Banking and Financial Markets Litigation
Merchants Beat Venice: Court of Appeal finds that local authority of Venice did have capacity to enter into Interest Rate Swaps
In a significant judgment in Banca Intesa Sanpaolo and Dexia Credit Local SA v Comune di Venezia [2023] EWCA Civ 1482, the Court of Appeal overturned the findings of the High Court
Read moreBanking and Financial Litigation Markets Update - Spring 2023
This update is brought to you by RPC’s top tier banking and financial markets disputes practice in London, with specialists in all areas of financial markets litigation (and arbitration) and a wealth of expertise including frequent involvement in the most complex, high-value, and high-profile disputes in the sphere. Here, we take a look at some of the most important judgments in recent months.
Read moreCourt of Appeal finds that Bitcoin's developers may owe fiduciary duties to bitcoin owners
In a highly anticipated judgment, the Court of Appeal has handed down its decision in Tulip Trading Limited v van der Laan and others [2023] EWCA Civ 83, allowing the claimant's appeal. The court found that the developers looking after Bitcoin arguably owed fiduciary duties in tort to an owner of bitcoin, and whether such a duty did arise in the specific proceedings would depend on the facts established at trial.
Read moreNo loss? No Quincecare claim … the Supreme Court judgment in Stanford International Bank v HSBC
The Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in Stanford International Bank Ltd v HSBC Bank plc, deciding that there was no pecuniary loss suffered by the Claimant and therefore no basis for a Quincecare claim.
Read moreLitigation risk arising from recent LDI related disruption in the UK gilt market
In this bulletin, we examine the role of Liability Driven Investment (LDI) in the widely publicised disruption experienced in the UK gilts market in recent weeks and consider the disputes which might result.
Read moreCompeting subordinated debts – the lessons learnt from Lehmans' insolvency
Some 13 years ago, Lehman Brothers' sudden and unexpected insolvency sent ripples across the banking and financial services market, some of which are still felt today. The Court of Appeal's decision in the consolidated cases of Lehman Brothers Holdings Scottish LP 3 v Lehman Brothers Holdings plc (in administration) and others [2021] EWCA Civ 1523 was the latest in a long line of cases seeking to unwind the issues arising from Lehman Brothers' unexpected collapse.
Read moreHigh Court decides that reviving proceedings automatically stayed under CPR 15.11 requires relief from sanctions
In a recent judgment, the English Commercial Court in Bank of America Europe DAC v CITTA Metropolitana Di Milano has provided guidance on the "automatic stay" provisions of CPR 15.11 and the circumstances in which parties can revive dormant proceedings subject to such an automatic stay.
Read moreAPP fraud: Commercial Court considers approach to unjust enrichment and knowing receipt claims
The recent Commercial Court decision of Tecnimont Arabia Limited v National Westminster Bank PLC(1) considered the court's approach to a claim for unjust enrichment against a recipient bank in an authorised push payment (APP) fraud context. In particular, the Court examined whether the enrichment can be said to be at the 'expense' of the claimant, what factors amount to enrichment being 'unjust' and when the defence of 'change of position' is available. In relation to knowing receipt, the court considered the question of when property is 'trust property' for the purposes of the cause of action.
Read moreAre you a "person discharging managerial responsibility"? High Court clarifies meaning of PDMRs under FSMA
In a recent interim decision in Allianz Global Investors GmbH and Ors v G4S Ltd (formerly G4S plc) [2022] EWHC 1081 (Ch), Mr Justice Miles clarified the scope of the expression "persons discharging managerial responsibility" ("PDMRs") for the purpose of establishing liability under s.90A and Schedule 10A of Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 ("FSMA").
Read morePrivy Council decides that banks owe no Quincecare duty to a beneficial owner of monies in an account
A bank does not owe the beneficial owner of account monies any duty of care in negligence, including any Quincecare duty: this was the conclusion of the Privy Council in the Isle of Man case Royal Bank of Scotland International Ltd v JP SPC4 and another. The appeal concerned a fraud where the account holder had defrauded the beneficial owner of the monies, an investment fund, by paying funds out of the relevant bank accounts in contravention of a legitimate investment scheme.
Read moreCourt of Appeal strikes out defences that funds' losses resulting from FX manipulation have been passed on to investors following redemption
In Allianz Global Investors GmbH & Ors v Barclays Bank PLC & Ors(1), the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the claimant funds (the Funds) and struck out defences by the Defendant banks (the Banks) that losses incurred by the Funds had been avoided or passed on upon redemption by their investors.
Read moreCourt of Appeal holds that Quincecare duty can arise in principle where customer gives instructions in authorised push payment fraud
The Court of Appeal has clarified in Philipp v Barclays Bank UK Plc [2022] EWCA Civ 318 that the Quincecare duty, which requires a bank to refrain from acting on a payment instruction and to make inquiries when it is on notice of a serious possibility of fraud, can arise for a bank even where it is the customer themselves giving instructions to pay money out of their account to a fraudster.
Read moreCourt of Appeal draws distinction between claims for recovery of tax and restitution for tax paid out fraudulently
In Skatteforvaltningen v Solo Capital Partners,(1) the Court of Appeal investigated in detail the operation of rule 3(1) of Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws (edition 15) (Dicey rule 3), which provides that English courts do not have jurisdiction over actions for "the enforcement, either directly or indirectly, of a penal, revenue, or other public law of a foreign State". The Court decided that the Danish tax authority's claim did not fall within Dicey rule 3 as it concerned the restitution of monies misappropriated by fraud rather than enforcement of tax.
Read moreWhere's the damage? High Court dismisses jurisdiction challenge in US$495 million claim
The High Court has dismissed UBS' challenge to jurisdiction in a ca. US$495 million claim – and in doing so set out useful guidance in terms of how the Court will determine "where the damage has occurred" in cases of economic loss. The judge looked for the most "natural analysis" in determining the manifestation of the loss, and broadly agreed that "the usual answer [in bad investment cases] will be that the loss occurs in, and at the place of, the bank account which was depleted."
Read moreESG claims in the banking and financial markets Sector: will "greenwashing" claims soon be common in the UK?
Environmental, Social and Governance "ESG" funds are an attractive avenue for investors seeking responsible investment choices.
Read moreNo knowing receipt claim where equitable interest is destroyed: Byers v Saudi National Bank
The Court of Appeal has held that a claim in knowing receipt will fail if, at the moment of receipt, the beneficiary’s equitable proprietary interest is destroyed or overridden so that the recipient holds the property as beneficial owner.
Read moreHow aware were you? High Court refuses to strike out fraudulent misrepresentation claim in VW 'Dieselgate' emissions
In Crossley and others v Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft and others(1) the High Court refused to strike out or summarily dismiss the fraudulent misrepresentation claim brought by more than 86,000 vehicle owners against Volkswagen ("VW").
Read moreHigh Court dismisses application for extension of limitation period on basis of fraud at summary judgment stage
In Libyan Investment Authority v Credit Suisse International & Ors ([2021] EWHC 2684 (Comm), the Commercial Court granted summary judgment dismissing the Libyan Investment Authority's (LIA's) claims against Credit Suisse International (Credit Suisse) and others on the grounds that they were time-barred.
Read moreLimitation Act 1980 s.32(1): whether a claimant could have discovered fraud with "reasonable diligence" extends to events prior to accrual of the cause of action
The High Court found that, when considering the postponement of the limitation period for the purposes of Section 32(1) of the Limitation Act 1980, the question of whether the claimant could have discovered the fraud with "reasonable diligence" extends to the period before the claimant suffered a loss.
Read moreUpdated P.R.I.M.E. Finance Arbitration Rules launched for 2022
P.R.I.M.E Finance, the Hague-based Panel of Recognised International Market Experts in Finance, has launched updated P.R.I.M.E Finance Arbitration Rules (the Rules), which come into force from 1 January 2022.
Read moreSummary judgment application does not amount to submission to English jurisdiction
Does applying for summary judgment application before the determination of a parallel application for a stay, amount to a step in the proceedings that results submission to the jurisdiction?
Read moreEnglish Commercial Court upholds the validity of swap contracts entered into by an Italian local authority
The Commercial Court has found that there was no limitation on the capacity of the Italian local authority Busto di Arsizio to enter into a valid swap contracts with Deutsche Bank.
Read moreDisputes Yearbook 2021: Financial disputes
As part of the acclaimed Disputes Yearbook, Legal Business interviewed members of our disputes team exploring the litigation landscape and what RPC brings to the table.
Read more