Print Friendly, PDF & Email

high-profile cases

Rosenblatt’s Dispute Resolution team has advised clients in a number of high-profile cases in recent years:

  • In The Matter OF TPD Investments Ltd Sub Nom Destiny Investments (1993) Ltd V TH Holdings Ltd

    Rosenblatt is acting for two Petitioners (both incorporated in Israel – one public company and one private) against one of the UK’s largest property investment companies, in section 994 Unfair Prejudice proceedings.   The case centres on a joint venture company’s investment in three hotels in the UK.   The Petitioners are not represented on the Board of the joint venture company. The Tonstate directors caused the joint venture company to refinance its lending arrangements in relation to 2 hotels, without the knowledge of the Petitioners. In doing so, Tonstate reduced the Petitioners’ shareholdings from 20% each, to just over 6% each, increasing its own shareholding from 60% to almost 90% in the process.


  • (1) Capital For Enterprise Fund A LP (2) Maven Capital Partners UK LLP v Bibby Financial Services Ltd [2015] EWHC 2593 (Ch)

    Rosenblatt represented the claimants in a claim for damages in respect of losses arising from an alleged unlawful means conspiracy concerning the sale of a business to another company controlled by the same director in breach of his fiduciary duties.


  • Icebreaker Management Services and others (x 5 LLPs) v Deloitte

    Rosenblatt represented Icebreaker Management, the promoters of a tax scheme (used by Take That among others) and the 5 lead LLPs in the Icebreaker tax litigation.  The legal action against Deloitte related to an article written by Deloitte in Tax Adviser magazine in May 2014 in which negative comments were made about the Icebreaker 2 tax case, which was run by Deloitte on behalf of Icebreaker Management.  In addition to the case against Deloitte, we also represented the  Icebreaker in relation to the appeal of the first-tier tribunal tax judgment handed down in May 2014.
  • Mr Timothy Wright v Lewis Silkin LLP [2015] EWHC 1897 (QB)

    Rosenblatt represented an employee who obtained an English court judgment against his Indian employer for £10 million severance pay but failed to enforce it in India.  The Defendant’s failure to properly advise him on the contract’s jurisdiction had allowed the employer to challenge the English proceedings. The subsequent delay in obtaining judgment had caused the loss of a 20 per cent chance that a quicker judgment might have been successfully enforced in India.


  • Desmond v CSI International Limited and GLG Partners LP

    Rosenblatt acted for Richard Desmond in claims against Credit Suisse and GLG in relation to the sale of a derivative transaction [“the Transaction”].  The Transaction was a capital protected swap which had a 10 year term subject to an option to unwind the Transaction earlier.  It was alleged that, as a result of CSI’s breaches of its regulatory obligations, he entered into the Transaction and suffered significant losses. It was also alleged that, prior to and upon entry into the Transaction, CSI made a series of misrepresentations and inaccurate statements to him, and as a result he entered into the Transaction. He rescinded the Transaction and/or is claimed that he was entitled to do so, and further or alternatively claims damages for misrepresentation and breach of common law duty.     Following disclosure in that claim, a claim was also brought against GLG, who Mr Desmond claimed breached their duties in arranging for Credit Suisse to sell him the product.  The case settled on confidential terms shortly before trial.


  • Global Energy Horizons Corp v Gray [2012] EWHC 3703 (Ch), [2015] EWHC 2232 (Ch)

    In December 2012, Rosenblatt secured a High Court victory for Global Energy Horizons Corporation (GEHC) in its claim against Robert Gray (the Defendant) for breach of fiduciary duties. The case involved an opportunity, which GEHC had been pursuing, to participate in the commercial exploitation of new and innovative ultrasound technology in the oil and gas sector. GEHC found cause to complain against Mr Gray: in its simplest form, the complaint was that he had taken personal advantage of the opportunity to the exclusion of GEHC, at a time when he owed GEHC fiduciary duties as a member of the company.


  • Aberdeen Global v Satyam Computer Services Ltd (Case Number 2011 folio 1581)

    In relation to various investment funds managed by Aberdeen Asset Management, Rosenblatt’s Dispute Resolution team acted for the Claimant, Aberdeen Global, in its claims against Satyam Computer Services Limited, known as “India’s Enron”, with the aim of recovering losses caused by the fraud announced on 7 January 2009 by Satyam’s former CEO. This case involved a forum challenge made by Satyam.


  • (1) Clinton Cards PLC (2) CCE Realisations Ltd V (1) Donald John Lewin (2) Clinton Stuart Lewin (3) Rose Margaret Lewin

    Rosenblatt represented the liquidators of Clinton Cards in claims against the directors.  The claims were settled on confidential terms.


