Sat11182017

Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

DISCLAIMERS: Best laid plans

28 January 2011  

Dipti Hunter and Alexander Oldershaw examine the viability of the sophisticated investor defence

The Court of Appeal decision in Springwell Navigation Corporation v JP Morgan Chase Bank & ors [2010] has cast doubt as to whether, in the absence of fraud, an investor will ever succeed in a claim against a bank where there is a contractual non-reliance clause in the terms and conditions. Not only was the decision in this case supported by previous UK case law, but we can also see from the decisions in America relating to Terra Firma Investments (GP) 2 Ltd v Citigroup Inc [2010], and the recent investigation into Goldman Sachs activities on Wall Street, that there is an uphill struggle faced by sophisticated investors on both sides of the Atlantic.

Additional Info

  • Case(s) Referenced:

    IFE Fund SA v Goldman Sachs International [2007] Lloyd’s Rep 449

    Peekay Intermark Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 386

    Springwell Navigation Corporation v JP Morgan Chase (formerly Chase Manhattan Bank) Bank & ors [2010] EWCA Civ 1221

    Terra Firma Investments (GP) 2 Ltd v Citigroup, 09-cv-10459, US District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan) 11 May 2010