Frédérick Lacroix

Partners at Weil, Gotshal & Manges and Latham & Watkins topped MergerLinks’ 2025 M&A rankings in a year of mega-deals in France, while the top two partners in the previous year’s ranking recently changed firms. Weil partner David Aknin sits atop the 2025 ranking, after leading on about €14.16 billion ($16.72 billion) across five deals, according to MergerLinks data. He’s closely followed by Latham & Watkins’ Gaetan Gianasso, who gained six spots from 2024 to come in at No. 2, leading on about €13.48 billion across six deals for 2025. MergerLinks said that in determining the rankings, it “considered transactions where the lawyer acted as the lead legal adviser to one of the transaction parties.” Deal value is calculated as the sum of the consideration paid by the acquirer for the equity stake in the target plus the value of the target’s net debt, where applicable. MergerLinks said this year’s rankings offer “a concrete view” of a “year marked by mega-deals and subdued overall volume.” Aknin, making his first appearance in the Top 10, in an interview described the 2025 market as “patchy,” with some very active “pockets” and others more “stop and go.” Sectors for which transactions remained very active and where investors were ready to pay premiums included animal and human health, food, particularly B2B ingredients companies, insurance, and wealth management, Aknin said. “There will be some big deals for these assets offering investors good visibility. In other areas, investors may prefer to wait.” In spring 2025, Aknin and his team advised French multinational animal health company Ceva Santé Animale in a €9.2 billion “recapitalisation” financing round bringing in new investors. Aknin called the transaction “one of the biggest buyout deals in Europe last year.” Leading on the bidder side of that deal, Gianasso and his Latham team advised PSP Investments, the Canadian public sector pension investment manager. Other firms advising on the bidder side included Dechert for Lyon-based PE firm Archimed, led by partner Alain Decombe, who made No. 3 in the 2025 ranking with €9.74 billion in two deals. Gianasso and Aknin and their teams also led buy-side advisers in French private equity firm Ardian’s $5.643 billion acquisition of a controlling stake in European corporate insurance brokerage Diot-Siaci. Latham advised the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, while other sellers included Bpifrance and Cathay Capital, among others. “Sponsors’ appetite for transactions stayed resilient in 2025, despite a complex geopolitical environment and shifting political dynamics in France,” Gianasso said in an email. He described a year “marked by a clear flight to quality, with sponsors focusing on trophy assets across a broad range of sectors, particularly the most dynamic ones, such as software, healthcare, and business services.” Clifford Chance partner Laurent Schoenstein, who also worked on the Ceva deal, came in at No. 4 in the ranking, leading on around €8.63 billion in deal value, according to MergerLinks. Moves and Grooves The No. 3 in MergerLinks’ 2024 table, Clifford Chance’s Benjamin de Blegiers, doesn’t appear in this year’s ranking, but he led a four-lawyer, three-partner, energy and infrastructure PE team that left for Latham a few weeks ago. De Blegiers was global co-head of Clifford Chance’s infrastructure sector. No. 5 in this year’s ranking (for 2025), White & Case partner Franck De Vita, and his team led on $5.92 billion on two deals, according to MergerLinks. Meanwhile, former Freshfields partner Hervé Pisani, who was No. 4 in MergerLinks 2024 top 10, fell to No. 8 in the 2025 ranking, leading on about €5.16 billion in deal value while still at Freshfields. Pisani moved to White & Case in January. Bookending Pisani in this year’s ranking, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton’s Charles Masson was No. 7. and Paul Hastings’ Sebastien Crepy was No. 9. No Kirkland This Year MergerLinks French top 10 advisers ranking for 2024 was topped by Olivier Assant of Bredin Prat, with Kirkland & Ellis partner Vincent Ponsonaille at No. 2. Neither of those two advisers made this year's top 10, although Bredin Prat managed to stay in the ranking with partner Benjamin Kanovitch coming in at No. 6 for 2025, leading on about €5.86 billion across two deals. Bredin was joined by another French firm, Scotto Partners, whose partner Adrien Badelon came in at No. 10.

Mar 1

3 min

After destroying sales records daily over the course of three years, the retailers accused by the Cayuga Nation of running an unauthorized cannabis shop will face sanctions, a New York federal judge ruled, calling their behavior "grossly negligent and likely willful." Entrepreneurs Dustin Parker and Nora Weber knew that their handwritten records of each sale made at their shop, Pipekeepers, should be preserved and that getting rid of them risked a penalty, said U.S. District Court Judge Brenda K. Sannes in a 17-page order, issued Thursday, granting the Nation's request for sanctions. Judge Sannes explicitly rejected Parker's explanation attempting to justify the disposal. "The court has found the Parker defendants' noncompliance with their disclosure obligations to be grossly negligent and likely willful," the judge said. "The reason for the destruction — Parker's determination that 'we don't really need to keep it, just kind of taking up space,' stands in direct opposition to the instruction he presumably received from his attorney at Magistrate Judge [Andrew] Baxter's direction." The ruling is a second loss in a week for the retailers. On Tuesday, Judge Sannes rejected Parker and Weber's bid for summary judgment on the tribe's RICO claims. While Judge Sannes said sanctions are certainly justified, the judge wasn't quite ready to commit a particular penalty. This was for a few reasons. The Cayuga Nation asked for an entry of default judgment in their favor, but Judge Sannes suggested this was too "drastic" an answer. Alternatively, the tribe asked for a jury instruction, telling the panel of peers that the entrepreneurs destroyed the evidence "because it was unfavorable to them and would fully support the Nation's merits claims and claims for damages," according to the court order. But Judge Sannes said this could be "overbroad" since it's not obvious how the destruction of the records, which occurred at the second location known as the Montezuma Pipekeepers, would actually harm the Nation's racketeering claims, which center on profits made at the first retail location, Bayard Street Pipekeepers. What's more, it's not yet clear if the tribe is legally allowed to recover taxes for cannabis sales, the judge said. "Still, in the absence of Montezuma Pipekeepers' cannabis sales records, the Nation may face a disadvantage in establishing damages to its cannabis business that would warrant an adverse inference in connection with damages," the judge said. "The Parker defendants are advised that even if the court concludes an adverse inference instruction is not warranted, given their intentional disposal of cannabis sales records over the course of years, some form of sanctions are likely justified," the judge said in a footnote. This is the latest turn in the ongoing multimillion-dollar legal battle between the Cayuga Nation and the entrepreneurs behind Pipekeepers. The tribe sued in the Northern District of New York in February 2022, claiming the two were operating an unsanctioned shop selling cannabis and untaxed cigarettes, according to the court record. The shop's operators have filed a countersuit claiming they were wrongfully evicted from tribal land. This document dispute started in May, when Parker, a citizen of the Nation who the tribe said is banished, said that second Pipekeepers does, in fact, generate a record for every cannabis sale at the time of purchase, but they are destroyed at the end of each day, according to his deposition. Following this, U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter ordered Parker and Weber to preserve Pipekeepers' records and share them with the tribe. In total, 39 months of records were destroyed, Judge Sannes said. Parker and Weber urged the court against the kind of sanctions that would give the tribe a win. Rather, if the court should sanction them at all, it should be in proportion to the actual harm caused, they argued. The records would only determine how much in damages the entrepreneurs might owe, should they be found liable. The documents do speak to whether they are actually liable for those damages, according to their motion opposing sanctions. In addition, Parker and Weber argued that the tribe's request for case-ending sanctions was in bad faith. They reminded the court that, before filing suit, the nation conducted a raid on the shop in January 2022, destroying electronic records. The retailers filed their own motion for sanctions for this action by the tribe, but Judge Sannes said these records were not relevant to the case and denied their request. Neither side immediately responded to a request for comment on Friday. Parker and Weber are represented by Daniel J. Hurteau, Kasey Kaspar Hildonen and Robert McManigal of Nixon Peabody LLP. The Cayuga Nation is represented by David G. Burch Jr. and Michael E. Nicholson of Barclay Damon LLP. The case is Cayuga Nation v. Dustin Parker et al., case number 5:22-cv-00128, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.

Nov 7

4 min

Acadia Healthcare Co. Inc. and plaintiffs in a securities class action accusing the company of misleading investors about the strength of its United Kingdom operations have reached a settlement in principle, avoiding a trial that was set for later this month. According to an order signed by U.S. District Judge William L. Campbell Jr. on Friday, the jury trial previously set for Nov. 18 has now been canceled, and all deadlines are vacated. The plaintiffs plan to file a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement within 30 days, according to the settlement notice also filed on Friday. Last month, Judge Campbell granted a partial summary judgment motion filed by investors that focused solely on the issue of reliance, or whether there was a causal connection between the defendants' alleged misrepresentation and the investors' injury. Shortly after, Acadia filed a motion to certify the order for immediate appeal and for a stay of the proceedings. Acadia had also filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing that the safe harbor provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act bars the suit's claims related to projected earnings at Acadia's U.K. facilities in 2017 and that the suit lacks evidence of loss causation. The litigation, which dates back to 2018, alleges that in an effort to support a flow of referrals that would fill beds at its inpatient and outpatient residential treatment facilities, "Acadia consistently and repeatedly represented to the public and investors that it provided high-quality patient care." "In reality, and in stark contrast to defendants' public statements, Acadia's tactic of acquiring facilities and then systemically cutting staff generated alarming incidents of abuse, neglect and, on several occasions, death," the investors said. The defendants argued that an outside investment adviser for the lead plaintiff, the Chicago Laborers' Pension Fund, knew of certain risks before purchasing Acadia stock during the class period, did not think the company was engaged in fraud after reviewing the alleged corrective disclosures, and did not sell its stock after related financial guidance was issued. However, Judge Campbell said last month when granting partial summary judgment that the defendants do not explain "how the foregoing shows or supports an inference that the investment advisor would have bought or sold Acadia stock even if it had been aware that the stock's price was tainted by fraud. Nor can the court think of any reason." On whether the defendants had actual knowledge that the challenged statements were false or misleading when made, the judge said circumstantial evidence in the suit including that the defendants made unreasonable performance expectations, ignored monthly results and forecasts, and sold millions of dollars' worth of Acadia stock months before lowering projected earnings guidance, is sufficient to raise a genuine dispute of fact concerning whether the defendants acted with scienter. Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday. The investors are represented by Christopher M. Wood, Jerry E. Martin, Darren J. Robbins, Sam S. Sheldon, Darryl J. Alvarado, J. Marco Janoski Gray, Ting H. Liu and T. Alex B. Folkerth of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Justin J. Lannoye of Dowd Bloch Bennett Cervone Auerbach & Yokich, and Michael Bauman of Pitta LLP. The defendants are represented by Steven A. Riley, Milton S. McGee III and Elizabeth O. Gonser of Riley & Jacobson PLC, and David L. Balser, Jessica P. Corley, Lisa R. Bugni and Brandon R. Keel of King & Spalding LLP. The case is St. Clair County Employees' Retirement System v. Acadia Healthcare Co. Inc. et al., case number 3:18-cv-00988, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

Nov 10

3 min

The Federal Circuit has thrown out a jury's finding that lighting manufacturer Opti-Luxx owed $23,000 for infringing a Canadian competitor's two patents covering illuminated school bus signs. In a precedential decision Thursday, a three-judge panel of the appellate court reversed the lower court's judgment that Opti-Luxx infringed a utility patent, and it vacated the finding that it infringed a separate design patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that the design patent verdict was based on an incorrect claim construction of the word "transparency," so it vacated that part of the holding and remanded it for further proceedings under the correct construction. The panel said that "while the district court may consider extrinsic evidence, such as the testimony of an expert witness, any testimony that is 'at odds with … the written record of the patent,' should be afforded no weight." It also said that on remand, the lower court would have "to determine whether such an art-specific meaning of the term has been established such that the jury should be instructed as to such a meaning." "But in this respect, we caution that 'conclusory' testimony by experts unsupported by reliable extrinsic material — such as special-purpose dictionaries or other objective evidence — is insufficient," the panel said. As for the utility patent, the jury found infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, which allows for a finding of infringement even if patent claims aren't literally infringed. But the Federal Circuit reversed the judgment, saying no reasonable jury could have reached that conclusion. The utility patent requires that the sign can be customized without removing it, but Opti-Luxx's product can't do that, the appellate court said. "The patent indicates that the claimed invention can 'removably receive the sign' so that the signs can be exchanged, customized, or serviced without removing the entire installation," the panel said. "Smartrend's expert witness … conceded that the accused product is 'not capable of doing that.'" About two years ago, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan found that Opti-Luxx willfully infringed both patents, and awarded Smartrend Manufacturing Group $23,308 in damages. Smartrend first sued Opti-Luxx in November 2021 after notifying its competitor of the alleged infringement and its loss of customers. Smartrend said it alerted Opti-Luxx to the issue in February 2021, writing to the company to inform it of then-pending patent applications covering the illuminated signs. Gaëtan Gerville-Réache, an attorney for Opti-Luxx, said in a statement to Law360 on Thursday that he was happy with the appellate court's decision. "The Federal Circuit's opinion above all instructs district courts that they should not accept the conclusory opinions of experts simply because they are qualified experts, either at the claim construction phase or at trial," he said. "Expert opinions need to be closely examined to confirm they are based on actual evidence and do not contradict the patent or law, such as the test for the doctrine of equivalents." Counsel for Smartrend did not immediately respond to requests for comment Thursday. The patents-in-suit are U.S. Design Patent No. D932,930 and U.S. Patent No. 11,348,491. U.S. Circuit Judges Timothy B. Dyk, Richard Linn and Leonard P. Stark sat on the panel for the Federal Circuit. Smartrend is represented by Thomas W. Cunningham, John P. Rondini and Dustin R. Zak of Brooks Kushman PC. Opti-Luxx is represented by Gaëtan Gerville-Réache, Vito A. Ciaravino and Douglas A. Dozeman of Warner Norcross + Judd LLP. The case is Smartrend Manufacturing Group Inc. v. Opti-Luxx Inc., case number 24-1616, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Nov 13

3 min

Latham & Watkins has hired a four-lawyer Clifford Chance PE team with energy and infrastructure expertise to enhance its Paris office, led by private equity and M&A partner Benjamin de Blegiers. De Blegiers is the former global co-head of Clifford Chance’s infrastructure sector. The other team members include finance partner Daniel Zerbib and public law and regulatory partner Gauthier Martin, who are also joining Latham as partners. Alexandre Namoun, a Clifford Chance counsel whose practice focuses on private equity and M&A, is the fourth member of the team and his position has yet to be determined. “Our Paris office lacked energy and infrastructure expertise, and that’s what this team now gives us,” a person close to the hires said. De Blegiers, who leaves Clifford Chance after four and a half years, spent close to three years at Weil, Gotshal & Manges, after an earlier 15-year stint at Clifford Chance Paris, including as partner, according to his LinkedIn profile. Martin spent 19 years at Clifford Chance, including nearly seven as a partner. Clifford Chance confirmed that de Blegiers, Zerbib and Martin are leaving but did not mention Namoun and did not immediately have any further comment. Latham said Blegiers advises corporates, private equity funds, pension funds, asset managers and other private capital investors, while Zerbib specializes in banking and finance transactions with a focus on infrastructure finance. Martin counsels clients on complex public contracts, regulated sectors and related strategic disputes. Latham’s approximately $7 billion in 2024 global revenues put it at No. 2 on the Global 200. Clifford Chance ranked No. 12, with just over $3 billion in gross revenues.

Feb 11

1 min