Sidley Austin (London)

Tom Bainbridge

Sidley Austin (London)
Legal Counsel

Tom Bainbridge advises on EU and UK competition law, and has extensive experience in both antitrust and merger control matters. Tom’s work includes successfully defending Deutsche Bank in the European Commission’s Credit Default Swaps investigation, recognized in 2016 by Global Competition Review as “European Behavioral Matter of the Year.” He was recently seconded to Morgan Stanley as in-house antitrust counsel, providing advice and training to all parts of the business. More broadly, he has acted on numerous investigations in the financial services sector (including bonds, precious metals, syndicated loans and payment services) and beyond (including capacitors, chemicals and construction). Tom also has many years’ experience advising clients on EU and UK merger control, and helping them to navigate filing obligations worldwide. Tom’s approach is characterized by structured advocacy and attention to detail to address – or demonstrate the lack of – any competition concerns. Recent matters include advising Inteva Products on the sale of its sunroofs division to competitor CIE Automotive, and an American pulp and paper company on the sale of its airlaid nonwovens business to a competitor company. He is a regular contributor to legal publications and journals, and had articles nominated for the Concurrences “Antitrust Writing Awards – Best Business Article” in 2017 and 2019. He often presents at industry conferences in both London and Brussels.


Linked authors

Sidley Austin (Washington)
Sidley Austin (Brussels)
Sidley Austin (London)
Sidley Austin (Brussels)
Sidley Austin (Brussels)


5513 Bulletin

Frances M. Murphy, Matt Evans, Stephen Brown, Tom Bainbridge The UK Court of Appeal holds that the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal has no discretion to extend limitations period for follow-on actions against alleged cartelists (BCL, BASF)


On 12 November 2010, the Court of Appeal for England and Wales ruled that the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) does not have discretion to extend the time period within which follow-on actions for damages may be commenced. The Court of Appeal’s judgment provides important clarification of (...)

Frances M. Murphy, Tom Bainbridge The EU Court of Justice reverses the Commission decision regarding the legality of dual pricing arrangments between leading pharmaceutical undertaking and Spanish wholesalers (GlaxoSmithKline)


On 6 October 2009, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) issued its judgment in the long-running wrangle regarding the legality of GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) dual pricing arrangements with Spanish pharmaceutical wholesalers. As a result of the judgment, the European Commission (Commission) will have (...)

Send a message