Category: RBS

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

Green & Rowley v RBS considered by Court of Appeal

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.

Financial Conduct Authority FCA UK Logo - LEXLAW Litigation Law Firm in London

‘FCA Swaps Review’ Update: Comment on Bank IRHP Review Delays with Statistics from the FCA

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 Court of Appeal ruled unanimously in RBS v Highland Financial Partners EWCA Civ 328 that RBS procured a previous judgment by fraud, deliberately withholding key documents and misleading their client, lawyers, and the court. The case involved a “sham auction” of loans to create a notional £1.44 billion profit. The judgment raises serious concerns about RBS’s corporate culture and litigation conduct. Contact Lexlaw for expert legal support on complex banking disputes and mis-selling claims.

RBS v Highland Financial Partners: Culture of denial at RBS?

The Court of Appeal ruled unanimously that RBS procured a previous judgment by fraud, deliberately withholding key documents and misleading their client, lawyers, and the court. The case involved a “sham auction” of loans to create a notional £1.44 billion profit. The judgment raises serious concerns about RBS’s corporate culture and litigation conduct.

lexlaw litigation solicitors in london lawyers professional negligence

The Times: Banks’ secretly settling swaps mis-selling cases

The Times Newspaper reports that banks are secretly settling swaps mis-selling cases with small businesses, often on the eve of court proceedings. These settlements are kept confidential, and the banks often make public statements denying wrongdoing. The number of claims is increasing as businesses become aware of the issue. Businesses argue that the swaps were too complex and that banks failed to explain the risks involved.

dark and secretive aspects of LIBOR manipulation at RBS, aiming to convey the sense of illicit activity, cultural failures, and the impact of the fine

RBS fined for LIBOR Manipulation; will lead to increased LIBOR Litigation

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.

Here's an image depicting the FSA's pilot review findings for swaps mis-selling. It shows a scene with financial professionals looking concerned over documents, charts highlighting high mis-selling rates, and subtle visual cues indicating inadequate explanations, undisclosed costs, and over-hedging. The overall tone conveys seriousness and the implications of regulatory failure.

FSA Findings on Banks’ Pilot Swaps Mis-selling 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.

china chinese insolvency chase debt unpaid invoice lexlaw litigation solicitors barristers in london limitation

Legal Comment on Green & Rowley v RBS [2012] EWHC 3661 (Swaps Mis-selling Judgment)

This judgment shows the complexity and fact-sensitive nature of swap mis-selling claims. The claimants were found to be experienced businessmen dealing with a straightforward swap, unlike many cases where claimants are less sophisticated and products are more complex. Key points include the importance of early document disclosure and careful handling of limitation periods. Specialist legal advice is essential to assess and manage swap mis-selling claims effectively. Contact Lexlaw for expert guidance and representation.

RCJ royal courts of justice logo sign strand lexlaw litigation solicitor barrister lawyer professional negligence london

Green & Rowley v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2012] EWHC 3661 (QB)

Green & Rowley v Royal Bank of Scotland plc EWHC 3661 (QB) is a High Court case involving claims by John Green and Paul Rowley against RBS. The case deals with disputes related to financial transactions and banking practices. For detailed legal insights and advice regarding this case or similar banking disputes, contact Lexlaw Solicitors for expert guidance and representation.