The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v Barclays Bank Plc & Ors

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v Barclays Bank Plc & Ors

UBS AG failed to demonstrate that it is unrealistic for FDIC-R to argue at trial that its claims are not statute-barred under section 32(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980. The judge found that, prior to the publication of regulatory findings in 2012, there was insufficient material in the public domain to justify the inference of collusive Lowballing by UBS and other Panel Banks. The regulatory findings marked a fundamental shift, providing for the first time solid evidence of widespread and systematic misconduct and collusion. Therefore, the limitation issue cannot be determined summarily and must proceed to trial.

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
Civil (competition/commercial) / Application to Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment (interlocutory)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Deliberate Concealment, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications, LIBOR Manipulation, Breach of Statutory Duty
Competition Law Commercial Law Banking Law Limitation of Actions Deliberate Concealment Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications LIBOR Manipulation +1 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 4 Authorities cited 18 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

Civil (competition/commercial) / Application to Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim against UBS AG for collusive suppression of USD LIBOR is statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether FDIC-R could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered sufficient facts to plead a complete cause of action prior to 10 March 2011
  3. 3 Whether the regulatory findings and evidence post-2011 were necessary to support a proper pleading of collusive Lowballing

Ratio Decidendi

UBS AG failed to demonstrate that it is unrealistic for FDIC-R to argue at trial that its claims are not statute-barred under section 32(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980. The judge found that, prior to the publication of regulatory findings in 2012, there was insufficient material in the public domain to justify the inference of collusive Lowballing by UBS and other Panel Banks. The regulatory findings marked a fundamental shift, providing for the first time solid evidence of widespread and systematic misconduct and collusion. Therefore, the limitation issue cannot be determined summarily and must proceed to trial.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • UBS AG's application to strike out and/or for summary judgment is dismissed.
  • The limitation issue will proceed to trial if raised in the defence.