ARTICLE
16 June 2006

Advice of Investment Bank relied upon in the absence of contract

CC
CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang

Contributor

CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang logo

CMS is a Future Facing firm with 79 offices in over 40 countries and more than 5,000 lawyers globally. Combining local market insight with a global perspective, CMS provides business-focused advice to help clients navigate change confidently. The firm's expertise and innovative approach anticipate challenges and develop solutions. CMS is committed to diversity, inclusivity, and corporate social responsibility, fostering a supportive culture. The firm addresses key client concerns like efficiency and regulatory challenges through services like Law-Now, offering real-time eAlerts, mobile access, an extensive legal archive, specialist zones, and global events.

A judgment handed down on 13 June 2006 shows that investment banks may incur liability for negligent misstatement in respect of parties with whom they have no contractual relationship, even though they have a direct contractual relationship with another party.
United Kingdom Finance and Banking

A judgment handed down on 13 June 2006 shows that investment banks may incur liability for negligent misstatement in respect of parties with whom they have no contractual relationship, even though they have a direct contractual relationship with another party. This case is a reminder to investment banks acting in an advisory capacity to carefully consider who is relying upon their advice.

Bank 1 (Ahli United Bank (UK) Plc) had entered into a (technical services) agreement with Bank 2 (Riyad Bank) to provide advice with respect to Bank 2’s establishment of a Sharia-compliant investment fund ("Fund").

In particular, Bank 1 advised Bank 2 on the appropriate value of equipment leases to be purchased by the Fund. It subsequently emerged that the leases had been overvalued, which led to the premature termination of the Fund, and substantial loss for Bank 2.

Bank 2 claimed against Bank 1 for breach of contract, and the Fund also claimed against Bank 1 in tort for negligent misstatement.

Bank 1 unsuccessfully argued at first instance and on appeal that it did not owe the Fund a duty of care because its contractual relationship with Bank 2 had been structured in such a way as to distance Bank 1 from the Fund.

The Court of Appeal held that Bank 1 had assumed responsibility with respect to the Fund, notwithstanding the absence of a direct contractual relationship, and the fact that there was an express provision in the technical services agreement for the Fund’s directors to be responsible for investment decisions. The Court considered that the involvement of Bank 1 in the establishment of the Fund, the expectation of the parties and the contractual structure adopted were sufficient to give rise to a duty of care by Bank 1 to the Fund.

Investment banks should therefore take care wherever possible to identify all the parties receiving the benefit of their advice, and not just contractual counter-parties.

Law: Riyad Bank & Ors v Ahli United Bank (UK) Plc (formerly United Bank of Kuwait Plc) [2006] EWCA Civ 780

This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to www.law-now.com/law-now/mondaq

Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments.

The original publication date for this article was 15/06/2006.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More