London image

London

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
Gibraltar image

Gibraltar

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
Paris image

Paris

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 image

Frankfurt

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 MORE

Sylvie Gallage-Alwis comments on PFAS lawsuits against Angus Foam in The ENDS Report

5 August 2024

Firefighting foam manufacturer, Angus Fire, together with US parent company National Foam, have been facing a number of PFAS-related lawsuits, in the UK and in the US. In light of this, Partner Sylvie Gallage-Alwis spoke with ENDS Report about the potential outcome of the bellwether trials for National Foam.

Sylvie explained that, in her view, such bellwether trials may likely result in settlement, knowing that settlements happen often in the United States as compared to the rest of the world.

Sylvie commented: “On the company’s side, they have used a substance that was legal and for most companies, I would guess that they have complied with the law. So they will consider if they want to risk a decision by the court telling them that even if they complied with the law, they're supposed to pay damages, because X number of years later, it is alleged that there was a health issue related to that substance. 

“Having this kind of precedent in my view, is very detrimental for companies, because they may fear that in the future there will be a precedent telling them, you've used something that is legal in a legal way, but nonetheless, you're going to pay. This is what happened in some jurisdictions for asbestos for instance."

Sylvie added: “In cases, it’s not about showing that there was a real causal link between a substance and your disease, it’s about informing on the risks associated with PFAS, with relevant reports saying that PFAS could create issues. Is it written on your product? Did you warn them? That’s an easier route for plaintiffs from a legal strategy standpoint in my view."