LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers
Our litigation against Barclays involved a claim for approximately £4 million relates to the mis-selling of derivatives, specifically interest rate swaps (IRHPs). The case addressed allegations that Barclays sold complex, high-risk products to clients without proper disclosure or adherence to regulatory requirements.
RBS has agreed to a £1 million settlement with a businesswoman who accused the bank of mis-selling complex derivatives. The case highlights banks selling unsuitable financial products to businesses. RBS initially denied wrongdoing but eventually agreed to the settlement, which includes repayment of derivative payments, break costs, and suspended payments. The businesswoman’s business was negatively impacted by the mis-sold derivatives, and the case exposes flaws in the Financial Conduct Authority’s IRHP review scheme.
The High Court in Suremime Ltd v Barclays ruled it is arguable that banks owe a duty of care to SMEs to conduct the FCA IRHP Review fairly, as agreed with the FCA. Suremime challenged Barclays’ limited redress offer, arguing the bank breached its duty by not properly following the IRHP Review agreements from 2012 and 2013. The court granted permission to add claims that Barclays owed and breached this duty, enabling affected SMEs to seek legal remedies beyond flawed review outcomes. This decision supports SME rights in swaps mis-selling disputes and helps overcome limitation barriers.
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.
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.
HMRC uses complex expert evidence from KPMG in VAT and MTIC fraud cases to challenge appellants. Without your own expert response, this evidence may go uncontested, risking your case. Early and expert legal support is vital to protect your interests and effectively counter HMRC’s claims. Contact Lexlaw Solicitors for professional advice and representation.