Alexandra Dimsdale Gill

Slaughter and May is advising Equinix and Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) on the pair's $4 billion acquisition of data centre provider atNorth, marking the firm’s first mandate for CPPIB. U.K. corporate partners James Cook and Hem Sumanasuriya are leading the Slaughter and May team on the deal, which involves a U.S.-listed buyer and a Canadian pension investor but is being conducted under U.K. law. The target, atNorth, has eight operational data centres and several sites under development across Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. It is Slaughter and May's first instruction from CPPIB, adding to the firm’s collection of sponsor-style and private capital mandates. However, Equinix is a long-standing client, which it has advised since 2010 across a range of international transactions. In October, Slaughter and May advised Equinix in October on a £3.9 billion data centre development site in South Mimms, U.K. Linklaters also advised CPPIB on the acquisition led by led by partners Michael Honan and Ben Suen . The firm also advised both CPPIB Investments and Equinix on the debt financing aspects of the transaction, led by partner Ross Schloeffel. Clifford Chance is advising the seller, Partners Group, led by London head of private capital Spencer Baylin and partners Angharad Lewis and Jennifer Storey. The firm advised the Swiss-based global private markets firm on its acquisition of atNorth in 2021, led by Baylin. According to Partners Group, contracted EBITDA increased 14-fold during its ownership period. Clifford Chance also advised Partners Group on a minority stake exit in Apex Logistic, the acquisition of Life Cycle Power from Arroyo in October 2025 and the acquisition of The Hoxton Hotel in Poblenou, Barcelona in December 2025. Slaughter and May and Clifford Chance were also on opposite sides of the table earlier this month when Nuveen’s acquisition of London-based Schroders was announced, with the firms acting in reverse roles to this deal: Clifford Chance advised the buyer while Slaughter and May acted for the seller. For Slaughter and May, these deals form part of a run of work worth more than £25bn over the past two months, including advising Zurich on its acquisition of Beazley, NatWest on its acquisition of Evelyn and Vodafone on its sale of Ziggo.

Feb 27

2 min

Second Judicial Circuit Judge Lance Neff was appointed to the First District Court of Appeal by Gov. Ron DeSantis Monday, filling the seat vacated by Florida Supreme Court Justice Adam Tanenbaum. DeSantis also gave Neff the nod for the circuit seat in 2023. He was assigned to the criminal division in 2024 and has been presiding over the case of the man accused of gunning down two people and wounding several others at Florida State University last year. That trial is slated to begin in October. Judge Lance Neff. Courtesy photo Before joining the bench, Neff served as general counsel to the state’s largest agency, the Florida Department of Corrections, and spent years as a trial attorney in the Florida Office of the Attorney General. The Waycross, Georgia, native is a Valdosta State University and Florida Coastal School of Law graduate; a 20-year veteran of the Bar; and a member of the U.S. Military. According to his biography on the Second Judicial Circuit’s website, Neff is a lieutenant colonel in the Florida National Guard, the staff judge advocate for the Florida Army National Guard and the legal adviser to the Assistant Adjutant General-Army. Neff did not immediately return the Daily Business Review’s interview request Tuesday. Neff beat out five other finalists for the appellate seat, including two colleagues on the Second Judicial Circuit, Judges Joshua Hawkes and Stephen Everett. The Second Judicial Circuit saw significant turnover in 2025. Judge Robert Wheeler resigned in March and was replaced by Judge Jason Jones; Judge Dawn Caloca-Johnson's unexpected death led to the appointment of Judge Michael Beato; Judge Jeremiah Hawkes filled a vacancy created by lawmakers in November; and Judge John Cooper's successor has yet to be named after his December resignation.

