Another Coat of Whitewash
14 / 6 / 2019
David McIlroy comments on the FCA’s report into its own ‘further investigative steps in relation to RBS GRG’.
7 / 5 / 2019
Susanne Muth examines the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Perry v Raleys Solicitors (A Firm)  UKSC 5, which concerns the dividing line between issues of causation which concern the claimant’s own actions (which a claimant has to prove on the balance of probabilities) and issues of causation which concern the actions of third parties (which are to be assessed as a loss of a chance).
5 / 4 / 2019
In light of global drone attacks on airports and the recent introduction of new measures to combat drone misuse by the UK government, Ruhi Sethi-Smith, barrister at Forum Chambers, looks at the legal implications of counter-drone technology and regulation.
8 / 11 / 2018
Susanne Muth considers the implications of the High Court’s recent rejection of a SIPP operator’s challenge to a FOS’s decision upholding a customer’s complaint about a mis-sold SIPP investment. The ruling is likely to result in a sharp increase in SIPP mis-selling complaints to the FOS.
20 / 9 / 2018
Susanne Muth considers the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chambers) decision in Burns v the Financial Conduct Authority  UKUT 246 (TCC), in which the Tribunal endorsed the FCA’s assessment that the business model operated by the TailorMade brand (and substantially replicated by many other IFA firms) was fundamentally flawed.
17 / 9 / 2018
David McIlroy considers the implications of the FCA’s announcement that it does not have the power to take action against the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) for the failures of its Global Restructuring Group (GRG) department. He analyses potential reforms to the law that could give additional protections to small businesses in their dealings with banks.
14 / 9 / 2018
Susanne Muth considers the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chambers) decision in Plaxedes Chickombe and 44 others v Financial Conduct Authority  UKUT 258 (TCC).
3 / 1 / 2018
David McIlroy and Nathan Webb consider the recent Court of Appeal decision in CGL v RBS  EWCA Civ 1073, which addressed the scope for small businesses bringing claims against banks for alleged mis-selling in breach of regulatory rules.
The decision involved three conjoined appeals and in each case the claimant alleged that it had been sold an interest rate hedging product in breach of the provisions in the FCA Handbook. The appellants had submitted claims to the redress scheme and contended that the banks in question had not dealt with their claims fairly and had not applied the rules which had been agreed with the FCA when the scheme was set up.
In considering whether banks owed companies a common law duty of care which paralleled the regulatory rules, Beatson LJ (giving the sole judgment of the Court) relied upon the previous decision in Green & Rowley v RBS  EWCA Civ 1197 and held that there was no duty of care in relation to the redress scheme.
The article explores Beatson LJ’s judgment and why, in the authors’ view, it was unexpected, illogical and unfair.
The article was originally published in the October 2017 edition of the Butterworths Journal of International Banking and Finance Law at page 548 and is reproduced here with permission and thanks.
2 / 1 / 2018
Darragh Connell considers the recent High Court decision, Re BBH Property 1 Ltd & Ors  EWHC 2584. Roth J appointed the Official Receiver as the provisional liquidator of 13 separate companies where it was likely they would be wound up in the public interest.
The companies in question were involved in one of two projects. Prospective investors were provided with various representations. On the front page of its investment brochure, BBH Property 1 Ltd characterised the UK project as “a spectacular investment secured by a spectacular asset”.
However, security was not put in place and the investors’ monies were dissipated without the companies acquiring the properties.
The Secretary of State presented petitions to wind up the companies on the basis that it was expedient in the public interest to do so (s.124A IA 1986). The Court exercised its jurisdiction under s.135 to appoint a provisional liquidator.
This article was first published by Sweet & Maxwell, Provisional Liquidation in the Public Interest and the Perils of Crowdfunding “a spectacular investment” (2017) 30 Insolvency Intelligence, Issue 8 at p.129 and is reproduced by agreement with the Publishers.