Category: Banking Law

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.

rcj clifford chance lawyer london litigate cpr civil commercial financial litigation

RBS & Clifford Chance Report on GRG Branded ‘Whitewash’

RBS Clifford Chance report on swaps mis-selling is a “whitewash” attempt to downplay the bank’s wrongdoing and avoid accountability. The report is lacks independence and fails to address the full scale of RBS mis-selling. It has fueled calls for stronger action into bank misconduct.

Westregister RBS GRG Review Compensation Whisteblower C4

Royal Bank of Scotland’s GRG Whistleblower Reveals All in Channel 4 Investigation

A former RBS GRG Bank Manager at revealed they deliberately destroyed viable businesses to save the bank during the credit crisis. GRG charged excessive fees, intercepted payments, and stripped firms of assets, which were then sold through another RBS unit, West Register. The investigation featured a couple forced into bankruptcy by unjust fees, highlighting GRG’s hostile tactics.

FCA Financial Conduct Authority RBS GRG Global Restructuring Group

FCA to Review RBS GRG Allegations

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) announced a review into allegations against RBS’s Global Restructuring Group (GRG), following claims of unfair treatment of businesses during the credit crisis. The review focuses on whether GRG used aggressive tactics that led to unnecessary fees, the stripping of assets, and forced bankruptcies. This follows whistleblower revelations and reports highlighting GRG’s controversial practices.

Litigation Lawyers in London High Court

RBS Commissioned Report Criticises Treatment of SME’s in Global Restructuring Group (GRG)

A report by Sir Andrew Large criticises RBS’s Global Restructuring Group (GRG) for its treatment of SMEs in financial distress. The report highlights GRG’s operation as an internal profit centre with opaque decision-making and poor governance. Customers often face unsettling decisions without clear recourse, lacking funds or expertise to challenge the bank. Large calls for a forensic inquiry into GRG’s practices to address conflicts of interest and improve the treatment of distressed SMEs.

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

Tomlinson Report Accuses RBS & Lloyds Bank of ‘Unscrupulous Practices’

The Tomlinson Report accuses RBS and Lloyds of unscrupulous practices through their turnaround divisions. It found the banks deliberately distressed viable businesses, charging excessive fees to force insolvency and acquire assets cheaply via property divisions like RBS West Register. The report describes these actions as systematic and institutional, damaging SMEs.

Barclays’ appeal in ‘LIBOR test case’ dismissed by Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed Barclays’ appeal in the ‘LIBOR test case’ (Graiseley v Barclays), allowing claims that banks made fraudulent implied representations regarding LIBOR’s honesty to proceed to trial. The judgment rejects Barclays’ argument that there is no cause of action for failing to disclose dishonesty. The court held that banks proposing LIBOR-based transactions arguably represented the rate’s integrity. This ruling opens the door for LIBOR manipulation claims to be tried in court.

Britain’s New Banking Scandal

BBC Panorama exposes costly bank ‘swap’ scandal

BBC Panorama featured LEXLAW as we helped expose a major bank swap scandal, with widespread mis-selling of complex derivatives to SMEs. Despite a Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) redress scheme reviewing nearly 30,000 cases, only 32 businesses had received payouts at the time of the report.

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

The Times: Lloyds swap case settlement revealed

Our client was awarded about £1 million in a swaps mis-selling settlement with Lloyds after being sold a complex multi-cancellable swap they did not understand. The product allowed Lloyds to cancel the contract if interest rates rose, removing the protection at critical times. The case highlights how banks have been settling many swaps claims discreetly.

The Court of Appeal judgment in Green & Rowley v Royal Bank of Scotland EWCA Civ 1197 concerns the sale of an interest rate swap (IRS) by RBS to the appellants, experienced businessmen. The court upheld the trial judge’s finding that RBS complied with Financial Services Authority Conduct of Business (COB) rules, including providing clear risk warnings. Key issues included whether RBS adequately disclosed potential break costs associated with early termination. The court concluded the swap was straightforward, and the appellants were capable of understanding or seeking clarification about the risks. The judgment highlights the necessity for clear, fair communication in complex financial product sales and confirms that sophisticated clients bear responsibility for understanding such transactions. Lexlaw offers expert advice on swaps mis-selling claims and related litigation.

Court of Appeal Judgment: Green & Rowley v The Royal Bank of Scotland

The Court of Appeal in Green & Rowley v RBS confirmed that a bank does not owe a common law duty to ensure that customers fully understand the risks of interest rate swaps beyond the regulatory requirements. The case involved claims of mis-selling, particularly around inadequate disclosures. The court upheld that the bank’s compliance with the Financial Services Authority’s Conduct of Business Rules was sufficient, and the customers were considered knowledgeable enough to understand the transaction.