header-logo header-logo

12 September 2013 / Charles Lazarevic
Issue: 7575 / Categories: Features , Expert Witness , Profession
printer mail-detail

A consequential loss

Could mis-selling in the derivatives market be the PPI equivalent for small businesses? Charles Lazarevic reports

Recently it has been suggested that the banks face claims in excess of £10bn as a result of the alleged mis-selling of complex interest rate derivatives. I have dealt with several cases where the consequences of these “swap” charges have been devastating on the business, with significant losses to the business-owners in some cases.

How has this situation arisen?

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), previously the Financial Services Authority, has conducted a review into the interest rate hedging products banks sold to businesses as a means of managing fluctuations in interest rates, also known as interest rate swap agreements (IRSAs). In the review, the FCA identified four broad categories of IRSAs sold: swaps, caps, collars, and “structured collars”. Some of the more complex products, particularly structured collars, speculated on interest rates and resulted in customers paying much more when the interest base rate fell below an agreed level, for no apparent benefit to the business. The FCA decided

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll