Skip to content

Simpson Thacher deadline blunder leaves major client facing merger block

Avatar photo

By Legal Cheek on

14

Filed appeal one day late


A filing error by US law firm Simpson Thacher has left a major client unable to complete its takeover of a UK catering business.

That client is Aramark, the US food services giant, which had sought to overturn a decision by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) ordering it to reverse its purchase of Entier, a supplier of catering, cleaning and maintenance services to offshore sites such as oil rigs and ships.

In a judgment handed down this week, the Competition Appeal Tribunal refused to extend the deadline for Aramark’s appeal after finding that US outfit Simpson Thacher had sent the notice one day late. The tribunal said Aramark and its legal team had “mis-read the rules” when calculating the time limit for bringing the challenge.

The 2026 Legal Cheek Firms Most List

The case arose out of the CMA’s decision in January ordering Aramark to reverse its deal with Entier. The regulator concluded that the acquisition combined two of the three main providers in the sector and risked substantially reducing competition. Under the tribunal rules, Aramark had four weeks to challenge that decision.

But that challenge never got off the ground. According to the judgment, Simpson Thacher told Aramark that the filing deadline was 5pm on Friday 13 February 2026 and that the notice of application would be filed a day earlier on Thursday 12 February. In fact, the correct deadline was 5pm on Thursday 12 February. The notice was eventually sent to the tribunal registry at 12.02 pm on Friday 13 February, and they declined to register it.

Aramark initially argued that the filing had in fact been on time, before accepting that the deadline had been missed and switching to an application for an extension. That application was backed by Simpson Thacher and later by Latham & Watkins, which Aramark brought in after the problem emerged. The company also sought a second opinion from Shoosmiths.

Tribunal chair James Wolffe KC was unimpressed by the attempt to rescue the appeal.
“I take fully into account the substantial prejudice which Aramark sustains by reason of losing the opportunity to obtain a review of the decision, and that the underlying reason why this has happened is an error by its solicitor in computing the time limits,” he said. “I do not consider that these are exceptional circumstances which justify an extension to the statutory time limit.”

Under tribunal rules, the CAT can only extend the time limit for merger appeals where the circumstances are exceptional. Wolffe held that a lawyers’ good faith mistake on the rules, even one with major consequences, did not clear that high bar.

The judge accepted that Simpson Thacher had engaged constructively with the CMA in the run-up to the appeal and that the mistake had not been cynical or casual. But he said the rules in this area were strict, had been in place for years, and that missing the deadline by a day was still missing the deadline.

Simpson Thacher has been approached for comment.

guest

14 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
QT
QT
1 month ago

Oof – imagine paying extortionate fees to instruct a US firm, only for them to get the very basics wrong

Anon
Anon
1 month ago
Reply to  QT

I guess you never made a mistake. Well done.

QT
QT
1 month ago
Reply to  Anon

Not a cataclysmic mistake like this.

STB Associate
STB Associate
1 month ago

This may have been my mistake but it was not my fault. The abacus in the office was faulty. I don’t get paid enough.

Another sub-100 IQ Oxbridge humanities grad
Another sub-100 IQ Oxbridge humanities grad
1 month ago

Advanced calculations like the counting of dates are well above the intellectual capacity of the best lawyers. Use ChatGPT next time.

Anon
Anon
1 month ago

Rule 25(1) of the Competition Appeal Tribunal Rules 2015 requires an application for review of certain decisions:

“within four weeks of the date on which the applicant was notified of the disputed decision, or the date of publication of the decision, whichever is the earlier.”

The decision was published on Thursday 15 January.
https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/aramark-slash-entier-merger-inquiry
Let’s assume there was no earlier notification.

Question: does “within four weeks” expire on Thursday 12 February? Or Friday 13 February?

It is easy to be wise after the event, but perhaps you should not wait until almost the last possible day to file your application?

R
R
1 month ago

Bruh I just whoever was responsible associate is hiding right now

Law Reporter
Law Reporter
1 month ago

Reminds me of a recent case where Quinn Emanuel attempted to get an injunction against a litigant in person. Lost. Appealed the decision and then lost again. Two losses to a litigant in person by a giant US firm. Makes it hard to justify the huge fees.

Bill
Bill
1 month ago
Reply to  Law Reporter

Depends on the case. If you put a hedgehog 99.99m ahead of a cheetah in a 100m race then the underdog is the favourite.

HedgeSF
HedgeSF
1 month ago
Reply to  Bill

Kindly leave hedgehogs out of this.

Bill
Bill
1 month ago
Reply to  HedgeSF

Who the bleep do you think you are all high and mighty and able to speak on behalf of all hedgehogs?

Harry the Hedgehog
Harry the Hedgehog
1 month ago
Reply to  Bill

I self identify as a hedgehog and am offended.

Who do I sue?

Anon
Anon
1 month ago
Reply to  Law Reporter

Losing a case on its merits is nothing to be ashamed of (and for all you know, they might have advised their client it was a hiding to nothing and been instructed to plough on regardless). Having a case thrown out due to pure negligence is a totally different matter.

MattGroening
MattGroening
1 month ago

In best Mr Burns impression: “…Simpson…YOU’RE FIRED!”