LIBOR Cases – A Return to Normality? – Littleton Chambers

Posted April 17th, 2013 in amendments, banking, financial regulation, interest, misrepresentation, news by sally

“Last year I discussed Mr Justice Flaux’s decision in Graiseley Properties Limited and others v Barclays Bank plc [2012] EWHC 3093 (Comm) (see Littleton Comment on 4 December 2012). In that case Flaux J. had allowed amendments to plead fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of implied terms in relation to LIBOR which smoothed the path to claims which were, in essence, that the Bank had sold LIBOR-related products when it knew that its employees were attempting to ‘rig’ LIBOR rates for their own purposes (i.e. making their trades profitable) and that such conduct would disadvantage clients who relied on the Bank not attempting to manipulate LIBOR rates. Although I pointed out that allowing the amendments, which lacked the particularity to be expected, was unusual, I also observed that ‘This is a welcome and realistic approach to the difficulties faced by customers in claims against banks.'”

Full story

Littleton Chambers, 15th April 2013