Allianz Global Investors GmbH & Ors v Barclays Bank Plc & Ors

Allianz Global Investors GmbH & Ors v Barclays Bank Plc & Ors

Pass-on mitigation defence is not impossible or bound to fail in law for trusts, companies, and partnerships; beneficiaries, former shareholders, and former partners may have standing to sue for losses passed on to them; rule against reflective loss does not bar claims by former shareholders; contractual issue requires trial; tax savings must be considered but plea does not require standard disclosure; miscellaneous factual issues to proceed to trial.

Parties
Claimants: Allianz Global Investors GmbH and Others; First Defendant: Barclays Bank plc; Second Defendant: Citibank, N.A; Third Defendant: Citigroup Inc.; Fourth Defendant: HSBC Bank plc; Fifth Defendant: JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A; Sixth Defendant: JPMorgan Chase & Co.; Seventh Defendant: NatWest Markets Plc; Eighth Defendant: UBS AG; Ninth Defendant: MUFG Bank, LTD.; Tenth Defendant: Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / Ruling on Strike Out and Amendment Applications
Outcome
Strike-out application dismissed in respect of trust, company, and partnership issues; pass-on defence allowed to proceed to trial; contracts issue deferred to trial; tax plea allowed but limited disclosure ordered; miscellaneous pleas addressed as per directions.
Legal Topics
Pass on Defence, Breach of Statutory Duty, Reflective Loss, EU Law Effectiveness, Mitigation of Loss, Redemption and Withdrawal, Liquidation, Tax Mitigation
Competition Law Trust Law Company Law Partnership Law Contract Law Pass on Defence Breach of Statutory Duty Reflective Loss +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Allianz Global Investors GmbH and Others

Claimants

Barclays Bank plc

First Defendant

Citibank, N.A

Second Defendant

Citigroup Inc.

Third Defendant

HSBC Bank plc

Fourth Defendant

JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A

Fifth Defendant

JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Sixth Defendant

NatWest Markets Plc

Seventh Defendant

UBS AG

Eighth Defendant

MUFG Bank, LTD.

Ninth Defendant

Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc.

Tenth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / Ruling on Strike Out and Amendment Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether pass-on mitigation defence has real prospect of success in context of investment funds, trusts, companies, partnerships, and contracts
  2. 2 Whether beneficiaries, former shareholders, and former partners have standing to sue for losses passed on to them
  3. 3 Whether the rule against reflective loss bars claims by former shareholders

Ratio Decidendi

Pass-on mitigation defence is not impossible or bound to fail in law for trusts, companies, and partnerships; beneficiaries, former shareholders, and former partners may have standing to sue for losses passed on to them; rule against reflective loss does not bar claims by former shareholders; contractual issue requires trial; tax savings must be considered but plea does not require standard disclosure; miscellaneous factual issues to proceed to trial.

Court Disposition

Strike-out application dismissed in respect of trust, company, and partnership issues; pass-on defence allowed to proceed to trial; contracts issue deferred to trial; tax plea allowed but limited disclosure ordered; miscellaneous pleas addressed as per directions.

Orders

  • Pass-on defence not struck out for trusts, companies, partnerships; to proceed to trial.
  • Contracts issue to be determined at trial.