![]() ![]() XL Insurance therefore applied to the English court for an anti-suit injunction. However, those proceedings were in conflict with an arbitration clause under the Policy, which specified that any dispute or difference had to be submitted to LCIA arbitration in London. In December of 2018, Mr Little filed proceedings against XL Insurance in the New York Court, alleging breach of contract and seeking a declaration that there was coverage available under the Policy for his costs associated with the US regulatory action. ![]() However, XL Insurance denied that Mr Little was insured under that Policy and therefore declined to provide cover. In order to fund his defence against those allegations, Mr Little sought to draw on a directors and officers insurance policy issued by XL Insurance to the bank (“ Policy”). Mr Little, a former Barclays employee, had been accused by US authorities of manipulating foreign exchange currency benchmarks. In the recent case of XL Insurance Co SE v Little, the claimant (the ” XL Insurance”) asked the English High Court for a final anti-suit injunction to restrain Mr Little from pursuing proceedings that he had brought in the District Court of the Southern District of New York (the “ New York Court”). ![]() English courts have a longstanding and well recognised jurisdiction to restrain foreign proceedings which are brought in violation of an agreement to settle disputes by arbitration in London. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |