header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
14 March 2017 / Andy McGregor , Chris Whitehouse
Issue: 7739 / Categories: Features , Banking , Commercial , Litigation trends
printer mail-detail

What next for benchmark manipulation claims?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Post-PAG, will claimants able to evidence fraud have greater prospects of success? Andy McGregor & Chris Whitehouse report
  • Where does Property Alliance Group v RBS leave benchmark manipulation claims?
  • Prospects of success will be enhanced if a party had substantive discussions with the relevant bank about LIBOR.
  • There is reason for greater optimism for potential claims relating to allegations of Forex manipulation.

In December the High Court handed down judgment in Property Alliance Group (PAG) v RBS [2016] EWHC 207 (Ch), [2016] All ER (D) 13 (Mar), to date the most comprehensive judicial analysis of a claim for damages in relation to LIBOR manipulation. This article considers the court's analysis of PAG's arguments and the implications for future LIBOR cases or other benchmark manipulation claims such as Forex.

LIBOR & why it matters

LIBOR, the London Interbank Offered Rate, is a series of daily interest rate benchmarks (in various currencies) administered by the British Banking Association (BBA) theoretically reflective of the cost of unsecured interbank

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: 40 years on, has PACE lost its edge?
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
NLJ this week: Stress-testing the City
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
NLJ this week: How sure is ‘sure’ enough?
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
NLJ this week: A deferred prosecution reprieve
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
NLJ this week: Mandelson, Epstein & the court of popular opinion
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll