11 Secretariat experts have been recognized in the 2026 Lexology Index Client Choice Report, earning accolades across four key categories: Arbitration, Construction, Investigations Digital Forensics, and Intellectual Property. 

The distinguished Client Choice Report celebrates outstanding professionals who consistently deliver exceptional client care and quality. Nominations come exclusively from clients and peers, underscoring the quality, professionalism, and uncompromising standards our experts uphold in the world’s most complex disputes. 

Read more here.

Highly Recommended 

Arbitration Expert Witnesses 

  • Clients note that Drew Baiter’s “written work is thorough, persuasive and to the point.” 
  • Harshal Doshi is recognized as having “a strong analytical mind and great presentation skills.” 
  • Paul Marcus is regarded as “smart, responsive, practical, [with] tremendous integrity.” 

Construction Experts 

  • Jonathan Brown is lauded as being “remarkably patient, clear and positive throughout the construction dispute.” 
  • Georges Bader is a trusted expert, with one client noting, “George was exceptional in all facets.” 
  • Jeffrey Wong “demonstrates a deep understanding of the subject matter and communicates his insights effectively, ensuring well-founded conclusions.” 
  • John Lancaster is consistently seen as “one of the top delay experts in the Asia-Pacific region.” 
  • Sources note that Ian Greenhough “is not only an absolute pleasure to work with but also has the technical skills to back up his strong reputation.” 
  • Tom Gaines possesses an “impressive” ability to “fully digest and assess materials in a contentious context.” 

Investigations Digital Forensic Experts 

  • Daniel Wang is recognized as a highly regarded expert in this category. 

Intellectual Property Experts 

  • Clients say Matt Farber is “extremely well-known for his expertise in IP damages.” 

Managing Director Ryan Marsh, PhD provided an expert report and testimony in a high-stakes case involving real estate investment fraud. A Houston jury found in favor of the plaintiff, based in part on Dr. Marsh’s testimony.  

Dr. Marsh was retained by McCathern, Shokouhi, Evans to provide expert testimony and quantify damages on behalf of their client. The complex dispute centered around a real estate investment transaction in which the defendant, the general partner and attorney, was alleged to have defrauded the plaintiff. 

Dr. Marsh conducted rigorous analysis to assess the damages arising from defendant’s conduct and the at-issue real estate transaction. He issued an expert report in April 2024, testified at deposition in June 2024, and delivered trial testimony before a jury in the 295th District Court of Harris County, Texas in September 2025. At trial, Dr. Marsh delivered clear, compelling insights, offering a supported range of reasonable values that quantified the plaintiff’s losses and helped the jury better understand the financial impact of the defendant’s conduct. 

Following an intense eight-day trial in October 2025, the jury ruled in favor of the plaintiff on all six counts of fraud presented to them and delivered a $1.71 million verdict, within the range Dr. Marsh identified. 

In a complex federal court case in Delaware with far-reaching geopolitical significance, Managing Director Gary Kleinrichert’s expert financial valuation helped secure approval of a landmark $5.89 billion Citgo sale opinion that could help resolve billions of dollars in unpaid judgments against Venezuela and certain of its instrumentalities. 

Citgo, the fifth-largest oil refiner in the United States, is owned indirectly by Venezuela’s state-owned oil company Petróleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA) through PDV Holding Company (PDVH), a Delaware corporation. On November 25, 2025, U.S. Circuit Judge Leonard P. Stark approved the sale of PDVH shares to Amber Energy, an affiliate of the hedge fund Elliott Investment Management. The court agreed with Special Master Robert Pincus that Amber Energy’s bid offered the best combination of “price and certainty of closing” of any bid submitted. 

Mr. Kleinrichert, a nationally-recognized and highly-credentialed forensic accounting expert with more than 30 years of business valuation experience, was retained as the valuation expert on behalf of one of the judgment creditors/bidders in support of the Special Master’s Updated Final Recommendation that the court approve the sale of PDVH shares to Amber Energy.  

Mr. Kleinrichert’s valuation relied on both a discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis and a market multiples analysis to establish a fair market value range for the PDVH shares between $8.4 and $8.6 billion, before accounting for contingent liabilities (such as the claims associated with the 2020 Bondholders).1

Amber Energy’s winning bid offered $5.892 billion, plus a $2.125 billion Transaction Support Agreement (TSA) with 2020 Bondholders who hold a security interest in 50.1% of CITGO Holding. Judge Stark found Mr. Kleinrichert’s valuation to be “credible and persuasive”, citing, “Mr. Kleinrichert’s fulsome analysis, which is the product of multiple calculations and reasoned, well-supported, and standard methodological choices.”2 The court relied heavily on Mr. Kleinrichert’s analysis in approving the highly significant sale to Amber. 

The Secretariat team supporting Mr. Kleinrichert included Chris Robinson, Jesse Ivory, Abby Williams, David Sastre, and Patrick Sorensen. 

Appeals of the ruling have been filed. 

Read the opinion in full here, and see Law360 coverage of the matter here (subscription may be required).

  1. Crystallex International Corp v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, 17-151-LPS, U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. 2025. P. 89.  ↩︎
  2. Crystallex International Corp v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. P. 129.   ↩︎

Secretariat is delighted to announce that we were named as the Arbitration Expert Firm of the Year at the prestigious 2025 Lexology Index Awards Ceremony, held at Merchant Taylors’ Hall in London. We are honored to be recognized by clients and peers as the foremost experts leading and shaping the global arbitration community.

The Lexology Awards celebrate excellence across the legal and expert witness community, showcasing firms and individuals who deliver outstanding impact in high-stakes litigation, prosecution, and transactional work.

“Our firm’s unique ability to bring clarity to complexity and deliver trusted expertise when it’s all on the line sets us apart globally,” said Don Harvey, Managing Director. “We are proud to lead the way and will continue to create value for our clients and raise the standards of our industry.”

Secretariat’s recognition as Arbitration Expert Firm of the Year reflects our experts’ tremendous technical expertise, global impact, and ability to deliver clear, defensible testimony in the most complex disputes. With integrated teams across the world’s key financial and arbitration centers, we remain committed to providing rigorous analysis and compelling insights to help clients navigate high-stakes matters with clarity and confidence.

Read more here.

Secretariat has earned significant recognition in the 2026 Lexology Index Arbitration Report, with 52 experts named in the prestigious listing, including the most combined Thought Leaders (7) and Global Elite Thought Leaders (10). 

Nominated by peers and clients, these accolades reflect our professionals’ commitment to exceptional client service, world-class capabilities, and the deep technical knowledge we bring to high-stakes arbitration engagements across the globe. 

Read what peers and clients say about our experts in the full Lexology Index: Arbitration 2026 report. 

Global Elite Thought Leaders 

  • Howard Rosen is widely regarded as bringing “an incredible bank of knowledge and experience to the table.” 
  • Liam Holder is praised for being “an excellent and very meticulous expert.” 
  • Alexander Demuth is considered “the star expert when it comes to M&A-related quantum issues.” 
  • Mike Allen earns recognition as “a smart, practical and overall wonderful expert.” 
  • Chaitanya Arora is described as “an extremely persuasive financial and damages expert who knows how to explain complicated issues to non-experts.”
  • Amit Garg is acknowledged for his “exceptional technical capability and analytical insight.” 
  • John Lancaster is commended for being “prompt and responsive to queries from clients and peers.” 
  • Mike Saulsbury is known as “one of the best delay experts in the region.” 
  • Kiran P Sequeira is valued for being “very thorough and exercising sound judgment.” 
  • Ian Greenhough is also included in the Global Elite Thought Leaders category. 

