Law firms pocket $25 million in mega-merger deal
Six law firms have been paid around AU$25 million for their part in the $42 billion merger between Japan’s Softbank and UK chipmaker ARM.
Slaughter and May, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
, Davis Polk & Wardwell and Morrison & Foerster advised ARM and the scheme document shows their combined fees as £9.03 million ($15.8 million).
Meanwhile, Freshfields and Morrison Foerster acted for Softbank, led by Freshfields’ global co-head of M&A Ben Spiers together with MoFo’s Japan managing partner Ken Siegel. The firms’ combined fees were £5.5 million ($9.6 million.)
Alternative law providers must be equally regulated says Law Society
The Law Society of England & Wales has responded to the UK government’s consultation on reducing the barriers to organizations becoming Alternative Business Structures to provide legal services.
Although ABS are new entrants to the legal profession, the Law Society believes that they will be fully-integrated into the profession by 2020 and will compete with small and medium law firms.
“The Law Society is supportive of ABS; they provide choice for solicitors as well as their clients. However, it is critical that the regulatory framework, including client protection, is equal for ABS and solicitors' firms as this will enable fair competition, which benefits clients and is in the public interest,” commented Catherine Dixon, Law Society CEO.
IP practice strengthened at Stephenson Harwood
Jonathan Chu has joined the Hong Kong office of Stephenson Harwood as a partner in its IP practice. His practice focuses on contentious IP issues across multiple sectors including entertainment, manufacturing, energy, media and retail. He joins from William W.L. Fan & Co where he was a partner.
Lawyer sues Pokémon Go makers for encouraging trespassing
A personal-injury lawyer in the US has filed a lawsuit against the makers of the Pokémon Go app claiming that their product encourages trespassing; and he is hoping it will gain class action status.
Jeffrey Marder’s case, filed in the US Federal Court in San Francisco, accuses Niantic Inc. of releasing a product “without properly considering how it would affect property owners and their duties to the public,” Marder’s representative told the New York Post.