|
The
case was originally brought by Phillip Evans, a former inquiry
chair at Britain's Competition Markets Authority, on behalf of
thousands of asset managers, pension funds and financial
institutions.
Evans brought the case – which was also against UBS, Barclays,
NatWest and MUFG – on an opt-out basis, meaning potential
claimants will be included in the claim unless they choose to
opt out.
The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) last year ruled the claims
could only be brought on an opt-in basis, meaning claimants have
to expressly join the case, even though the CAT found that
rendered them unviable.
But the Court of Appeal overturned that decision on Tuesday,
allowing the case to proceed at the CAT.
Evans's lawyer, Anthony Maton from law firm Hausfeld, said in a
statement: "A judgment of this nature was required for all those
UK businesses – big and small – who have suffered loss as a
result of the manipulation of the FX markets to achieve
restitution."
JP Morgan and UBS declined to comment. The other banks did not
immediately respond to a request for comment.
Evans' case is based on findings made by the European
Commission, which fined banks more than 1 billion euros ($1.1
billion) in 2019 for rigging the multitrillion-dollar foreign
exchange market between 2007 and 2013.
Some of the world's biggest investment banks have paid more than
a combined $11 billion in fines to settle U.S., British and
European regulatory allegations that traders manipulated
currency rates for years.
(Reporting by Sam TobinEditing by Sarah Young and Mark Potter)
[© 2023 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]
This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content.
|
|
