power Twersky & Deperseghian (Los Angeles, CA.)

Lead Counsel: Amanda Harcourt, Intellectual Property Consultant (UK)

18 October 2016

MEDIA RELEASE  

For immediate release 2 May 2017

Kingsley Napley announces three new partners taking its female partnership ratio to over 50%.

Kingsley Napley LLP is pleased to announce its new partner round promotes three female lawyers at the firm, meaning women now make up 52% of its partnership. The promotions, effective this week, include:
Brandusa Tataru-Marinescu who has been promoted to Partner in the Real Estate team. Brandusa specialises in non-contentious construction work and has acted for both domestic and international clients (developers, contractors, high-net worth individuals, investors, lenders and real estate funds) on a variety of projects (residential, commercial and mixed use schemes). She joined the firm from Taylor Wessing in 2015.

Rebecca Niblock who becomes a Partner in the Criminal Litigation team. Rebecca is a specialist white collar and extradition lawyer with significant experience in both domestic criminal litigation and cases involving cross-jurisdictional elements. She has acted for defendants in a range of criminal matters from serious fraud, money laundering and corruption, and in SFO and FCA investigations. She has successfully defended a large number of persons requested by other states both inside and outside the EU in extradition proceedings at all levels. Rebecca has co-written one of the leading practitioner texts on extradition law, now in its second edition. Rebecca joined the firm in 2012.

Johanna Walsh who also becomes a Partner in the Criminal Litigation team. Johanna joined Kingsley Napley from DLA Piper in 2014. Johanna’s focus is fraud and corruption cases where she has acted for individuals and corporates being prosecuted by the SFO, FCA and CPS. She also has experience of corporate internal investigations some of which resulted in self-reports to regulators and prosecutors. She was part of the Kingsley Napley team recently advising Tesco on its case with the SFO.

Separately the firm has appointed Joanne Stephens as a Senior Associate in the Criminal Litigation team. Joanne joins from Northern Trust Corporation where she held a compliance role. From 2011-216 she worked in the Enforcement Division of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). She brings rich experience of regulatory compliance in the banking sector and business crime to Kingsley Napley’s criminal defence team and Financial Services practice.

Linda Woolley, Managing Partner of Kingsley Napley, comments,
“Our three new partners are thoroughly deserving of their success. Each has grown in stature and experience in their roles and respective practice areas and are highly regarded by peers and the firm’s clients. Their promotions continue to strengthen the firm’s record for recognising talented women in the law. I am also delighted to welcome Joanne Stephens to the firm. Her skill set and experience makes her a good-fit hire for us and will help our increasingly busy financial services practice.

ENDS

For press enquiries, please contact Bell Yard Communications 020 7936 2021 or email BellYard@Bell-Yard.com

For more information about Kingsley Napley, please visit: http://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/

Today’s announcement brings the total number of Kingsley Napley partners to 52. The firm can now boast that 52% of its partners are female and of the firm’s qualified fee earners (incl partners) 69% are female.

https://www.citywealthmag.com/news/we-use-pr-agency-bell-yard-specialist-litigation-pr-agency-help-us-proactively-identify?utm_source=Sign-Up.to&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=37085-154175-Brand%20and%20reputation%20email%201-Preview

31 May 2016

• Results from survey on “doctors.net” of almost 1500 doctors from across medical practice
• 85% of medics believe bringing criminal prosecutions into post-death investigations encourages a culture of secrecy and cover-up
• 90% of doctors admit to practising more defensive medicine techniques, in light of increased culture of fear, subjecting patients to additional, often intrinsically risky and intrusive tests, sending costs per patient soaring
• Fewer than half considered they were delivering safer care as a result of increasingly defensive medical practice

A survey of 1443 doctors, conducted by ‘Doctors and Manslaughter’ a campaign group working to raise awareness of the effects of the recent trend towards the criminalisation of healthcare, has uncovered alarming findings in light of the increased involvement of criminal process following unexpected hospital deaths and complications.

Police investigations into healthcare has escalated in recent years following the conviction of respected surgeon David Sellu (now the subject of an appeal).  In the past year alone, 9* healthcare professionals have either been charged, prosecuted or convicted for Gross Negligence Manslaughter.  These recent prosecutions, with the prospect of jail sentences for doctors when patients die, has alarmed many in the profession who say there is no evidence that a ‘blame’ culture actually makes patients safer. There is also a growing body of opinion that the charge of gross negligence manslaughter is being used inappropriately to prosecute doctors in some specialties who, in their daily lives, work in an inherently high risk environment.

Of the 1443 UK doctors responding to the survey, nearly 90% of doctors admitted to being more defensive (ordering more tests for patients than they might need, as a result of the fear of litigation), but less than half admitted that they felt they were delivering safer care as a result. 85% agreed, or strongly agreed, that being open about mistakes was less likely with increasing involvement of the law.

Most health-care professionals accept deaths and complications are best discussed in a transparent, no-blame environment. This allows lessons to be learned and future care to be improved in much the same way that pilots analyse aviation incidents. The threat of criminal sanctions leads to the practice of defensive medicine in which healthcare professionals order more investigations than necessary and the patient may be exposed to harmful procedures they do not actually need. Surgeons are circumspect about operating on high risk patients in case they end up accused of manslaughter if the outcome results in death of a patient – this results in those patients with other underlying health problems potentially losing out on operations from which they have a chance of recovery.

Defensive medicine provides no benefit, other than perhaps to the doctor, and in contrast may cause actual patient harm as well as significantly increasing costs at a time when NHS budgets are under massive pressure. The survey also shows a growing concern that the brightest doctors will not choose to enter high risk specialties such as anaesthetics, obstetrics or emergency surgery as they risk future jail sentences if they do. This could mean that a future generation of patients are made even less safe.

Mr Ian Franklin, consultant vascular surgeon, said:

“Transparency and openness are threatened once the criminal courts become involved. All parties seek to minimise their involvement with a bad outcome case for fear of police investigation, arrest, and prison. Cover-ups will become the norm. This is not good for the wellbeing of future patients.”

ENDS

For more information and requests for interview, please contact:

Co-founders of www.doctorsand manslaughter.org.uk

Mr Ian Franklin      ian.franklin@londonvascularclinic.com

Professor Roger Kirby    rkirby@theprostatecentre.com

Dr Jenny Vaughan   jvaughan@doctors.org.uk

Notes to Editors:

*GNM PROSECUTIONS:   Between December 2014 & December 2015, 9 healthcare professionals plus one hospital Trust have been brought before the criminal courts on charges of gross negligence manslaughter.  This follows the conviction of respected surgeon David Sellu, albeit his conviction is now subject to appeal.

• Vincent Barker death: optometrist locum charged with GNM
• Frances Cappucini. Tunbridge Wells: 2 doctors (incl 1 ethnic minority anaesthetist) charged with GMN & first NHS Hospital Trust on corporate manslaughter charge
• Jack Adcock Death: Ethnic minority Doctor and 2 Nurses
• Phoebe Willis Death: 1 Nurse
• Marie stopes abortion clinic death
• Joshua Gaffney death: 1 nurse

Quotes from the 1443 doctors surveyed anonymously www.doctors.net.uk , the UK’s largest online network of doctors:

“There is absolutely no incentive for me to take on the higher risk case since if it goes badly then not only will I be castigated by my colleagues (who decline such cases) but I will be unsupported by my hospital management. “

“If we are to be prosecuted for errors then every doctor will have to face this – none of us are perfect. If we behave recklessly then prosecution may bejustified but the context of the actions is vital. Reckless to one may be an appropriate and measured response in a given situation to another.”

“Feel constantly under siege, expected to deliver high quality but with less time. Situation is unsustainable and quality will suffer and safety will be compromised in the system as a whole if doctors are held ‘to gunpoint’ by fear of litigation but at the same time expected to see more patients, do more operations, but not given the proper time to see the patients, the proper well managed, designed and run systems with proper competent staff to support them.”

“There is no question the increasing threat of medicolegal consequences directly impacts on patient care choices.”

“I may be less inclined to offer major surgery to less fit patients in future.”

“I am a retired practitioner (Thank goodness)”

“I have been qualified as a doctor for 30 years. I spend a much greater proportion of my time on [administration] and much less time face to face with patients. Yet I feel less confident and safe now than then partly because I am more aware of what can go wrong but also because I am so busy with the above tasks that I have less time to take good care of patients and have proportionately less time gaining actual clinical experience.”

28 January 2016

For immediate release   Friday 11 December 2015

The Criminal Appeal Court has this week granted experienced surgeon, David Sellu, leave to appeal his criminal conviction for gross negligence manslaughter following the death, in February 2011, of a patient at the BMI Clementine Churchill Hospital.

