Tag: Litigation

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.

The Court of Appeal ruled unanimously in RBS v Highland Financial Partners EWCA Civ 328 that RBS procured a previous judgment by fraud, deliberately withholding key documents and misleading their client, lawyers, and the court. The case involved a “sham auction” of loans to create a notional £1.44 billion profit. The judgment raises serious concerns about RBS’s corporate culture and litigation conduct. Contact Lexlaw for expert legal support on complex banking disputes and mis-selling claims.

RBS v Highland Financial Partners: Culture of denial at RBS?

The Court of Appeal ruled unanimously that RBS procured a previous judgment by fraud, deliberately withholding key documents and misleading their client, lawyers, and the court. The case involved a “sham auction” of loans to create a notional £1.44 billion profit. The judgment raises serious concerns about RBS’s corporate culture and litigation conduct.

lexlaw litigation solicitors in london lawyers professional negligence

The Times: Banks’ secretly settling swaps mis-selling cases

The Times Newspaper reports that banks are secretly settling swaps mis-selling cases with small businesses, often on the eve of court proceedings. These settlements are kept confidential, and the banks often make public statements denying wrongdoing. The number of claims is increasing as businesses become aware of the issue. Businesses argue that the swaps were too complex and that banks failed to explain the risks involved.

RBS announced a £700 million provision for Interest Rate Hedging Products (IRHP) mis-selling in their 2012 results, a 1300% increase from the previous £50 million. Despite this, RBS downplays its role in the scandal, highlighting court wins and Financial Ombudsman rulings in its favour, which contrasts with the FSA finding over 90% of such products mis-sold. The provision remains inadequate given the scale of affected non-sophisticated customers. Lexlaw advises anyone affected by RBS swaps mis-selling to seek independent legal counsel promptly. [1](https://lexlaw.co.uk/solicitors-london/rbs-announce-results-provision-for-swaps-mis-selling-increased-by-1300/)

RBS Announce Results: Provision for Swaps Mis-selling Increased by 1300%

RBS announced a £700 million provision for Interest Rate Hedging Products (IRHP) mis-selling in their 2012 results, a 1300% increase from the previous £50 million. Despite this, RBS downplays its role in the scandal, highlighting court wins and Ombudsman rulings in its favour, which contrasts with the FSA finding over 90% of such products mis-sold. The provision remains inadequate given the scale of affected non-sophisticated customers.

Barclays announce 2012 results – Provision for swaps mis-selling £850 million

Barclays Bank announced an £850 million provision for interest rate hedging product (swaps) mis-selling in 2012, with around 4,000 affected customers, approximately 3,000 deemed non-sophisticated. This suggests an average provision of £280,000 per customer. Lexlaw estimates that total liabilities for major banks, including Barclays and RBS, could reach several £billion pounds.

dark and secretive aspects of LIBOR manipulation at RBS, aiming to convey the sense of illicit activity, cultural failures, and the impact of the fine

RBS fined for LIBOR Manipulation; will lead to increased LIBOR Litigation

RBS was fined £87.5 million by the Financial Services Authority for manipulating the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), a key interest rate affecting trillions in derivatives contracts. This fraudulent activity, dating back to at least 2006, involved traders adjusting rates to benefit trading positions, causing losses to counterparties. This highlights serious cultural and oversight failures at RBS and other banks and will trigger increased LIBOR-related litigation.

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.