Tag: Limitation Act

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.

rbs grg claim solicitors financial mis selling irhps

Enterprise Finance Guarantee Mis-Selling & Royal Bank of Scotland EFG Review

RBS is reviewing past sales of 1,800 Enterprise Finance Guarantee (EFG) loans amid concerns that SMEs in financial distress were not properly informed of the risks. Many borrowers did not realise they remained liable for 100% of the loan despite the government’s 75% guarantee. Banks also often sought inappropriate personal guarantees and charges on primary homes.

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.

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.

Here's an image depicting the FSA's pilot review findings for swaps mis-selling. It shows a scene with financial professionals looking concerned over documents, charts highlighting high mis-selling rates, and subtle visual cues indicating inadequate explanations, undisclosed costs, and over-hedging. The overall tone conveys seriousness and the implications of regulatory failure.

FSA Findings on Banks’ Pilot Swaps Mis-selling Review

The FSA’s pilot review of swaps mis-selling reveals over 90% of sales did not meet regulatory standards, highlighting inadequate risk explanation, undisclosed break costs, and over-hedging. Banks prioritised commissions over clients’ interests. The proposed review process raises concerns about reviewer independence and incomplete redress. Lexlaw advises court action before limitation periods expire.