The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v Barclays Bank Plc & Ors [2020] EWHC 2001 (Ch) (27 July 2020)

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v Barclays Bank Plc & Ors [2020] EWHC 2001 (Ch) (27 July 2020)

UBS AG has not demonstrated that FDIC-R had sufficient facts before 10 March 2011 to plead collusive LIBOR manipulation against UBS AG with a solid foundation; the evidence available pre-2011 was insufficient to support an inference of collusion or deliberate concealment. FDIC-R's claim is not struck out and may...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2001 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION (as receiver for Amcore Bank NA and others); Defendant: BARCLAYS BANK PLC; Defendant: BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC; Defendant: BBA TRENT LIMITED; Defendant: BBA ENTERPRISES LIMITED; Defendant: COÖPERATIEVE RABOBANK UA; Defendant: DEUTSCHE BANK AG; Defendant: LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC; Defendant: LLOYDS BANK PLC; Defendant: THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC; Defendant: THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC; Defendant: UBS AG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Application to Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment / Interlocutory (pre Trial)
Outcome
Application to strike out and/or for summary judgment dismissed
Legal Topics
LIBOR Manipulation, Collusion, Statutory Duty, Limitation Period, Deliberate Concealment
Competition Law Financial Regulation Statutory Limitation LIBOR Manipulation Collusion Statutory Duty Limitation Period Deliberate Concealment

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION (as receiver for Amcore Bank NA and others)

Claimant

BARCLAYS BANK PLC

Defendant

BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC

Defendant

BBA TRENT LIMITED

Defendant

BBA ENTERPRISES LIMITED

Defendant

COÖPERATIEVE RABOBANK UA

Defendant

DEUTSCHE BANK AG

Defendant

LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC

Defendant

LLOYDS BANK PLC

Defendant

THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC

Defendant

THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC

Defendant

UBS AG

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment / Interlocutory (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether FDIC-R's claim against UBS AG is time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether FDIC-R can rely on section 32(1)(b) Limitation Act 1980 (deliberate concealment) to extend limitation
  3. 3 Whether facts available before 10 March 2011 were sufficient to plead collusive LIBOR manipulation

Ratio Decidendi

UBS AG has not demonstrated that FDIC-R had sufficient facts before 10 March 2011 to plead collusive LIBOR manipulation against UBS AG with a solid foundation; the evidence available pre-2011 was insufficient to support an inference of collusion or deliberate concealment. FDIC-R's claim is not struck out and may proceed to trial.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out and/or for summary judgment dismissed

Orders

  • FDIC-R's claim against UBS AG is not struck out and may proceed to trial