The Legal 500

Arnold Bloch Leibler

Work +61 3 9229 9999
Fax +61 3 9229 9900
Sydney, Melbourne




Within Banking and finance, Arnold Bloch Leibler is a third tier firm,

Arnold Bloch Leibler’s ‘highly commercial and outcome-focused’ team includes Genevieve Sexton, who has ‘vast experience of handling multi-jurisdictional transactions, and is engaging to work with’. Ben Mahoney advised Royal Bank of Canada on a syndicated financing facility relating to the A$1.4bn divestment of Civeo Corp by Oil States.

[back to top]

Within Capital markets, tier 4

At Arnold Bloch Leibler, respected corporate lawyer Jeremy Leibler acted for Hotel Property Investments on its A$279m IPO. The firm also handled a number of convertible bond issuances, including Indus Coal Limited’s A$4m placement of secured convertible bonds. Jonathan Wenig is recommended. Rick Narev joined Addisons.

[back to top]

Within Competition and trade, tier 4

At Arnold Bloch Leibler, ‘master tacticianZaven Mardirossian heads a practice that handles competition and IP issues. As well as providing merger advice to major online businesses, the team has also handled a number of ACCC investigations. Matthew Lees is also recommended.

[back to top]

Within Corporate and M&A, tier 4

The ‘routinely excellentArnold Bloch Leibler stands out for its ‘timely and practical advice’. Practice head Jonathan Wenig advised on its A$89m bid for 30% of WebMotors. Jeremy Leibler is also recommended.

[back to top]

Within Dispute resolution, Arnold Bloch Leibler is a second tier firm,

Arnold Bloch Leibler’s clients appreciate its ‘finely honed commercial intuition’. Leon Zwier (who ‘gives his clients an advantage in complex disputes’) defended Pacific Equity Partners in allegations by Asahi Holdings of misleading conduct during a sale process. Jonathan Milner has ‘excellent commercial sense’, and Justin Vaatstra is ‘exceptionally astute’.

[back to top]

Within Employment, tier 5

James Simpson leads the team at Arnold Bloch Leibler, and is praised for his ‘technical knowledge, attention to detail and collaborative approach’. The practice has particular expertise in international employment issues, and is acting for Valuair Limited in relation to a prosecution brought by the Fair Work Ombudsman.

[back to top]

Within Intellectual property, tier 4

Arnold Bloch Leibler’s Zaven Mardirossian is ‘a master tactician’, and Matthew Lees is ‘very commercial, with great technical skills’. Clients include Beyond International, Just Group and

[back to top]

Within Real estate, tier 5

Arnold Bloch Leibler attracts praise for its ‘in-depth industry knowledge and value for money’. Practice head Ken Gray is ‘intuitive to clients’ requirements’, and Jonathan Caplan’s ‘business acumen sets him apart’. Lily Tell left the practice.

[back to top]

Within Restructuring and insolvency, Arnold Bloch Leibler is a second tier firm,

At Arnold Bloch Leibler, leading practitioner Leon Zwier is praised as being a ‘great lawyer, someone who gets deals done without resorting to points scoring’. Zwier recently acted on behalf of the senior lenders in the restructuring of Nine Entertainment. Ben Mahoney is also recommended.

[back to top]

Within Tax, Arnold Bloch Leibler is a second tier firm,

Arnold Bloch Leibler’s practice is headed by Mark Leibler, who is lauded for his ‘razor-sharp skills for listening to others and getting to the crux of an issue’. The team, which advises individuals, private company groups and publicly listed companies, has particular strength in the management of taxation disputes arising from Australian Taxation Office (ATO) compliance activities and audits. Paul Sokolowski and Ross Paterson are also recommended

[back to top]

Legal Developments worldwide

Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to
  • Update on EU Sanctions against Russia

    On 6 December 2014, Council Regulation (EU) No 1290/2014 entered into force. This regulation is the latest in a series of regulations regarding "sectoral sanctions" against Russia.
  • Slovakia: Checkmate? New law regulates protection of employees when blowing the whistle

    So far, in Slovakia there has not been in force any regulation specifically addressing whistleblowing situations in which employees report wrongdoings, such as the commission of a crime which they learnt about in connection with the performance of their employment, work or function. Certain partial aspects related to whistleblowing have been regulated by the country's data protection, criminal and labour laws. read more
  • Croatia: A look at the Strategic Investment Projects Act One Year after Implementation

    Croatia's sixth consecutive year of recession
  • AT: Transparency International – Release of 20th annual Corruption Perceptions Index

    On 3 December 2014, Transparency International, the leading civil society organisation fighting corruption worldwide, released its 20th annual Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). The index draws on surveys covering the views of business people, provides expert assessments, and ranks 175 countries by the perceived levels of corruption in their public sectors. The scale ranges from 0 (perceived to be highly corrupt) to 100 (perceived to be very clean). The CPI can be found under the following link .  read more...
  • Review of the Constitutional Court Decision on the Cancellation of Article 42/1 (C) of Law No. 556

  • Transfer and Granting of Rights under Turkish Petroleum Law: Freedom of Contract versus Regulatory R

    Especially after the drop in oil prices the companies that are in early stage of their investments have begun to get position aiming to turn into an advantageous investment and started to look to what extent the regulations allow them to transfer and grant their rights under Turkish Petroleum Law. This may be deemed also as an exit strategy for some from operational perspective as it parallels with the tendency around the world and has direct relation with oil prices. 
  • Contracting the Petroleum Operations under Turkish Petroleum Law: Scope and Limits of Liability on P

    As exception to liberty of contracting and unlike a number of other industries, Turkey's petroleum industry imposes certain obligations to petroleum right owners in contracting the conduct of the petroleum operations.  At the first glance this seems that it aims to strengthen the management of hazards by enhancing the safety however the liability imposed to petroleum right owners in case of contracting the operations still remains unclear in terms of limitation.
  • Liabilities of Primary Employer and Subcontractors in case of a Collusive Contract

    Growing economy and competitive environment in Turkey has been leading companies to seek more profitable ways to conduct their business. Therefore companies have chosen to engage in subcontracts for the purpose of reducing their costs. Yet, to serve such purpose, at some point companies have started utilizing subcontracts to limit employees' entitlements through collusive contracts. Labor Law numbered 4857 (the " Labor Law ") and Bylaw on Subcontractor dated September 27, 2008 (the " Bylaw ") regulate which services or works may be subcontracted and strictly prohibit collusive contracts. According to Article 2/7 of the Labor Law, a collusive subcontract is considered null and void. Such nullity of subcontract automatically results in primary employers being redefined as main and sole employers of employees assigned to subcontracted work. Consequently, primary employers are solely responsible for employees' rights arising from subcontracted works and technically, primary employers would not have the option to recourse to subcontractors in order to claim any compensation due to their sole responsibility.
  • Boundaries of the Turkish Competition Authority’s Investigative Powers

    Boundaries of the Turkish Competition Authority's Investigative Powers: Case Handlers vs. Personal Property
  • Potential Consequences of Acquisitions of Minority Shareholdings under Turkish Competition Law

    The acquisition of a minority shareholding may come under the Turkish Competition Authority's (" Authority ") scrutiny in two ways, mainly: 1) it may result in de facto or de jure sole or joint control, depending on the rights possessed by the minority shareholders and/or shareholding structures and past voting patterns; and 2) it may not result in control but in cross-shareholding structures amongst competitors in a concentrated market which may raise questions about coordinated effects. This article discusses the circumstances under which the abovementioned consequences may arise under Turkish competition law with references to the relevant legislation and the most noteworthy cases in this regard.