Signature’s strong track record in collective securities disputes continues to grow

1. The action against Barclays plc involved over 100 institutional investors representing approximately 465 funds claiming in relation to statements and/or omissions within its annual reports, interim result announcements and a prospectus between 2011 and 2014. The alleged misleading statements and omissions related to, amongst other things, the bank’s alternative trading system and liquidity dark pool.
2. The proceedings against Standard Chartered plc involved over 200 institutional investors in connection with approximately 1,400 funds claiming in relation to 45 publications and three Rights Issue prospectuses over a 12-year period between 2007 and 2019. The alleged misleading statements and omissions related to, amongst other things, failures to comply with US economic sanctions, and shortcomings in financial crime controls, customer due diligence and ongoing monitoring.

Both cases broke new ground on important legal and procedural issues, including in the appellate Courts, which are likely to influence how these types of cases are litigated in the future. For example:

1. Permitted claimant name changes: In August 2023 in the Barclays proceedings, Leech J permitted claimant name changes, thwarting the defendant’s attempt to jettison a large part of the claim. Leech J exercised his discretion in a way that departed from earlier High Court authority, opening a clearer procedural route for institutional claimants.
2. Pleading dishonesty: In June 2024 in the Standard Chartered proceedings the Court of Appeal handed down its first judgment in a claim of this type, in which the claimants succeeded in opposing Standard Chartered’s appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld a decision by Michael Green J to dismiss attempts by the defendant bank to strike out various aspects of the claimants’ case. The Court of Appeal’s decision provides important guidance on pleading dishonesty.
3. Reliance, dishonest delay and passive funds (Part I): In October 2025, Leech J handed down a decision in the Barclays proceedings regarding the key issue of the necessary ingredients for “reliance” under the s90A. Leech J held that some awareness of the published information was required (i.e that the investor had read or heard the alleged misrepresentation). This was a key development in the law in this area, and was later returned to in the Standard Chartered matter (as described below).
4. Shareholder privilege: In November 2025, the Barclays team were back in Court on an issue of shareholder privilege. which, if successful, would have meant that the Bank was not entitled to assert privilege as against its shareholders. The case settled prior to receiving judgment on that application.
5. Dispensation of disclosure obligations: In December 2025 the Court of Appeal handed down another judgment on a separate issue in the Standard Chartered proceedings, in which the claimants again succeeded in opposing Standard Chartered’s appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld a further decision by Michael Green J to dismiss attempts by Standard Chartered to withhold disclosure of certain documents due to what the bank argued were foreign law restrictions on its ability to give the disclosure in the English proceedings. In doing so, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to provide general guidance as to the purpose and limits of disclosure in English litigation before emphasising the rules with respect to withholding documents and confidentiality. This judgment will be highly relevant to cross-border collective actions going forward.
6. Reliance, dishonest delay and passive funds (Part II): A further Court of Appeal hearing was due to take place this month following the important decision of Michael Green J in 2025 dismissing further attempts by Standard Chartered to strike out aspects of the claimants’ case relating to, amongst other things, the reliance claims of tracker and passive funds. Michael Green J’s decision came after Mr Justice Leech’s decision in the Barclays proceedings in late 2024, which looked to have considerably hampered prospective claimants (particularly tracker and passive funds, which make up approximately one third of the market) from bringing claims under the relevant statutory provisions. The upcoming appeal hearing will not proceed following settlement of the proceedings, and the High Court’s decision therefore stands, which is an important and positive decision for prospective claimants.

These actions follow Signature’s success in representing a group of claimants in the RBS Rights Issue Litigation, being one of the first group actions claiming pursuant to s. 90 FSMA. The Barclays proceedings were led by partner Becca Hogan and the Standard Chartered proceedings were led by partner Rory Spillman, both of whom were building on experience in previous similar cases.