Tag: FSA

lloyds bank london lexlaw litigation bank finance solicitor claims against banks lawyers london

The Sunday Times: ‘We will battle on, warn victims of bank mis-selling’

The Sunday Times reports the largest ever publicly disclosed settlement in interest rate swaps mis-selling, where Lloyds Bank paid £4.6m to a care home business after refusing compensation via the FCA IRHP Review. Thousands of businesses were excluded from compensation due to a controversial ‘sophistication test,’ leaving many short-changed. The case highlights banks’ efforts to avoid accountability and the ongoing struggle for fair redress, with expert legal advice offering hope for mis-sold swap victims.

Primary Keywords: Lloyds Bank Interest rate hedging products (IRHPs) Financial derivatives Mis-selling Litigation Settlement Care home Business Financial loss Secondary Keywords: Complex financial products Regulatory oversight Consumer protection Financial harm LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers Buckinghamshire UK Lawsuit Settlement Break cost IRHP review scheme FCA Financial Conduct Authority Long-Tail Keywords: Lloyds Bank mis-sold interest rate swaps Lloyds Bank financial derivatives lawsuit Care home sued Lloyds Bank for mis-selling IRHP mis-selling scandal Lloyds Bank settlement over complex financial products Financial harm due to mis-sold derivatives Regulatory oversight of financial institutions Consumer protection in the UK LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers legal case Buckinghamshire care home wins lawsuit against Lloyds Bank

The Sunday Times: ‘Lloyds pays up on rate swap wrangle’

Lloyds Bank has been forced into a significant litigation settlement regarding the mis-selling of interest rate hedging products (IRHPs) to The Coin Group, a care home operator. The case highlights the potential for banks to mis-sell complex financial derivatives to businesses, leading to significant financial losses. The Coin Group, represented by LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers, successfully argued that Lloyds Bank failed to disclose the risks and potential liabilities associated with the IRHPs, resulting in a settlement of £4.6 million.

The High Court permitted a judicial review of the FCA’s Interest Rate Hedging Product (IRHP) swaps mis-selling review scheme. The case challenges the fairness and adequacy of the FCA’s redress process, arguing it fails to provide proper compensation and independent oversight. This decision marks a significant step for affected SMEs seeking accountability and more effective remedies for mis-sold swaps under the FCA scheme.

Judicial review of FCA IRHP swaps mis-selling review scheme permitted

The High Court permitted a judicial review of the FCA’s Interest Rate Hedging Product (IRHP) swaps mis-selling review scheme. The case challenges the fairness and adequacy of the FCA’s redress process, arguing it fails to provide proper compensation and independent oversight. This decision marks a significant step for affected SMEs seeking accountability and more effective remedies for mis-sold swaps under the FCA scheme.

lexlaw financial services litigation lawyers in london

Treasury Committee reports on Conduct in SME lending (FCA IRHP Mis-selling Review, TBLs, Hidden Swaps and GRG)

The Treasury Committee report criticises conduct in SME lending, focusing on four key areas: FCA’s IRHP mis-selling review, Tailored Business Loans (TBLs), hidden swaps embedded in loans, and RBS’s Global Restructuring Group (GRG). The report finds systemic failings, lack of transparency, and inadequate customer protections. It calls for stronger regulatory oversight, better redress schemes, and reforms to prevent banks exploiting SMEs through complex financial products and aggressive recovery tactics.

IRHP Review Interest Rate Hedging Products FCA Review Bank Mis-selling SME Redress Swaps Mis-selling Financial Conduct Authority RBS IRHP Banking Litigation Financial Compensation SEO Keywords: FCA IRHP review scheme Interest Rate Hedging Products mis-selling SME swaps mis-selling claims FCA and bank redress process RBS IRHP compensation Independent IRHP reviewers IRHP review legal advice Mis-sold interest rate swaps Financial Conduct Authority swaps review Swaps compensation claims UK

Interest Rate Hedging Product (IRHP) Review: Confidential agreement between FCA and major banks published

The FCA’s confidential agreement with major banks set up the Interest Rate Hedging Product (IRHP) Review to address mis-selling claims. The Treasury Select Committee criticized the scheme for potentially allowing banks to avoid meaningful redress for SMEs, favouring banks over customers. The agreement details the redress process, but concerns remain about fairness and effectiveness. The Committee continues to scrutinize the review and its impact on SME lending.

FCA IRHP Review - KPMG whistleblower: RBS fought to reduce size of interest rate swap redress

FCA IRHP Review – KPMG whistleblower: RBS fought to reduce size of interest rate swap redress

A KPMG whistleblower revealed that RBS pressured the FCA Interest Rate Hedging Product (IRHP) redress scheme to reduce compensation payouts, often challenging claims over £750,000. RBS preferred offering alternative products rather than cash refunds and frequently argued sales were compliant to avoid redress. The FCA’s review was criticised for lacking independence, allowing banks to self-assess wrongdoing, causing unfair delays and rejections of consequential loss claims. Many SMEs have been short-changed due to these flaws, highlighting the need for urgent legal advice and challenge of unfair redress offers.

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.