politicalvilla.blogg.se - Www outbank de

#Www outbank de series#

As such, they are subject to implied terms that the chances are equal, and that the parties possess equal ignorance and/or equal knowledge about the odds. NatWest had greater knowledge of the arrangement that WW and more favourable chances. What troubled the Judge in this case was that these were the same arguments that WW's barrister had deployed at least twice in previous cases, and which had been rejected even to the extent of three failed applications for permission to appeal. In those previous cases, the Court had found consistently that claimants had no real prospect of establishing its wager claim, because the swap contract was made for a commercial purpose of hedging the risk of interest rates increasing over the term of the loan and was, thus, not a wager. In rejecting the argument again, the Judge commented that, "I regard this yet further attempt to raise substantially the same arguments as on previous occasions.as pointless, expensive and wasteful litigation to the detriment of the courts time and resources and the needs of other litigants." The LIBOR Issue

WW's argument was that the hedging contracts were contracts for differences which are all wagers at common law. The Court had little difficulty in finding that none of the claims advanced by WW had any real prospect of success. The Court's findings in relation to the Wager Issue and the LIBOR issues are, however, worth dwelling on, although not for any reason which will be helpful to claimants.

That NatWest owed WW a tortious duty of care in connection with the way in which it conducted the Interest Rate Hedging Product Review.

That an entirely separate agreement between NatWest and third parties connected to WW should be rescinded and.That the swap agreement was subject to an implied term that NatWest would not manipulate the LIBOR benchmark.

NatWest knew this and failed to disclose it to WW, thus NatWest was guilty of "cheating" such that the collars are voidable

That the collars amounted to contracts for differences, properly characterised as wagers at law, but that the "odds" were stacked in NatWest's favour.

Notwithstanding the compromise, WW issued proceedings in which it made, in essence, 4 claims: However the swap agreement did not attract redress. In respect of the collars, WW entered into a compromise agreement pursuant to which it accepted the monetary redress in full, and final settlement of all claims against NatWest arising under, or in any way connected with the sale of the collars, applicable to any past, present or future claims.

#Www outbank de series#

Backgroundīetween 20 WW borrowed from NatWest and also entered into a series of four interest rate hedging contracts, (collars) and latterly a swap agreement which closed out the earlier collars. The purpose of the hedging contracts was to hedge WW's exposure to interest rate obligations arising from the loan. The hedging agreements were disadvantageous to WW and in 2014, the hedges were considered as part of the Interest Rate Hedging Product Review, initiated at the behest of the FSA, as it then was. Pursuant to the Review, the collars gave rise to redress assessed at over £420,000. In the case of WW Property Investments Ltd v National Westminster Bank Plc EWHC 378 (QB) the Claimant, ("WW") sought to advance a number of seemingly well-trodden, and often rejected arguments as to why NatWest was liable in damages as a result of selling WW a series of interest rate swap agreements. The Court rejected all of WW's arguments and has struck out its claim. Swap Mis-selling Claim Struck Out – Bank Wins Again