Three Lady Justices, led by the Vice President of the Criminal Appeal Court Division, Lady Justice Hallet, have granted Mr Sellu leave to appeal his November 2013 conviction despite the Appeal coming out of time.

Mr Sellu’s Counsel, Mark Ellison QC was given permission to appeal on the ground of new evidence showing firstly that the patient’s risk of death at the time Mr Sellu first saw him was much higher than the 2.6% put forward by the prosecution and secondly, that the significance of the fact that Hughes had been given dabigatran, a new generation oral anticoagulant, was not fully appreciated at the time. An additional point of appeal is the argument that three of the judge’s directions to the jury were legally flawed.

In February 2010 David Sellu, a highly-respected Consultant Colorectal Surgeon, operated on a patient with a perforated bowel at the private hospital in Harrow, Middlesex (BMI Clementine Churchill). Despite Mr Sellu’s efforts, the patient died two days later.  There followed a sequence of extraordinary events that led to Mr Sellu being tried and convicted of Gross Negligence Manslaughter in November 2013.

Professor Peter Taylor FRCS, retired Vascular Surgeon and representative of the Friends of David Sellu Campaign says:

“David Sellu, FRCS, tirelessly served his patients for 40 years. This case was tragic for both patient and surgeon.  It is very important that the medical complexity of this case is now seen in the light of the fresh evidence.”

In the wake of Mr Sellu’s conviction, many senior medical colleagues have expressed concerns that, despite the passage of time since this tragic incident, hospitals’ systemic failings are not being properly addressed.   Instead there appears to be a rising number of prosecutions against individual healthcare workers over the last year, following Serious Untoward Incidents (SUIs) in hospitals, which do not address patient safety issues.

Research suggests the average Briton may go through 7 surgeries during his/her lifetime[1].  Complications are said to arise in 8-13% of cases, half of which are believed to be preventable through systemic improvements.  Instead, the criminal prosecution of doctors and nurses encourages a culture of cover-up and obfuscation rather than transparent reviews of the full circumstances that led up to the SUI.

Mr Ian Franklin, Consultant Vascular Surgeon and another representative of the Friends of David Sellu Campaign, says:

“Potentially avoidable deaths in hospital are rarely the result of the actions of one person but invariably due to an unfortunate combination of circumstances.  Charging individual doctors with manslaughter does not result in a thorough analysis of what happened nor permit lessons to be learned to protect patients in the future.”

Professor Roger Kirby, Medical Director at The Prostate Centre says:

“If surgeons become paranoid about taking on risky cases under the prospect of personal prosecution should the patient die, more lives, not less, will be put at risk as fewer patients will receive the operations they urgently need.”

In the wake of David Sellu’s conviction almost 2000 concerned members of the public (mostly medical professionals who recognise the complexity of emergency post-operative care in the private sector), signed a petition to have Mr Sellu’s appeal upheld.  Their support paved the way to this week’s successful permission hearing.

Responsible doctors are calling for a review of the way private & NHS hospitals investigate and report unexpected deaths and Serious Untoward Incidents (SUIs) as it is woefully inconsistent.

ENDS

Please contact Bell Yard Communications for further information, including interviews with some of the medics supporting Mr Sellu or on some of the issues raised above:

• Mr Ian Franklin, Consultant Vascular Surgeon
• Professor Roger Kirby, Medical Director, The Prostate Centre
• Colin Leys, Author of Patient Safety in Private Hospitals and How Safe Are NHS Patients in Private Hospitals

Bell Yard Communications:

Melanie Riley, melanie@d2932816.u700.pipeten.co.uk  M:+44 (0) 77755 91244   O: +44 (0)20 7936 2021

[1] http://chpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/CHPI-PatientSafety-Aug2014.pdf  (para 47)

11 December 2015

UNPRECEDENTED CONCESSIONS BY INTERPOL OVER UNLAWFUL RED NOTICES FOR BUSINESSMEN RIZVI AND AL-WARRAQ

• Red Notice cancellations and public announcements success for British businessman, Mr Rafat Ali Rizvi, and Saudi National, Mr Hesham Al-Warraq
• Indonesia now faces increased difficulty in demanding enforcement abroad of its unlawfully-obtained domestic convictions of Rizvi and Al-Warraq
• Former interpol chief lawyer, Dr Rutsel Martha, helps to deliver unprecedented remedies for his clients, Rizvi & Al-Warraq

London:   INTERPOL has cancelled the hotly-disputed Red Notices issued against Mr Rafat Ali Rizvi and Mr Hesham al-Warraq. INTERPOL has also taken the unusual step of announcing the cancellations on its public website [http://www.interpol.int/News-and-media/News/2015/N2015-115] and highlighting the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Arbitral Award in favour of Al-Warraq.

Advised by Dr. Rutsel Martha of Lindeborg Ltd (London) and Mr. George Burn of Vinson & Elkins LLP (London), Interpol’s concession is a long-overdue but highly welcomed result for Mr Rizvi and Mr Al-Warraq.

Dr Martha brought to bear his intimate and unique perspective and unrivalled expertise on INTERPOL matters to secure:

• The cancellation of the Red Notices against al-Warraq and Rizvi, as well as the deletion of all information concerning them from INTERPOL’s police files;
• Confirmation letters signed and send by INTERPOL to risk profiling agencies, such as World-Check, Lexis Nexis, specified due diligence companies etc.
• Formal letters addressed to Mr Rizvi and Mr al-Warraq certifying their status in relation to INTERPOL;
• Cancellation letters to specified law enforcement agencies of all 190 INTERPOL member countries; and,
• A public statement to remain on INTERPOL’s public website confirming the foregoing.

Such results have never been obtained before from INTERPOL.

The Red Notices cancellations and announcements mark the second major success for Dr. Martha and Mr. Burn acting as co-counsels, the first being to procure the OIC Award in Al-Warraq v Indonesia (15 December 2014)[1], rendering Indonesia’s proclaimed international repatriation of ‘their’ assets a major uphill battle[2].

The Red Notices were first issued by INTERPOL at the request of National Central Bureau of Jakarta when Mr. Rizvi and Mr. Al-Warraq were embroiled in the politically controversial Bank Century bailout in Indonesia. The Red Notices have severely affected the lives and businesses of Rizvi and Al Warraq and of some people very close to them. INTERPOL’s concessions betray its acknowledgement that mere cancellation of the Red Notices would not have sufficed to undo the consequences suffered by Rizvi and Al Warraaq,.

According to the Tribunal in the OIC Award, Indonesia’s conduct in the prosecution and criminal conviction of Mr. Al-Warraq breached the fair and equitable treatment standard.

Further background:

Indonesia owed fair and equitable treatment to Mr Al-Warraq under the OIC Agreement by virtue of the most-favoured-nations treatment clause in the said treaty. Mr Al-Warraq challenged Indonesia’s treatment of him at the OIC Tribunal which found Indonesia breached this fair and equitable treatment standard and was therefore responsible for an internationally wrongful act. The Tribunal also aligned itself with the view that the fair and equitable treatment in international investment law imply a respect of human rights norms and, in particular, those concerning fair trial and due process. The Tribunal declared Indonesia culpable for a “[f]ailure to comply with the most basic elements of justice when conducting a criminal proceedings” against Mr. Al-Warraq.

These findings of the Tribunal have a number of implications in international law. Firstly, by virtue of Article 17.2(d) of the OIC Agreement, the Tribunal’s ruling renders Mr. Al Warraq’s conviction null and void. Article 17.2(d) provides that awards are “…final and cannot be contested. They are binding on both parties who must respect and implement them. They shall have the force of judicial decisions…The contracting parties are under an obligation to implement them… as if it were a final and enforceable decision of its national courts.” As a result of the OIC award therefore, the criminal convictions of Mr. Al Warraq and Mr. Rizvi in Indonesia can be considered as having been de facto overruled.

Secondly, it means that no state should render any aid or assistance to Indonesia’s internationally wrongful act. All states therefore have an obligation to decline mutual assistance and cooperation in relation to the criminal convictions.

Thirdly, it implies that no international organization, including INTERPOL, should render any aid or assistance to an internationally wrongful act. By issuing a Red Notice based on Indonesia’s unlawful criminal convictions, INTERPOL aided and assisted Indonesia’s wrongful conduct. By aiding and assisting, INTERPOL itself committed a wrongful act, which triggers the obligation to cease the wrongful act and to offer assurances and guarantees of non-repetition, by cancelling the Red Notices.

Lastly, according to INTERPOL’s own internal rules, the determinations of the OIC Tribunal have a direct consequence on whether the Red Notices continue to meet INTERPOL’s internal standards for publication of Red Notices.

Given that, according to the INTERPOL’s Rules on the Processing of Data, the requesting country should not be acting in breach of any of its international obligations, and also that the request should be of interest for the purposes of international police cooperation, the Red Notices published against Mr. Rizvi and Mr. Al- Warraq cannot be considered to have satisfied the conditions

The Red Notices against Mr. Rizvi and Mr. Al- Warraq were provisionally blocked in October 2014. After intense intervention by Dr Martha and Mr Burn, on 18 August 2015 they were, finally, permanently cancelled and deleted by INTERPOL.

This means that no National Central Bureau can use INTERPOL’s channels with respect to the matters raised in the Red Notices, that all internal and public databases are be updated to reflect these cancellations, and that the National Central Bureaux of the UK, Saudi Arabia, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Indonesia in particular have been notified of this outcome. As a result, Mr. Rizvi and Mr. Al-Warraq will be able to travel and conduct business without restriction

Dr. Rutsel Martha is a London based international legal consultant since 2014. Dr Martha is the former General Counsel of INTERPOL and author of, among others, “The Legal Foundations of INTERPOL” (Hart Publishing, 2010) and “The Financial Obligation in International Law” (OUP, 2015). He has held academic posts in National University of Singapore Law School and Washington College of Law of the American University, and has published extensively on this subject matter. His works on international law include: “Challenging Acts of INTERPOL in Domestic Courts” (In: Challenging Acts of International Organizations Before National Courts, Ed. A. Reinisch, OUP, 2010), and “Remedies Against INTERPOL” (Online: 2007). 
He has handled cases before a wide variety of international courts, tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies, including the ILOAT, ICJ, INTERPOL’s CCF etc.

The firm’s (Lindeborg LLP) clients include former heads of State, former senior government officials, industrialists and business executives facing adversity at the hands of governments and international bodies, or business disputes converted into criminal allegations. Typically, clients seek the firm’s assistance with challenging INTERPOL, fighting extradition requests in domestic courts, challenging UN, EU and US sanctions, supporting asylum requests, and opposing Mutual Legal Assistance requests regarding assets freezes and confiscations or addressing the consequences of inaccurate and negative publication and reporting.

The successful result for Messers Rizvi and Al-Warraq is testament to Dr Martha’s unique experience, knowledge and skills acquired as a member of the select group of public international lawyers. It seems safe to say that those frustrated by INTERPOL’s actions now have, in Dr Martha, someone uniquely experienced to turn to who can overcome INTERPOL’s opaque ways of dealing with complainants.

Mr. George Burn is a partner in the Vinson & Elkins International Dispute Resolution Group. His practice covers both Investor-State arbitration and commercial arbitration.  He has a wealth of experience in cases that involve issues of public international law, private international law, and complex or novel issues of jurisdiction. As well as acting as counsel, he regularly sits as an arbitrator. His cases to date have been under the rules of the ICC, the LCIA, UNCITRAL, the CRCICA, the LCIA India and the OIC Investment Agreement, and under the default rules in England’s Arbitration Act of 1996.

[1] “Convictions overturned in Bank Century arbitration”, CDR News, 7 January 2015 (http://www.cdr-news.com/categories/arbitration-and-adr/convictions-overturned-in-bank-century-arbitration)

[2] “OIC ruling postpones asset repatriation” Haeril Halim, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | National | Mon, April 27 2015, 6:06 AM (http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/04/27/oic-ruling-postpones-asset-repatriation.html)

24 August 2015

Melanie Riley is quoted in an article by The Evening Standard on the extradition of David McIntyre following the Secretary of State’s refusal to reconsider her decision.

View full story

15 July 2013

Melanie Riley and Michael Caplan QC, Criminal Law Partner at Kingsley Napley LLP, discuss the benefits of attending a live trial rather than watching an edited broadcast of one, in an article by Solicitors Journal.

View full story

12 July 2013

Melanie Riley is quoted in an article by the Daily Telegraph on the US government’s agreement to negotiate with the Home Office and Ministry of Justice to allow more Britons to face trial in this country.

View full story

15 March 2012

Melanie Riley is quoted in an article by PR Week discussing how legal action against those on Twitter is likely to grow, if the individuals behind tweets are identifiable.

View full story

26 May 2011

Melanie Riley features in an article by PR Week on televising court trials.

View full story

5 October 2011

Melanie Riley talks to Russia Today about the UK government’s decision to adjourn Gary McKinnon’s hearing and reconsider the case for a UK trial.

View full interview

21 May 2010