Frequently Asked Questions

This website has been created to inform members of the public and potential class members about a proposed collective action against entities in the Barclays, Citigroup, JPMorgan, MUFG Bank (formerly Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi), RBS/NatWest and UBS banking groups that has been filed with the Competition Appeal Tribunal by Mr Phillip Evans.  Mr Evans proposes to act as the class representative, on behalf of two “classes” of persons who it is alleged have suffered losses due to the banks’ participation in one or more foreign exchange (FX or forex) spot trading cartels.  This website will be updated regularly throughout the claim.

On 16 May 2019, the European Commission adopted two decisions finding that certain entities forming part of the Barclays, Citigroup, JPMorgan, MUFG Bank (formerly Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi), RBS/NatWest and UBS banking groups each participated in one or both of two foreign exchange spot trading cartels. On 2 December 2021, the Commission adopted two further decisions in the same case against the Barclays, RBS, UBS and HSBC banking groups and the Credit Suisse banking group finding that the banking groups participated in a further foreign spot trading cartel.

The cartels concerned spot trading in the G10 currencies, covered the whole of the European Economic Area and were in operation between 18 December 2007 and 31 January 2013. For more information on the cartels please see Question 4.

Mr Evans seeks to bring this claim in order to seek damages to compensate businesses and individuals who entered into spot transactions and/or outright forward transactions involving G10 currencies with the banks listed in Question 3 or other relevant financial institutions between December 2007 and January 2013.

The claim alleges that these businesses and individuals suffered losses as a result of the anti-competitive behaviour identified by the Commission. In particular, it will be argued that these persons may have paid more when buying G10 currencies, or received less when selling G10 currencies, in a spot or outright forward transaction, as a result of the cartels.

If you or your business entered into FX spot or outright forward transactions between December 2007 and January 2013, you may be eligible to participate in the claim and benefit from any future award of damages.  Register your interest here.

The proposed claim is against the following banks:

1. Barclays Bank Plc;
2. Barclays Capital Inc;
3. Barclays Execution Services Limited;
4. Barclays Plc;
5. Citibank N.A.;
6. Citigroup Inc;
7. JPMorgan Chase & Co;
8. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.;
9. J.P. Morgan Europe Limited;
10. J.P. Morgan Limited;
11. MUFG Bank, Ltd. (formerly Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd.);
12. Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc.;
13. NatWest Markets Plc;
14. NatWest Group Plc (formerly The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc);
15. UBS AG;
16. HSBC Holdings Plc;
17. HSBC Bank Plc;
18. UBS Group AG (as successor to Credit Suisse Group AG);
19. Credit Suisse AG; and
20. Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Limited.

Collectively, these banks are referred to as “the Banks”. Each of the Banks was included in one or more of the four decisions adopted by the European Commission (see Question 4). Aside from the Credit Suisse entities, the Banks have admitted their participation in the cartels.

On 16 May 2019 and 2 December 2021, the European Commission adopted four decisions finding that the Banks (listed at Question 3) each participated in one or more cartels in foreign exchange spot trading:

• The first cartel, known as the “Three Way Banana Split” cartel, involved Barclays, RBS/NatWest, Citigroup, JP Morgan and UBS, and operated between 18 December 2007 – 31 January 2013.
• The second cartel, known as the “Essex Express” cartel, involved Barclays, RBS/NatWest, MUFG Bank and UBS, and operated between 14 December 2009 – 31 July 2012.
• The third cartel, known as the “Sterling Lads” cartel, involved Barclays, RBS, UBS, HSBC and Credit Suisse and operated between 25 May 2011 – 12 July 2012.

The cartels concerned the G10 currencies and covered the whole of the EEA. Their names are derived from the names of the online chatrooms used by the traders involved in the cartels, which are explained below.

The cartels covered the total period of 18 December 2007 – 31 January 2013, although the banks did not necessarily participate in all of the cartels for the whole of that period.

The Commission found that traders employed by the Banks, who were involved in FX spot trading, had reached an underlying understanding to exchange, and had exchanged, current or forward-looking commercially sensitive information through private, online chat rooms. The traders also occasionally coordinated their trading activities.

The Commission found that commercially sensitive information was shared in the chatrooms on an extensive and recurrent basis. That information included:

1. The open risk positions of the participating traders (i.e. the currency they needed to sell or buy in order to convert their portfolios into their bank’s currency);
2. Information relating to customers’ outstanding orders (i.e. the amount that a customer wanted to exchange and the specific currencies involved, as well as indications on which client was involved in a transaction);
3. Information on bid-ask spreads (i.e. prices); and
4. Other details of current or planned trading activities.

This claim relies on those decisions and alleges that businesses and individuals who entered into spot transactions and/or outright forward transactions involving a pair of G10 currencies with the Banks or other Relevant Financial Institutions suffered losses as a result of this misconduct.

For more information, please take a look at the Commission’s press releases which can be accessed here.

