Various Claimants v Standard Chartered Plc

Applications to strike out or obtain reverse summary judgment should be used cautiously where pleaded allegations concern developing law, disputed evidence, information asymmetry or issues better examined at trial. Fraud and dishonesty allegations require adequate primary-fact particulars, but a claimant need not disclose all supporting evidence or prove its case before pleading it.

For Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 issuer-liability claims, a PDMR under Schedule 10A is confined to a de jure, de facto or possibly shadow director of the issuer. Allegations based on individuals who cannot presently satisfy that description may be struck out. Further information under CPR Part 18 must be strictly necessary and proportionate at the procedural stage reached.

Four consolidated claims were brought by 230 institutional investors against Standard Chartered plc under sections 90 and 90A of, and Schedule 10A to, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The claims concerned alleged misleading statements, omissions and delays relating to sanctions non-compliance, financial-crime controls and an alleged bribery scheme involving Maxpower.

The defendant applied to strike out parts of the claims, obtain reverse summary judgment and require further information under CPR Part 18. The applications concerned the Brutus allegations, alleged PDMR knowledge of the Maxpower bribery scheme, individual reliance, standing, loss and alleged bank-knowledge representations.

1. Brutus allegations. The application to strike out or obtain reverse summary judgment was dismissed. The allegations were adequately particularised, the defendant understood the case it had to meet, and the claimants were entitled to rely on a signed statement of truth and their legal representatives’ professional obligations. They were not required at the pleading stage to verify and disclose their privileged investigations or establish the evidence necessary to prove fraud at trial. The information imbalance and the possibility that disclosure would produce further evidence supported allowing the allegations to proceed.
2. PDMRs and Maxpower. The court followed the approach in Allianz Global Investors GmbH v G4S Ltd, holding that Schedule 10A confined PDMRs to directors of the issuer, including de jure and de facto directors and possibly shadow directors. The allegations concerning members of the Group Executive were sufficiently pleaded because they were alleged to be de jure or de facto directors of Standard Chartered plc. The allegation that four non-executive directors of Maxpower were PDMRs of Standard Chartered plc was unsustainable because they were not alleged to be directors of the issuer. That allegation was struck out. A later application to amend could be made if disclosure produced a sustainable de facto-directorship case.
3. Individual reliance. The strike-out application was dismissed. The claimants’ solicitors had authority to plead and verify the reliance case on behalf of the claimants. The fact that detailed information had not been gathered before commencement did not itself make the pleading abusive.
4. Further information. CPR Part 18 relief was confined to information strictly necessary and proportionate at the current stage. The claimants were ordered to provide particulars and trading data concerning standing by 15 December 2023, reliance information through the amended questionnaire by 31 January 2024, and particulars of loss by 29 February 2024. No order was made concerning the bank-knowledge representations because further particularisation was not presently feasible pending disclosure.