- Summary judgment given to former senior executives of Lloyds Bank over unpaid long-term incentive plan awards (Daniels & Anor v Lloyds Bank Plc & Anor)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the Court decide?
- Was the LTIP validly amended?
- When did the awards vest?
- Was there an unlawful exercise of discretion?
- Does the operation of an exclusion clause prevent the claimants from seeking the relief sought in any event?
- Do the agreements reached by each claimant with the defendants preclude an otherwise valid exercise of the Malus Clause (Rule 6.4)?
- Case details
Share Incentives analysis: The High Court found that Lloyds Banking Group’s defences have no real prospects of success, and held that the claimants’ applications for summary judgment succeed. As a result, Lloyds Banking Group will have to pay nearly £3 million to its former chief executive and another director after it attempted to withhold payments due from the company’s long-term incentive plan (LTIP) through the use of a malus clause.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial