GRG Review: RBS appoint Mark Spurin to minimise compensation payouts to SME victims
Reports surface that Mark Spurin will take charge of the RBS GRG Review compensation scheme for ‘impacted SME’ victims.
Reports surface that Mark Spurin will take charge of the RBS GRG Review compensation scheme for ‘impacted SME’ victims.
The FCA is set to recommend a compensation scheme for businesses harmed by RBS’s Global Restructuring Group (GRG), according to an upcoming report. While the GRG Review may be quicker than litigation, it is criticised for being unfair and limiting compensation. Victims are advised to consider parallel litigation, which is designed to ensure a fair outcome. GRG, a troubled business support unit within RBS, controlled assets of 16,000 SMEs before being disbanded in 2014 following misfeasance allegations.
Westgate Healthcare settled a legal dispute with RBS for £10m, involving alleged misrepresentation and breach of contract regarding an interest rate swap. Deemed too sophisticated for FCA’s compensation scheme, Westgate’s claim, initiated in April 2014, led to a settlement with RBS, who imposed confidentiality and accepted no liability.
The High Court ruled that fraud allegations against RBS concerning LIBOR manipulation in a derivatives mis-selling claim were “properly arguable,” affecting SMEs sold IRHPs by major banks. LIBOR, a crucial interest rate benchmark, had been rigged by banks including RBS, resulting in hefty fines. RBS admitted misconduct in its LIBOR submissions. Property Alliance Group’s (PAG) case against RBS may set a precedent for extending time limits on claims, emphasizing the importance of seeking legal advice on mis-selling claims affected by LIBOR fraud.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.