LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers
In 2014, Promontory Financial Group and Mazars were appointed by the FCA to prepare an independent skilled persons report into RBS Global Restructuring Group’s conduct, which was produced…
The Court of Appeal dismissed the Green & Rowley appeal against RBS regarding swaps mis-selling. The appeal failed mainly because the claimants abandoned their section 150 FSMA claim, likely due to mistaken limitation concerns. The court found no common law advisory duty beyond regulatory compliance in this case. The decision highlights the critical importance of correctly calculating limitation periods.
The Green & Rowley v RBS appeal, heard by the Court of Appeal, focused on whether RBS properly explained the risks of an interest rate swap product. The FCA intervened to clarify regulatory rules on swaps mis-selling. The claimants’ decision to accept the section 150 FSMA claim as time-barred weakened their case. The judgment highlights the critical need to correctly calculate limitation periods and thoroughly manage these complex claims from the outset.
The FCA Swaps Review has faced significant delays since beginning in April 2013, frustrating many affected businesses. Latest FCA data reveals that only 50% of sophistication assessments are complete, 3.9% of cases have reached interviews, and 2.6% have had payments suspended. Delays risk customers losing legal rights due to the six-year limitation period. Concerns exist over banks bypassing the sophistication stage while fairness issues arise over banks self-assessing their mis-selling.
The FCA/FSA Hedging Review is conducted by the banks, not the regulator, and involves recorded interviews or fact-find meetings with customers. These interviews can be one-sided, with the bank’s lawyers asking questions designed to limit compensation. Customers often have limited rights to access bank records or challenge questions. A written statement, prepared with legal guidance, can be a safer way to present the sales experience without the risks of interviews.
RBS was fined £87.5 million by the Financial Services Authority for manipulating the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), a key interest rate affecting trillions in derivatives contracts. This fraudulent activity, dating back to at least 2006, involved traders adjusting rates to benefit trading positions, causing losses to counterparties. This highlights serious cultural and oversight failures at RBS and other banks and will trigger increased LIBOR-related litigation.
The FSA’s definition of sophistication for swaps mis-selling reviews is complex and has caused confusion. The original test deems a business sophisticated if it meets two of three criteria: turnover above £6.5m, balance sheet over £3.26m, or more than 50 employees. A new £10 million test modifies this excluding them from the FSA review.
The FSA’s pilot review of swaps mis-selling reveals over 90% of sales did not meet regulatory standards, highlighting inadequate risk explanation, undisclosed break costs, and over-hedging. Banks prioritised commissions over clients’ interests. The proposed review process raises concerns about reviewer independence and incomplete redress. Lexlaw advises court action before limitation periods expire.
The review of Interest Rate Hedging Products, including Tailored Business Loans, by Clydesdale and Yorkshire Banks in agreement with the Financial Services Authority. Customers who were not considered sophisticated at the time of sale shoul receive fair treatment and possible redress. The review is overseen. If you think this affects you, professional legal advice is available to protect your interests.
Barclays Bank was fined for manipulating LIBOR, impacting many UK small businesses sold complex interest rate derivatives on misleading terms. Banks implied LIBOR rates would be fair, but this was untrue, affecting the validity of these contracts. Businesses may seek contract termination or damages. Contact Lexlaw for expert evaluation and legal support on your claim.