Rebecca Findlay is an associate in the firm's London office, and focuses her practice on white collar and general commercial litigation. Rebecca joined White & Case in January 2016 from a leading international law firm.

In 2013/14, Rebecca spent 6 months on secondment to the Legal department of the Enforcement Division of the Financial Conduct Authority, where she worked on a wide range of matters, including matters before the Regulatory Decisions Committee and a trial in the Financial Services Upper Tribunal.

During her training contract, Rebecca undertook a secondment to the High Court, acting as a judicial assistant to two High Court judges, with time in the Chancery Division, Queen’s Bench Division (including the Commercial Court) and the Criminal Court of Appeal.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) sets forth the requirements for the retention of electronically stored information ("ESI") and the corresponding sanctions available to remedy the loss of ESI. New amendments to Rule 37(e) came into effect on December 1, 2015 in an effort to create a uniform federal standard and to focus on a parties'"reasonable efforts" in preserving ESI. Prior to the amendments, federal courts lacked uniformity in granting spoliation sanctions, and a defendant's exposure to such sanctions often varied depending on the jurisdiction where the plaintiff decided to file the complaint. The standards for granting the harshest spoliation sanctions—dismissal and an adverse inference instruction—broadly ranged from a showing of "bad faith"[1] to proof of negligence.[2] This inconsistent approach to the treatment of preservation obligations and sanctions among the courts caused confusion in litigation and led to heightened expenses for parties who over-preserved ESI for fear of sanctions. The new language of Rule 37(e) attempts to address these issues by clarifying two types of standards:

1. If a party's spoliation was unintentional but prejudicial, a court may order remedial measures "no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice."[3]  
2. If the spoliation was intentional, a court may presume the lost information was unfavorable, grant an adverse jury instruction, dismiss the action, or grant a default judgment.[4]  

These revisions are intended to create uniformity in federal courts, and ensure that sanctions are proportional to the degree of intent attributed to the party responsible for the spoliation and the harm caused to the opposing party. The extent of the uniformity greatly depends on how district courts will interpret the amendments moving forward. While decisions applying the amended rule have just started issuing, its impact can already be seen. This article provides a brief overview of the revisions to Rule 37(e) and concludes with 5 practical implications that serve as a guide for steps companies may take to comply with the revised rule.

Spoliation Sanctions Under the Prior Rule

The prior Rule 37(e) simply stated: "Absent exceptional circumstances, a court may not impose sanctions under these rules on a party for failing to provide electronically stored information lost as a result of the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system."[5]

Many courts considered the previous language of Rule 37(e) very limiting, given that it suggested sanctions for ESI spoliation only applied in "exceptional circumstances," and could never apply to routine, unintentional destruction of evidence.[6]  Some courts even interpreted the rule as a type of "safe harbor" section that protected parties who inadvertently destroyed ESI.[7]  Although courts recognized that Rule 37(e) authorized them to impose discovery sanctions as a result of ESI spoliation, many of them were reluctant to invoke the rule in most spoliation cases that simply involved routine information maintenance practices.[8] As a consequence, even though courts previously granted sanctions or other discovery remedies for ESI spoliation, they did not frequently refer to Rule 37 as the source authorizing their discovery orders.[9]

Rather than relying on Rule 37(e) whenever they granted spoliation remedies or sanctions, courts opted to invoke their "inherent authority" to oversee and control their cases.[10] Because there were no federal guidelines for the application of spoliation sanctions when courts invoked this authority, federal circuits developed various approaches, creating inconsistencies and uncertainty in the discovery process.  For example, courts in the Ninth Circuit granted terminating sanctions including dismissals and summary judgments when there was evidence of "bad faith" on the part of the offending party.[11] Similarly, courts in the Fifth Circuit required evidence of "culpability" or "willful spoliation" when imposing an adverse inference instruction on the offending party.[12] In contrast, the courts in the Second Circuit merely required a showing of negligent behavior when granting the same exact sanction for ESI spoliation.[13] As a consequence, a party whose negligence resulted in the destruction of ESI could avoid the harshest spoliation sanctions in the Ninth and Fifth Circuits, but would be severely punished in the Second Circuit.

Spoliation Sanctions Under the Amended Rule

The language of the amended rule sets forth requirements for applying the rule, and authorizes two distinct types of discovery remedies depending on the level of culpability that caused the spoliation, assuming certain prerequisites are met.

Four prerequisites

Revised Rule 37(e) recites four prerequisites every court should find prior to authorizing discovery remedies:

1. ESI is at issue in the case;
2. a duty to preserve ESI has been triggered;
3. no "reasonable steps" were taken to preserve the information; and
4. the lost information cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery.[14]

The advisory committee stated that the amendments to Rule 37(e) were not meant to alter the existing law regarding a party's "duty to preserve" information, and courts should still rely on the same common law standard they had previously applied.[15] For instance, in the Ninth Circuit, a party has a duty to preserve relevant ESI "as soon as a potential claim is identified."[16] In regard to the interpretation of "reasonable steps" for the preservation of ESI, the advisory committee stressed that this requirement does not call for perfect preservation of all information; instead, courts should focus on proportionality and should consider the importance of the information, the sophistication of the parties, and the resources available to each party.[17]

Two Types of Sanctions

The revisions highlight the emphasis on proportional sanctions by setting forth two types of remedies available depending on a party's level of intent once the four prerequisites are established. First, if the spoliation was the result of negligence or inadvertence, and the non-offending party suffered prejudice as a result, then a court is authorized to "order measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice."[18] The rule leaves judges with wide latitude in determining the presence of prejudice in a particular case.[19] The advisory committee suggests that judges should focus on the importance of the lost information and on placing the burden of proof in a fair manner, depending on the facts of a case.[20] If unintentional spoliation creates prejudice, a court is only authorized to order a remedy that is proportional to the harm caused and cannot grant the severe sanctions authorized in cases of intentional misconduct.  In one of the first cases to substantively consider the amended rule, the Southern District of California recognized the new focus on proportionality in spoliation sanctions, and applied the amended Rule 37(e) to vacate an order granting an adverse inference sanction when there was no evidence of intentional spoliation.[21]  

Second, if a court finds that the spoliation resulted from an "intent to deprive" the other party of information, then a court may grant the harshest sanctions against the culpable party, including an adverse inference, dismissal, or default judgment.[22] This part of the rule creates a uniform standard that courts should apply when considering the most severe sanctions, and replaces the contrasting and conflicting standards that federal courts developed using their "inherent authority." The extent of uniformity will depend on how jurisdictions interpret the rule. In the only other decision substantively applying the updated rule to date, the Southern District of New York held that the new rule prevents courts from using a negligence standard to grant the most severe spoliation sanctions, but it did not entirely preclude courts from relying on inherent authority to grant sanctions if Rule 37(e) is inapplicable.[23] In interpreting this new "intent to deprive" standard, it is likely that courts will refer to the "bad faith" standards previously used for harsh discovery sanctions.[24] Given the amendment's emphasis on proportionality, it is not surprising that the advisory committee stated that these severe sanctions are not mandatory, even when there is evidence of intent, and that a court should consider less drastic measures when appropriate.[25]

Practical Implications

The amendments to Rule 37(e) can have a substantial effect on how courts issue remedial discovery orders. Clients should consider the following implications:

1. Remain Aware of Your Duty to Preserve– The commentary to the rule was explicit in stating that the amendments did not alter a party's duty to preserve ESI.[26] As a consequence, clients need to monitor all potential litigation and remain vigilant as to when this duty arises. Once this duty arises, clients should proactively issue a litigation hold to maintain all relevant ESI in their possession and control.
2. No Need to Over-Preserve ESI– The new focus on the importance of the ESI lost and the proportionality of the remedy should ease concerns that you need to maintain all of your ESI intact during a litigation hold.  If information is stored in two separate locations, there would not be a need to preserve both forms, given that the rule allows parties to replace lost information with additional discovery. As the advisory committee indicated, perfect preservation of ESI is not required.[27]
3. Always Employ "Reasonable Efforts" When Preserving ESI– A client must use preservation efforts that are reasonable considering the facts of the case. "Perfection in preserving all relevant electronically stored information" is not necessary,[28] and duplicative information may not be maintained if it could be replaced in the event it is lost. The term "reasonable efforts" is not defined in the rule, but the advisory committee notes that a court will consider the sophistication and the resources of the party required to preserve ESI.[29] It is likely that courts will expect more robust preservation practices, and will be less lenient, towards defendants who have experience in information technology systems. 
4. Although It Cannot Lead to a Default Judgment, Negligent Spoliation Is Still Risky – The negligent destruction of evidence can no longer lead to the most severe discovery sanctions under Rule 37(e). Nevertheless, if the negligent spoliation creates prejudice on the opposing party, it may result in other damaging sanctions, including the exclusion of supporting evidence and allowing for the presentation of evidence to the jury regarding the loss of information.
5. New Focus on Proportionality May Lead to Lower Discovery Costs– Considering Rule 37(e) was meant to address the costly problem of over-preserving ESI, it should be expected that the rule's new emphasis on proportionality and the importance of the information lost will reduce discovery expenses. With this new structure, courts should not be as strict in requiring parties to preserve all of their ESI during a litigation hold.

Although these changes should create uniformity among federal courts, the interpretation of Amended Rule 37(e) and its effect on the discovery of ESI are issues that should be carefully monitored.

[1] Vick v. Texas Employment Comm'n, 514 F.2d 734, 737 (5th Cir. 1975); Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 959 (9th Cir. 2006).
[2] Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Fin. Corp., 306 F.3d 99, 108 (2d Cir. 2002).
[3] Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(1).
[4] Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(2).
[5] Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) (2006).
[6] See, e.g., Grove City Veterinary Serv., LLC v. Charter Practices Int'l, LLC, No. 3:13-cv-02276-AC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108491, at *5-6 (D. Or. Aug. 18, 2015); Coburn v. PN II, No. 2:07-cv-00662-KJD-LRL, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110613, at *3 (D. Nev. Sep. 30, 2010).
[7] Coburn, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110613, at *10.
[8] See Gonzalez v. City of San Jose, No. 5:13-cv-00695-BLF, 2014 WL 6687138, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2014); Coburn, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110613, at *10.
[9] See, e.g., Pension Comm. of the Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of Am. Secs., LLC, 685 F. Supp. 2d 456, 464 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).
[10] See id.
[11] Leon, 464 F.3d at 958-59.
[12] Vick, 514 F.2d at 737; Gateway Senior Hous., Ltd. v. MMA Fin., Inc., No. 1:06-cv-458, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109947, at *19-20 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 4, 2008).
[13] DeGeorge, 306 F.3d at 108.
[14] Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e).
[15] Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) advisory committee's note to 2015 amendment.
[16] Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 888 F. Supp. 2d 976, 991 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (quoting In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litig., 462 F. Supp. 2d 1060, 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2006)).
[17] Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) advisory committee's note to 2015 amendment.
[18] Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(1).
[19] Because the term "prejudice" remains undefined in the rule, it is likely courts will refer to the common law definition applied in their circuits. See Allen v. Bayer Corp. (In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig.), 460 F.3d 1217, 1227 (9th Cir. 2006) (prejudice exists when spoliation "threaten[s] to interfere with the rightful decision of the case" (internal quotation marks omitted)); FDIC v. Conner, 20 F.3d 1376, 1381 (5th Cir. 1994) (prejudice means that a party's spoliation impaired the other party's "timely and appropriate preparation for trial" (internal quotation marks omitted)).
[20] Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) advisory committee's note to 2015 amendment.
[21] Nuvasive v. Madsen Med., Inc., 13cv2077 BTM(RBB), 2016 WL 305096, at *6-7 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2016).
[22] Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(2).
[23] CAT3, LLC v. Black Lineage, Inc., 14 Civ. 5511 (AT) (JCF), 2016 WL 154116, at *1-2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2016).
[24] See Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 959 (9th Cir. 2006) (interpreting "bad faith" as "some notice that the documents were potentially relevant to the litigation before they were destroyed"); Vick v. Texas Employment Comm'n, 514 F.2d 734, 737 (5th Cir. 1975) (defining "bad faith" as acts that "sustain an inference of consciousness of a weak case").
[25] Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) advisory committee's note to 2015 amendment.
[26] Id.
[27] Id.
[28] Id.
[29] Id.

This publication is provided for your convenience and does not constitute legal advice. This publication is protected by copyright.
© 2016 White & Case LLP

Anaïs Harlé is an associate in the International Arbitration Practice in Paris.

Prior to joining White & Case, Anaïs acquired experience in the field of international arbitration and litigation at several international law firms, in Paris and in London, as well as within a major arbitral institution.

One of the more controversial portions of the EU's forthcoming General Data Protection Regulation is a provision restricting the ability of EU businesses to comply with demands from non-EU courts for the production of documents containing personal data. However, following a recent announcement by the UK government, these restrictions will not apply to businesses in the UK.

The EU's forthcoming General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR") contains many new provisions that are likely to prove problematic for businesses. One provision that is particularly contentious is Article 43a, which applies to any decision of a non-EU court or authority requiring an EU business to produce documents containing personal data. Article 43a states that any such decision is only enforceable if it is based on an international agreement (such as a mutual legal assistance treaty ("MLAT")). While MLATs are fairly common – for example, an MLAT has been in force between the US and the EU since 2010 – Article 43a would likely require courts and authorities in countries such as the US to formally submit a request pursuant to the treaty, rather than requesting the information directly from the business at issue via subpoena, search warrant, or other court order. Article 43a is sometimes called the 'anti-FISA' provision, because it appears designed to restrict the ability of non-EU courts (including the US court responsible for overseeing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA"), which authorised US mass surveillance programs such as PRISM) to demand the production of documents containing personal data from businesses in the EU. However, the UK government has issued a Written Statement confirming that the restrictions set out in Article 43a will not apply to businesses in the UK.

Click here to download PDF.

This publication is provided for your convenience and does not constitute legal advice. This publication is protected by copyright.
© 2016 White & Case LLP

Josefina Aguila is an associate in the Firm's Commercial Litigation practice group.

Global law firm White & Case LLP has advised Alvogen Inc., a global generic pharmaceuticals company and portfolio company of CVC Capital Partners, in its acquisition of County Line Pharmaceuticals LLC, a specialty generic pharmaceuticals company based in Wisconsin.

The transaction is subject to regulatory approvals and other customary closing conditions.

The White & Case team was led by partner Oliver Brahmst (NY). Other members of the White & Case team included Ian Bagshaw, Matthew Hendy, Amy Hutchings, Raymond Chau, Tom Merrifield and Barry O'Driscoll (M&A); Rebecca Farrington (Antitrust); Jane Plomley and Choi Li (IP); David Dreier and Shea Thompson (Tax); Heather McDevitt (Litigation); Henrik Patel and Kenneth Barr (Employment, Compensation & Benefits); and Seth Kerschner and Laura Mulry (Environmental).

Dennis Orr is a leading trial lawyer who focuses on defending clients in high stakes litigation. Dennis handles complex litigation for leading multinationals in a wide range of industries, most notably the pharmaceutical, food and beverage, consumer product, accounting, and securities industries. He is recognized for his ability to anaylze matters and guide clients through to a practical resolution while addressing their sophisticated business needs.

Having tried more than 40 cases in his career, clients rely on Dennis' track record in a variety of settings – whether it's connecting with juries, deposing key witnesses, or negotiating a settlement. Though he has principally served as a defense lawyer, he has won more than $200 million in verdicts and awards. His success has been recognized by a variety of leading publications, including Chambers USA and Best Lawyers.

Global law firm White & Case LLP announced today that Dennis Orr will join the Firm's Global Commercial Litigation Practice as a partner in its New York office.

Orr, a veteran of more than 40 federal and state court trials, has a history of success in the courtroom, serving as counsel to a wide range of clients facing complex business issues in the pharmaceutical, food and beverage, consumer products and accounting industries, among others. He will leverage the Firm's global platform to represent clients in large commercial, high-stakes and complex litigation.

"We are thrilled about the opportunity to have Dennis join us," says White & Case partner Glenn Kurtz, who heads the Firm's Global Commercial Litigation Practice. "He is a seasoned and highly-regarded litigator who is well ranked in legal-industry directories. His wealth of trial work and experience will add further depth to our practice."

The lawyers in White & Case's Global Commercial Litigation Practice defend the interests of clients in all types of trial, appellate, regulatory and alternative dispute resolution tribunals around the world. They advise financial institutions, large corporations, sovereign governments, executives and directors through their most significant litigation challenges.

Press contact:
For more information, please speak to your local media contact.

The US Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently overturned a decision by the District Court for the Southern District of New York, ruling that the "bespeaks caution" defense to securities disclosure claims applies exclusively to forward-looking statements and not to characterizations that communicate present or historical fact. Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System v. MF Global Ltd. is significant because it underscores the limits of general risk factor and other cautionary disclosures with respect to inaccurate or incomplete statements of present or historical fact.

Click here to download PDF.

This publication is provided for your convenience and does not constitute legal advice. This publication is protected by copyright.
© 2010 White & Case LLP

A new opt-out class action regime was introduced into the UK on 1 October 2015 under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the "CRA"). Since then, practitioners have been waiting patiently; intrigued to see when the first claim would be brought. Six months on, the first claim has now been launched on behalf of a putative class of pensioners and other UK-based buyers of mobility scooters.

This first action has the potential to reveal the true impact of this new form of collective redress for purchasers within and outside the UK. It may also reveal the likely shape of such claims, their practical scope, and their limitations.

A new era

Under the regime introduced by the CRA, it is no longer necessary to bring a collective action on behalf of a group of claimants who have actively "opted-in" to the claim. Instead, in competition cases, a representative action may be brought before the Competition Appeal Tribunal ("CAT") on behalf of a class of claimants on an "opt-out" basis; that is, all members of the class domiciled in the UK are represented unless they actively choose to opt-out from this class. Claimants domiciled outside the UK may also choose to opt-in to the action.

The facts

In 2014, a manufacturer of mobility scooters for the disabled and elderly, Pride Mobility Products, was found guilty by the Office of Fair Trading ("OFT") of breaching competition rules. Pride Mobility had sought to achieve unlawful resale price maintenance, having privately prohibited online retailers from advertising scooters for sale below their recommended retail price. The National Pensioners Convention ("NPC"), a pensioners' welfare association, has launched a class competition claim valued at up to £7.7 million on behalf of potentially overcharged customers. They are now publicising the claim, looking for other class members to come forward.

Funding and risk management

The claim sheds light on how such class actions are likely to be funded. In the US, claims are typically brought on a percentage contingency fee basis (e.g., 30 percent of the class's damages recovery). However, the comparable fee model in the UK (Damages Based Agreements) is expressly disallowed in these types of action; in short, American-style contingency fees are prohibited in UK collective actions. Instead, the NPC's class action has been brought using a combination of a conditional fee agreement (providing for a fee uplift to the lawyers in the event of a successful outcome) and after-the-event insurance (to protect against the representative's potential adverse costs exposure).

Such complex fee structures are often assembled with the backing of third party litigation funders, who will provide funding for legal fees and after-the-event insurance, in return for a portion of any damages recovered. An important step in the proceedings will be for the CAT to review the proposed fee structure and decide whether the sums payable to the representative's lawyers and any third party funders are proportionate. Potential claimants and defendants alike, as well as funders, will be watching this case closely for indications of what the Tribunal will consider acceptable.

Since the class claim is based on the OFT's infringement decision, the CAT will accept that the defendant is liable for the infringement in question, with the issues in the case likely to turn on questions of causation and quantum. So, while the claimants' solicitors, insurers and any funders involved will have assumed a degree of commercial risk in bringing this claim, it is a calculated one.

The empathy that this particular claimant class is likely to induce, and the publicity the claim will attract, is also unlikely to have escaped those who are driving it and who have an interest in showcasing this new type of action.

Contrasts with the US regime

This first action is extremely modest by comparison to the class action claims brought in US antitrust cases. There, the pro-plaintiff costs rules (attorney's fees are recoverable by statute on top of the damages award), joint and several liability of each defendant for the entirety of the damages exposure, the lack of contribution, and the availability of trial by jury and treble damages (three times actual damages), all tip the risk/reward analysis heavily in favour of bringing such claims.

Nevertheless, although the NPC's scooter action is a modest first step, it is one that tests the boundaries of the UK regime and may blaze a trail for more ambitious, higher value claims in the future.

Next steps

The CRA is designed to encourage informal resolution of representative actions. So, despite the fanfare with which the claim was brought, it is possible that the action could prompt without prejudice discussions, with no further formal steps taken. Instead, a collective settlement (which itself would have to be mandated by the CAT) could be reached (in the United States, virtually all antitrust class actions are settled or dismissed at an early stage).

If not, the next phase of the proceedings will be for the representative to apply to the CAT for a Collective Proceedings Order, permitting it to bring the class action. Amongst other things, this would determine the scope of the class of claimants, an issue which could well be hotly contested.

Practitioners and consumer groups alike will be watching closely, as this new field opens out before them.

White & Case team Charles Balmain, Bryan Gant and James Killick discuss the potential for US-style class actions to come to the UK.

White & Case report on handling global investigations.

Click here to download PDF.

This publication is provided for your convenience and does not constitute legal advice. This publication is protected by copyright.
© 2016 White & Case LLP

In its ruling of 17 March 2016, the Belgian Constitutional Court has decided that the Belgian Class Action Law is partially annulled for being discriminatory vis-à-vis European consumer protection organizations.

As a result, the Belgian legislature must review the Class Action Law. Nevertheless, in the meantime, the Constitutional Court decided that Belgian judges have to immediately take into consideration this ruling in order to assess the admissibility of a class representative in Belgium and, in any event, have to declare admissible any organization listed by the EU Commission under article 4(3) of EU Directive 2009/22/EU.

A complete overview of this ruling and its implications will follow.

Andrew is an associate in the Firm's Dispute Resolution group in London. His practice focuses on commercial litigation and international arbitration and covers a variety of sectors, including construction, energy and financial services.

Andrew joined the firm after completing post-graduate studies as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford. He previously practised as a solicitor in Victoria and served as associate to the Chief Justice of Australia.

By decision of 17 March 2016, the Belgian Constitutional Court partially annulled the Belgian Class Action Law for being discriminatory vis-à-vis EU consumer protection organizations of other Member-States.

The Constitutional Court has given interpretation guidelines to Belgian judges on how to extend the scope of the Belgian Class Action Law.

Belgian judges can declare admissible, any EU consumer protection organisation that meets the criteria set forth by the EU Commission in its recommendation on collective redress mechanisms. In any event, Belgian judges have to declare admissible any organization of other Member-States authorized to act under EU Directive on injunctions for the protection of consumers' interests.

As a consequence, a large number of European actors can now act as class representatives in front of Belgian courts. The Belgian legislator should intervene to modify or clarify this solution provided by the Constitutional Court.

In the same ruling, the Constitutional Court dismissed all other grounds for annulment raised by the claimants, confirming the most important aspects of the Belgian Class Action Law: (i) class actions are only available for claims based on facts that occurred after 1st September 2014, (ii) class actions are limited to the protection of consumers, (iii) only consumer protection claimants can initiate a class action (and not attorneys) and (iv) Belgian class representatives still need a ministerial authorization to be admissible.

Click here to download PDF.

This publication is provided for your convenience and does not constitute legal advice. This publication is protected by copyright.
© 2016 White & Case LLP

Laura joined White & Case in 2016 as an associate in the Transactional practice group of our Brussels office. Her practice advises domestic and cross-border clients on all aspects of business law, focusing on the following core areas: banking law, corporate and financial transactions, and data protection.

From 2011 to 2015, Laura performed doctoral research at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel and the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven on data protection, privacy issues and the freedom to conduct business. She has also worked with the New York University School of Law on online behavioral advertising matters.

Prior to her academic work, Laura gained work experience at major international and national law firms, and worked in London and Brussels on corporate and competition matters. She was also involved in the field of commercial litigation.

Laura received an LL.M with a specialization in business and economic law from the New York University School of Law in 2011. While at NYU, she also studied business at the Stern Business School and was captain of the Belgian American Educational Foundation for 2011.

Laura holds Bachelor's and Master's degrees magna cum laude from the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, with a focus on economic and commercial law. As part of her Master's program, she also spent six months in France at the Université de Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines. She is fluent in English, Dutch, and French.

