4 Must-Know cases and deals

Hi this is ZipLaw!

The following deadlines are coming up! Use ZipTracker to stand out in your applications (we have deals & court cases for all of them) 🙌

• 📅 Allen & Overy TC – 17 November
• 📅 Clifford Chance TC – 23 November
• 📅 Slaughter and May TC – 30 November
• 📅 CMS TC – 4 December

Here’s some court cases and deals these Law Firms (and more!) acted on. Use them to stand out in applications and interviews.

Citigroup Trader Tribunal

In Short: Ian Weir, a former Citigroup sales trader, challenges his dismissal at a London Employment Tribunal, claiming he was scapegoated for regulatory failures in Citigroup's Asian equities business and asserting his compliance with rules when issuing stock "indications of interest."

Case Background and Current Status:
Ian Weir, previously handling Asia-Pacific markets in London, alleges he was wrongfully terminated for gross misconduct in June 2021 amid Citigroup's response to a fine imposed by Hong Kong's securities regulator for mislabelling stock indications of interest and misrepresenting trade information. Weir contends he followed procedures he believed compliant, lacking proper training and guidance from Citigroup.

What are the parties arguing?

• Weir's Argument: Weir asserts his innocence, claiming the indications of interest he published were based on legitimate data and client interest. He argues that his actions were in line with the practices and advice he received from senior management and that he was not adequately trained or informed about the compliance aspects by Citigroup.
• Citigroup's Counterargument: Citigroup challenges Weir's assertions, suggesting that the competitive nature of the market might have led Weir to issue misleading indications of interest. The bank also questions the clarity and consistency of Weir's explanations regarding his practices.

Key Legal Points to discuss in applications & interviews:

1. Regulatory Compliance in High-Stakes Markets: The case highlights the complexities and importance of regulatory compliance in international financial markets. It underscores the challenges faced by individuals and institutions in navigating these regulations, especially in dynamic and competitive environments like stock trading.
2. Individual Accountability vs. Institutional Responsibility: This case focus the debate on where the responsibility lies in cases of regulatory breaches – with the individual employees or the institutions they represent. Weir's claim of being a scapegoat points to potential gaps in Citigroup's training and compliance systems.
3. Procedural Fairness in Disciplinary Actions: The case also raises questions about the fairness and transparency of disciplinary processes within large corporations. Weir's claim that his position was advertised before the conclusion of his disciplinary hearing suggests potential pre-judgment and a lack of impartiality, which are critical considerations in employment law.

Who is advising on this?

• Ian Weir: Joshua Jackson of Cloisters Chambers.
• Citigroup: Simon Forshaw of 11KBW, instructed by Clifford Chance.

Vale vs. BHP Dam Collapse Litigation

In Short: Mining giant Vale is battling in a London court to avoid sharing a massive £36 billion bill with BHP for damages caused by the collapse of a dam in Brazil in 2015.

Case Background and Current Status:
The case is about who should pay for the disaster caused by the Fundão dam breaking. This dam was run by both Vale and BHP. Now, over 732,000 Brazilians are suing BHP, and Vale is being dragged into the case too. Vale argues that the High Court in London didn’t pay enough attention to similar court cases happening in Brazil, which might lead to different decisions in both countries. Vale is also unhappy with the trial date in 2024, saying their legal team won’t be fully ready by then.

What are the parties arguing?

• Vale's Side: Vale, through their lawyer Simon Salzedo KC, argues that the High Court focused too much on what’s happening in England and overlooked the court cases in Brazil. This, they say, could result in conflicting decisions from English and Brazilian courts. Vale also questions whether, under Brazilian law, BHP can ask for money from Vale before a verdict is reached.
• BHP's Side: Shaheed Fatima KC, BHP’s lawyer, disagrees. She says the judge did consider the Brazilian cases and Vale is misinterpreting what the judge said. BHP believes the case should be heard in the English court.

Key Legal Points to discuss in applications & interviews:

1. Different Courts, Different Decisions: This case shows the challenge when the same issue is being looked at in courts in two countries. It’s a key example of how tricky international legal cases can be, especially when different countries have different legal rules.
2. Brazilian Law in English Courts: The argument about whether Brazilian law allows BHP to ask Vale for money before any final decision highlights the difficulty of using one country’s law in another country’s court. It’s an interesting point for understanding how laws from one place are used in international cases.
3. Choosing the Court: The debate over whether the case should be in England or Brazil is about finding the best place for the trial. This is important in international cases, where choosing the right court can really affect the outcome.

Who is advising on this?