  • Tullett Prebon Plc & Ors v BGC Brokers LP & Ors [2010] EWHC 484 (QB), [2011] EWCA Civ 131

    Rosenblatt represented Tullett Prebon in the highly publicised 2010/2011 proceedings against BGC, its rival in the market. The case, which became one of the most notorious stories in the City in 2010 and 2011, involved ground-breaking, precedent-setting “team move” litigation that included claims of conspiracy, breach of contract and inducing breach of contract. The case is now widely accepted as one of the leading authorities on team moves. Its legal significance in the context of the inter dealing broking industry is obvious, but it also affects any financial institutions and companies that have teams of highly skilled, highly rewarded employees.


  • The Leveson Inquiry

    Participating in the Leveson Inquiry, Rosenblatt represented Northern & Shell, Britain’s leading independent publisher, owner of Express Newspapers and a key player in both broadcasting and digital media.


  • Camelot UK Lotteries Ltd, R (on the application of) v The Gambling Commission & Ors [2012] EWHC 2391 (Admin) (22 August 2012) [2012] EWHC 2391 (Admin)

    Rosenblatt secured a High Court victory for the Health Lottery in defending an action brought by Camelot, which was seeking the revocation of the Health Lottery’s gambling licence. The National Lottery operator had accused the Gambling Commission of “unlawfully and unreasonably” failing to protect it from the Health Lottery (its rival) and was seeking a judicial review of the Commission’s decision not to revoke or suspend the lottery licence. The High Court rejected Camelot’s application for a judicial review of the Gambling Commission’s decision.


  • Lalit Modi v Giles Clarke and IMG v Giles Clarke

    Rosenblatt acted for Giles Clarke, Chairman of the England and Wales Cricket Board, in two almost identical libel actions brought against him by the founder of the Indian Cricket Premier League and by International Management Group. The case was successfully settled on confidential terms.


  • Continental Capital Markets SA v GFI Holdings Ltd and Ors (Case No 2011 folio 1424)

    Identified by The Lawyer as a top 10 case for 2013, this involved proceedings issued in London against GFI for actions undertaken to set up a new business in Switzerland; the actions stood to divert 50% of CCM’s business via multiple “team moves” and also involved breaches of confidence. This case was governed by Swiss Law, but Rosenblatt, taking advantage of the rules on jurisdiction, enabled the client to pursue its claims against GFI in London, the preferred forum for this case. We also managed concurrent cases, brought in Switzerland and concerning breaches of the Swiss unfair competition laws, against certain of the former employees involved in the business diversion.


  • Tullett Prebon Group Limited v Ghaleb El-Hajjali [2008] EWHC 1924 (QB)

    Mr El Hajjali, a senior broker, was hired by Tullett Prebon under a forward contract to become the Head of Exotic Equity Options. The forward contract contained a liquidated damages clause should Mr El Hajjali fail to commence employment with Tullett Prebon. After signing the contract, Mr El-Hajjali was persuaded to stay with his current employer and Tullett Prebon then successfully sued for the liquidated damages. This now stands as the leading case on liquidated damages payable by a prospective employee who fails to commence employment under a forward contract.


  • Music Choice Limited various trade mark (UK and CTM) disputes with Target Brands Inc, including Invalidation Action Nos 81859 and 81860

    Rosenblatt acted for Music Choice in successfully maintaining its registration and use of its branding (a red and white bullseye device) against the American retailer Target, and in preventing Target’s attempts to register its brand (a red and white bullseye device) in the same markets.


  • Seymour Pierce Limited v Grandtop Holdings [2010] EWHC 676 (QB)

    Rosenblatt obtained summary judgment for Seymour Pierce Limited in a contract claim against the owners of Birmingham City FC.


  • Cobden Investments Limited v RWM Langport Limited and others [2008] EWHC 2810 (Ch), [2009] EWHC 1362 (Ch), [2010] EWHC 3334 (Ch) and [2011] EWHC 1370 (Ch)

    Rosenblatt acted for a shareholder of a joint venture company in a claim for unfair prejudice.


  • Advantage Capital Limited and others v Adair [2010] EWHC 2841 (QB)

    Rosenblatt obtained summary judgment for a private equity company against its main investor, who had decided unilaterally not to comply with any future calls for investment funds.


  • Tartan Limited v The Royal Bank of Scotland plc

    Rosenblatt acted for a customer on a claim relating to the sale of interest rate swap products.



© Rosenblatt Solicitors 2018
Rosenblatt is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA No. 00070109). The registered address and principal place of business is 9-13 St. Andrew Street, London EC4A 3AF.
You can access the rules by which we are regulated by following this link - Rosenblatt is registered for Value Added Tax in the United Kingdom under registration number GB 523 0713 85.
  • Contact

    To contact us please complete this form

Latest news