As time passes in the world of ‘missold’ interest rate hedging products (irhp) the more the banks seem to want to hide.
We now find that Lloyds bank include the necessity to accept Full & Final settlements with Fraud and Acts of Dishonesty !
Extract from a Full Rescission offer made to an insolvent company;
…………I / We understand and agree that the Basic Redress Determination is in full and final settlement of all and any actual or potential claims or complaints (whether present or future and whether known or unknown and whether arising from or affected by any change in the law or any change of circumstances of any sort) I / We have or may have against the bank, its related companies, current and former employees, servants and agents arising out of or in connection with, whether directly or indirectly, the sale of the Trade falling under the scope of the Review (including claims or complaints which may not have been addressed in the Review, such as those based on fraud or involving allegations of dishonesty on the part of the Bank in connection with the sale), …………………..
This leaves little in the way of comfort for anyone who has to sign without full disclosure and legal opinion on Fraud and Acts of Dishonesty
Fraud Act 2006
2 Fraud by false representation
3 Fraud by failing to disclose information
4 Fraud by abuse of position
5 “Gain” and “Loss”
In light of the LIBOR, FX and now ISDAFIX abuse by banks who sold irhp contracts to SME’s I fail to see how an Insolvency Practitioner or their PI providers can find any comfort in such terms for Full & Final settlements unless they have full insight and disclosure of information into the happenings pre, at the time of and post sale for irhp contracts;
. Collateral Requirements and Disclosure
. Credit Requirements and Disclosure
. Execution Pricing, immediate next day MTM and Disclosure
. Contract known ‘gain’ and ‘loss’
. Statements of false facts
The ‘misselling’ of irhp to Britain’s SME’s is a disgrace. We all recognise this. The FCA’s principal for the banks review is;
Fair and Reasonable redress means putting the customer back in a position they would have been in had the regulatory failings not occurred, including consequential loss.
The FCA state that 2000 cases of non-sophisticated companies sold irhp’s are now insolvent.
How many businesses were ‘bust’ by a ‘regulatory failings’ irhp sale ?
The FCA has yet to prove through any meaningful redress offers for insolvent claims and from the cases we overview we have yet to see any IP’s move forward with any claims.
The banks, government departments and the insolvency profession need to look at the world of insolvent irhp victims and ask themselves how they are to redress companies who can prove that the irhp contract(s) made them insolvent – we all know it did not help but the question is now who will be potentially complicit to any potential legal wrong doings by signing and accepting cash payments for litigation rights with Lloyds bank ?
As always we end up with more questions than answers;
What is a ‘missale’ if it is not a legal wrong ?
Will the Abuse be allowed to continue ?
Will the Abuse be covered up by the IP ? (bank appointed IP ?)
Jon Welsby, Director