Topic: Misselling and misrepresentation

Our Banking Litigation Trends publication explains the risks that financial institutions face so you can take practical steps to manage and prepare for them.

Discussing one of the last surviving disputes arising out of the 2007 – 2008 financial crisis.

Our Information governance, privacy and cybersecurity team have written an article discussing the rise of ChatGPT.

Our Banking Litigation Trends publication summarising the trends we saw in 2022, and the key risks we anticipate banks and financial institutions may face in 2023.

In an historic first, the High Court has delivered a judgment on liability arising from a breach of s 90A and schedule 10A, Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, in the case of ACL Netherlands BV & Ors v Lynch & Anor [2022] EWHC 1178 (Ch).

In the context of a share sale, the Court of Appeal in MDW Holdings Ltd v Norvill & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 883 confirmed that a defendant cannot usually reduce its liability for breach of warranty by showing that contingencies or risks at the time of the transaction did not in fact occur.

The latest post in our series covers the recent trends in the duration and resolution of English banking litigation, including an analysis of whether fraud cases are more or less likely to settle

In McClean and others v Andrew Thornhill QC [2019] EWCH 3514 (ch), the High Court dismissed a £40m claim brought by investors in film finance tax schemes. Zacaroli J held that Andrew Thornhill QC owed no duty of care to investors and his advice in relation to the schemes was not negligent. The judgment includes helpful guidance on the duty of care owed by professional advisers and the application of both limitation periods. The case will be of particular interest to professional indemnity insurers, litigation funders and parties in various other film finance claims.

Our latest analysis of trends in banking litigation shows a continued increase in disputes involving fraud, driven by new capital markets and cross-border structures.

In the Ingenious film partnerships group litigation, the High Court ruled that the claimants should provide extended disclosure in relation to their investment history, as this may be relevant to: (i) their risk appetite and financial sophistication, which may in turn inform the scope of the defendants’ duty of care in providing advice; and (ii) causation of any loss as a result of alleged fraudulent and negligent representations regarding the Ingenious structure.