United States: Bank Ordered To Disclose Privileged Documents In LIBOR-Related Civil Proceedings

The English High Court has determined that if a firm, in subsequent civil proceedings, puts in issue the basis of published findings against it by the FCA, that firm will risk being required to disclose privileged material on which those findings were based.

The most recent decision of Mr Justice Birss in the case of Property Alliance Group Limited ("PAG") v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc ("RBS")1 has a number of wide-ranging implications for firms wishing to claim privilege over documents created as part of internal and external regulatory investigations.2

The most important aspect of the Court's decision relates to the circumstances in which the content of privileged material, including 'without prejudice' communications generated as part of settlement discussions with regulators, may be ordered to be disclosed to a third party in subsequent civil proceedings.

BACKGROUND

On 6 February 2013, the UK Financial Services Authority ("FSA") (as the FCA was then known)3 published a Final Notice recording its detailed findings that RBS had "undermined the integrity of LIBOR",4 as a result of misconduct that had occurred in relation to RBS' Japanese yen ("JPY"), Swiss franc ("CHF") and US Dollar LIBOR submissions between January 2006 and March 2012 (the "Final Notice"). Consequently, the FSA imposed a penalty of £87.5 million on the bank. This penalty was discounted from £125 million due to RBS having "agreed to settle at an early stage of the FSA's investigation".5

PAG subsequently brought proceedings against RBS in the English High Court claiming that it had been mis-sold four interest rate swaps by RBS between 2004 and 2008. Each of those swaps was referenced to the 3 month Pound Sterling ("GBP") LIBOR rate. PAG contends that, in proposing LIBOR as a reference rate for those swaps, RBS had impliedly represented that it was not manipulating that rate for its own ends.6 PAG now alleges that representation to have been false. In its Defence, RBS denies misconduct in the setting of GBP LIBOR, including 3 month GBP LIBOR,7 relying on the fact that "there have been no regulatory findings of misconduct on the part of RBS in connection with GBP LIBOR".8

The most recent judgment of the English High Court in the proceedings concerns an interim application by PAG for the disclosure of various categories of documents over which RBS had claimed legal privilege.9

'WITHOUT PREJUDICE' SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE FCA

In an important decision,10 following detailed examination of the FCA's enforcement process,11 the Court endorsed RBS' prima facie right to withhold inspection of any communications passing between RBS and the FSA which were marked 'without prejudice' and occurred in connection with the settlement negotiations regarding the issue of the Final Notice:12

"...a firm the subject of an FCA investigation has the right to withhold inspection of communications which were part of genuine settlement discussions between that firm and the FCA. That right applies before the FCA, the Upper Tribunal and in civil litigation with a third party".13

Although this principle appears, at first glance, to be analogous to the 'without prejudice' rule, the Court imposed two important qualifications. The first of these is unremarkable, simply providing that the characterisation of communications as being 'without prejudice' cannot prevent the FCA from acting on information contained in those communications (for example, by investigating previously undisclosed issues).14 However, the second qualification is more disconcerting, stipulating that:

"if the firm puts in issue before a court the basis on which the Final Notice was produced, then in those circumstances justice demands that the communications which led to the Final Notice be disclosed."15

In the instant case, as noted above, RBS' Defence relies, in part, on the positive assertion that the Final Notice did not contain any finding of misconduct in relation to GBP LIBOR. PAG contended, and the Court agreed, that it did not necessarily follow that RBS had, in fact, been exonerated of any misconduct in relation to GBP LIBOR: RBS was, therefore, ordered to produce the 'without prejudice' documents in issue for inspection. 16

The Court's reasoning appears to have been based upon the controversial notion that the Final Notice was the product of settlement negotiations, rather than a full and complete investigation by the FSA and, as such, the information on which it was based could not necessarily be deemed to be wholly reliable or complete.17 However, this view does not appear to take account of a firm's ongoing obligation to deal with regulators in an "open and cooperative way", including by disclosing "anything of which that regulator would reasonably expect notice".18 There is no equivalent obligation in civil proceedings.

It remains to be seen whether RBS (or, indeed, the FCA) has any appetite to challenge the Court's conclusions. For the time being, the Court has created a situation in which firms contemplating settlement negotiations with regulators must consider whether to request that any eventual settlement documentation contains affirmative statements acknowledging the absence of evidence on any number of topics that might be the subject of civil claims in the English courts.19 Of course, regulators are unlikely to be receptive to such requests.

DOCUMENTS PRODUCED PURSUANT TO NON-WAIVER AGREEMENTS

The Court also determined that, in principle, RBS was entitled to maintain its claim to privilege over documents which had been shown or provided to regulators20 (and, in one case, handed over to regulators) pursuant to non-waiver agreements. This was despite the fact that the non-waiver agreements contained a 'carve-out' which enabled each regulator to share documents with other third parties (such as other governmental or regulatory agencies) and/or to make that material public or to disclose it further.21

Whilst this is a welcome clarification of the efficacy of non-waiver agreements in such circumstances,22 the wording of the Court's judgment suggests that the position may have been different if any regulator had already exercised its right, pursuant to the 'carve-out', to share the information in question with a third party.23 Interpreted in this way, the decision leads to an unsatisfactory result whereby the entitlement to privilege may be determined by arbitrary factors. It remains to be seen how the Courts will approach this issue in the future (but it may be that the issue will necessarily be determined on a case-by-case basis).

