Tag: Financial Services Authority

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.

The FSA’s definition of sophistication for swaps mis-selling reviews is complex and has caused confusion due to inconsistent communications. 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 for certain businesses, affecting their inclusion in the review. Clarification is expected from the FSA. Lexlaw offers expert advice to help businesses understand and navigate these rules. Contact Lexlaw for assistance with swaps claims.

What is Sophistication in the FSA Swaps Mis-selling Scheme?

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.