Lead Counsel Scott+Scott Announces Compensation Figures from Five Banks for Victims of FX Manipulations in the US - with British Banks Being the Largest Offenders

LONDON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Lead counsel Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP today announces the settlement figures from five further banks that have agreed to provide to a United States class of victims in In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:13-cv-7789 (S.D.N.Y.). Star mediator Kenneth Feinberg – whose work has included overseeing The Federal September 11 Victim Compensation Fund of 2001, as well as the fund for victims of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico – supervised the entire settlement process.

To date settlements total over $2 billion and this figure will likely rise as a further seven banks have yet to settle. UK banks including Barclays, HSBC and Royal Bank of Scotland have agreed to provide compensation in excess of $900m.

The settlement agreements provide that they must pay the following sums to victims that purchased foreign currencies and FX instruments over the counter and on an exchange. Scott+Scott today confirms the compensation figures for the following banks:

Barclays PLC	$384 million
HSBC PLC	$285 million
RBS	$255 million
Goldman Sachs Group Inc.	$135 million
BNP Paribas SA	$115 million
Since January 2015 the below four banks confirmed compensation of:
Citigroup Inc. and Citibank, N.A.	$402 million
Bank of America Corporation and Bank of America N.A.	$187.5 million
UBS AG, UBS Group AG, and UBS Securities LLC	$141.075 million
JPMorgan	$104.5 million
Total Compensation:	$2,009,075,000

The seven non-settling defendants include newly named defendants Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, RBC Capital Markets LLC, Société Générale S.A., and Standard Chartered plc, as well as originally named defendants Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse, and Morgan Stanley.

In addition to the payments, the settlements require each bank to offer extensive cooperation against non-settling defendants, which has given Scott+Scott a unique insight into the complexity of the manipulation and the scale of the losses suffered in Europe. Among other things, the nine settling banks are required to provide Scott+Scott descriptions of their actions, documents, witness interviews, depositions, and trial testimony.

“We look forward to presenting these momentous settlement agreements to the federal court for approval,” commented David R. Scott, Managing Partner of Scott+Scott, “but our work is far from done. Given our in-depth knowledge based on our success against the banks in the US, Scott+Scott is gearing up to bring the action to Europe. Compensation figures today should serve as an indication of the scale of the potential European action as the UK FX market is almost double the size of that in the US.”

Scott+Scott has retained leading barrister, Daniel Jowell QC of Brick Court Chambers, to prosecute FX claims in Europe. He is known for his expertise in complex multi-jurisdictional disputes cases and has appeared in a large number of significant competition law damages actions of recent years. His team for this case will include Gerard Rothschild and Charlotte Thomas of the same chambers.

The Head of Scott+Scott’s London office, Belinda Hollway, added “Scott+Scott has invested years in understanding the global nature of the conspiracy in the FX market and the damages suffered all over the world. We will soon be ready to bring an action against the banks in London. We have clients signed up across the UK, Europe and Asia - all of whom suffered substantial losses on their foreign exchange transactions as a result of manipulation by the banks.”

Scott+Scott first filed the lawsuit on November 1, 2013. In February of 2014, a federal court appointed Scott+Scott to serve as lead counsel for a nationwide class of victims that purchased foreign currencies and foreign exchange instruments over the counter (i.e. directly from banks). On August 14, 2015, the court appointed the firm to represent a nationwide class of victims that purchased foreign currencies and FX instruments on an exchange. The lawsuit alleges that banks conspired to manipulate the FX market by, among other things, agreeing to fix foreign exchange benchmarks, such as the WM/Reuters and ECB rates, and bid/ask spreads, which represent the difference between the price at which a bank offers to purchase and sell currencies. http://globenewswire.com/news-release/2015/07/31/756904/0/en/Scott-Scott-Files-New-Class-Action-Complaint-in-Foreign-Exchange-Lawsuit.html

For media enquiries and more information please contact Lawrence Dore on [phone] / [phone]; or via email at [e-mail]; or Locksley Ryan on [phone] / [phone]; or via email at [e-mail]; or Irina Sukhikh on [phone] / [phone] or via email at [e-mail].

Notes to editors

Scott+Scott, Attorneys At Law, LLP has an exceptional track record of high profile cases involving securities and other complex litigation on behalf of institutional investors, including large pension funds. David R. Scott, Managing Partner of Scott+Scott, has recouped billions of dollars for victims of corporate wrongdoing. He served as co-lead counsel in Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners, an action alleging that the largest private equity firms in the United States colluded to suppress prices that shareholders received in leveraged buyouts, settled for $600 million. He served as co-lead counsel in numerous securities and employee retirement class action lawsuits, including Thurber v. Mattel, Inc. ($122 million settlement); In re Royal Dutch/Shell Transport ERISA Litigation ($90 million settlement); In re Priceline.com Securities Litigation ($80 million settlement); Irvine v. ImClone Systems, Inc. ($75 million settlement); and Cornwell v. Credit Suisse Group ($70 million settlement). Mr. Scott also has achieved precedent-setting corporate governance reforms in shareholder derivative actions, including: In re Marvell Tech. Group Ltd. Derivative Litigation (obtained $54.9 million in financial benefits for the company and improved stock option granting procedures and internal controls, valued at approximately $150 million); Plymouth County Contributory Retirement System v. Hasan (obtained reforms requiring annual reporting to the company’s board where any clinical drug trial is delayed, valued at between $50-$75 million); and Garcia v. Carrion (obtained stronger internal controls and improved director education in accounting and ethics, valued at between $10-$15 million).