Author: LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers

rbs grg ross mcewan swaps misselling claims litiggation solicitor in london lexlaw high court

GRG Review: RBS appoint Mark Spurin to minimise compensation payouts to SME victims

Reports surface that Mark Spurin will take charge of the RBS GRG Review compensation scheme for ‘impacted SME’ victims.

rbs grg claim solicitors financial mis selling irhps

RBS faces call for FCA-agreed GRG Review compensation scheme

The FCA is set to recommend a compensation scheme for businesses harmed by RBS’s Global Restructuring Group (GRG), according to an upcoming report. While the GRG Review may be quicker than litigation, it is criticised for being unfair and limiting compensation. Victims are advised to consider parallel litigation, which is designed to ensure a fair outcome. GRG, a troubled business support unit within RBS, controlled assets of 16,000 SMEs before being disbanded in 2014 following misfeasance allegations.

westgate swaps mi-selling claim against RBS bank litigation uk solicitors

RBS settles mis-sold swaps litigation (Westgate Healthcare Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc)

Westgate Healthcare settled a legal dispute with RBS for £10m, involving alleged misrepresentation and breach of contract regarding an interest rate swap. Deemed too sophisticated for FCA’s compensation scheme, Westgate’s claim, initiated in April 2014, led to a settlement with RBS, who imposed confidentiality and accepted no liability.

lloyds bank london lexlaw litigation bank finance solicitor claims against banks lawyers london

The Sunday Times: ‘We will battle on, warn victims of bank mis-selling’

The Sunday Times reports the largest ever publicly disclosed settlement in interest rate swaps mis-selling, where Lloyds Bank paid £4.6m to a care home business after refusing compensation via the FCA IRHP Review. Thousands of businesses were excluded from compensation due to a controversial ‘sophistication test,’ leaving many short-changed. The case highlights banks’ efforts to avoid accountability and the ongoing struggle for fair redress, with expert legal advice offering hope for mis-sold swap victims.

Primary Keywords: Lloyds Bank Interest rate hedging products (IRHPs) Financial derivatives Mis-selling Litigation Settlement Care home Business Financial loss Secondary Keywords: Complex financial products Regulatory oversight Consumer protection Financial harm LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers Buckinghamshire UK Lawsuit Settlement Break cost IRHP review scheme FCA Financial Conduct Authority Long-Tail Keywords: Lloyds Bank mis-sold interest rate swaps Lloyds Bank financial derivatives lawsuit Care home sued Lloyds Bank for mis-selling IRHP mis-selling scandal Lloyds Bank settlement over complex financial products Financial harm due to mis-sold derivatives Regulatory oversight of financial institutions Consumer protection in the UK LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers legal case Buckinghamshire care home wins lawsuit against Lloyds Bank

The Sunday Times: ‘Lloyds pays up on rate swap wrangle’

Lloyds Bank has been forced into a significant litigation settlement regarding the mis-selling of interest rate hedging products (IRHPs) to The Coin Group, a care home operator. The case highlights the potential for banks to mis-sell complex financial derivatives to businesses, leading to significant financial losses. The Coin Group, represented by LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers, successfully argued that Lloyds Bank failed to disclose the risks and potential liabilities associated with the IRHPs, resulting in a settlement of £4.6 million.

lloyds bank london lexlaw litigation bank finance solicitor claims against banks lawyers london

Statement by Coin Group re Litigation Settlement with Lloyds Bank Plc

Lloyds Bank, a leading UK financial institution, has been involved in a significant litigation settlement regarding the mis-selling of interest rate hedging products (IRHPs) to The Coin Group, a care home operator. The case highlights the potential for banks to mis-sell complex financial derivatives to businesses, leading to significant financial losses. The Coin Group, represented by LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers, successfully argued that Lloyds Bank failed to disclose the risks and potential liabilities associated with the IRHPs, resulting in a settlement of £4.6 million. The case underscores the importance of obtaining the best legal representation when fighting major banks.

lexlaw financial services litigation lawyers in london

Treasury Committee reports on Conduct in SME lending (FCA IRHP Mis-selling Review, TBLs, Hidden Swaps and GRG)

The Treasury Committee report criticises conduct in SME lending, focusing on four key areas: FCA’s IRHP mis-selling review, Tailored Business Loans (TBLs), hidden swaps embedded in loans, and RBS’s Global Restructuring Group (GRG). The report finds systemic failings, lack of transparency, and inadequate customer protections. It calls for stronger regulatory oversight, better redress schemes, and reforms to prevent banks exploiting SMEs through complex financial products and aggressive recovery tactics.

Aviva Early Redemption Fee Dispute Solicitors GPCF Norwich Union Break Costs

Barrier to justice raised as court fees rise by 600%

The Civil and Family Proceedings (Amendment) Fees Order has been approved in the House of Lords. This massively increases the court issue fee to £10,000 from £1,920 (raised last year from £1,670).

FCA IRHP Review - KPMG whistleblower: RBS fought to reduce size of interest rate swap redress

FCA IRHP Review – KPMG whistleblower: RBS fought to reduce size of interest rate swap redress

A KPMG whistleblower revealed that RBS pressured the FCA Interest Rate Hedging Product (IRHP) redress scheme to reduce compensation payouts, often challenging claims over £750,000. RBS preferred offering alternative products rather than cash refunds and frequently argued sales were compliant to avoid redress. The FCA’s review was criticised for lacking independence, allowing banks to self-assess wrongdoing, causing unfair delays and rejections of consequential loss claims. Many SMEs have been short-changed due to these flaws, highlighting the need for urgent legal advice and challenge of unfair redress offers.