Administrative and Public LawBanking and Financial Markets LitigationCivil Fraud, Asset Tracing and RecoveryCommercial LitigationCompetition LawConstruction and Engineering DisputesContentious Trusts, Estates and Private Wealth DisputesGroup Action LitigationInsolvency LitigationInsurance and Reinsurance LitigationInternational ArbitrationInvestigations and White Collar CrimeProduct LiabilityProfessional Negligence LitigationToxic Tort and ESG
Founded in 2012, Signature Litigation has grown into one of London’s pre-eminent specialist dispute resolution practices. From the outset, we set out to do things differently: a conflict-free, disputes-only platform designed to give clients the undivided focus and strategic agility that complex, high-stakes matters demand.
FIND OUT MORE
Established in 2017, Signature Litigation's Gibraltar office was founded to address growing demand for specialist expertise in commercial litigation and private wealth disputes on the Rock.
FIND OUT MORE
Signature Litigation AARPI houses one of France’s most enviable product liability practices, with the team also handling commercial and corporate litigation, insurance and reinsurance, toxic tort and ESG, civil fraud and asset tracing, international arbitration, administrative and public law.
FIND OUT MORE
Frankfurt has emerged as one of Europe's foremost financial and commercial centres and, increasingly, as a bridge between European and Asian markets. With that growth comes an increasing demand for sophisticated dispute resolution. Signature Litigation established its Frankfurt office to meet this need, bringing our conflict-free, disputes-only platform to the German market.
FIND OUT MOREPartner Duncan Grieve highlights the nuances contained in the Joint SFO-CPS corporate prosecution guidance, noting that prosecutors are likely to focus on companies that fail to implement effective fraud-prevention procedures. He also outlines how companies should respond in practical terms. Duncan’s comments were published in Law360, 26 August 2025, here.
Commenting on its strict requirements, Duncan said, “The Guidance is designed for the prosecutorial agencies rather than corporates and their advisors. However, what is clear is that a very high standard of cooperation is expected if a company is to avoid prosecution. Factors mentioned in the “additional public interest factors against prosecution” include corporate management adopting a “genuinely proactive approach. . . involving self-reporting and remedial actions”, “making witnesses available and disclosure of details of any internal investigation” and “a genuinely proactive and effective corporate compliance programme”. Given these stringent expectations, companies will need to weigh carefully the risks and benefits of self-disclosure. The guidance makes clear that half-hearted cooperation and forum shopping will be dealt with harshly.”
Duncan added, “The guidance also mentions the fact that an offence was committed at a time when the company had an ineffective compliance programme, will be treated as an “additional public interest factor in favour of prosecution”. This is clearly designed to flag that companies within scope should be proactively reviewing the effectiveness of their internal controls now, ahead of the new offences coming into force on 1 September.”
