Key Takeaways
- • Brevan Howard Asset Management LLP obtained an interim non-disclosure injunction against Reuters, journalist Ms Keidan, and an unidentified third party in High Court (QBD) proceedings on breach of confidence grounds under case reference [2017] EWHC 644 (QB).
- • Reuters obtained confidential investment documents intended for 36 professional investors and threatened publication on 1 March 2017; BHAM secured the injunction within nine days of filing its claim on 10 March 2017.
- • BHAM implemented multiple confidentiality protections for the seven documents: unique password encryption, pre-distribution phone calls to each investor confirming sensitivity, and cover page disclaimers restricting distribution and reproduction without written consent.
- • Justice Popplewell determined that Reuters' information most probably derived from the documents BHAM provided to institutional investors, establishing sufficient grounds for the interim order pending full trial.
Summary
In a significant decision for asset management confidentiality rights, Justice Popplewell of the Queen's Bench Division granted an interim non-disclosure order in Brevan Howard Asset Management LLP v Reuters Limited and others, preventing a major news agency from publishing or using confidential investment information obtained without authorization.
BHAM distributed seven documents electronically to 36 potential professional investors as part of a fundraising or strategic disclosure process. The firm took deliberate steps to maintain confidentiality, including telephoning each recipient prior to document delivery to emphasize sensitivity, protecting files with unique passwords, marking materials "Private and Confidential" and "Not for Distribution," and including explicit disclaimers stating the documents were for intended recipients only and could not be reproduced or shared without written consent.
Reuters obtained information derived from these documents and contacted BHAM on 1 March 2017 to verify accuracy before threatening publication. BHAM responded swiftly, securing a court order to seal the case file on 10 March 2017 and filing its claim and particulars the same day. The fund then sought the interim non-disclosure order against Reuters, journalist Ms Keidan, and an unidentified person to prevent further dissemination pending trial.
Justice Popplewell's analysis established that Reuters' information most probably originated from the confidential documents provided to professional investors, satisfying the threshold for interim relief. The decision upheld established principles in breach of confidence law requiring proof of information quality, reasonable expectation of confidentiality, and unauthorized use causing detriment. The case demonstrates the enforceability of confidentiality protections in institutional investment contexts, even against media defendants raising public interest defenses.
BHAM distributed seven documents electronically to 36 potential professional investors as part of a fundraising or strategic disclosure process. The firm took deliberate steps to maintain confidentiality, including telephoning each recipient prior to document delivery to emphasize sensitivity, protecting files with unique passwords, marking materials "Private and Confidential" and "Not for Distribution," and including explicit disclaimers stating the documents were for intended recipients only and could not be reproduced or shared without written consent.
Reuters obtained information derived from these documents and contacted BHAM on 1 March 2017 to verify accuracy before threatening publication. BHAM responded swiftly, securing a court order to seal the case file on 10 March 2017 and filing its claim and particulars the same day. The fund then sought the interim non-disclosure order against Reuters, journalist Ms Keidan, and an unidentified person to prevent further dissemination pending trial.
Justice Popplewell's analysis established that Reuters' information most probably originated from the confidential documents provided to professional investors, satisfying the threshold for interim relief. The decision upheld established principles in breach of confidence law requiring proof of information quality, reasonable expectation of confidentiality, and unauthorized use causing detriment. The case demonstrates the enforceability of confidentiality protections in institutional investment contexts, even against media defendants raising public interest defenses.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.