Mar 3

1 min

A sports talent agency told a Nevada federal judge that it can't be held in contempt for violating a discovery order when it has worked to address real challenges with providing information to fighters who accuse Ultimate Fighting Championship of suppressing wages. Kajan Johnson and other fighters who sued the UFC have accused nonparty Dominance MMA LLC of refusing to comply with a discovery order issued in August. Yet the Las Vegas-based company said the fighters are trying to turn what was supposed to be a collaborative process into a contempt proceeding. "Dominance is not a party to the underlying litigation and has no incentive to obstruct discovery," Dominance said in a filing on Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. "To the contrary, Dominance expended significant time and resources over several months attempting to comply with the subpoena and the court's order while safeguarding confidential information belonging to third parties who have vehemently objected to Dominance producing their confidential information," it added. The fighters who have sued the UFC have asked the court to order Dominance to explain why it should not be held in contempt for discovery delays. Dominance told the court that progress halted when questions arose over its lack of authority over confidential fighter information and its lack of control over independent contractors' personal devices, as well as the need to protect sensitive contractual and compensation information. The company said concerns about the handling of sensitive information have been "reasonably heightened" by the plaintiffs' own actions. According to Dominance, one of the plaintiffs recorded and shared a courthouse video announcing that it had been ordered to share documents for the litigation, generating substantial discussion and concern. "This public amplification of a discovery ruling, particularly in a case that has received significant media attention, reasonably heightened concern about how sensitive information would be treated once disclosed," Dominance told the court. Plaintiffs later filed an inventory list that contained personal information of nonparties, such as email addresses and phone numbers, on the court's docket without redaction, according to the company. "Although the inventory list had not been formally designated confidential at the time of its disclosure, it was produced in furtherance of the court's meet-and-confer directive and plainly contained private information," Dominance said. "Plaintiffs subsequently sought to seal the exhibit after Dominance objected, but the public posting reinforced the very concerns that had been raised (i.e., that nonparty confidential information could be exposed beyond the narrow confines of this litigation)," the company added. According to Dominance, some fighters whose contracts and compensation information have been implicated have objected to disclosure. "For some, particularly those residing or competing internationally, the disclosure of contractual and financial terms carries potential personal, professional, or regulatory consequences in their home countries," the company told the court. "Dominance possesses this information solely by virtue of its representative relationship with these individuals. It does not own the underlying contractual interests, and it faces legitimate tension when those individuals object to disclosure of their private financial information," it added. Dominance said it has taken reasonable steps to try to comply with the discovery order responsibly, and urged the court to reject the plaintiffs' push to have it held in contempt and recover fees. "Plaintiffs' request improperly attempts to recast court-ordered discovery activity as sanctionable injury," the company said. "The court expressly invited the parties to seek a status conference to address any issues arising during production. Plaintiffs elected instead to file this application for contempt," it added. Defendants in the litigation, including TKO Operating Co. LLC, which does business as the UFC, and its majority owner, Endeavor Group Holdings Inc., and operator, Zuffa LLC, have fought a discovery order and recently persuaded a Ninth Circuit panel to temporarily pause it. The fighters have accused Zuffa and UFC of running an anticompetitive scheme to maintain monopoly and monopsony power in the market for professional mixed martial arts bouts and fighters, leading to anticompetitive wages and other antitrust injuries and damages. A representative for the plaintiffs declined to comment on Wednesday. Other parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The plaintiffs are represented by Joseph R. Saveri, Christopher K.L. Young, Kevin E. Rayhill, Itak Moradi and T. Brent Jordan of Joseph Saveri Law Firm LLP, by Eric L. Cramer, Michael Dell'Angelo, Patrick F. Madden and Joshua P. Davis of Berger Montague PC, by Benjamin D. Brown, Richard A. Koffman and Daniel H. Silverman of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, by W. Joseph Bruckner, Brian D. Clark and Kyle Pozan of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, and by Michael J. Gayan of Claggett & Sykes. Dominance MMA is represented by Keely Perdue Chippoletti and Peter S. Christiansen of Christiansen Trial Lawyers. Zuffa LLC, TKO Operating Co. LLC and Endeavor Group Holdings Inc. are represented by William A. Isaacson, Jessica Phillips and Agbeko Petty of Dunn Isaacson Rhee LLP, by J. Colby Williams and Samuel R. Mirkovich of Campbell & Williams, and by Christopher S. Yates, Aaron T. Chiu, Sean M. Berkowitz, Laura Washington and Joseph Axelrad of Latham & Watkins LLP. The case is Kajan Johnson et al. v. Zuffa LLC et al., case number 2:21-cv-01189, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

Feb 25

4 min

A trio of former Ultimate Fighting Championship fighters pursuing wage-fixing claims in a proposed class action against the mixed martial arts organization have now moved for "severe" sanctions over alleged document destruction, asking a Nevada federal court to issue a default judgment in their favor. Tristan Connelly, right, seen here fighting Michael Pereira during an Ultimate Fighting Championship Fight Night in 2019, is one of three plaintiffs who accuse the UFC of operating an anticompetitive business to maintain a monopoly over the mixed martial arts market. (Jonathan Hayward/The Canadian Press via AP) In a sanctions motion filed Wednesday, named plaintiffs Kajan Johnson, Clarence Dollaway and Tristan Connelly told the court that TKO Operating Co. LLC — which does business as UFC — along with its majority owner, Endeavor Group Holdings Inc., and operator Zuffa LLC together "destroyed years of critical evidence" pertinent to the antitrust case, and then spent months scheming to cover up their spoliation. "Defendants' brazen obfuscation of spoliation and counsels' disregard for their Rule 26(g) obligations and this court's authority, evidenced by violations of every discovery order, shows an intentional years-long effort to spoliate key evidence by key custodians, to create the conditions to allow the loss, and, worst of all, to cover it up, obscuring the true extent of the destruction," the plaintiffs said in their motion. "Severe sanctions must follow." Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure establishes general rules governing discovery. According to the plaintiffs, UFC and its Latham & Watkins LLP counsel violated the rule by failing to conduct a "reasonable investigation" into certain communications, while claiming to have done so. "Either Latham & Watkins did not perform a reasonable investigation and claimed to have done so, concealing the spoliation, or they conducted a reasonable investigation and misrepresented the results to the court to conceal the spoliation," the motion alleges. The suit accuses Zuffa and the UFC of operating an anticompetitive business to maintain a monopoly over the mixed martial arts market, allegedly suppressing competition, leading to suppressed wages for participants. In the fighters' Wednesday motion, various individuals including UFC President Dana White are described individually as spoliators who allegedly failed to preserve cell phone data, deleted certain messages and social media accounts and failed to produce some devices. White and the others are not parties to the suit. The fighters argued there was a "clear intent to deprive" them of materials in violation of several court orders, which gives rise to terminating sanctions according to Ninth Circuit precedent. "Default may be ordered as a sanction after a finding of willfulness, bad faith, or fault," the motion states. Short of that, the fighters said in their motion, mandatory adverse inferences are appropriate, permitting the plaintiffs to present evidence of the alleged spoliation and blocking the defendants from making certain arguments. In January, a Ninth Circuit panel temporarily paused a discovery order, following a UFC petition that called it "breathtakingly overbroad." The administrative stay was mooted days later, when the Nevada federal court partially reeled in the order, stating that rather than produce potentially privileged materials for in camera review, the defendants should appear at a previously scheduled spoliation hearing, and any discovery orders should proceed from there. The motion is the latest move in a widespread discovery battle that also includes a nonparty talent agency called Dominance MMA LLC. On Monday, Dominance filed a response fighting the plaintiffs' ongoing discovery demands, writing in part that it "expended significant time and resources over several months attempting to comply with the subpoena and the court's order while safeguarding confidential information belonging to third parties." The fighters have asked the court to order Dominance to explain why it should not be held in contempt for discovery delays. On Thursday, UFC fans lodged their own monopoly claims in a proposed class action in Nevada federal court, alleging the company's cornering of the market for pay-per-view mixed martial arts events resulted in them overpaying for pay-per-view events and streaming services. "UFC has complied, and will continue to comply, with its discovery obligations," a UFC spokesperson said in a statement to Law360 on Friday. "As our opposition to plaintiffs' baseless motion will explain, UFC has produced over 6.2 million pages of documents in response to plaintiffs' requests. Plaintiff's motion is completely at odds with this reality and UFC's full compliance with its discovery obligations to date." Counsel for the fighters did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday. The plaintiffs are represented by Joseph R. Saveri, Christopher K.L. Young, Kevin E. Rayhill, Itak Moradi and T. Brent Jordan of Joseph Saveri Law Firm LLP, by Eric L. Cramer, Michael Dell'Angelo, Patrick F. Madden and Joshua P. Davis of Berger Montague PC, by Benjamin D. Brown, Richard A. Koffman and Daniel H. Silverman of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, by W. Joseph Bruckner, Brian D. Clark and Kyle Pozan of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, and by Michael J. Gayan of Claggett & Sykes. Zuffa LLC, TKO Operating Co. LLC and Endeavor Group Holdings Inc. are represented by William A. Isaacson, Jessica Phillips and Agbeko Petty of Dunn Isaacson Rhee LLP, by J. Colby Williams and Samuel R. Mirkovich of Campbell & Williams, and by Christopher S. Yates, Aaron T. Chiu, Sean M. Berkowitz, Laura Washington and Joseph Axelrad of Latham & Watkins LLP. The case is Kajan Johnson et al. v. Zuffa LLC et al., case number 2:21-cv-01189, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

Feb 27

4 min

Information law and e-discovery focused firm Redgrave has hired a Big Law C-suite veteran as its first COO as part of its plan to move the boutique to the “next level” six years after conflicts led it to end its bid to merge with an Am Law 100 firm. Britney Colton joined the midsize firm in February from Am Law Second Hundred firm Stoel Rives, where she rose from human resources director to chief administrative officer over seven years. Redgrave joins other firms in recent years that added professionals to their C-suites to operate their business sides as they worked to find and retain clients and talent in an increasingly competitive legal industry. Jonathan Redgrave, firm co-founder and chair of its executive committee, said the firm primarily operates virtually and its leadership believed hiring a COO was a “critical component for where we’re going” as it navigates two major changes in the legal marketplace. “You’ve got a lot of disruption to come with both [generative] AI and various client demands for value and how that’s viewed in creating a move toward AFAs,” he said in an interview. “That really puts a higher premium on running (law firms) as businesses—being able to match client expectations.” He said the Northern Virginia-headquartered firm also needs to build “a great platform for our own internal success” in such areas as practice and personal development. “We said, ‘How are we going to position this firm for the next 10 years?’ We were really spending a lot of time thinking about how to structurally recalibrate about what takes us through in the next decade,” Redgrave said. Redgrave, a former partner with Nixon Peabody and Jones Day, said the firm has moved beyond its humble beginnings with him and wife, Victoria, in 2010 "at the kitchen table," to a 115-person firm that has become a “go-to” for its expertise in information law. “We really felt with firm growth, which is really continuing, we were ready to take that next step,” Redgrave said. The firm’s core practices focus on “addressing the legal challenges that arise at the intersection of the law and technology,” including information and AI governance, data privacy and security, and E-discovery, according to the Redgrave website. Colton said in an interview that she saw the position as an opportunity to help the Redgrave firm become an “elite boutique.” The firm already is an industry leader in information law but needs the “infrastructure” to bring the firm to the next level, she said. “A lot of the lawyers are ex-Big Law partners so they know what sophisticated legal work looks like and that’s the expectation they have,” Colton said. “But they don’t yet have the infrastructure. “It’s important that they operationally do that, and that’s why they were looking for a COO,” she said. Colton is charged with helping develop and execute strategic plans, improving the firm’s operational infrastructure, supporting attorney and adviser productivity and professional development, and making sure client service is a priority—all in concert with the firm’s executive committee, a news release stated. She said one of her first responsibilities will be to memorialize a formal, three-year strategic plan—which the firm does not now have—as part of its partners’ plans to create an “elite boutique.” Redgrave said the firm had written less-formal operating plans over the years that were “not at the depth and level that we’re going to go through this time with the rigor and discipline needed. Staying Independent After Nelson Mullins Deal Fell Through Jonathan and Victoria Redgrave—a former counsel with two Fortune 500 companies—opened the firm as a cybersecurity boutique in 2010. It has remained about the same size in recent years—about 55 lawyers—through such events as a failed merger with Am Law 100 firm Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough in late 2020. Redgrave said Nelson Mullins was offering an opportunity that included hiring the entire firm—including attorneys and its team of data management and analytics consultants. It would have combined Redgrave with Nelson Mullins' Encompass subsidiary to create one of the country's largest information governance and E-discovery law practices. However, the deal was abandoned after “conflict-related issues involving key clients of each firm” could not be resolved. Afterward, Redgrave said the firm’s clients convinced the firm to remain independent. The firm subsequently has focused on key lateral hires to enhance its standing as a specialty boutique that could compete with the largest firms, Redgrave said. “We made a conscious decision to say, ‘No, this boutique being a separate, independent entity has great value,’” he said. “A lot of those clients also used Nelson Mullins but they really viewed our role in what we do as being very special.” Recruiting Nationwide A licensed attorney, Colton began her career as an associate with Am Law 100 firm Davis Wright Tremaine. She later spent 12 years with TriMet—Portland, Oregon’s municipal transit system—where she worked as director of labor and employee relations before joining Stoel Rives. Colton, a Portland resident, said she is among the few female law firm leaders holding law and MBA degrees—which she said led to her exploring offers from larger firms. Redgrave’s offer to let her remain in her hometown to manage the mostly virtual firm rather than relocating was a key factor in her decision, Colton said. She said her plan to add "infrastructure" requires “maturing all of the functional areas,” such as financial performance, HR, talent recruitment and retention, marketing and AI innovation that help support the firm’s lawyers “right now and where we want to go,” Colton said. Helping the firm develop “thoughtful approaches to technology and AI that support our people and advance the interests of our clients as well as the firm’s long-term goals” also is among her responsibilities, she said. Concerning talent recruitment and retention, she said the firm only hires attorneys with experience. However, she is aided by the firm's mostly remote operation that allows it to recruit nationwide without needing to fill a physical office in a specific location. “We seek out talent across the country,” Colton said. “We want to find the best talent and we recognize sometimes it’s in Portland, Oregon, and sometimes it’s in New York or Chicago. So geography is not so much what I see as a driver for the strategic plan.” Stoel Rives managing partner Melissa Jones said in a statement, “We appreciate Britney’s many contributions to Stoel Rives and we look forward to watching her succeed in a COO role at Redgrave.”

Mar 3

5 min