Category: Case Study

lukoil litasco sanctions trade force majeure litigation lawyers solicitors barristers in london uk

Court Dismisses Force Majeure & Trade Sanctions Control Defences

The High Court, in its decision on Litasco SA v Der Mond Oil and Gas Africa SA & Anor [2023] EWHC 2866 (Comm), clarified the application of force majeure and the “ownership and control” test under UK sanctions law. It emphasized that significant difficulty, nearly impossible to overcome, is necessary to invoke force majeure for debt obligations. The ruling further established stringent criteria for proving “control” in relation to sanctioned entities, highlighting the necessity for actual influence over business decisions, rather than theoretical possibilities, to satisfy this condition. This decision provides a clearer framework for businesses handling contracts under these terms.

Barristers Solicitors Court Litigation UK Unfair Contract Terms

Glaser KC v Atay: Consumer Rights over Unfair Terms in Direct Access Counsel Contracts

The ruling in Glaser KC & Miller v Atay [2023] EWHC 2539 (KB) affects individuals who have instructed direct access barristers and had to pay fixed fees even if a trial did not go ahead. The judge’s verdict rendered this inherently unfair term effectively null and void with no quantum meruit fallback.

Litigation Lawyers London

Court Judgment Highlights Rules Regarding Claim Form Service

The case of Dr Markus Boettcher v (Xio (UK) LLP & Ors [2023] EWHC 801 (Comm) (05 April 2023) recently had an interim judgment decided by the Commercial Court.

mis-sold bridging loan lending solicitors advice

Case Study: Lender Default Charge of £150k+ Completely Defeated

Summary of one of our successes in defeating aggressive bridging lender misconduct over default penalty charges and threats to appoint LPA Receivers and commence Possession proceedings.

maxim moskalev wins UK legal case Moskalev v Yanishevskiy (BR-2020-000554) Solicitors London

Client Case Study: Moskalev wins against Yanishevskiy for improper Statutory Demand

The Respondent to an application to set aside a statutory demand must bear the costs of the application, even if they withdrew the demand shortly after the application was filed.

Litigation Solicitors London

GRG WestRegister took 80% Equity in Bowlplex – Cost Owners £50m; while RBS Profited £9m

RBS’s Global Restructuring Group (GRG) has faced allegations of destroying small businesses. LexLaw has sued RBS on behalf of many businesses including Bowlplex, a family-owned bowling business, claiming excessive fees, increased interest rates, and forced equity transfer. Despite a viable business, Bowlplex was transferred to GRG and ultimately sold on by RBS for a £9m profit and a £50m loss for the owners.

Primary Keywords: RBS Royal Bank of Scotland Interest rate hedging products (IRHPs) Financial derivatives Mis-selling Litigation Settlement Businesswoman Social care services London Secondary Keywords: Complex financial products Regulatory oversight Consumer protection Financial harm LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers High Court IRHP review scheme Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) Break costs Derivative payments Long-Tail Keywords: RBS mis-sold derivatives to businesswoman Lloyds Bank financial derivatives lawsuit Social care provider sued RBS for mis-selling IRHP mis-selling scandal Lloyds Bank settlement over complex financial products Financial harm due to mis-sold derivatives Regulatory oversight of financial institutions Consumer protection in the UK LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers legal case London-based businesswoman wins lawsuit against RBS

LEXLAW Case Study: RBS pay £1m to settle derivatives mis-selling claim with social care provider

RBS has agreed to a £1 million settlement with a businesswoman who accused the bank of mis-selling complex derivatives. The case highlights banks selling unsuitable financial products to businesses. RBS initially denied wrongdoing but eventually agreed to the settlement, which includes repayment of derivative payments, break costs, and suspended payments. The businesswoman’s business was negatively impacted by the mis-sold derivatives, and the case exposes flaws in the Financial Conduct Authority’s IRHP review scheme.

债务追讨和法律咨询: 英国企业欠中国公司的逾期发票

The Times: Queen’s award winner sues banks over mis-selling

The Times reports that Wenta, a company that supports new businesses, is suing RBS and NatWest for mis-selling a complex financial product. The banks sat on Wenta’s board and encouraged the deal, despite it being a disastrous one that cost the company over £500,000.

Lexlaw, Wenta’s lawyers claim the banks misled the company about the risks involved and have been slow to resolve the dispute. While several other banks have settled similar cases, RBS and NatWest have resisted, forcing Wenta to take legal action. The case is currently undergoing mediation, and a settlement may be reached soon.

Primary Keywords: Lloyds Bank Interest rate hedging products (IRHPs) Financial derivatives Mis-selling Litigation Settlement Care home Business Financial loss Secondary Keywords: Complex financial products Regulatory oversight Consumer protection Financial harm LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers Buckinghamshire UK Lawsuit Settlement Break cost IRHP review scheme FCA Financial Conduct Authority Long-Tail Keywords: Lloyds Bank mis-sold interest rate swaps Lloyds Bank financial derivatives lawsuit Care home sued Lloyds Bank for mis-selling IRHP mis-selling scandal Lloyds Bank settlement over complex financial products Financial harm due to mis-sold derivatives Regulatory oversight of financial institutions Consumer protection in the UK LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers legal case Buckinghamshire care home wins lawsuit against Lloyds Bank

The Sunday Times: ‘Lloyds pays up on rate swap wrangle’

Lloyds Bank has been forced into a significant litigation settlement regarding the mis-selling of interest rate hedging products (IRHPs) to The Coin Group, a care home operator. The case highlights the potential for banks to mis-sell complex financial derivatives to businesses, leading to significant financial losses. The Coin Group, represented by LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers, successfully argued that Lloyds Bank failed to disclose the risks and potential liabilities associated with the IRHPs, resulting in a settlement of £4.6 million.