Tag: Financial Regulation

rcj royal courts of justice exterior lexlaw litigation tax winding up lawyers

Swaps Mis-selling: Judgment in Crestsign Ltd v NatWest & RBS

The High Court judgment in Crestsign Ltd v NatWest & RBS ( EWHC 3043) deals with swaps mis-selling claims by Crestsign Limited against the banks. The case examined whether the banks properly advised Crestsign on interest rate hedging products (swaps) and complied with regulatory obligations. The judgment addresses issues of mis-selling, suitability of advice, and breaches of conduct rules. It forms an important precedent in derivatives mis-selling litigation against major UK banks.

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

Fixed Rate Tailored Business Loan Mis-selling: Clydesdale & Yorkshire Bank’s Internal TBL Review

Clydesdale and Yorkshire Banks have now begun a review of past sales of fixed rate loans often sold as Tailored Business Loans (TBLs). These are Fixed Rate Loan wrapper products with embedded derivatives.

HMRC Tax Disputes Litigation Solicitors Office Barrister London

HMRC Advice for the tax treatment of Interest Rate Hedging Products (IRHP Review) redress payments

HMRC has issued tax advice leaflets for banks to hand to customers receiving redress from mis-sold Interest Rate Hedging Products (IRHP), urging correct tax return reporting. Affected banks must review sales since 2001 under FCA supervision, leading to customer compensation. Redress payments, consisting of basic redress, 8% compensatory interest, and consequential losses, are generally taxable income or subject to capital gains tax. Individuals should account for tax deducted from interest. HMRC recommends consulting an accountant for complex scenarios.

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.

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.

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.

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

Interest Rate Swaps Mis-selling: FCA Publishes IRHP Review Statistics

The FCA’s update on the IRHP mis-selling review reveals severe delays, with only 10 final redress offers accepted out of over 30,000 cases after 14 months. RBS, with the largest review population, lags behind, still classifying many customers. Only 2% of sales have completed compliance assessment, with 93% found non-compliant.

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 in swaps mis-selling claims to avoid losing legal rights.

Green & Rowley -v- The Royal Bank of Scotland: Appeal Dismissed

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.

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.