LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers
The door has been opened by the Court of Appeal in PAG v RBS [2018] for misrepresentation claims to be brought by a counter-party to a derivative which…
The Court of Appeal (Sir Terence Etherton MR, Longmore LJ and Newey LJ) handed down judgment in the highly anticipated appeal from Asplin J’s decision in Property Alliance…
The Property Alliance Group (PAG) appeal against RBS concerning interest rate swaps mis-selling, LIBOR manipulation, and GRG treatment was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in 2018. While PAG lost on the facts, the Court clarified key legal points: banks must exercise valuation rights for legitimate commercial purposes, not maliciously, and duties owed vary by case context. The judgment impacts many pending mis-selling claims, offering guidance on banks’ responsibilities and contractual rights. PAG’s LIBOR manipulation claim failed due to lack of evidence on sterling LIBOR but remains significant for other currencies.
The FCA regulates authorised firms under the Financial Services and Markets Act (FSMA) 2000, overseeing conduct and prudential standards. It authorises firms, supervises compliance, investigates breaches, and enforces rules via fines, bans, and public censure. The FCA’s remit focuses on “regulated activities,” but it also monitors firms’ overall behaviour, including some unregulated actions linked to regulated firms. It holds senior managers accountable under the Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SMCR). The FCA aims to protect consumers, uphold market integrity, and promote competition, balancing its powers with statutory limits set by Parliament and Government.
UK Parliament unanimously condemned RBS’s Global Restructuring Group (GRG) for its systemic mistreatment of SMEs, describing it as a parasitic unit engaged in asset stripping and aggressive litigation tactics. MPs highlighted GRG’s role in artificially distressing viable businesses, undervaluing assets, and employing harsh recovery strategies during 2008-2013, leading to widespread financial harm. The FCA’s delayed and redacted report faced heavy criticism, with calls for transparent accountability, a Financial Services Tribunal, whistleblower protections, and full release of investigations.
The leaked 2009 internal memo from RBS’s Global Restructuring Group (GRG), titled “Just Hit Budget!”, reveals aggressive tactics aimed at extracting maximum profit from struggling SME customers. The memo outlines a systematic approach to pressure businesses, including leveraging fees, forcing deal signings, and deliberately letting customers fail – referred to chillingly as “let customers hang themselves.” This memo exemplifies the toxic culture within GRG that led to severe financial distress for many SMEs.
The FCA has issued a strong warning over widespread mis-selling of complex and risky Contracts for Difference (CFDs) to retail investors, finding poor target market definitions, inadequate due diligence, and weak conflict of interest management among providers. Many unsophisticated consumers suffer significant losses, with 76% losing money, including pension funds unknowingly invested in CFDs. The FCA’s crackdown includes tougher regulations and possible supervisory interventions to protect vulnerable investors. Consumers mis-sold CFDs can seek redress through complaints, the Financial Ombudsman, or legal claims.
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…
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.
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.