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: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll