Tony Damian | Hot 40 2014

​Tony Damian, Herbert Smith Freehills

Tony Damian | Hot 40 2014
Tony DamianTony Damian, Herbert Smith Freehills

This last year saw Damian release the third edition of the book he co-authored, entitled Schemes, Takeovers and Himalayan Peaks. The 700-page work on M&A has made a significant contribution to the relevant law and, in the forward to the latest edition, Chief Justice T F Bathurst, Chief Justice of New South Wales, referred to the influence and importance of this work. “Earlier editions have established this book as the preeminent text on schemes of arrangement. This edition will be indispensable to any practitioner in the area and, dare I say it, to any judge required to determine whether to approve a scheme,” Bathurst wrote.

Check out who else made it on Australasian Lawyer's Hot 40.

Partner, Herbert Smith Freehills (1996)
Years of Experience:
  • Band 1 M&A lawyers in Australia, Chambers Partners Asia Pacific Guide
  • Best Lawyers, in:
    • Who’s Who Legal, 
    • Euromoney’s Guide to the World’s Leading M&A Lawyers
    • Asia Pacific Legal 500, in PLC Which Lawyer? 
  • Pre-eminent’ in M&A in the Doyle’s Australian Legal Guide.
  • Included in the IFLR 1000
Bachelor of Economics, Bachelor of Laws (Honours) and Master of Laws from the University of Sydney
Current Town Sydney, Australia

To read the full feature, download Australasian Lawyer's Hot 40 2014 feature on PDF.

Recent articles & video

Allens guides Morgan Stanley in landmark infrastructure deal

Rigby Cooke welcomes experienced litigator as partner

Gilbert + Tobin expands partnership with key promotions

NSW solicitors honored in King’s Birthday Awards

First-ever cohort of the best dealmakers in Australia and New Zealand unveiled

International Bar Association reveals legal sector's US$ 1.6 trillion contribution to global economy

Most Read Articles

Clyde & Co cohort crosses over to Kennedys

Four join Corrs partnership in promotions round

Moray & Agnew pumps up partnership with corporate lawyer

Federal Court rules against cosmetics company for misleading conduct and trademark infringement