RPC is a full-service international law firm with notable
successes representing clients in their disputes, specifically litigation,
arbitration and regulatory disputes. More than 250 of the firm’s lawyers undertake
contentious work for clients in areas as broad as banking and financial
markets, insurance, technology, IP, tax, media, retail and competition as well
as restructuring and insolvency, to name but a few.
The firm is distinguished
from its peers through a combination of complex, high-profile work, award-winning
client service, financial risk sharing with clients and sector focus. On risk
sharing, and reflecting the firm’s entrepreneurial approach to the legal
market, RPC was an early adopter of litigation funding and creative fee
arrangements, which continues to this day.
Global
Law Experts asked Simon Hart, Partner and Head of Financial
Disputes at RPC, if there are any particular clients who are more suited to
litigation than any other forms of dispute resolution. He noted: “Litigation is
more prevalent than arbitration in the banking and financial markets sector. Although
there have been moves to introduce arbitration clauses into banking and
financial markets standard form documentation, those have had a limited impact.
This reflects the traditional desire of banks and financial institutions to see
precedent-setting, public Court judgements delivered on matters pertaining to
the financial sector – in order that there is the necessary degree of certainty
to parties' dealings.”
Litigation
with a Global Scope
RPC’s cross-jurisdictional reach is significant, with locations in the UK (with
a London headquarters), Hong Kong and Singapore. Mr Hart spoke about some of
the advantages this provides. He said: “As three common law
jurisdictions, there are very clear similarities in relation to how the legal
systems operate, which allows a significant degree of cross-border coordination
and understanding. Lawyers in each jurisdiction are familiar with the procedural
mechanisms at play across all three legal systems, and this can help facilitate
a more holistic approach to servicing clients. We work as one cross-border
disputes team across the offices, often servicing the same client out of three
jurisdictions in relation to substantively the same dispute. Our offices in
Hong Kong and Singapore also act as a platform for access into the wider Asia-Pacific
legal market and beyond. We use our lawyers in those offices to coordinate
disputes, and particularly those subject to arbitration, which are focused in
other Asian jurisdictions.”
Mr
Hart went on to explain that most types of dispute have a time lag between the
occurrence of the underlying events and the point in time at which disputes cross
a lawyer's desk. While the financial crisis-related litigation has now largely
concluded, that whole period has, at least in so far as the UK market is
concerned, reset the dial, and litigation is now much more of a “business as
usual” issue. “We are beginning to see more disputes arising out of
restructuring and insolvency matters,” he said, “where, for example, debt
holders are maneuvering to ensure their positions are protected in the context
of distressed companies and structures.”
After
a ten-year period of global economic growth, RPC’s expectations are for
economic pressures to begin to build and for there to be more of this work,
certainly across Europe. According to Mr Hart, cross-border fraud is another
continuing source of international disputes work. The firm has seen significant
disputes, often litigated or arbitrated in London, arising out of dealings in a
wide variety of locations, but most notably Russia, CIS and Africa.
Case
Studies and Success Stories
Over
the years, RPC has acted for a wide variety of clients, including hedge funds,
HNW investors, financial institutions and insolvency office holders, often
acting against the largest investment banks. Mr Hart told GLE that one of the
main attractions of being a disputes lawyer is the ability to work with a huge range
of clients across diverse sectors. He explained that almost everyone engages
with the banking sector in one way or another, and so he has had the privilege
of being instructed by a spectrum of clients who are very different in nature
and expectations: “At present, I am working for a US-based distressed debt
fund, an Indian-headquartered global industrial group, members of an ultra-high-net-worth
European family, and a financial services payment processing company. What
connects them all is that they have a dispute arising out of their respective
involvement in the financial markets.”
The
firm recently concluded a long-running piece of litigation for an investment
fund, which acts as the holding company for a global portfolio of industrial
companies. In this case, a New York-based hedge fund commenced
proceedings against RPC’s client in several jurisdictions including England,
seeking to enforce a significant New York judgement arising from a guarantee
given by RPC’s client for a subsidiary's loan facility.
