The UK’s top four banks accounted for almost half of all litigation against FTSE100 companies in the High Court over the past year.
In total, 43 per cent of all High Court cases involving FTSE100 companies featured either Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds Banking Group or Royal Bank of Scotland, according to research by Sweet & Maxwell. The figures relate to the period 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011.
In the preceding 12 months the same percentage of High Court proceedings concerning FTSE100 companies involved at least one of the four banks.
In the year to 30 June 2011 there were 150 High Court cases with FTSE100 companies on one side and, of these, 64 involved the UK’s top four banks. In the previous year they were present in 77 of the 179 FTSE100 High Court cases.
Sweet & Maxwell attributes the banks’ high appearance rate in the High Court to the continuing fall out from the credit crunch, but that actual cases are likely to represent just ’the tip of the iceberg’ of commercial disputes as a high number settle before reaching court.
Reynolds Porter Chamberlain’s financial disputes head Tom Hibbert said: “We’re now approaching the end of the window in which claims can be made relating to complex financial products that were sold at the peak of the financial services boom.
“Businesses and investors may have initially attempted to renegotiate financial products they were sold, but many will now realise that these are more or less worthless. They may feel they have no other option but to launch a legal claim.
“Banking litigation teams across the City are being kept incredibly busy. The number of new claims being issued may have dropped, but the claims are typically very high value and take a significant amount of time to resolve.
“The continuing market volatility is also likely to lead to a further spate of claims. Whereas in the US high value claims are often issued immediately, in the UK firms often try to reach a commercial compromise, which can typically take 12-18 months to resolve.”
Sweet & Maxwell’s results were based on Lawtel’s daily cause list service.
Readers' comments (4)
Bobby Smith | 9-Nov-2011 12:18 pm
This should come as no surprise. Endowment policies, payment protection 'misselling', CDO's, CLO's, obscene levels of interest charged, the 'give it to me' bonus culture that took no account of the interest of clients but instead is all about the interests of the individual bankers etc etc and on and on.
Still, many lawyers make a very nice living out of the distress of others whilst the mega firms won't bite the hand that feeds them (for every dodgy deal there is a lawyer making fees).
The solution? Make banks work for society and not the other way round, and get the lawyers to get the contracts right in the first place!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 9-Nov-2011 2:30 pm
Made in accordance with international rights treaties, human rights and favors.To that used by the Authority is forced to pay expenses, the person since the person must be made ??by bank credit and cash contracts.agreements used by the person's spending is important and be individuals, to pay the bank wants to know the person.Everyone has the right to equal and free.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
david moffat | 9-Nov-2011 6:43 pm
can i take a bank to court for getting me to take out a mortgage to buy a plot and then taking away funding to develop site even although it was banks suggestion that i do newbuilds and informed bank all the way
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10-Nov-2011 9:42 am
@Bobby Smith: You touched on two very different issues. One issue is that there was a culture of misselling that was fuelled by overconsumption and greed on the part of banks, investors and consumers.
A lot of the structured products worked as they were meant to work - it was not a problem with the documentation.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment