LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers
The Treasury Select Committee has published a Letter from the Chief Executive of the FCA relating to the powers and perimeter of the FCA, dated 30 January. The letter provides a…
On 18 January 2018, a Parliamentary backbench motion on RBS’s Global Restructuring Group’s (GRG) systemic failure to protect SMEs has received unanimous Ministerial support in condemning the bank’s parasitic…
“Rope: Sometimes you need to let customers hang themselves.” A damning 2009 internal memo entitled “Just Hit Budget!” was published on 17 January by the Treasury Select Committee as MPs…
In Abdullah and others v Credit Suisse (UK) Limited and Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Limited [2017] EWHC 3016 (Comm), the High Court has given judgment in favour of private…
The Lawyer reports: Not-for-profit organisation Wenta has gained ground in its case against DLA Piper clients NatWest and the Royal Bank of Scotland for which it is now…
Our team of bank litigators can assist on litigation claims or high value Financial Ombudsman Service complaints against Metro Bank Plc. We have brought very high value claims against…
The Times Brief reports that we have launched an online petition in an attempt to apply public pressure on banks to settle compensation claims for financial product mis-selling.…
Major banks and other financial services institutions are often in dispute with customers who deserve protection. Access to court is costly. The FOS ombudsman scheme is inadequate. The…
RBS’s Global Restructuring Group (GRG) has faced allegations of destroying small businesses. LexLaw has sued RBS on behalf of many businesses including Bowlplex, a family-owned bowling business, claiming excessive fees, increased interest rates, and forced equity transfer. Despite a viable business, Bowlplex was transferred to GRG and ultimately sold on by RBS for a £9m profit and a £50m loss for the owners.
The Court of Appeal has allowed WW Property Investments Ltd to appeal against NatWest over mis-sold interest rate derivatives and the negligent conduct of the IRHP review. This landmark decision challenges banks’ redress offers and recognition of consequential losses, encouraging affected customers and SME victims to seek legal advice for potential claims. The ruling could impact limitation periods and existing non-advisory defenses employed by banks, with major implications for financial services litigation and previous IRHP Review outcomes.