Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
The former chair and chief executive of Entain are suing the FTSE 100 betting group and its go-to law firm over information shared as part of a £615mn prosecution deal for failing to prevent bribery at its legacy Turkish arm.
Ex-CEO Kenny Alexander and former non-executive chair Lee Feldman filed the claim against both Entain and Addleshaw Goddard, or AG, in London on Thursday, according to court records. AG advised Entain on its deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) in 2023 but was also the London-listed group’s regular law firm in the preceding years.
The pair claim that the company and AG may have disclosed privileged information to investigators without first obtaining their consent. They are seeking a court order that would enable them to see information shared with prosecutors.
The Ladbrokes owner entered into the prosecution deal after a years-long probe by HM Revenue & Customs. The Crown Prosecution Service is still weighing whether to file criminal charges against any individuals.
The London lawsuit over the DPA comes months after Australia’s financial crimes watchdog launched separate legal action against Entain over alleged breaches of money-laundering rules.
The various legal headaches come at an awkward time. Entain’s chief executive of five months, Gavin Isaacs, stepped down with immediate effect on Tuesday. The company gave no reason for his exit, which sent its shares down 11 per cent.
Isaacs has been replaced on an interim basis by chair Stella David who also led the company for a period last year after Jette Nygaard-Andersen left in December 2023.
Nygaard-Andersen came under fire from investors for a languishing share price and a series of costly acquisitions.
In the London lawsuit, Alexander and Feldman are seeking a declaration from the court that they were clients of the law firm, along with the company, and therefore the advice AG gave Entain in relation to the Turkish business should be made available to them.
“The claimants understand that the company and/or AG may have disclosed, in the course of the investigation and/or in the course of the DPA or otherwise, privileged materials to HMRC, the CPS [ . . . ] or other third parties,” the former executives said in the claim.
“Where the privilege in those materials was a joint privilege shared by the claimants, the company was not entitled to waive privilege without the consent of the claimants,” they added.
The pair, who both left the company in 2020, have also requested that the court order the company and the law firm to provide them with a list of what legal advice has been disclosed as part of the criminal probe into Entain and the resulting DPA.
A spokesperson for Entain said: “Entain considers the claim to be without merit and it will contest it robustly.” AG said in a statement that the firm was “unable to comment due to the client confidentiality obligations we are subject to”.
The CPS and HMRC declined to comment.
A spokesperson for Alexander and Feldman said that the claimants “extensively relied on the specialist legal advice provided for their benefit by AG over the many years they grew” the company.
“They trusted throughout this time that their personal interests were properly protected and have therefore repeatedly sought unfettered access to all of that legal advice, which has so far been denied to them, by both AG and Entain, leaving them with no option but to bring this claim,” they added.
