“It is also notable that a number of Managers were central to this misconduct. In 25 particular, Manager B was aware of improper requests across most of the currencies referred to in this Notice; in addition he routinely made requests both internally at Deutsche Bank and externally to other Panel Banks as set out above...”
“One of the requirements flowing from the expression “prescribed by law” is foreseeability. Thus, a norm cannot be regarded as a “law” unless it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable citizens to regulate their 5 conduct; they must be able – if need be with appropriate advice – to foresee, to a degree that it is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail. Such consequences need not be foreseeable with absolute certainty: experience shows this to be unattainable. Again, while certainty is highly 10 desirable, it may bring in its train excessive rigidity, and the law must be able to keep pace with changing circumstances. Accordingly, many laws are inevitably couched in terms which, to a greater or lesser extent, are vague and whose interpretation and application are questions of practice…”
“In the present case, the claimants have alleged fraud and, in the alternative, negligence. Mr Reed submitted that this, by itself, must mean that the primary facts were consistent with honesty, and that fraud therefore could not be pleaded. 30 This, if correct, would apply to all cases, and it would never be open to a claimant to plead alternative claims of fraud and negligence. Such alternative claims are of course commonplace, and this submission is wrong. If there are facts which “tilt the balance” and justify an inference of dishonesty, then dishonesty may be alleged. Alleging negligence in the alternative involves no 35 inconsistency: it simply recognises that the court may find that the defendant was not dishonest but merely negligent.”