In the event, the Court determined that RBS' claim to privilege pursuant to the nonwaiver agreements was, once again, defeated by the fact that RBS sought to rely on the absence of findings by regulators (in this case, regulators other than the FCA) in relation to GBP LIBOR, stating that RBS "cannot on the one hand rely on absences from the regulators' findings as indicating the limits of its misconduct and yet on the other hand seek to maintain as privileged what it put to [the regulators]".24

LIMITATIONS OF LEGAL ADVICE PRIVILEGE

One further important aspect of the Court's judgment relates to a number of documents connected to RBS' Executive Steering Group ("ESG"). The ESG played a central role in the various investigations into the extent of RBS' own LIBOR misconduct and benefited from the significant involvement of RBS' external legal advisers, Clifford Chance, including their attendance at ESG meetings.

RBS had claimed legal advice privilege over documents connected to the ESG. However, the validity of that claim was dependent upon the nature of the ESG's function: RBS could only claim legal advice if ESG's sole function had been to receive legal advice.

Due to the fact that RBS' descriptions of the role of the ESG were inconsistent and, on occasion, referred to the ESG conducting tasks more administrative in nature than the receipt of legal advice, the Court concluded that it was not satisfied that RBS had provided sufficient information to justify its claims to legal advice privilege in respect of the ESG documents. Therefore, RBS was ordered to produce the ESG documents to the Court to enable a proper determination of privilege to be made.

This aspect of the judgment acts as a critical reminder to ensure that issues of privilege are kept front-of-mind when considering the function of internal committees in the context of an internal investigation.

CONCLUSION

The convergence of issues in this case has required the Court to consider a number of important questions regarding the proper application of the doctrine of privilege to the disclosure of material relating to historic regulatory proceedings. Aspects of the Court's reasoning may have left its conclusions open to challenge. However, unless or until such a challenge is made, the Court's decision is likely to have wide-reaching implications for firms defending civil claims in the wake of regulatory settlements and needs to be considered at the outset of an internal investigation by a firm.

Footnotes

1 [2015] EWHC 1557 (Ch).

2 Although not discussed in this Client Alert, the Court's decision also includes obiter dictum that "it would not be unreasonable for a lawyer to approach claims to privilege on the basis that the litigation privilege and legal advice privilege overlap" (see paragraph 49 of the judgment).

3 From 1 April 2013, the FSA's relevant responsibilities were assumed by the Financial Conduct Authority ("FCA").

4 See paragraph 5 of the Final Notice.

5 See paragraph 2, id.

6 In Graiseley Properties v Barclays Bank [2013] EWCA Civ 1372, the Court of Appeal held that an allegation based on implied misrepresentation relating to LIBOR in this way is properly arguable.

7 In the same proceedings, RBS formally admitted misconduct relating to JPY and CHF LIBOR.

8 See paragraph 260(3)(b) of RBS' Defence.

9 There are limited circumstances in which a Court may look behind a party's claim to privilege, all of which require it to have become clear to the Court that the evidence on which the claim to privilege is based may be incorrect or, alternatively, that the character of the documents over which privilege has been claimed has been misrepresented (see West London Pipeline v Total [2008] EWHC 1729 (Comm)).

10 This is the first reported case in which a court has opined on the subject of a whether 'without prejudice' privilege can be claimed over settlement negotiations with the FSA/FCA.

11 See paragraphs 63-80 of the judgment.

12 The FCA supported RBS' submissions in this regard and made its own written submissions to the Court (see paragraph 82 of the judgment).

13 See paragraph 99 of the judgment.

14 See paragraph 100, id.

15 Id.

16 This disclosure was made subject to a four week grace period, as requested by the FCA.

17 This is contrasted with the position that "when a civil case settles following without prejudice negotiations, there is no reasoned judgment on which one of the settling parties might subsequently rely". See paragraphs 90-92 of the judgment.

18 Principle 11 of the FCA's Principles for Businesses.

19 There is no real concept of 'without prejudice' privilege in the US: although there is a rule of evidence stating that settlement discussions are inadmissible, this does not means that settlement discussions are not discoverable during the disclosure phase of proceedings.

20 These regulators included the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the US Securities and Exchange Commission, the US Department of Justice and the Attorneys General of various US states. Despite the lack of a non-waiver agreement with the Japanese Financial Services Agency ("JFSA"), the Court did not view this as material on the basis that the one relevant document provided to the JFSA had been given on the same basis as had been agreed with the other regulators.

21 The relevant English law provides that, although confidentiality is an essential pre-condition for privilege, that confidentiality can sometimes be maintained in a document despite the fact that it has been disclosed to a limited number of third parties: Gotha City v Sotheby's (No.1) [1998] 1 W.L.R. 114.

22 Whilst the concept of limited waiver of privilege has previously been accepted by the English courts (see Berezovsky v Hine & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 1089), this is the first reported case in which it has been held to apply to non-waiver agreements with regulators.

23 See paragraph 113 of the judgment.

24 See paragraph 114, id.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions