Banking & Financial Market Disputes
Seladore Legal has significant experience representing clients in high-stakes banking and financial market disputes. Acting for and against banks, investment funds, corporate borrowers, and financial institutions, we bring a deep understanding of the commercial and strategic considerations that shape financial disputes.
Our work includes claims involving the Quincecare duty, where we have acted for claimants seeking to hold banks accountable for failing to prevent fraudulent withdrawals. We have extensive experience in fraud-related disputes, including claims against financial institutions for fraudulent misrepresentation, dishonest assistance, and conspiracy to cause loss by unlawful means. Our team has also handled disputes arising from mis-sold financial products, breaches of fiduciary duty, and allegations of market manipulation.
Beyond fraud claims, we represent clients in disputes over syndicated loans, structured finance arrangements, and derivative transactions, as well as litigation involving banking facilities and credit agreements. We also handle matters linked to financial regulation and enforcement, advising on disputes arising from regulatory breaches and contentious investigations.
News & Insights
Seladore Legal announces the arrival of David Gilmore as Partner
Seladore Legal is pleased to announce that David Gilmore has joined the firm as a Partner, further strengthening its international arbitration and cross-border disputes offering across London and Asia.
Seladore contributes to GIR Market Review: Privilege 2025
In this year’s edition of GIR Market Review: Privilege 2025 for Global Investigations Review, Dan Hudson, Kevin Kilgour and Luke Taylor explore how legal privilege is adapting to new technologies and the evolving landscape of investigations.
Seladore acts in successful Privy Council case on “just and equitable” winding up
Seladore Legal has acted for the successful Respondent in a Privy Council appeal upholding the winding-up of a Cayman exempted limited partnership on the just and equitable ground, clarifying the scope of the jurisdiction beyond traditional “quasi-partnership” cases.