Business & Commercial Disputes

Business & Commercial Disputes

Business & Commercial Disputes

Download PDFDownload PDF
Print
Share

Overview

Clients across the globe turn to us for guidance on navigating their complex business disputes when their commercial and reputational interests are at stake. Our lawyers offer clear, concise and efficient advice on the full range of commercial claims that enable our clients to gain the best result. We focus on carrying out our clients’ business objectives as effectively and efficiently as possible, whether that means trying a dispute to a final decision in an arbitration or in court or crafting and executing litigation strategies designed to leverage a commercial resolution.

We are a leading disputes practice, representing corporates, financial institutions, and governments in complex commercial litigation in the Courts and Tribunals. We have a proven track record of advising domestic and multinational companies across a broad range of sectors, including banking and financial services, food and agribusiness, manufacturing, retail, digital services and technology, energy, health care and life sciences, sports, media and entertainment, and hospitality. While we are geographically diverse, we are also “one firm” and assemble teams of lawyers with the skills and background needed to tackle our clients’ issues – across the globe.

We also have a strong record in the United States of resolving disputes through dispositive motion practice and, globally, through alternative dispute resolution, including mediation and other pre-trial strategies. Our experience, combined with the use of cutting-edge technology and an understanding of large-scale data, translate to positive and cost-effective results for our clients.

600+

Number of commercial disputes lawyers across the globe

20+

Number of lawyers with Higher Rights of Audience

8+

Number of fellows of the American College of Trial Lawyers in our U.S. trial teams. As well as several former assistant United States attorneys and numerous former district, circuit and U.S. Supreme Court clerks.

[BCLP] leaves clients feeling very happy with the overall level of service; its well-resourced team quickly grasps the key issues and its commercial approach adds value to litigation

Legal 500 UK

Using Data and Technology 

At BCLP, the imperative to innovate arises from our deep commitment to client service. We know our clients must operate with nimbleness and strength in an ever more challenging marketplace, and we expect the same of ourselves. Modern litigation requires an understanding of relevant technologies and the ability to manage large-scale data.  We are experienced in both of these areas and with the legal requirements for data preservation and production as well as how to use data strategically to enhance case results and hold down costs.

Using Data and Technology 

At BCLP, the imperative to innovate arises from our deep commitment to client service. We know our clients must operate with nimbleness and strength in an ever more challenging marketplace, and we expect the same of ourselves. Modern litigation requires an understanding of relevant technologies and the ability to manage large-scale data.  We are experienced in both of these areas and with the legal requirements for data preservation and production as well as how to use data strategically to enhance case results and hold down costs.

The team’s obvious expertise in the process and their willingness to stand behind its effectiveness which convinced us. The time and cost savings were hugely beneficial, but the real benefit was the confidence the process gave us that we had identified the appropriate documents from a huge amount of data and electronic communication. The win in the High Court is the ultimate measure of success for us.

Group Legal Director, FTSE 250 company

Robert J. Hoffman

Partner and Co-Global Practice Group Leader - Business and Commercial Disputes, Kansas City / Los Angeles

+1 816 374 3229

Graham Shear

EMEA Regional Leader – Litigations & Investigations and Co-Global Practice Group Leader – Business and Commercial Disputes, London

+44 (0) 20 3400 4191

Robert J. Hoffman

Partner and Co-Global Practice Group Leader - Business and Commercial Disputes, Kansas City / Los Angeles

+1 816 374 3229

Graham Shear

EMEA Regional Leader – Litigations & Investigations and Co-Global Practice Group Leader – Business and Commercial Disputes, London

+44 (0) 20 3400 4191

Meet The Team

Robert J. Hoffman

Partner and Co-Global Practice Group Leader - Business and Commercial Disputes, Kansas City / Los Angeles

+1 816 374 3229

Graham Shear

EMEA Regional Leader – Litigations & Investigations and Co-Global Practice Group Leader – Business and Commercial Disputes, London

+44 (0) 20 3400 4191

Experience

  • Defending global provider of crop inputs and services in personal injury cases nationwide, including chemical exposure and catastrophic personal injury claims.
  • Acting for Legal and General (L&G), in a ground-breaking claim against Glencore. We are bringing novel claims under section 90A and Schedule 10A to FSMA 2000. L&G’s claims are being case managed together with claims brought by various major asset managers and institutional investors.  This group litigation, valued at around £1 billion, is at the forefront of securities actions in this jurisdiction.
  • Successfully defended a billion-dollar lawsuit filed against Leprino Foods Company and its majority shareholders, including Chairman and CEO James G. Leprino, ending nearly two and a half years of litigation. 
  • Acting for Tata Consultancy Services in relation to a dispute concerning a high value, long term outsourcing agreement with the Disclosure and Barring Service. Having been featured in The Lawyer’s Top 20 cases of 2023 and tipped to be one of the biggest IT trials of recent years.  A judgment is expected in the first half of 2024.
  • Obtained a significant victory for McLear & Co., a technology startup that designs and manufactures electronic smart rings, including payment rings, in a three-week trade secrets jury trial in the Northern District of California. McLear asserted three claims against a former officer and her company stole McLear's patent for the smart rings and then claimed they had the exclusive right to sell these rings in the U.S.
  • Acting for EE Limited in ongoing litigation against Virgin Mobile.  This high-profile dispute centres around the interpretation of exclusivity provisions concerning the migration of existing, and addition of 5G customers by Virgin Mobile.
  • Acting as lead trial and appellate counsel for Lumen Technologies in connection with various municipal license tax matters throughout the State of Missouri.
  • Acting for Playtech in a high-value contractual dispute with Caliplay SA. This hard-fought dispute has developed into a multi-jurisdictional engagement requiring us to provide urgent strategic advice and muster forces in Mexico to keep the claim in England alive at the same time as conducting the claim in England.
  • Defended global specialty pharmaceutical market-leader Mallinckrodt LLC and its subsidiary SpecGx LLC in an action for alleged trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract in federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by Genus Lifesciences Inc. in connection with Genus’s local anesthetic drug Goprelto. 
  • Acting for the Asturion Fondation – a foundation established to hold assets on behalf of the Saudi royal family – in highly contested proceedings for the recovery of an ultra-high value property portfolio including property in London. The case was identified by The Lawyer as one of their Top 20 cases for 2023 and the trial took place in October 2023.
  • Representing a global leader in the food & beverages industry in a multimillion claim involving antitrust, trade secret, business interference, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
  • Defended seller against claims of fraud, indemnification, breach of reps and warranties, and various investigations by U.S. Attorney’s office and various regulatory agencies in connection with a $550 million sale of a healthcare business; all contemplated charges were dropped and civil claims were settled for an amount below the funds remaining in the escrow account.

Related Insights

Insights
Jun 28, 2024

HK court clarified and confirmed that orders for interim measures cannot be challenged using the grounds for setting aside final awards

In G v N [2024] HKCFI 721 (judgment date: 11 March 2024), a Hong Kong court dismissed an application to set aside the enforcement of an interim order which an arbitrator had made requiring a party to take steps to dismiss the proceedings commenced by it against the other party and the other party’s subsidiaries. In doing so, the court considered and clarified the distinction between interim measures and awards for the purpose of enforcement and setting-aside proceedings, and the separate regimes that apply to them.
Insights
Jun 26, 2024

The Hong Kong Court Dismisses Challenge to Remove Arbitrators on Ground of Apparent Bias

In P v D [2024] HKCFI 1123 (judgment date: 30 April 2024), the Hong Kong Court of First Instance dismissed an application, pursuant to section 26 of the Arbitration Ordinance, by the challenging party (“P”) to remove two arbitrators (“Impugned Arbitrators”) in an HKIAC administered arbitration governed by the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, pursuant to section 26 of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609).
Insights
Jun 25, 2024

HK court considered the proper scope of the court’s intervention against an arbitral tribunal’s ruling regarding public policy

In G v N [2023] HKCFI 3366 (judgment date: 29 December 2023), a Hong Kong court considered the question of whether and to what extent it is open for the court to review an arbitrator’s ruling on matters of public policy. The court stayed the enforcement of the award and remitted the award to the arbitrator. Later, in [2024] HKCFI 655 (judgment date: 9 February 2024), the same judge considered the case to have raised an “important and novel” question as to what is the proper scope of judicial intervention in arbitral awards on grounds of public policy, and granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Related Insights

Insights
Jun 28, 2024
HK court clarified and confirmed that orders for interim measures cannot be challenged using the grounds for setting aside final awards
In G v N [2024] HKCFI 721 (judgment date: 11 March 2024), a Hong Kong court dismissed an application to set aside the enforcement of an interim order which an arbitrator had made requiring a party to take steps to dismiss the proceedings commenced by it against the other party and the other party’s subsidiaries. In doing so, the court considered and clarified the distinction between interim measures and awards for the purpose of enforcement and setting-aside proceedings, and the separate regimes that apply to them.
Insights
Jun 26, 2024
The Hong Kong Court Dismisses Challenge to Remove Arbitrators on Ground of Apparent Bias
In P v D [2024] HKCFI 1123 (judgment date: 30 April 2024), the Hong Kong Court of First Instance dismissed an application, pursuant to section 26 of the Arbitration Ordinance, by the challenging party (“P”) to remove two arbitrators (“Impugned Arbitrators”) in an HKIAC administered arbitration governed by the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, pursuant to section 26 of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609).
Insights
Jun 25, 2024
Adoption of the EU CSDDD (Corporate sustainability due diligence)
Insights
Jun 25, 2024
ESG continues to face courts in France
Insights
Jun 25, 2024
HK court considered the proper scope of the court’s intervention against an arbitral tribunal’s ruling regarding public policy
In G v N [2023] HKCFI 3366 (judgment date: 29 December 2023), a Hong Kong court considered the question of whether and to what extent it is open for the court to review an arbitrator’s ruling on matters of public policy. The court stayed the enforcement of the award and remitted the award to the arbitrator. Later, in [2024] HKCFI 655 (judgment date: 9 February 2024), the same judge considered the case to have raised an “important and novel” question as to what is the proper scope of judicial intervention in arbitral awards on grounds of public policy, and granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Insights
Jun 25, 2024
Unauthorised transactions: Exclusive application of the PSP liability regime
News
Jun 07, 2024
BCLP Partner Michael Hofmann recognized as a BTI Client Service All-Star
News
May 24, 2024
BCLP trial team saves client from monetary reputational damages in years-long dispute
News
May 24, 2024
BCLP’s strategic defense in herbicide dispute secures win for Nutrien Ag Solutions, Inc.