Search and find what you need faster.

Lawrence Stephens’ teams ranked by Legal 500 UK 2025

Posted on: October 2nd, 2024 by Hugh Dineen-Lees

Lawrence Stephens is proud to have been recognised in the 2025 edition of the Legal 500 UK directory. Our Real Estate Finance and Banking teams have been ranked as Tier 7 in the Property Finance category, and our Sports and Entertainment team has achieved a Tier 5 ranking in the Sport category within the TMT (Technology, Media and Telecoms) section.

We were also delighted to learn that Angélique Richardson, an Associate in our Sports and Entertainment team, has been recognised as a ‘Leading Associate’ for her exceptional contribution and commitment to providing top-tier legal and career management advice to elite athletes.

The Legal 500 UK edition provides a comprehensive overview of the top law firms in the United Kingdom. It includes detailed qualitative reviews from many law firms, barristers’ chambers, and individual lawyers. The rankings are based on feedback from law firm clients which helps firms benchmark their expertise and performance in various areas.

Managing Director Steven Bernstein said: “It is fantastic to see the firm recognised in this way. While it is no surprise, we are delighted to see the firm listed amongst the best in the country and shows just how far we have come. We look forward to building on these foundations and seeing more of our people and teams achieving this distinction.”

Mohit Pasricha explores the UFC antitrust case in Law360

Posted on: September 11th, 2024 by Hugh Dineen-Lees

With the UFC receiving an unexpected setback in its $335 million settlement with former fighters, Head of Sports & Entertainment Mohit Pasricha discusses whether this case could set a bold precedent for sporting class actions. 

Mohit’s article was published in Law360, 10 September 2024, and can be found here.

By refusing to accept a $335 million settlement agreed between Ultimate Fighting Championship and a group of former fighters, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has delivered an unexpected knock-down requiring all parties to get back into the legal ring early next year.

In late July, U.S. District Judge Richard Boulware rejected the settlement reached in two class actions, Le v. Zuffa LLC, and Johnson v. Zuffa[1] in a dispute over a number of UFC fighters’ ability to negotiate other promotional opportunities. The judge had stated during a previous hearing that he was seeking a “life changing” settlement for fighters who had fought through 10 years of litigation. The ruling stated that the settlement amount that had been agreed between the parties was too low and, as a result, the settlement lodged with the court was rejected.

Prior to this decision, it had been hoped that the offer by UFC’s parent company, the TKO Group, would have resolved the long-standing dispute once and for all. Instead, a trial date has been set for February 2025.[2]

This is a seminal ruling that may have huge ramifications for UFC, a global business that merged with World Wrestling Entertainment in 2023 to form the TKO Group. It also sets a bold precedent within antitrust case law that will undoubtedly affect the sporting world more widely; there is not only the prospect of new claims arising, but also the risk of the floodgates opening on a long line of established antitrust case law.

In March, UFC had agreed to the $335 million sum in response to two class actions that represented about 1,200 former UFC athletes. These fighters had principally claimed, among other matters, that their UFC contracts suppressed their chances of taking advantage of other potentially lucrative options acquired through their sporting fame.

By way of background, there are currently two separate lawsuits, one filed by fighters Cung Le and Nate Quarry in 2014 representing fighters from 2010 to 2017, and a second filed by fighters including Kajan Johnson that represents fighters from 2017 to the present.

Zuffa, the predecessor entity that owned and operated UFC, was also the defendant in five related class actions filed between December 2014 and March 2015, which were consolidated into a single action in June 2015 — Le v. Zuffa.

The lawsuits alleged Zuffa violated antitrust laws by paying UFC fighters far less than they were entitled to receive and thereby eliminating or hurting other mixed martial arts promoters. UFC fighters Le, Quarry and Jon Fitch filed their initial complaint against Zuffa in federal court in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in December 2014; that was subsequently joined by fighters Brandon Vera, Luis Javier Vazquez and Kyle Kingsbury.

On June 23, 2021, Johnson and C.B. Dollaway filed another antitrust class action with similar allegations that UFC engaged in illegal anticompetitive action.

Of the proposed $335 million settlement, 90% was to have been paid to the plaintiffs represented in Le v. Zuffa. Under the proposed settlement, fighters in this case were to receive on average $200,000, with a median recovery of $73,000 and a minimum of $13,000 — with 36 class members to have been paid more than $1 million.

