Risk Reading — OCG Compliance Fight, UK Law Firm Acquired, New Australian AML Analysis

“DoorDash Seeks More Information About NLJ 500 Firm’s Connections With Chicago” —

• “In a service fees dispute between DoorDash and Chicago, the online delivery service’s counsel with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher have asked for more evidence that may shed light on the working relationship between the city and its NLJ Top 500 firm.”
• “DoorDash claims it is seeking more evidence from the city that could be relevant in its due process defense in the pending suit, Chicago v. DoorDash, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. DoorDash asked for documents that may be related to the city’s oversight of its counsel with Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, claiming the firm ‘is improperly acting as a city official or employee exercising the city’s prosecutorial powers,’ according to an opinion filed in the case last week.”
• “On behalf of DoorDash, Gibson Dunn relied on a March 2015 decision in Chicago v. Purdue Pharma from the Illinois federal court to argue that it has the right to a ‘financially disinterested prosecutor.’ The court previously denied Cohen Milstein’s motion to strike DoorDash’s defense, and in the city’s renewed attempt, DoorDash asked the court to deny the city’s motion or defer a ruling on it until after the close of fact discovery.”
• “On Friday, U.S. District Judge Jeremy C. Daniel agreed with DoorDash, finding that the additional discovery Gibson Dunn is pursuing through a pending motion to compel could be relevant to its defense, even if the information is privileged. Gibson Dunn is seeking documents related to the city’s oversight and control of Cohen Milstein, its compliance with the city’s outside counsel guidelines, and admissions regarding Cohen Milstein’s contributions to Chicago political campaigns and candidates.”
• “‘The question of whether retained counsel is financially interested in the outcome of the litigation may involve a wider range of materials than the retention agreement alone,’ Daniel said. ‘For example, even if the agreement contains adequate safeguards, the arrangement may still violate DoorDash’s due process rights if DoorDash presents evidence the city failed to exercise ‘absolute and total control over all critical decision-making.’”

“PwC Lead Advisory team advises Stowe Family Law on its sale to Investcorp” —

• “The PwC Lead Advisory team is pleased to announce the sale of Stowe Family Law, the largest specialist family law firm in the United Kingdom, to Investcorp, a leading global alternative investment firm. The transaction represents a successful exit for Livingbridge, which has backed Stowe Family Law in its growth journey since 2017.”
• “[The firm] operates from 90 locations across the United Kingdom, with nearly 400 staff supporting 5,000 clients a year.”
• “PwC acted as lead financial adviser to the shareholders of Stowe Family Law, providing Corporate Finance, Debt & Capital Advisory, Vendor Commercial Due Diligence, and Data Insights & Analytics advice. This landmark transaction highlights PwC’s position as one of the leading financial advisors in the professional and legal advisory sector.”

Herbert Smith Freehills published: “Modernising Australia’s AML/CTF regime” —

• “On 11 September 2024, amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth) were introduced into Parliament through the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024 (Cth). The Bill includes significant proposals to expand the application of the AML/CTF Act to additional sectors of the Australian economy, including lawyers, real estate agents, accountants and others.”
• “In this paper we look at the amendments to the AML/CTF Act that we expect to be of most importance to existing reporting entities. These include:
  • updates to requirements around AML/CTF Programs including a new definition capturing risk assessments, policies, procedures and controls;
  • reform to governance requirements including a new “lead entity” concept;
  • a new approach to regulating offshore operations;
  • modified customer due diligence obligations including legislating customer risk assessment requirements;
  • reformed virtual asset service provider requirements;
  • significant changes through the introduction of obligations connected to the “transfer of value”;
  • updates to the regime when assisting an investigation of serious offences; and
  • new AUSTRAC investigation and enforcement powers.”