Such proceedings can be ‘opt-in’ (where each potential class member must sign up in order to be part of the claim) or ‘opt-out’ (where each person that falls within the class or classes is automatically included in the proceedings unless they actively choose to opt out).

A person wishing to bring collective proceedings as a class representative must first obtain permission from the Competition Appeal Tribunal for the claim to proceed. This is known as obtaining a Collective Proceedings Order (CPO). The Competition Appeal Tribunal will decide whether to grant a CPO by considering whether: (a) the class representative is suitable to bring the claim; and (b) the claims are eligible to be included in collective proceedings.

Mr Evans is bringing an application for a CPO. He seeks to obtain the permission of the Tribunal to bring proceedings on behalf of two classes of persons who it is alleged have suffered losses due to the Banks’ participation in FX spot trading cartels.

If you or your business are not resident or domiciled in the UK, and you wish to participate in Mr Evans’ proposed collective action, you will need to opt in to the claim. Opt-in registration will be open at a later date but please register your interest to receive more information and we will keep you informed of when you can opt in, and the process to be followed.

An application has been made to the Competition Appeal Tribunal for a collective proceedings order (CPO). Before making a CPO, the Tribunal will decide whether to give permission for the claim to proceed as a collective action, and whether the class representative is suitable to bring the claim.

The Tribunal considered Mr Evans’ application during a hearing between 12 and 16 July 2021. It heard Mr Evans’ application at the same time as another application for permission to bring collective proceedings relating to the foreign exchange spot trading cartels, filed by Michael O’Higgins FX Class Representative Limited. As a result, the Tribunal had to decide which of the proposed class representatives was the most suitable to act as the class representative in what is known as a ‘carriage dispute’.

The Tribunal delivered its judgment on certification and carriage on 31 March 2022 and: (a) found that the proceedings should be certified as collective proceedings but declined to certify them on an opt-out basis; and (b) agreed that, if the claims were to continue on an opt-out basis, the Tribunal would decide carriage in favour of Mr Evans’ application, FX Claim UK.

On 4 October 2022, the Tribunal granted Mr Evans permission to appeal its judgment. In its reasoned order, the Tribunal considered that there was a “real prospect” of Mr Evans persuading the Court of Appeal that the Tribunal’s decision not to certify the claims on an opt-out basis was erroneous in law. Mr Evans’ appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal in April 2023, at the same time as the appeal by Michael O’Higgins FX Class Representative Limited.

On 9 November 2023, the Court of Appeal handed down a judgment granting Mr Evans’ appeal and upholding the Tribunal’s decision that Mr Evans has carriage of the proceedings. The Banks have applied to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s. The Supreme Court’s decision on permission to appeal is awaited.

On 8 February 2024, Michael O’Higgins FX Class Representative Limited’s claim was discontinued.

On 12 February 2024, Mr Evans filed his re-amended claim, which added claims based on the Sterling Lads decisions and joined HSBC and Credit Suisse as defendants based on their involvement in the Sterling Lads cartel (see Question 4).

Mr Evans, formerly an Inquiry Chair at the CMA and a Senior Policy Adviser at Which?, the UK consumer association, has worked tirelessly on behalf of victims of anti-competitive conduct for the last 20 years. An economist, he is currently also Special Adviser for Competition, Consumer and Trade Policy at FIPRA International, an independent European public affairs consultancy firm.

As Inquiry Chair at the Competition and Markets Authority and Panel Member at the Competition Commission, Mr Evans was involved in running substantial investigations in the field of competition law. He also spent nearly a decade at Which?, where he worked to promote fair markets and competition policy for the benefit of consumers in a range of sectors, including financial services. Mr Evans has also taught at several universities, and has written on topics ranging from trade and competition policy to the history and functioning of markets and corporate responsibility.

With such a breadth of knowledge and experience, Mr Evans is well placed to bring this claim on behalf of class members who have suffered losses due to the Banks’ conduct.

Mr Evans has instructed Hausfeld (a leading disputes only specialist law firm with offices in London, Brussels, Paris, Berlin and Düsseldorf, Stockholm and throughout the US). Hausfeld is also co-lead counsel in the US FX class action, which has recovered over $2.3 billion for those affected by FX misconduct in the US. Mr Evans has also instructed a team of barristers at Brick Court Chambers, who have extensive experience in the field of competition law claims for damages.

Mr Evans has also instructed experts and engaged a consultative panel, chaired by Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, a crossbench member of the House of Lords who was a part time judge for 28 years in the High Court and the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

For more information about Mr Evans, the specialist lawyers and the experts he has instructed, please see the About page.

During the proceedings, Mr Evans will be responsible for communicating with the classes and for issuing formal notices.  Communication will occur via updates and announcements on this website, email correspondence, and written notices. If you would like to be kept up to date on developments in the claim, please register your interest.

The question as to whether the claims are eligible to be brought as collective proceedings will be decided on the basis of whether the claims sought to be included: (i) are brought on behalf of an identifiable class (or classes) of persons; (ii) raise common issues; and (iii) are suitable to be brought in collective proceedings.