UFC said at the time that they had reached a joint settlement that encompassed both cases. In such circumstances, UFC would have certainly hoped and very much anticipated that this was the end of the matter; unfortunately, none of the parties expected the District of Nevada’s decision, which, as rare as it was, remained fully within judicial discretion.

Following this ruling, which refused the negotiated settlement, UFC publicly announced that it disagreed with the decision. Nonetheless, it was evident from UFC’s public statement that the parties could reach a new settlement agreement — as a result, we would fully expect UFC to engage in new settlement discussions with regard to both class actions.

Plaintiffs in both cases also stated that they too are open to reengaging with UFC over a new settlement or moving forward with the trial. Eric Cramer, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said in a statement that the fighters in the case “respect the court’s ruling” but “are keeping an open mind with respect to a potential new resolution.”

As with any matter that proceeds to trial, there is always litigation risk to be considered and a settlement for both parties would be the most favorable way to resolve the disputes in question.

There is therefore a clear desire for both parties to get back up from the proverbial canvas and continue to build upon the momentum of the settlement position that had already been reached to find a new resolution — one that should avoid the need for a further costly and lengthy trial.

Beyond the high-octane world of professional fighting in the U.S., this case is one that may have far-reaching implications for entities involved in such lawsuits across the sporting world. In addition, this case also serves as an important and emphatic reminder that, regardless of the specific case background, the filing of a settlement does not automatically mean it will be approved or accepted, and it is likely that those involved in future sporting class actions will tread with caution as a result.

Going forward, and with the alarm bells sounded by this recent ruling, it is highly likely that UFC will not want to be exposed to any future litigation risk. The likelihood, therefore, is that a new settlement will be negotiated, as both sides seem extremely keen to avoid being counted out and suffer a defeat at the mercy of a trial. On this basis, both parties are undoubtedly going to remain keen to reach acceptable settlement well in advance of any trial.

In such circumstances, and given the time pressures involved, we may very well see a settlement sum agreed in excess of $1 billion to remove any possibility of a final knockout blow ahead of the next year’s trial.

Mohit Pasricha has been recognised as one of just 30 Leaders Under 40 Class of 2024 in the Leaders Sports Awards

Posted on: August 15th, 2024 by Hugh Dineen-Lees

We are delighted to share that Director and Head of Sports and Entertainment Mohit Pasricha has been recognised as one of just 30 Leaders Under 40 Class of 2024 in the Leaders in Sport awards.

Leaders in Sport serves to connect the most influential people and the most powerful ideas in global sport to drive the industry forward. Sponsored by Deloitte and now in their tenth year, the awards acknowledge exceptional individuals who have moved the sports industry forward in the last 12 months. Mohit was selected by an esteemed panel of over 70 judges in a highly competitive category with hundreds of nominations of an exceptional standard.

Mohit joins a high profile international cohort representing governments, regulators, clubs and major sports brands. He will receive his award at the awards ceremony to be held at BAFTA on Piccadilly on Tuesday 15 October. The event forms part of a series that comprise Leaders Week London, a gathering of the entire ecosystem of global sport to foster understanding of the global trends impacting the sport business landscape and how to commercialise them.

Click here to view the Class of 2024 in full.

How athletes and celebrities can ensure they stay on the fairway during divorce proceedings

Posted on: July 18th, 2024 by Natasha Cox

Following Rory McIlroy’s recent divorce filing, and his subsequent dismissal of these proceedings, Head of Family Jim Richards and Associate in the Sports & Entertainment team William Bowyer explore how celebrities and athletes can ensure they stay on the fairway during divorce proceedings. 

Jim and William’s article was published in eprivateclient, 13 June 2024, and can be found here.

Golf superstar Rory McIlroy’s recently announced divorce raises a number of important questions for athletes and celebrities managing divorce proceedings – particularly when filing for divorce overseas. 

While Mr McIlroy and his wife Erica Stoll have since ended divorce proceedings, this widely reported case still bears relevance for those looking to manage high-profile separation proceedings.

High-net-worth individuals such as athletes and other celebrities often have a choice of jurisdictions in which to file for divorce. The forum for proceedings can be pivotal to a case, and thus will often be a key factor in deciding where proceedings are filed. 

In Mr McIlroy’s case, the Northern Ireland-born sportsman had papers served on Erica Stoll, his wife of seven years and a New York state native, at their home in Jupiter, Florida. Court documents were subsequently revealed to have been filed in Palm Beach County, Florida, confirming the jurisdiction selected by Mr McIlroy for the couple’s divorce proceedings.

Deciding on the most appropriate jurisdiction to deal with a divorce case can, however, lead to a number of challenges in dealing with assets across a number of jurisdictions as well as the tax considerations to which high-net-worth individuals must pay heed if they are to stay on the fairway during divorce proceedings.

Failure to consider the various cross-jurisdictional complexities of divorce can give rise to costly and unwanted satellite litigation, and suggests that it is therefore important for athletes and celebrities to seek advice from legal, tax and pension professionals from all relevant jurisdictions to ensure as swift and efficient a resolution as possible. 

However, the procurement of such counsel comes at a not inconsiderable cost, especially in situations where there is a wide range of disputes between the divorcing spouses, leaving both parties exposed to a significant cost burden at the outset of the case and throughout the ensuing proceedings.

Beyond the legal case itself, image and reputation management is also of the utmost importance, particularly for athletes and celebrities, as a messy and public separation could result in lucrative endorsements being lost. In Mr McIlroy’s case, as with so many others living in the glare of the media spotlight, already every available detail of the divorce proceedings is being pored over by the press and public alike in typically scurrilous fashion. 

Mr Mcllroy’s brand partners will need to consider their contractual arrangements with the golfer and assess whether a) this matter impacts their partnership and b) whether they have any grounds under their contract to end the relationship or at the very least, use it to their commercial advantage.

Celebrities who are forced to live their lives in the public eye have to be extra vigilant as to how each and every move they make will be interpreted, no matter how private the matter at stake. The well-documented travails of Mr McIlroy’s fellow golfer Tiger Woods during the collapse of his marriage to Erin Woods in 2009 will have given Mr McIlroy and his advisers ample food for thought when considering how best to handle the optics of his own marital breakdown.

High-net-worth individuals, celebrities and athletes must seek a wide range of advice before filing for divorce – including everything from tax and pensions advice to image rights and IP – to ensure that separation proceedings are handled swiftly and any potential fallout is minimised. Of paramount importance is choosing representatives to sensitively handle child arrangements to minimise the impact of the separation on the couple’s offspring. 

Frequently, children become unwitting victims of warring spouses’ anger towards one another during divorce proceedings, and all too often the glare of publicity spurs parties into even rasher and more regrettable actions than they may otherwise have taken had they not felt compelled to ‘prove’ themselves and their resilience to the world at large.

Similarly, it is imperative for both parties in divorce proceedings to select advisers as carefully as possible. It is, after all, their guidance which will be of critical importance to the outcome of the case, and to the ultimate financial settlement between the divorcing couple. 

Divorce and separation is never easy, nor pleasant, for either side, but when played out in the public eye there is even more potential for mistakes and missteps. Time spent calmly and diligently assessing options at the outset of a case may at times seem onerous and expensive, but if deployed properly will pay dividends in the end.

Sports and Entertainment team appointed to Sport Resolutions Pro Bono Service

Posted on: July 11th, 2024 by Natasha Cox

We’re thrilled to announce that our Sports and Entertainment team at Lawrence Stephens have been appointed to the Sport Resolutions Pro Bono Service.

The Pro Bono Service provides independent, efficient and accessible dispute resolution services to those in the sports industry of limited financial means.

The team firmly believes that costs should not be a barrier to justice, and this is just a natural extension of the substantial pro bono services we offer to athletes in need, from acting for clients in successful overdue payables claims at FIFA to helping women’s footballers establish their image rights structures via our Women In Football pledge.

Mohit Pasricha, Angelique Richardson, Jake Cohen and William Bowyer are all delighted to be appointed to the service and are proud to continue our work in protecting athletes and their rights.

Learn more about Sport Resolutions Pro Bono Service here: https://www.sportresolutions.com/services/pro-bono-legal-advice

Lawrence Stephens advises Mario Silva on first promotional deal with Boxxer

Posted on: June 25th, 2024 by Natasha Cox

The Sports & Entertainment team, led by Angelique Richardson, has advised professional boxer, Mario Silva, together with Merah Vodianova and Elliott Amoakoh of Nova Sport Group, on Mario’s first promotional deal with Boxxer.

Silva, with a current record of 5-0, is one of the youngest fighters in Boxxer’s stable at only 21, and is looking to be the next greatest middleweight of the generation. Mario will make his debut with Boxxer on 3 August 2024 on the Chelli v Simpson undercard at Oakwell Stadium, Barnsley.

Commenting on the deal, Mario said “I’m ready. Nova and Angelique have changed my life getting this deal over the line. I’m one step closer to my purpose and mission in this life”.

Angelique said: “This deal is life-changing for Mario – I’m thrilled to have advised him and Nova on this deal and we’re all really excited to see what Mario can bring to the middleweight division.”

William Bowyer discusses the importance of protecting athletes’ image rights in Law360

Posted on: June 18th, 2024 by Natasha Cox

Associate William Bowyer discusses athletes’ image rights following an award of €200,000 to the family of former Formula One champion Michael Schumacher, over publication of an AI-generated interview of him in Die Aktuelle magazine, in Law360.

Will’s article was published in Law360, 14 June 2024.

—————————————————————————

F1 driver AI case sheds light on winning tactics in IP suits

Athletes should ensure they protect their image, both via the contracts they enter into, such as sponsorship and broadcast deals, as well as by monitoring use of their image online. This will require considerable tenacity given that an uploaded image generated by artificial intelligence can suddenly go viral.

In this context, a decision by a Munich Labor Court to award €200,000 ($216,215) to the family of former Formula One champion, Michael Schumacher, which was reported in May[1] could set a precedent for athletes in image rights cases.

Although the circumstances of this case were highly unusual, given Schumacher’s profile and the nature of the interview in the article, the controversy over presenting quotes generated by AI as a genuine interview with Schumacher indicates that publishers cannot simply take advantage of the latest technology to behave less responsibly.

Indeed, the admission by publisher, Funke Mediengruppe that the April 2023 article in Die Aktuelle magazine was “tasteless and misleading”[2] indicates that athletes remain in a strong position when it comes to protecting their image and reputation.

Instead of encouraging media outlets to be ever more cavalier, this case implies that positive outcomes for sports personalities who take an aggressive and proactive approach remain achieveable.

The Schumacher case has opened the door for a wave of issues surrounding circumstances where third parties misuse image rights or create digital representations of real people without their authority.

In this particular example, the facts of the case indicate brazen misrepresentation on the part of Die Aktuelle. On the front cover of the edition in question, the headline ‘Michael Schumacher, the first interview!’ ran next to a photograph of the celebrity.

The magazine also wrote that “it sounds deceptively real”, with supposed, AI-generated quotes attributed to Schumacher. Only when reading the article on the inside pages did it become clear that the quotes had been produced by an AI tool.

Schumacher, the winner of seven F1 titles, has not been seen in public since being in an induced coma after suffering severe head injuries in a skiing accident in December 2013. The headline, which blatantly misrepresented reality, was obviously a ploy designed to attract maximum attention to potential readers not looking beyond the front cover.

Two days after publication, the magazine’s editor-in-chief Anne Hoffmann, who had held journalistic responsibility for the paper since 2009, was sacked and Bianca Pohlmann, managing director of Funke media group, apologised to Schumacher’s family.

Schumacher’s family was able to use Funke’s admission of responsibility and poor judgment against the publisher to reach a settlement, along with the fact that they wanted to reduce the public attention on this case as much as possible.

The battle between celebrities or brands and imitators is by no means a new phenomenon, and athletes and sports personalities work hard to protect the intellectual property and brand in their image, voice and likeness.

For instance, in February 2024, French football star Kylian Mbappé applied to European Union Intellectual Property Office to register a black and white logo depicting his crossed-arms celebration as a trademark[3] for  clothing, footwear, games, sports equipment, accessories, luggage, and printed matter such as books and magazines.

In doing so, he followed a path pioneered by his former Paris Saint Germain teammate Lionel Messi. Messi, who set the precedent, was engaged in a nine-year legal battle before the European Court of Justice finally approved his registration in September 2020 of an EU-wide trademark for a logo consisting of his name and a stylized letter ‘M’[4].

Seeking to monetise their image and using the law to proactively build their brand, Mbappé’s move is part of a wider trend by sports stars and celebrities to protect IP rights relating to their signatures, names, and other personal characteristics. Trademarking a logo, symbol, name or other similar mark grants these owners a monopoly right over their IP assets and helps to stop third parties from using their image without consent or payment.

While athletes have looked to the law to protect their brand and visual identity from copycats, the boom of generative AI has led to a slew of legal claims surrounding IP. Globally, lawyers are already seeing a rise in AI-related litigation surrounding image rights, and the German court’s decision will no doubt add to the momentum.

Another case, which could set a legal precedent in the UK, is the dispute between Getty Images and Stability AI[5], a London-based AI developer, which was filed in June 2023 and is currently pending trial before the High Court of Justice of England and Wales.

Getty claims that Stability AI is responsible for infringing its IP rights through the development of its Stable Diffusion system, which automatically generates images based on text or image prompts input by users. It argues that the synthetic images generated by AI in this instance reproduce in substantial part its copyrighted works.

Separately, in January 2023, a group of artists filed a claim against Stability AI in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California after one of them discovered that over 50 pieces of her artwork had been uploaded to LAION[6], a data set which feeds artificial intelligence image generators including Stable Diffusion.

The EU AI Act[7], which has been at the vanguard of legislation racing to catch up with the technology, proposes that AI tools will have to disclose any copyrighted material used to train their systems. As AI becomes more embedded into the workstreams of both online and print publications, it is likely that many more of these cases will occur.

While you cannot use someone’s image without their consent to sell or promote goods or services under both UK and EU IP law, there are exceptions when reporting the news. In the Schumacher case, however, Die Aktuelle were representing that the interview was both genuine and endorsed by his family in an attempt to sell their magazine.

Many well-known figures have already found their reputations damaged by such AI-generated images, which are so convincing that they are widely shared online – a scenario that athletes and their representatives will need to be ready to counter robustly.

Despite the general uncertainty that the widespread use of AI brings to image rights, the Schumacher case rightly shows a trend towards how athletes are looking to the law to protect their brand, enabling them to place themselves in pole position in image rights cases.

 

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/articles/cd1176240lko.

[2] https://news.sky.com/story/michael-schumachers-family-win-legal-case-over-tasteless-ai-generated-interview-in-german-tabloid-die-aktuelle-13141870.

[3] https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/018984428

[4] C-449/18 P EUIPO v Messi Cuccittini and C-474/18 P J.M.-E.V. e hijos v Messi Cuccittini

[5] Getty Images v Stability AI [2023] EWHC 3090 (Ch)

[6] Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., 23-cv-00201-WHO

[7] https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai

 

 

 

 

 

 

Angélique Richardson comments on Ryan Garcia’s doping case in World Boxing News

Posted on: June 3rd, 2024 by Natasha Cox

Following the news that boxer Ryan Garcia’s B sample has tested positive for ostarine, Associate Angélique Richardson comments on how high-profile fighters and their legal teams navigate doping cases.

Angelique’s comments were published in World Boxing News, 3 June 2024, and can be found here.

Angelique’s comments:

“Garcia is on the ropes, facing a lengthy ban from the sport of boxing.

“It’s not hugely surprising that Garcia’s B-Sample has also tested positive – it is extremely rare for an A-Sample and B-Sample to return differing results. As a Sports lawyer, we would always advise our fighters to request that their B-Samples be tested – it is good form and good diligence.

“The lead-up to the Haney v Garcia fight was controversial enough, with Garcia’s victory called into question. Now we have a positive A-Sample and B-Sample from Garcia to add to the mix. Issues like this continue to give the sport of boxing a bad rep.

“Garcia is an entertaining character in the sport of boxing. If he chooses to pursue his innocence, which is unclear from the ping-pong nature of his social media, he’ll come out swinging. I’m sure we’ll all have a ringside seat.”

Mohit Pasricha explores athlete trademarks and brand protection in The Times

Posted on: March 28th, 2024 by Maverick Freedlander

With Kylian Mbappé recently registering trademarks for his name and iconic goal celebration, Head of Sports & Entertainment Mohit Pasricha discusses how athletes can use the law to build their identity and protect their brand.

Mohit’s article was published in The Times, 28 March 2024, and can be found here.

Kylian Mbappé is often described as the “next Lionel Messi”; however the French football star is not just following in the footsteps of his Argentinian counterpart on the pitch. He has already taken similar steps off the pitch: by formally applying to register a black and white logo that depicts his crossed arms celebration as a registered trademark, together with other trademarks relating to his surname, initials and most famous quotes.

A nine-year legal battle ensued before the Court of Justice of the European Union finally approved Messi’s registration of an EU-wide trademark for a logo consisting of his name and a stylized letter M. The French phenomenon’s trademark applications should – in theory – be approved much faster.

Notably, the applications do not seek to prevent others from performing Mbappé’s famous celebration. They only apply to clothing, footwear, games, sports equipment, accessories, luggage, and printed matter such as books and magazines. As a result, and if registered, he will be provided with legal protection in the EU and the UK, which prevents others from trying to sell such goods if they feature the trademark of him performing the celebration.

Seeking to monetise their image and using the law to proactively build their brand, Mbappé’s move is part of a wider trend by sports stars and celebrities to protect their intellectual property (IP) rights relating to their signatures, names, and other personal characteristics. Trademarking a logo, symbol, name or other similar mark grants these owners a monopoly right over their IP assets, protecting their personal brand and stopping third parties from using their image.

If Mbappé’s widely anticipated transfer from PSG to Real Madrid happens during the summer window, then these trademarks are likely to form part of the overall financial package. Not only will Real Madrid be hiring him as an employee for his footballing services, the Spanish club will also want to exploit his image rights for commercial purposes. Since these trademarks will be owned by Mbappé in his personal capacity, Real Madrid will need to licence the right to use them in his employment contract, or via a separate image rights agreement.

Following the inevitable transfer, attention will focus on Real Madrid’s use of Mbappe’s trademarks and on how the revenue generated from the sale of products featuring his image (including the trademark) will be split. Notwithstanding media reports suggesting that this will be agreed at 80-20 in Mbappe’s favour, Real Madrid and other La Liga teams have previously adopted a distinctive approach: agreeing a 50/50 split with players on revenue generated from the sale of goods and services using their image in a club context.

No doubt, Mbappé’s progress in monetising opportunities will be keenly watched by sporting superstars and their agents, since failure to protect and enhance their IP rights could potentially result in millions of lost revenue for all parties.

 

Lawrence Stephens ranked as a Firm to Watch in The Legal 500

Posted on: October 26th, 2023 by AlexT

We are delighted to share that, less than three months after launching our sports and entertainment team, Lawrence Stephens has already been recognised as a ‘Firm to Watch’ in The Legal 500’s Sport rankings.

The Legal 500 highlights top firms and individuals operating in the legal market across a wide range of practice areas, based on extensive research and analysis.

The team, comprising Director Mohit Pasricha, Senior Associate Jake Cohen, and Associate William Bowyer, looks forward to continuing to grow its practice and provide first-class service to clients from across the world of sports and entertainment.

Mohit commented: “I am extremely proud of the work my team has done – Jake and Will have been invaluable for our success. We are extremely grateful to all of our clients. Their trust in our expertise is a privilege and responsibility that we’re very proud to have earned and we look forward to continuing to support them.”

For more details, view the full rankings here.

Mohit Pasricha comments on legal challenges to refereeing decisions in the Evening Standard

Posted on: October 5th, 2023 by AlexT

In light of Liverpool FC looking to challenge a controversial VAR decision, following a game against Tottenham Hotspur, Director and Head of Sports & Entertainment Mohit Pasricha comments on potential legal options for the club.

Mohit’s comments were published in the Evening Standard, 5 October 2023, and can be found here.

“Whilst the PGMOL have admitted a significant error occurred, Liverpool are ultimately facing an uphill battle to succeed in any legal claim.

Any case would need to establish whether human error directly affected the outcome of the game (which is not evident) or potentially Liverpool’s final position at the end of the season (which cannot be determined now).

Allowing a successful claim based on human error could set a dangerous precedent and potentially open the floodgates for other clubs to make similar challenges, making it highly improbable for any such claim to prevail.”