John Bramhall explores recent trends in investor claims against banks
Many investors in the prevailing economic conditions have considered whether they were treated fairly by the banks who years previously sold them products that have returned disastrous investment results.
The cases have certain common features. From the investor’s perspective, banks have been viewed as a provider of advice as to the risk involved in the product sold; investors relied on that advice and did not otherwise have an independent understanding of the markets into which they were investing.
Banks, however, rely on the clear contractual language, which often includes risk disclosure statements, which provide that they were not engaged to advise on the risks of products being sold, that investors agreed they were not acting in reliance on any representations of the bank and that investors confirmed they understood the nature of the markets into which they were investing.
Recent decisions of the English courts have consistently given primacy to the contractual language including risk disclosure statements. The two most interesting cases are Springwell Navigation Corporation v JP Morgan Chase Bank [2010] EWCA Civ 1221,