White & Case Brussels was named "Best Law Firm in Litigation & Arbitration" at the 2016 Trends Legal Awards Gala on April 20.

The Trends Legal Awards are organized every year by Trends Tendances magazine, a high-level business magazine that is one of the most-read in Belgium.

The awards recognize law firms in Belgium for excellence in expertise, knowledge and innovation in a legal field. A panel of 34 independent judges from various industries selected the winners.

The panel praised the "high quality of the individual lawyers and the highly qualified staff" at White & Case while also making reference to the firm’s international network and special focus on arbitration "with a clear specialization in complex cases and subjects." The judges said that in 2015, the White & Case litigation and arbitration department "was marked by strong, very diverse cases."

Karolina Brzeska specializes in conducting litigation and arbitration, in particular regarding disputes arising from infrastructure investments (including based on FIDIC book).

Karolina's experience also includes advising on commercial disputes with cross-border elements and labor law disputes.

Before joining White & Case, Karolina gained her experience in leading Polish law firms.

Zaur Gajiev is a Commercial Litigation associate in the Los Angeles office of White & Case.  Zaur represents clients in all stages of litigation before federal and state courts and guides clients through the challenges of complex commercial actions.  His practice focuses on class actions, privacy claims, contract disputes, and consumer protection claims.

Before joining White & Case, Zaur clerked for Judge Richard C. Tallman on the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and Judge William B. Shubb on the US District Court for the Eastern District of California.

During that time, Zaur gained substantial experience in class actions involving consumers' privacy and personal information, internet-based advertisements, mobile and web tracking cookies, and data protection.  Zaur's experience includes class actions involving unauthorized interceptions of communications under the Federal Communications Act, and class actions alleging privacy claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Consumer Credit Protection Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

In addition, Zaur has experience with state consumer protection and privacy claims, lawsuits under the Class Action Fairness Act, motions for class certification, and preliminary and final approvals of class action settlements.

While in law school, Zaur served on the Pepperdine Law Review and worked in the chambers of Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw on the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and Judge S. James Otero on the US District Court for the Central District of California.

Guillaume joined White & Case in 2017 as an associate in the Transactional practice group of the Brussels office.

After completing bachelor's degrees in law and history at the Université Saint Louis de Bruxelles, he obtained a master of law from the Université Catholique de Louvain (magna cum laude). He spent his Erasmus in Rome, where he studied private law. He also holds master’s degrees in history and political science from the Université Catholique de Louvain.

Guillaume advises domestic and cross-border clients on all aspects of business law, focusing on the following core areas: mergers & acquisitions, private equity and venture capital; commercial litigation; restructuring and insolvency.

Global law firm White & Case LLP has promoted 21 lawyers to counsel and 16 to local partner.

"These promotions span 21 offices and 12 global practices, reflecting the quality and achievement of our lawyers and the truly diverse and global nature of our Firm," said White & Case Chairman Hugh Verrier. "Taken as a whole, these lawyers demonstrate the Firm’s ability to advise our clients on their most complex, cross-border legal challenges, wherever they are."

In addition to the internal promotions, White & Case has hired 11 counsel and nine local partners during 2017.

At White & Case, counsel is a role for senior lawyers with significant experience in a particular practice area. The title is used across the Firm, in all offices, as an alternative career path to partnership but does not preclude consideration for promotion to partner.

The position of local partner is offered in select White & Case regions and locations where it is common market practice. At present this includes offices in Asia-Pacific, Central & Eastern Europe, Belgium, Germany, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. The title of local partner is a recognized career step towards admission into Firm partnership.

The promotions are effective January 1, 2018 except where noted.

AMERICAS

Daniel González Estrada has been named a local partner in our Global Commercial Litigation Practice. Based in Mexico City, he advises clients on commercial litigation and arbitration, bankruptcy, amparo complaints and white collar matters, with an emphasis on commercial and civil law matters.

Poonam Gupta, Director of Immigration Services, has been named counsel. Based in New York, she advises White & Case and its clients on US immigration law concerning business-related immigrant and non-immigrant visas and proceedings before the US Departments of State, Homeland Security and Labor.

Pedro Morales has been named counsel in our Global Mergers & Acquisitions Practice. Based in Mexico City, he advises clients on environmental and climate change, as well as operational health and safety and sanitary law matters.

Jeremy Ostrander has been named counsel in our Global Antitrust Practice. Based in Silicon Valley, he advises clients on general commercial disputes, civil and criminal antitrust claims, intellectual property disputes and commercial arbitration.

Keith Schomig has been named counsel in our Global International Trade Practice. Based in Washington, DC, he advises clients on Exon-Florio reviews before CFIUS, and foreign ownership, control or influence mitigation matters before the US Departments of Defense and Energy.

Reuben J. Sequeira has been named counsel in our Global Antitrust Practice. Based in Washington, DC, he advises private companies, sovereigns and multilateral institutions on litigation, international disputes and government investigations, representing clients before various US courts, international arbitral tribunals and US government agencies.

Amit H. Thakore has been named counsel in our Global Intellectual Property Practice. Based in New York, he advises clients on patent litigation and on complex patent infringement litigations, as well as conducting due diligence investigations on patents.

Jason Xu has been named counsel in our Global Intellectual Property Practice. Based in Washington, DC, he advises clients on intellectual property litigation and post-grant review proceedings, as well as domestic and international intellectual property matters in the fintech, eCommerce, consumer electronics and medical device sectors.

EMEA

Charbel Abou Charaf has been named a local partner in our Global Mergers & Acquisitions Practice. Based in London and Doha, he advises clients on domestic and cross-border mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, equity investments and divestitures across a range of industries.

Michael Bark-Jones has been named counsel in our Global Banking Practice. Based in Stockholm, he advises clients on debt and equity capital market products, primarily advising underwriters and issuers on Regulation S and Rule 144A offerings for entities in Central & Eastern Europe, the Nordics and emerging markets.

Meredith Campanale has been named counsel in our Global Project Finance Practice, effective January 30, 2017. Based in London, she advises lenders and sponsors on multi-sourced financings, including the involvement of export credit agencies, multilateral agencies and development finance institutions across various sectors.

Melanie Davies has been named counsel in our Global Capital Markets Practice. Based in London, she advises clients on a range of structured finance and other debt capital market transactions, with a primary focus on CLOs and securitizations.

Chris Duncan has been named counsel in our Global International Arbitration Practice. Based in London, he advises clients on non-contentious construction law, with an emphasis on large construction and infrastructure projects across a range of sectors including power, oil and gas, metals and mining, transport and infrastructure.

Britta Elsner-Gündel has been named counsel in our Global Banking Practice. Based in Frankfurt, she advises clients on acquisition and investment grade financing (secured and unsecured) as well as real estate financing, representing national and international banks, private equity investors and strategic investors on domestic and cross-border finance transactions as well as refinancings in the German and European markets.

Cristina Freudenberger has been named a local partner in our Global Capital Markets Practice. Based in Frankfurt, she advises clients on domestic and international public and private placements of equity-linked, hybrid, regulatory capital and straight bonds, including various EMTN, Structured Note and Commercial Paper Program establishments and updates, as well as issuances of highly structured and secured capital market products.

Sven Hentschel has been named a local partner in our Global Financial Restructuring and Insolvency Practice. Based in Hamburg, he advises clients on the continuation of insolvent businesses and restructurings by transfer, as well as advising creditors, companies and their directors on insolvency law in the preliminary stages of insolvency.

Felix Höpker has been named a local partner in our Global Financial Restructuring and Insolvency Practice. Based in Düsseldorf, Felix advises clients on all aspects of insolvency law as well as the administration and winding-up of companies from all economic sectors.

Estelle Jégou has been named counsel in our Global Antitrust Practice. Based in Paris, she advises clients across a range of sectors on anti-competitive practices, competition litigation, merger control, antitrust risk management and distribution.

Gero von Jhering has been named a local partner in our Global Commercial Litigation Practice. Based in Hamburg, he advises clients on litigation and arbitration in all areas of business and commercial law, with a focus on multijurisdictional litigation, trade law, contract law, insolvency law, competition law and corporate law.

Béla Knof has been named a local partner in our Global Financial Restructuring and Insolvency Practice. Based in Hamburg, he advises clients on out-of-court restructurings, as well as advising management, shareholders and creditors on insolvency law, company law and banking law.

Jean-Julien Lemonnier has been named counsel in our Global Antitrust Practice. Based in Paris, he advises clients across a range of sectors on investigations concerning alleged anti-competitive practices instigated by the French Competition Authority and/or the European Commission, and on distribution issues including distribution agreements, negotiations between suppliers and distributors, and delays in payment.

Sylvia Lorenz has been named a local partner in our Global Intellectual Property Practice. Based in Hamburg, she advises clients on intellectual property and information technology, in particular internet law issues including provider liability, consumer protection, international civil procedure and privacy law in relation to national and cross-border transactions.

Piero de Mattia has been named a local partner in our Global Capital Markets Practice. Based in Milan, he advises clients on Italian and international initial public offerings, private placements, rights and debt issuances including bonds, convertible notes and high yield, as well as cross-border mergers and acquisitions, general corporate law and securities compliance matters.

Jean Paszkudzki has been named counsel in our Global Mergers & Acquisitions Practice. Based in Paris, he advises clients such as French and foreign corporate clients and investors on corporate transactions, including mergers and acquisitions, disposals, joint ventures and corporate reorganizations.

Paddy Patrick has been named counsel in our Global Commercial Litigation Practice. Based in London, Paddy advises clients on contentious issues relating to a broad variety of commercial contracts, with experience in proceedings with multijurisdictional elements in the English courts, particularly the Commercial Court, the courts of the British Virgin Islands, international arbitration and mediation.

