Author: Sivakumaran Sivathillainathan

IRHP Review Interest Rate Hedging Products FCA Review Bank Mis-selling SME Redress Swaps Mis-selling Financial Conduct Authority RBS IRHP Banking Litigation Financial Compensation SEO Keywords: FCA IRHP review scheme Interest Rate Hedging Products mis-selling SME swaps mis-selling claims FCA and bank redress process RBS IRHP compensation Independent IRHP reviewers IRHP review legal advice Mis-sold interest rate swaps Financial Conduct Authority swaps review Swaps compensation claims UK

Interest Rate Hedging Product (IRHP) Review: Confidential agreement between FCA and major banks published

The FCA’s confidential agreement with major banks set up the Interest Rate Hedging Product (IRHP) Review to address mis-selling claims. The Treasury Select Committee criticized the scheme for potentially allowing banks to avoid meaningful redress for SMEs, favouring banks over customers. The agreement details the redress process, but concerns remain about fairness and effectiveness. The Committee continues to scrutinize the review and its impact on SME lending.

RCJ royal courts of justice london strand address lexlaw litigation solicitor professional negligence legal negligent claim advice no win no fee

Fixed Rate Tailored Business Loan Mis-selling: Clydesdale & Yorkshire Bank’s Internal TBL Review

Clydesdale and Yorkshire Banks have now begun a review of past sales of fixed rate loans often sold as Tailored Business Loans (TBLs). These are Fixed Rate Loan wrapper products with embedded derivatives.

barclays bank london lexlaw litigation solicitor bank misselling claims litigation lawyers barristers libor professional negligence

Barclays’ attempt to strike-out swaps mis-selling claim (on limitation defence) dismissed by High Court

The High Court dismissed Barclays’ attempt to strike out a swaps mis-selling claim as time-barred under the six-year limitation period. The claimant relied on section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980, which extends the limitation period by three years from when the claimant knew or ought to have known the relevant facts. The court held there was a real prospect that the claimant did not know enough to investigate the claim until later, rejecting Barclays’ argument that earlier interest payments triggered the limitation clock. This ruling supports claimants in overcoming time-bar defences in swaps cases.