get help with this essay

You are a newly qualified in-house lawyer employed by Cyphus PLC a well known UK telecommunications company which has branch offices all over the European Union. The head of the legal department John Smith has been told by the Chief Executive Officer that he has heard a rumour that the EU Commission may carry out a dawn raid within a matter of days on a Cyphus Branch office, but he does not know which one. He understands that the EU Commission believe that Cyphus may have breached article 101 or 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
John Smith has put together a team of lawyers and other specialists to prepare for the raid if it happens. One of the things he is concerned about is whether the legal department can claim legal professional privilege if the Commission attempts to seize any legal documents.
With this in mind he has asked you to prepare a clear and accurate note on the joined cases of Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd and Akcros Chemicals Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (Case T-125/03 and T-253/03). He understands there was a judgment by the old Court of First Instance on this case in 2007 which was confirmed by another judgment by the European Court of Justice in 2010.
When preparing the note he wants you to answer the following questions:
(a) Do the judgments allow in-house lawyers to claim Legal Professional Privilege?
(b) What reasons were given by the courts for the judgments made?
(c) Would it make any difference if the rumoured dawn raid was carried out under the Competition Act 1998 by the Office of Fair Trading in the UK?
(d) What practical steps can the team of lawyers that have been put together take to deal with the 2007 and 2010 judgments?
He says there is no need to tell him anything about articles 101 or 102 or the Competition Act 1998 others in the team will deal with that. Just focus on the case and the questions mentioned above.