header-logo header-logo

26 February 2014 / Aidan Briggs
Issue: 7596 / Categories: Opinion , Banking
printer mail-detail

More skeletons in the closet?

web_briggs

Business support may be the banks' next headache, says Aidan Briggs

Two recent reports—the RBS Independent Lending Review led by Andrew Large and Lawrence Tomlinson's Banks' Lending Practices: Treatment of Businesses in Distress —have sought to shed light on the "business support" measures imposed by lending banks upon small- and medium-sized enterprises in distress. Such behaviour has come to the fore in mis-selling litigation, as it tends to multiply the burden of interest rate hedging or other products upon struggling businesses.

The key issues

Both reports identify four key issues:

  • Lenders engineering “distress” in client businesses by restricting credit or arbitrarily revaluing assets (eg on a “fire sale” basis);
  • Business support imposing dramatic changes to lending terms by reason of that “distress”, accelerating the client’s decline;
  • Perverse incentives to push viable businesses into insolvency due to increased margins and fees; and
  • Conflicts of interest for bank-appointed valuers, accountants and managers with a view to future insolvency.

The frankly delicious facts of RBS v Highland Financial Securities [2013] EWCA Civ 328,

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll