The Supreme Court has handed down its seminal judgment in Philipp v Barclays Bank UK plc  UKSC 25, considering the application of the so-called Quincecare duty to the victim of an “authorised push payment” (APP) fraud. In an APP fraud, the victim is induced by fraudulent means to deliberately authorise their bank to send a payment to a bank account controlled by the fraudster.
There has been a significant rate of global growth of litigation in the financial services sector following the 2008 global financial crisis. While the existence of financial services litigation is truly a global phenomenon, it has become apparent that the law and procedures in relation to such disputes have evolved in different ways across the jurisdictions.
The recently published third edition of Getting the Deal Through – Financial Service Litigation, edited by Damien Byrne Hill and Ceri Morgan, compiles chapters dedicated to financial services litigation from jurisdictions across the globe, including those contributed by a number of our offices.
The text charts the growth of litigation in the financial sector worldwide, with expert authors answering key questions in major jurisdictions. Topics include: common causes of action; powers of regulatory authorities; alternative dispute resolution; specialist courts and procedures; disclosure requirements; data governance issues; remedies and enforcement; and changes in the regulatory landscape since the financial crisis.
Accreditation: Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd. Getting the Deal Through – Financial Services Litigation 2018 was first published in August 2018. For further information please visit www.gettingthedealthrough.com.
The High Court has found that documents prepared by a defendant in the course of an investigation into allegations by HMRC were protected by litigation privilege: Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) & ors v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc & anor  EWHC 3535 (Ch). The decision arguably departs from the reasoning in the controversial decision in SFO v ENRC  EWHC 1017 (considered here), where the court took a very strict approach to the question of whether documents prepared in the course of an investigation were for the dominant purpose of litigation. Continue reading
In a milestone ruling last week giving extra-territorial application to the federal Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO), a Second Circuit panel has revived a massive civil RICO action brought a dozen years ago by the EU and twenty-six of its member states against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco and related entities for their role in an alleged global money-laundering enterprise involving claims of drug and cigarette smuggling. A district court judge had dismissed the action three years ago after concluding that the RICO statute had no extra-territorial application. The Second Circuit’s decision comes more than two years after the appeal was argued. Managers of legal and operational risk within financial institutions will wish to consider the implications of this decision, which is analysed more fully in our bulletin.
For the first time ever, the United States Supreme Court has addressed whether a foreign corporation may be subjected to a court’s general jurisdiction based on its subsidiary’s contacts with the forum state. Daimler AG v. Bauman, No. 11-965, 2014 WL 113486 (U.S. Jan. 14, 2014). Rejecting the exercise of jurisdiction, the Court held that a foreign company was not subject to general jurisdiction in California, based on its domestic subsidiary’s activities in the state, on a claim arising out of events that all took place outside the United States. To read our briefing, click here.