The Legal 500

Twitter Logo Youtube Circle Icon LinkedIn Icon

3-4 SOUTH SQUARE, GRAY'S INN, LONDON, WC1R 5HP, ENGLAND
Tel:
Work 020 7696 9900
Fax:
Fax 020 7696 9911
DX:
338 LONDON CHANCERY LANE WC2
Email:
Web:
www.southsquare.com

The set: South Square is a leading set of commercial law barristers who have acted in many of the most important restructuring, insolvency, banking, commercial, company and fraud-related disputes of recent times. The set is highly regarded internationally, with barristers regularly appearing in courts around the world, including in the Caribbean, Bermuda, Gibraltar, Dubai, Hong Kong and Singapore.

Types of work undertaken: Restructuring and insolvency: South Square has dominated the insolvency market for many years and its near-monopoly of big-ticket cases - both domestic and cross-border – represents a continuation of this long-term trend. The administration of Lehman Brothers has generated a substantial amount of insolvency litigation, including the Lehman Waterfall I and II Applications. South Square barristers have recently appeared in major appeals to the Supreme Court, the Privy Council and the Court of Appeal, including Re Nortel, Re Lehman Brothers International (Europe), Saad, Singularis, Re Olympic Airlines SA and Re Game Station. High-value restructurings include APCOA Parking Holdings, Codere Finance and DTEK Finance. Administration applications include MF Global, Rangers FC and Phones 4U.

Banking and finance: South Square has a strong banking and finance practice, with a particular specialisation in large-scale financial disputes, derivatives, securitisations and structured finance products. Due to its insolvency and restructuring expertise, the set is uniquely positioned to deal with credit crunch litigation and advisory work. Examples of cases include Graiseley v Barclays Bank, BNY Corporate Trustee Services v Eurosail, Loreley v LBIE, Landsbanki v Heritable, Landsbanki v Rabobank and GSO Capital Partners v Barclays Bank.

Commercial litigation and dispute resolution: South Square barristers are involved in significant pieces of high-profile litigation in the Commercial Court and the Chancery Division. The set is instructed by a wide range of firms, predominantly leading City firms, in commercial matters with a financial, banking and insolvency dimension. Recent cases include Constantin Medien AG v Bernard Ecclestone, Leni Gas Oil Investments v Malta Oil Pty Ltd, BNY Mellon Corporate Services V LGB Capital and Edgeworth Capital (Luxembourg) S.A.R.L. v Ramblas.

Company: South Square plays a major role in company law cases, regularly appearing in litigation arising out of shareholders' disputes, derivative proceedings and claims relating to directors' duties. High-profile cases include Smithton v Naggar, McKillen v Barclay and Jackson v Dear. The set's work often involves schemes of arrangement under the Companies Act and South Square barristers have acted in virtually all of the recent high-profile creditor schemes of arrangement.

Civil fraud: South Square handles some of the most complex commercial fraud and asset tracing litigation. Recent work in England and offshore includes acting in litigation arising from the Rangers FC, Saad, Madoff, Stanford, Chesterfield and Instant Access Properties frauds as well as litigation involving the Tchenguiz brothers and Bernie Ecclestone.

International and offshore: South Square barristers are at the forefront of insolvency, banking, company and fraud matters before the courts of all the major offshore jurisdictions. Examples of work include Saad, Singularis, Oscatello, Picard v Primeo, Primeo v HSBC, Re Dubai World, Re Thyssen, Re Marrache and Nolan v Minerva.

Above material supplied by South Square.

Legal Developments in the UK

Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to
  • Gulbenkian Andonain discuss NEW Tier 1 Start-Up Visa and the NEW Tier 1 Innovator Visa

    The document entitled "Statement of Changes to Immigration Rules" which was released by the House of Commons on the 7th March 2019, outlined and advised us on a number of changes that will come into place that will affect the Tier 1 Investor Visa amongst other visa programmes and schemes. The latest article on our website discusses both of these new UK business visa routes. Our immigration lawyers London are already up to date on all of the required information for both the NEW Tier 1 Start-Up Visa and the NEW Tier 1 Innovator Visa .
  • Upcoming Changes to the UK Tier 1 Investor Visa

    According to the new document from the House of Commons on March 7th 2019 titled “Statement of Changes to Immigration Rules”, a number of changes will come into place that affecting the Tier 1 UK Investor Visa programme amongst other visa programmes and schemes. Read about them in our latest  article . 
  • Brexit and non-EU Immigration

    There is no doubt that the UK has to date benefited immensely from visa-free EU immigration to the extent that visa conditions and caps on non-EU migrant have undermined and overshadowed the ability of this group to play a prominent role in British industry and commerce and in its expanding and overburdened NHS service. It is the view of  Gulbenkian Andonian  however, that after  Brexit, there should be a noticeable change in those skilled non-EU migrants contributing to British society in a meaningful way. 
  • Gulbenkian Andonian Solicitors discuss Post Brexit scenarios - EU Nationals and Salient Immigration

    From 1 January 2021 everyone except for British and Irish citizens will be subject to immigration control in the UK.   Gulbenkian Andonian solicitors has already published an article on this topic of post- Brexit immigration and has discussed the case of EU nationals and family members after Brexit, you can find that article here as one of many in our blog .
  • DEFERRED PROSECUTION AGREEMENTS: THE BEST OPTION? OR A FLAWED IDEA?

    Tescoadmitted wrongdoing over its accounting scandal in order to obtain a deferredprosecution agreement and avoid a conviction. But with everyone charged overthe scandal having been cleared, Aziz Rahman examines whether the deferredprosecution agreement process needs revising.
  • DEFERRED PROSECUTION AGREEMENTS: OBTAINING ONE AND SEEING IT THROUGH TO COMPLETION

    With Standard Bank having become the first organisation to conclude a DPA, Aziz Rahman explains why gaining one is only the start of the challenge.
  • DISMISSAL AT NISSAN AND WORKPLACE CRIME PREVENTION

    The sacking of Nissan’s high-profile chairman may have beenproof that nobody is infallible. But Nicola Sharp argues that it should also beseen as an indicator that no company can be considered safe from wrongdoing.
  • Applying for A Sole Representative Visa

    Regardless of the Brexit outcome, the United Kingdom will remain one of the world most powerful economies. With a market of 65 million people and close ties with Europe, many overseas-based organisations look to establishing a subsidiary or branch office in Britain.
  • BRIBERY ALLEGATIONS IN MORE THAN ONE JURISDICTION: THE IMPORTANCE OF ENSURING A JOINED-UP DEFENCE AP

    Aziz Rahman considers the Ericsson bribery investigation and outlines how best to respond if you are investigated by more than one law enforcement agency
  • Have Changes to The Spouse/Civil Partnership Minimum Income Threshold Made A Difference?

    The plight of those denied a UK Spouse/CivilPartnership Visa or a Spouse/Civil Partnership Visa extension continues to feature in the headlines.   In August 2018, the Guardian reported on one young woman, driven to attempt suicide after her fiancé, an Albanian national, was not permitted to enter the country.   The Home Office ruled Paige Smith, a British Citizen, did not meet the £18,600 income threshold.   It later transpired the Home Office lost a crucial payslip proving that Ms Smith met the criteria, a document the department had been sent four times by a Solicitor and Ms Smith’s MP.   The appeal Judge took ten minutes to rule the Visa should have been approved; however, the couple still had to wait two months for the Home Office to declare it would not appeal the decision.