Linklaters’ banking litigation clients typically face contentious issues which are high value, reputation-threatening, and often multi-jurisdictional. The teamwork of the firm’s specialists across Europe, the Americas and Asia allows clients to benefit in cross-border disputes, freezing orders and worldwide tracing actions.
The variety of issues which banks have to deal with is considerable, with a common factor being a need for advice which is in tune with the requirements of the institution. We can provide that expertise and have recently had notable involvement in some of the largest and most complex contentious disputes for banking clients.
- regulatory investigations and enforcement
- mis-selling claims and contractual disputes
- derivatives and structured products
- lender enforcement action
- disputes arising in insolvencies
- knotty consumer credit issues
In all of these areas we have represented banks faced with problems which have been high value, reputation-threatening and, in many cases, multi-jurisdictional. Our strength as a firm is our ability to deal with multi-jurisdictional problems through teamwork across our global network of offices.
Recent experience includes advising:
- a number of major UK headquartered banks in relation to alleged mis-selling of products in the retail banking sphere
- a major international bank in its successful claim against a Sri Lankan state owned oil company under certain oil hedging contracts. The Sri Lankan company unsuccessfully defended the case claiming the bank had mis-sold the hedging contracts
- a major investment bank in connection with its successful defence of a claim brought by a San Marino bank in the English commercial court regarding the alleged mis-selling of a number of credit-linked notes
- a major investment bank in a claim against a German local authority for non-payment under a CDO. The local authority is claiming that the CDO was “mis-sold” to it
- a major investment bank in relation to a claim before the English High Court in which it was alleged that the bank mis-sold synthetic collateralised debt obligations