Standard Chartered fails to cut £1.5bn lawsuit by shareholders for sanctions breaches
The High Court of England and Wales rejected, 25 March, Standard Chartered’s attempt to reduce a £1.5bn lawsuit alleging the bank made misleading statements about its compliance with Iran sanctions between 2007 and 2019.
Mr Justice Michael Green declined to strike out the claims, finding that the legal questions surrounding investor reliance are a ‘developing area of law’ that requires full examination at trial.
The case centres on complex claims about whether investors who did not directly read the bank’s published information can pursue legal action. Standard Chartered had sought to dismiss these claims, drawing on a recent precedent in a case involving the UK’s Barclays Bank.
The judge found significant differences between this case and the previous Barclays ruling, but said he had ‘little doubt’ he would have ‘refused to strike out the Common Reliance Claims or grant reverse summary judgment,’ without the benefit of the Barclays judgment.
The lawsuit against Standard Chartered stems from the bank’s 2019 agreement to pay $1.1 billion to U.S. and UK regulators for sanctions violations. Investors allege that the misconduct was far more extensive than the bank admitted, claiming it engaged in a “systemic course of conduct” in developing its Iran business.
The allegations focus on sanctions non-compliance, which the bank strongly denies. A Standard Chartered spokesperson told Reuters: ‘Whilst we acknowledge today’s decision, we regard this claim as being without merit and will continue to vigorously defend the allegations as the claim proceeds to trial.’
The case is now set for a full trial in October 2026, with the judge suggesting that both parties may need to refine their legal arguments.