RPC’s client contended that the New York judgement had
been improperly obtained, and so the firm was instructed in England to resist
jurisdiction and summary judgement, and thereafter to resist enforcement
against its client's assets in the jurisdiction while the New York judgement
was challenged. “This involved working in coordination with the client's
lawyers in New York, the Cayman Islands, the BVI, Mauritius and the UAE, where
related legal proceedings were being progressed concurrently – as well as with
other financial institutions that had an interest in the outcome of the proceedings.”
Seamless
Integration
The Legal 500 UK has stated that Mr Hart "[slots]
in seamlessly to in-house teams when presenting advice to senior
executives". Mr Hart summarised
this approach, explaining that disputes reach
RPC at different stages. “Sometimes, initial skirmishing has been conducted by
the in-house legal function, and the firm is instructed when it looks like the
dispute is heading towards Court,” he said. “On occasion, the in-house team
have got as far as taking the legal proceedings to the first hearing.”
More
frequently, RPC are in at the start. “It is essential to recognise that you are
often building on foundations laid by the in-house lawyers who instruct you,”
added Mr Hart. “Working with in-house legal teams and recognising their unique
commercial and cultural perspectives on the cross-border disputes that they are
responsible for managing is essential. The ultimate commercial client wants a
view from the collective legal team – not one view from external counsel and
one view from the in-house lawyers.”
Changing Considerations
On the topic of cross-border disputes, he commented:
“While individual countries will have particular issues which impact their own
litigation landscape, the development that has had a massive impact across many
jurisdictions, particularly those systems with a common law foundation, is the
explosion in electronic data, including social media. In England, the
Commercial Courts are piloting a scheme to manage and control the burdens of
having to disclose electronic data in legal proceedings. Even those jurisdictions
with much more restrictive disclosure regimes will have been impacted by the
growth in the data that their clients hold and are required to review. As a
result, as well as the Courts managing the documents put before them in
litigation, technology has developed at great speed to respond to the
challenges faced by lawyers in managing the data provided to them.
“For example, I led the case in the Commercial Courts which
gave rise to the first ever judgement in England approving the use of
predictive coding for the disclosure document review process. The deployment of
artificial intelligence and such techniques to review, analyse and select
documents in a sophisticated and reliable manner has been driven by the surge
in client data. This is probably the most common theme when disputes lawyers
are asked about trends that have impacted their practice.”
A
Collaborative Approach
RPC is a founding member of the TerraLex network, and
Mr Hart has personally contributed to the third edition of Banking Litigation, published by Sweet
& Maxwell, and co-authored the England & Wales chapter of the 2019 ICLG
Financial Services Disputes guide. As
Mr Hart explained, these contributions are important as a means of engaging
with the wider litigation community.
“When it comes to
resourcing cross-jurisdictional work, the clients' needs are always the primary
driver” he said. “Maintaining the flexibility to instruct the right lawyers in
the right jurisdictions for each particular client is key. To that end, our
platform has a range of international options for our clients. First, in the
UK, Hong Kong and Singapore, we have our own offering. Second, we are also
founder members of the TerraLex network and have established connections with
firms globally across a network which spans more than 100 countries. Third, for
insurance disputes, we have a strategic alliance with a specific US law firm
who specialises in that field. Fourth, we have strong relationships with many
other independent law firms around the world who are best in class at what they
do. This flexibility in approach gives us the opportunity to provide our legal
services in a way that works for the client, rather than in a way that is
merely convenient to the lawyers.”
He added: “Regarding our publications – writing about
subject matter with which you have experience is intellectually interesting,
but it’s also a means by which to engage with other lawyers, particularly those
based overseas. One of the great privileges of being a disputes lawyer in an
international practice is the ability to meet and work with lawyers in other
jurisdictions and to hear about their experiences in parallel situations. Contributing
to and sharing thoughts in legal publications are additional means of
continuing that conversation.”