Court Dismisses Claims of Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Negligence, and Conspiracy Against Credit Suisse: Legal Principles Analyzed

Citation: [2023] EWHC 2759 (Comm)
Judgment on


In the case of Loreley Financing (Jersey) No 30 Limited v Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Limited & Ors, various legal principles were applied to address claims of fraudulent misrepresentation, negligence, and conspiracy. This article aims to dissect the case and clarify the legal principles and reasoning that led to the dismissal of claims by Loreley Financing against Credit Suisse.

Key Facts

Loreley Financing alleged that Credit Suisse made fraudulent representations regarding the value and credit quality of certain Notes they purchased, which were tied to residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS). Loreley Financing also brought a negligence claim and a conspiracy claim based on alleged breaches of Irish Prospectus Regulations.

Key points revolved around whether certain representations were made, whether they were relied upon, if they were false, if there was knowledge of their falsity, and if subsequent actions could be categorized as conspiracy. These claims were closely scrutinized in light of legal principles surrounding the making and reliance on representations, material falsity, knowledge and intent necessary for deceit, duty of care in negligence, and the constituting elements of conspiracy.

Misrepresentation and Reliance

The court applied traditional principles regarding representations in contracts, discerning express from implied representations, and the necessity for reliance on such representations for a claim of deceit to succeed. The court rigorously examined whether representations had been made, their clarity, and their alignment with existing contracts and disclaimers.

Material Falsity and Knowledge

The analysis involved the threshold for a misrepresentation to be materially false and the requisite knowledge of the falsity for fraudulent intent to be established.


Principles relating to the existence and breach of duty of care in negligence were considered. The court examined whether Credit Suisse owed a duty of care and if their conduct breached such duty.


For the conspiracy claim, the court looked into the compatibility of foreign law breaches with the notion of ‘unlawful means’ needed to fulfill the requirements for an unlawful means conspiracy.


The court also delved into the limitation periods prescribed by law and whether the claimant’s knowledge, or lack thereof, affected the start of the limitation period.


The court found that Loreley Financing’s claims of fraudulent misrepresentation were unfounded due to a lack of evidence that relevant representations were made or relied upon, and it was not conclusively shown that any representations known to be materially false were acted upon deceitfully. The claims of negligence fell as no duty of care was established, nor was there a breach. The conspiracy claims were dismissed partly due to the unsuitability of non-actionable breaches of foreign law to serve as ‘unlawful means’. Additionally, the court addressed the limitation defense, concluding that the claims were time-barred.


In Loreley Financing (Jersey) No 30 Limited v Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Limited & Ors, the High Court engaged in a meticulous evaluation of the alleged fraudulent misrepresentation, negligence, and conspiracy claims against Credit Suisse. It concluded that the claims lacked merit and dismissed them, underscoring the importance of clear evidence for representations and their influence on the claimant’s actions, the established knowledge of falsities for fraud, the necessity of a duty of care for negligence, and the limitations on foreign breaches in conspiracy allegations. This case serves as an exemplar for lawyers concerning the level of proof required at various stages of such claims and the rigorous application of legal principles in complex financial transactions.

Related Summaries