Anastasia Pitchouguina has been named counsel in our Global White Collar Practice. Based in Paris, Anastasia advises financial institutions, major corporations and individuals on domestic and international criminal fraud and contentious regulatory matters, including criminal banking litigation, fraud, money laundering and criminal aspects of public procurement and employment law.

Daria Plotnikova has been named counsel in our Global Mergers & Acquisitions Practice. Based in Moscow, she advises international and Russian developers on a broad range of real estate and construction projects, including major investment projects, real estate sales and purchase transactions, and complex infrastructure projects.

James Rimmer has been named counsel in our Global Mergers & Acquisitions Practice. Based in Riyadh, he advises vendors, purchasers, joint venture partners and financial advisers on complex, cross-border and domestic public and private mergers and acquisitions across a range of industries.

Jan Stejskal has been named a local partner in our Global Mergers & Acquisitions Practice. Based in Prague, he advises clients on private equity and private mergers and acquisitions, primarily cross-border transactions with Czech aspects.

Aneta Urban has been named a local partner in our Global Banking Practice. Based in Warsaw, she advises Polish and foreign banks, financial institutions, borrowers, sponsors, investment funds and private equity funds on Polish and cross-border financing transactions.

Sara Vanetta has been named a local partner in our Global Commercial Litigation Practice. Based in Berlin, she advises clients on dispute resolution with a particular focus on insurance law, including extensive experience advising insurance companies and policy holders on D&O insurance and corporate litigation.

Martin Weber has been named a local partner in our Global Banking Practice. Based in Berlin, he advises clients on public commercial law, with an emphasis on financial regulation, representing public institutions, banks and insurance companies on corporate and product-related issues in the financial services sector.

Anne Wicks has been named counsel in our Global Project Finance Practice. Based in Abu Dhabi, she advises government entities, sponsors and developers on the development of oil and gas and power projects, particularly in the Middle East.

ASIA-PACIFIC

Tess Fang has been named a local partner in our Global Mergers & Acquisitions Practice. Based in Hong Kong, she advises clients on cross-border mergers and acquisitions and divestitures, private equity transactions and joint ventures.

Keisuke Imon has been named a local partner in our Global Asset Finance Practice. Based in Tokyo, he advises clients on a range of financing matters, with a particular focus on asset finance.

Kazuo Kasai has been named counsel in our Global Mergers & Acquisitions Practice. Based in Tokyo, he advises clients on all aspects of real estate transactions, including complex financings and renewable energy transactions, particularly solar and wind.

Gee Hou Tng has been named a local partner in our Global Banking Practice. Based in Beijing, he advises clients on regional and domestic syndicated loans, and structured and acquisition financings.

During 2017, 11 counsel and nine local partners have joined the Firm.

AMERICAS

• Mauricio Gonzalez, counsel, Global Commercial Litigation Practice, Los Angeles
• Danli Guo, counsel, Global Mergers & Acquisitions Practice, Silicon Valley
• Juan Federico Ruenes Rosales, counsel, Global Project Finance Practice, Mexico City

EMEA

• Jose Blanco, local partner, Global Mergers & Acquisitions Practice, Madrid
• Thilo Diehl, local partner, Global Capital Markets Practice, Frankfurt
• Christophe Goossens, local partner, Global Mergers & Acquisitions Practice, Brussels
• Andreas Horn, local partner, Global Mergers & Acquisitions Practice, Düsseldorf
• Charles Julien, counsel, Global International Trade Practice, Geneva
• Florian Kleinschmit, local partner, Global Banking Practice, Berlin
• Muzi Kubeka, local partner, Global Project Finance Practice, Johannesburg
• Peter Lu, counsel, Global Mergers & Acquisitions Practice, London
• Ziad Saad, counsel, Global Capital Markets Practice, Dubai
• Sebastian Schrag, local partner, Global Banking Practice, Frankfurt
• Francis Tierney, counsel, Global Intellectual Property Practice, London

ASIA-PACIFIC

• Andrew Bishop, local partner, Global Mergers & Acquisitions Practice, Hong Kong
• Fiona Curl, counsel, Global Project Finance Practice, Melbourne
• Nels Hansen, local partner, Global Mergers & Acquisitions Practice, Tokyo
• Mark Montag, counsel, Global Project Finance Practice, Melbourne
• Anna Margaret O'Reilly, counsel, Global Project Finance Practice, Melbourne
• Candice Ota, counsel, Global Project Finance Practice, Melbourne

Press contact
For more information please speak to your local media contact.

UK securities class actions have arrived: Are they here to stay?

White & Case partners Charles Balmain, John Reynolds and Greg Starner discuss differences in securities class actions in the UK and the US and what practices they see coming to the UK proceedings from the US.

How to avoid the risk of a securities class action

White & Case partners Charles Balmain, John Reynolds and Greg Starner talk about some of the steps issuers can take to mitigate the risk of securities claims.

This publication is provided for your convenience and does not constitute legal advice. This publication is protected by copyright.
© 2017 White & Case LLP