Litigation, Lloyd's, and the Names

Listed below are court cases by or against Lloyd's, Lloyd's insurance syndicates, their US banker Citibank, and their US lawyers, LeBouef, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, and Lloyd's Names. This section includes civil complaints of investor fraud, actions by state agencies responsible for securities and insurance regulation, and SEC amicus curiae briefs among other things. Also of note are a law review article on choice of law and choice of forum clauses by Courtland H. Peterson, and a letter to the insurance commissioners and state attorneys general of the various states from Thomas L. Seifert, Esq.

Lloyd's has never refuted any of the factual allegations and findings against them in the following cases. They have instead circumvented the disclosure and hearing of evidence under US law by having cases dismissed from US courts and sent to England, where Lloyd's has immunity from lawsuit. Failing removal to UK jurisdiction, they have settled cases out of court with the records sealed in preference to having the evidence against them become public.

United States cases | Canadian cases | United Kingdom cases

Newest addition: Affidavit of Ian Hay Davidson, 4 March 2005

    United States

    The Society of Lloyd's v. Raymond C. Lee, US District Court, Colorado
    Answer, Counterclaim, and Jury Demand

    In Re Lloyd's American Trust Fund Litigation (Names v. Citibank)
    Opinion - Judge Sweet, November 26, 2002

    In Re Lloyd's American Trust Fund Litigation (Names v. Citibank)
    Fairness Hearing
    , September 10, 2002


    Ashenden Reply Brief, July 26, 2000 - - - Introduction
    Previously filed:
    Lloyd's Reply Brief, June 30, 2000 - - - Summary of Argument
    Ashenden Brief of April 26, 2000 - - - Summary of Argument
    Ashenden Brief of March 22, 2000 - - - Summary of Argument

    Ashenden Appeal, Lloyd's v. Ashenden - - - Summary of Argument
    (filed November 29, 1999)


    "Choice of Law and Forum Clauses and the Recognition of Foreign Country Judgments Revisited through the Lloyd's of London Cases"
    By: Professor Court Peterson
    , as published in the Louisiana Law Review, 2000.

  1. Cases Against Lloyd's

    1. Missouri Court Rejects Lloyd's American Trust Funds & Equitas as Pre-Answer Security in Transit Casualty Case. Court orders Lloyd's to Post over $25,000,000 in Letters of Credit.

    2. West vs. Lloyd's
      Note: West v. Lloyd's has been settled out court. The settlement is sealed. We have no details of the settlement to report.
    3. Richards vs. Lloyd's
    4. Leslie vs. Lloyd's
    5. Allen vs. Lloyd's
    6. Roby vs. Lloyd's
    7. Riley vs. Lloyd's
    8. Bonny vs. Lloyd's

  2. Cases against LeBoeuf Lamb Greene & MacRae
    • Baker vs. LeBoeuf - on appeal, January 31, 1997
    • Abeles/West vs. LeBoeuf
    • Rhodenbaugh vs. LeBoeuf

  3. State Securities Commissions against Lloyd's
    1. Cease & Desist Orders Issued against Lloyd's
    2. State of California Complaint Against Lloyd's
    3. North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA)
    4. Expert Opinion on Lloyd's Central Fund. U.S.


United Kingdom

Justice Cresswell's questions to Mr. Goldblatt, 20 July 2000

Merrett Case excerpts (for the entire judgement, View 938KB or Download 281KB)

In the U.K., court cases involving Lloyd's losses fall into two main categories. First are cases that have been filed by Lloyd's against Names to collect money allegedly owed by Names to pay for billions of dollars in insurance claims that began exceeding premium reserves in 1991 (for the 1988 year of account.)

The other type of litigation proceeding in England includes cases brought by investor/Names against Lloyd's members agents, managing agents and syndicate managers. Although a number of cases against particular agents, syndicates and their management have resulted in court rulings which were seemingly favorable to Names -- with two such awards exceeding $700 million each -- no money has ever been recouped by a Name who was a plaintiff on any of these "successful" cases. Soon after court cases were ruled in favor of defrauded investors, Lloyd's ruling Council unilaterally and retroactively enacted by-laws that modified investment contracts with Names. These contractual amendments, which are illegal under U.S. law, were permitted by English regulators and judges in order to "save" Lloyd's from ruin. The effect of the changes to the investment contracts was that all court awards achieved by Names were hijacked by Lloyd's and redirected into Lloyd's Central Fund to pay for alleged losses on syndicates that were not part of the litigation.
  1. Defensive Cases
    1. Lloyd's vs. Wilkinson et al
    2. Lloyd's vs. Mason
    3. Lloyd's vs. Clementson

  2. Offensive Cases
    1. Merrett
    2. Gooda Walker
    3. Feltrim
    4. Oakley Vaughn
    5. Outhwaite
Home - | - Q & A - | - Regulation - | - Litigation - | - News - | - Fraud
Reports - | - Message Board - | - Contact Truth About Lloyd's