Thought Leaders 

  • Christopher Larkin is recognized for being “hard-working, diligent and producing well-written and sourced reports.” 
  • Terry Hawkins is admired as “measured, reasonable and razor-sharp in cross-examination.” 
  • Mehmet Karakoc is said to “get to the truth of the matter and enable accurate claim assessment and presentation.” 
  • George Taft is described as “a seasoned quantum expert who always seeks to do the best for his clients.” 
  • Alexandre Rivière is noted as “an effective damages expert.” 
  • Ben Burley is praised for his “extensive knowledge in programming and strong understanding of methodologies for evaluating claims.” 
  • Ted Scott is regarded as someone who “does excellent technical evaluations and is always well prepared.” 

Highly Recommended 

  • Paul Roberts is recognized for producing “reports of a high quality.” 
  • Julius Koo is described as “a diligent and level-headed practitioner.” 
  • Chris Milburn is considered “a highly experienced expert.” 
  • Eddie Tobis is admired for being “incredibly knowledgeable and [presenting] well as an expert witness.” 
  • Amit Arora demonstrates “a strong grasp of relevant case law on damages to reinforce his point.” 
  • Oliver Barnes is valued for possessing “both theoretical and practical knowledge and being strong when testifying.” 
  • Joe Skilton is praised for being “quick on his feet in the stand and able to respond rapidly during cross-examination.” 
  • Mark Taylor is recognized as “a top-tier expert.” 
  • Travis Taylor is described as “working very effectively and is impressive.” 
  • Neil Gaudion is noted for his “impressive ability to distil large-scale and complex issues into digestible items.” 
  • Paul Marcus is commended for being “very responsive and working hard until the last minute to offer his expertise.” 
  • Garrett Rush is regarded as “a highly knowledgeable and experienced expert.” 
  • Meera Wagman is admired as “an outstanding witness with composure and articulate presentation of her opinions.” 
  • Mrinal Jain, Matthew Wills, Taoufik Lachheb, and Don Harvey are also included in the Highly Recommended category. 

Recommended 

  • Abigail Harris is described as “hugely talented, with exceptional work.” 
  • Jeffrey Wong is recognized as “one of the best quantum experts in Hong Kong.” 
  • Miao Gu is praised for remaining “composed and organised under cross-examination and responding deftly to challenging questions.” 
  • Kagan Aktas is noted for speaking “objectively and authoritatively about complex delay claims involving multiple sub-critical paths and concurrent delays.” 
  • Stuart Dekker impresses by “combining an in-depth understanding of case details with business-oriented strategic analysis.” 
  • Mike Kling and Sveta Ksenofontova are also included in the Recommended category. 

Future Leaders 

  • Charmy Patel is regarded as “a detailed analyst focused on quality, translating to a thorough understanding of projects.” 
  • Michael Pogue is applauded for his “clear communication even in the most complex disputes.”
  • Björn Brand is praised for being “very clear and well versed in all aspects of claim quantification.” 
  • Paul Baez is described as “a collaborative and competent expert.” 
  • Bryan D’Aguiar earns recognition for his “impressive scope of knowledge and ability to communicate expertise clearly to lay audiences.” 
  • Gregory Johnson is valued for showing “efficiency, speed and accuracy.” 
  • Alexander Messmer is considered “a very reliable and thoughtful expert witness.” 
  • Gareth McDermott, Stuart Allan, Tom Gaines, and Shane Kennett are also included in the Future Leaders category. 

Cost escalation has emerged as a significant, and prevalent, issue in the construction industry, driven by post-pandemic global supply chain disruptions, inflationary pressures, and geopolitical events. As escalation claims continue to reshape the industry, it is essential for project owners, employers, contractors, and legal professionals to understand the root causes of escalation claims and how to adopt practical, evidence-based strategies to successfully navigate disputes on construction contracts.

In her latest article, Secretariat Associate Director Clare Ashworth examines:

  • What are escalation claims, and why are they so common now?
  • Key global events driving construction cost escalation.
  • How escalation manifests in disputes and how it’s measured.
Read the Article

Managing Director Allan Ingraham was featured in a recent article in The Boston Globe providing economic analysis of WNBA player compensation and demonstrating that players are significantly underpaid relative to the league’s current market value.

Through an economist’s lens, Allan examined WNBA salaries three ways—based on the media rights deal, team valuations, and revenue split. Each analysis revealed that players were being paid far less than fair market value. The average WNBA salary last season was $107,000, but Allan’s analysis shows it should be no less than $750,000.

“In the last five years, we’ve seen exponential growth in the value of the WNBA,” Allan explained. “There’s been exponentially more interest. There’s been more fans, there’s been more revenues, and… that growth occurred largely under one CBA that didn’t necessarily anticipate the growth.”

Allan noted that WNBA team valuations have soared to a combined $3.6 billion, and expansion franchises are now valued at $250 million. He emphasized that while jointly negotiating media rights deals with the NBA has provided benefits, it has also undervalued player salaries. Looking ahead, Allan stressed the importance of future agreements that can anticipate continued growth.

“A correction likely needs to be made. And then going forward, one of the things that [we] will be looking for is how subsequent CBAs try to anticipate the future growth in league revenues under future CBAs.”

Read Allan’s full analysis in The Boston Globe here (subscription required).

by Jeanne Gee

As federal regulatory priorities narrow under the Trump administration, state attorneys general and financial regulators are preparing to take on a more active role in white collar and securities enforcement. With the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recalibrating their focus, states such as New York and California are asserting their authority to fill gaps in corporate oversight.

Federal Enforcement Realignment

The DOJ is undergoing significant structural and strategic changes. As an example, many prosecutors are being reassigned from white collar units to immigration enforcement. Several specialized units have been dissolved, including the National Security Division’s Corporate Enforcement Unit, the Foreign Influence Task Force, and Task Force KleptoCapture.[1] In May 2025, Matthew Galeotti (“Galeotti”), Head of the Criminal Division, issued a memorandum to DOJ Criminal Division personnel outlining new priorities in white collar crime enforcement, where he noted the priority would be on “focused, fair, and efficient white-collar enforcement” as it “promotes American economic and national security interests while protecting American taxpayers, investors, consumers, and businesses.”[2]

At the SEC, leadership under Chair Paul Atkins has signaled a shift toward a more constrained regulatory posture. Atkins has emphasized a return to the agency’s core mission, which includes investor protection, efficient markets, and capital formation, while scaling back enforcement activity in areas such as internal accounting controls.[3] The SEC is also placing less emphasis on enforcement statistics, instead focusing on impact and efficiency. Notably, the Commission has reinstated a requirement that formal orders of investigation be approved by the full Commission, rather than delegated to the Division of Enforcement.[4]

These changes represent a marked retreat from the more expansive enforcement approach seen in recent years, particularly in areas involving national security, corruption, and environmental disclosures. As Galeotti noted in his May 2025 memorandum, “overbroad and unchecked corporate and white-collar enforcement burdens U.S. businesses and harms U.S. interests.”[5]

New York Increases Enforcement Activity

In response to the shifting federal landscape, New York enforcement officials have expressed a clear intent to expand their oversight role to address some gaps in federal enforcement. The Martin Act grants both the New York Attorney General and District Attorney sweeping powers to investigate and prosecute financial fraud without having to prove intent. Attorney General Letitia James has stated that her office will continue to investigate and prosecute crimes regardless of federal policy direction.[6] She has reaffirmed the office’s responsibility to enforce state laws independently. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has emphasized that local prosecutors are well equipped to handle complex financial crimes and may, in some instances, be best positioned to do so. His office also relies on the Martin Act to pursue corporate misconduct aggressively.

The New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) is also preparing for a greater enforcement role. Superintendent Adrienne Harris has said that a rollback in federal regulation will likely increase the volume of consumer protection cases brought by her office. She has noted that while the DFS is not ideological, it will act where new gaps emerge due to diminished federal partnership.[7]

California’s Enforcement Focus

California’s enforcement strategy is expected to differ in focus, but not in intensity. California Attorney General Robert Bonta (Bonta) has aligned with multistate coalitions challenging federal rollbacks and is prioritizing action in three areas: climate enforcement, antitrust scrutiny of mergers, and artificial intelligence regulation. In the area of corporate fraud, in April 2025 he issued a legal advisory reminding businesses operating in California that the FCPA remains binding federal law and violations are actionable under California’s Unfair Competition Law.[8] Attorney General Bonta has warned companies to be prepared for continued enforcement of anti-corruption laws in California.

In its most recent strategic plan, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) has stated its priorities are grounded in three core values: safety and soundness, responsible innovation and economic mobility.[9] As such, DFPI will continue its oversight over the financial services ecosystem, expand its reach, modernize its approach to regulating high risk investments, and strengthen its partnership with the California Attorney General through its Crypto Scam Tracker.[10]

SEC Under Paul Atkins

SEC Chair Paul Atkins has taken steps to reduce the regulatory burden on public companies and streamline oversight in emerging sectors such as digital assets. He has stated his commitment to a more coherent and principles-based approach to crypto regulation and has expressed skepticism about what he views as politicization in financial markets.[11] [12]

Atkins has publicly opposed the SEC’s climate disclosure rule and has suggested that the agency’s use of staff guidance has been inconsistent with proper rulemaking procedures.[13] He has proposed revisiting the structure of the Enforcement Division and cutting post-financial-crisis units such as the Asset Management Unit and the Market Abuse Unit. Additionally, he has championed the creation of a Wells-like advisory committee to review SEC enforcement policies and procedures.[14]

These changes reflect a broader shift away from expansive rulemaking and aggressive enforcement, in favor of narrower and more traditional regulatory objectives consistent with the Commission’s core objective of protecting individual investors.

Strategic Implications for Corporate Legal Teams

The growing role of state-level enforcement carries significant implications for companies, boards, and in-house legal departments. Effective response strategies should prioritize independence, credibility, and timely action. Internal investigations must be approached with objectivity and seriousness, particularly when allegations involve senior leadership.

In matters where multiple enforcement agencies may initiate parallel investigations—such as the SEC, DOJ, and state regulators—organizations must be prepared to navigate differing priorities, timelines, and legal requirements. This includes controlling the flow of factual information to management, preserving all relevant data including mobile and messaging communications, and ensuring coordinated efforts among internal and external legal teams.

Five Key Takeaways for Compliance and Legal Professionals

  1. State-level enforcement is rising
    State attorneys general and financial regulators are stepping in to fill the void left by federal enforcement pullbacks. Organizations should monitor developments in jurisdictions such as New York and California, where agencies are expanding their reach.
  2. Credible internal investigations are essential
    Investigations must be led by independent counsel and supported by forensic experts with relevant experience. Boards and audit committees should be prepared to act swiftly and with full transparency.
  3. Multi-agency coordination requires discipline
    When facing parallel investigations, maintaining consistency across communications and disclosures is critical. Legal teams must manage timelines, protect attorney work product, and anticipate information-sharing constraints between agencies.
  4. Preserve mobile and alternative communications data
    Evidence increasingly resides outside of email, including encrypted apps and messaging platforms. Early and comprehensive data preservation is a core expectation of regulators and auditors.
  5. Engage proactively and strategically
    Offering joint presentations or proffers to agencies such as the SEC and DOJ can help avoid duplicative processes and reduce investigative risk. Defense counsel should prioritize agency coordination where possible and help guide discussions toward resolution.

Companies operating in this rapidly shifting environment should move quickly to strengthen their internal governance, prepare for dual-track enforcement, and stay informed as state and federal enforcement dynamics continue to evolve.

[1] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/bondi-scales-back-us-justice-department-white-collar-enforcement
[2] https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1400141/dl?inline
[3] https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/testimony-atkins-060325
[4] https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/final/2025/33-11366.pdf
[5] https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1400141/dl?inline
[6] https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2025/attorney-general-james-releases-joint-statement-10-state-attorneys-general-state
[7] https://www.ft.com/content/e7db351b-bd38-415a-87cd-a13aad2762a3
[8] https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2025/04/california-attorney-general-warns
[9] https://dfpi.ca.gov/about/what-we-do/strategic-plan/
[10] https://dfpi.ca.gov/press_release/dfpi-strengthens-partnership-with-ca-department-of-justice-to-stop-crypto-scams-and-prevent-consumer-financial-loss/
[11] https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/atkins-digital-finance-revolution-073125
[12] https://www.regulatoryandcompliance.com/2025/04/the-sec-under-paul-atkins-what-to-expect-for-registered-and-private-offerings-climate-related-disclosure-consolidated-audit-trail-digital-assets-and-agency-re-organization
[13] https://www.daypitney.com/Update-US-SEC-Votes-to-Drop-Defense-of-Climate-Disclosure-Rules
[14] https://www.cov.com/-/media/files/corporate/publications/2025/03/paul-atkins-past-speeches-offer-a-glimpse-into-secs-future.pdf

by Amran Nawaz, Shalabh Gupta, Charlie Chetwood, and Ben Hornan

This is the first article in a series between Hogan Lovells and Secretariat on legal and expert issues that arise in sports disputes.

Download PDF

The 25/26 Premier League season has only recently started, but disputes involving the Premier League and its clubs have been ongoing for several seasons. Those disputes have brought the Premier League’s dispute resolution mechanisms into sharp focus.

This article focuses on the two main dispute mechanisms under the Premier League’s Rules (the “PL Rules”): disciplinary proceedings under Rule W (like those initiated against Everton FC and Manchester City FC in recent years); and arbitration under Rule X (like the now-settled dispute between the Premier League and Manchester City FC in connection with the Associated Party Transaction Rules). The article also looks at the role of experts in both sets of proceedings.

Chapter 1: Disciplinary proceedings under Rule W

The Board’s powers

When clubs are suspected of having breached the Premier League’s Rules, the Board of the Premier League has various powers to investigate, request information, and require clubs to produce documents.

The Board also has its own disciplinary powers to deal with breaches of the Rules. Those powers range from issuing a reprimand to imposing penalties and fines.[1] However, for substantial breaches, the Board typically refers the matter to an Independent Commission.

Referral to an independent commission

The Board commences proceedings before an Independent Commission by sending a complaint to the Chair of the Premier League’s Judicial Panel as well as to the respondent club.

Following receipt of the complaint, the Chair of the Judicial Panel appoints the Independent Commission. The Independent Commission will comprise of three members from the Premier League’s Disciplinary Panel (one of whom will act as Chair).

Assuming the respondent denies the complaint, the Chair of the Commission will set down a procedure for the conduct of the complaint. The Chair’s procedural powers include:

  • providing the Board and respondent club further opportunities to set out their case in writing;
  • requiring the parties to conduct reasonable and proportionate searches for, and to disclose documents relevant to the issues;
  • allowing the parties to exchange reports from experts on relevant issues, for example, on financial, accounting, valuation, and sporting issues;
  • allowing the parties to exchange witness statements on factual issues relevant to the complaint; and
  • ordering interim relief.

Typically, a formal hearing will be held at which the parties will set out their arguments, witnesses and experts will be cross-examined, and the Independent Commission will ask questions. The length of the proceedings and hearing will reflect the extent of the documentary, witness and expert evidence submitted by the Parties.

The decision and sanction

The Independent Commission makes its decision unanimously or by majority. It must be satisfied that the complaint has been proven on the balance of probabilities.

The Independent Commission has a wide range of sanctioning powers against clubs. After considering any mitigating or aggravating factors, amongst various options, the Independent Commission may:

  • impose an unlimited fine;
  • order the respondent club to pay unlimited compensation to any person, entity, or club;
  • deduct points; and
  • recommend that the Premier League expel the respondent club from Premier League membership.

However, the Independent Commission’s decision is not final because it may be appealed (by either the club or the Board) to an Appeal Board.

Appeals

The appeal must be made within 14 days of the decision that is the subject of the appeal. It will be heard by an Appeal Board of three members.

The purpose of the appeal is to review the evidence set out in the Independent Commission proceedings. Parties cannot rely on new evidence unless granted permission from the Appeal Board. The appeal will typically involve a hearing at which each Party’s lawyers will make arguments. 

The Appeal Board has the power to allow, dismiss, or vary the decision of the order made at first instance.

Subject to arbitration, the decision of an Appeal Board is final.

Chapter 2: Arbitration under Rule X

Under the PL Rules, membership of the Premier League constitutes an arbitration agreement, meaning that each club agrees to submit all disputes that arise between each club, and between the Premier League and each club, to arbitration seated in England and Wales.

This is a separate dispute resolution procedure to disciplinary proceedings under Rule W. It means that (in theory) the Premier League and its clubs cannot pursue claims against each other in the courts of England & Wales.

The Premier League distinguishes between three different kinds of disputes:

  • Decisions of Independent Commissions or Appeal Boards (“Disciplinary Disputes”);
  • Exercise of the Board’s discretion (“Board Disputes”); and
  • Other disputes arising from the PL Rules or otherwise.

Disciplinary Disputes can be reviewed by an arbitral tribunal only in limited circumstances, including where the decision was reached as a result of fraud, malice or bad faith, procedural errors, a perverse interpretation of the law and/or was one which could not reasonably have been reached by any Independent Commission or Appeal Board.

The grounds for reviewing a Board Dispute are even more limited. They include where the decision was reached as a result of fraud, malice or bad faith, contrary to English law, or could not have been reached by any reasonable Board.

The outcome of arbitration is final and binding on all concerned parties, save for the limited grounds for appeal to the courts set out in the Arbitration Act. Parties are unable to appeal on a point of law.

Chapter 3: The Role of Experts

The role of experts in Premier League disputes is growing. As financial structures around clubs become more complex—spanning multi-jurisdictional ownership, sophisticated sponsorship arrangements, and contested valuation issues—Independent Commissions and arbitral tribunals are increasingly reliant on financial, accounting, and valuation experts to help them navigate the issues in dispute. Questions such as whether a sponsorship deal reflects fair market value often cannot be answered without expert evidence.

Under the Premier League Rules, tribunals may permit the exchange of expert reports, the cross-examination of experts at hearings, and the testing of their methodologies through questioning. The procedural framework, however, is narrow. Expert evidence is usually confined to what is strictly necessary to resolve compliance or sanction issues. The process is designed to be efficient, confidential, and focused on preserving the integrity of the competition.

By comparison, the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration set out a more expansive role for experts. Party-appointed experts must disclose their instructions, assumptions, and methodologies, enabling tribunals to test competing analyses on equal footing. Cross-examination and direct questioning by the tribunal are integral, clarifying technical issues and maximising the reliability of the evidence. Often the experts appointed by both parties prepare joint-expert reports or are cross-examined by the tribunal together (also known as hot-tubbing) to narrow down the differences in their opinions. In practice, expert analysis often sits at the heart of the tribunal’s deliberations, particularly in disputes involving financial modelling and valuation.

Conclusion

The PL Rules provide a structured framework for addressing alleged breaches and disputes between clubs and the Premier League by individuals and clubs.

As the financial dimensions of cases grow in scale and complexity, the role of experts in Premier League disputes is set to increase.

The question remains how far the existing procedural tools under the PL Rules can accommodate that evolution.

[1]  Under its summary jurisdiction, the Board can impose a fine not exceeding £100,000, or, in the case of a managerial breach, a sum which set out in a tariff or a penalty agreed  with the League Managers Association.

Explore more insights from our Global Sports Consulting team, connect with our experts, and follow Secretariat for the latest in sports business strategy. 

Connect with Our Team
Follow on LinkedIn

Secretariat is thrilled to announce that 20 of our experts have been recognized as premier Construction professionals in the Lexology Index 2025 Thought Leaders – Construction report, including a leading number of Global Elite Thought Leaders (12).  

Lexology Index (formerly Who’s Who Legal), one of the world’s most trusted and highly regarded publications, provides an in-depth look into the world’s elite and upcoming construction practitioners in its 2025 Thought Leaders – Construction report. The recognized experts have been nominated by clients and peers, gaining recognition for their unparalleled expertise, experience, and ability to innovate, inspire, and go above and beyond for their clients. 

Secretariat’s substantial presence throughout Lexology’s 2025 Thought Leaders – Construction report underscores the caliber, influence, and esteemed reputation of our firm and global experts alike, and the instrumental role we continue to play in helping clients navigate the most complex, high-stakes matters that are shaping the future of the Construction industry.  

Read the Report

Congratulations to our recognized Construction Expert Thought Leaders:  

Secretariat is proud to share that 11 of our experts have been named as USA Thought Leaders in Lexology Index’s 2026 listing. This honor underscores the depth of expertise, innovation, and leadership that our professionals bring to the legal world, and the tremendous impact they have on clients and peers alike. 

Congratulations to:  

  • Meera Wagman 
    • Arbitration Expert Witnesses 
    • Construction – Quantum Delay & Technical 
    • Construction Expert Witnesses 
  • Neil Gaudion 
    • Arbitration Expert Witnesses 
    • Construction – Quantum Delay & Technical 
    • Construction Expert Witnesses 
  • Don Harvey 
    • Arbitration Expert Witnesses 
    • Construction – Quantum Delay & Technical 
    • Construction Expert Witnesses 
  • Ted Scott 
    • Arbitration Expert Witnesses 
    • Construction – Quantum Delay & Technical 
    • Construction Expert Witnesses 
  • Garrett Rush 
    • Arbitration Expert Witnesses 
    • Financial Advisory and Valuation – Quantum of Damages
    • Mining – Experts  
  • Kiran Sequeira 
    • Arbitration Expert Witnesses 
    • Financial Advisory and Valuation – Quantum of Damages 
  • Carrie Distler 
    • Commercial Litigation – Expert Witnesses 
    • IP – Experts 
  • Thomas Fertitta 
    • Construction – Quantum Delay & Technical 
    • Construction Expert Witnesses 
  • Mike Kling 
    • Construction – Quantum Delay & Technical 
    • Construction Expert Witnesses 

View Lexology’s listing in full here.  

Secretariat Managing Director Tamika Tremaglio has been named as one of the Most Powerful Women in Washington by Washingtonian Magazine. 

The annual listing showcases women who exemplify power and influence across D.C.’s most critical fields.

Tamika was recognized as a renowned business leader, highlighting her current role helping spearhead the expansion of Secretariat’s new global Sports Consulting practice and her experiences as executive director of the National Basketball Players Association and managing principal for Deloitte’s Greater Washington office. 

“Being named among Washington’s most powerful women is both an honor and a charge,” said Ms. Tremaglio. “Power, at its best, is stewardship — not dominance. It’s the quiet conviction to open doors, to make the table longer, to leave no voice unheard. I am grateful to stand among Washington’s most powerful women, but prouder still to be part of a generation redefining what power looks like.”

We are thrilled to celebrate Ms. Tremaglio’s leadership and her continued impact across the business, legal, and sports landscapes.

Read the full listing here.