GLOBAL SUB-PRIME CRISIS

BANKILEAKS

Click on our Secret Library of Evidence ------>

    BANKILEAKS Secret Library

Loan Application Forms (LAF's)  

    Bank Emails to Brokers  

    Then Click on 'VIEW NOTEBOOK'

Join us on facebook
 

facebook3           facebook2 

BFCSA
MORTGAGE
DISTRESS SOS

What BFCSA Does...

BFCSA investigates fraud involving lenders, spruikers and financial planners worldwide.  Full Doc, Low Doc, No Doc loans, Lines of Credit and Buffer loans appear to be normal profit making financial products, however, these loans are set to implode within seven years.  For the past two decades, Ms Brailey, President of BFCSA (Inc), has been a tireless campaigner, championing the cause of older and low income people around the Globe who have fallen victim to banking and finance scams.  She has found that people of all ages are being targeted by Bankers offering faulty lending products. BFCSA warn that anyone who has signed up for one of these financial products, is in grave danger of losing their home.

Visitors

Articles View Hits
741689

Whistleblowers' Corner!

To all mortgage brokers, BDMs and loan approval officers! 
Pls Call Denise: 0401 642 344 

"Confidentiality is assured."

Cartoon Corner

Lighten your load today and "Laugh all the way to the bank!"

Denise Brailey

Led by award-winning consumer advocate Denise Brailey, BFCSA (Inc) are a group of people who are concerned about the appalling growth of Loan Fraud around the world. BFCSA (Inc) is a not for profit organisation in the spirit of global community concern and justice.

Click on the Cluster Map.

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Login
    Login Login form

BFCSA: New year, new legal bills for the forex-rigging banks

Posted by on in ROYAL COMMISSION URGENT
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 1176
  • 0 Comments
  • Print

New year, new legal bills for the forex-rigging banks

Bankers that manipulated foreign exchange markets have paid out $2bn in civil claims to aggrieved US clients. But in 2016 they will face still more claims in the UK courts. And the damages could be twice as large
17 December 2015
 

On 1 September 2014 the top fund manager Neil Woodford sold his remaining stake in the banking giant HSBC. The £65m sale was triggered by a new phenomenon that Mr Woodford had dubbed “fine inflation”: the relentless and rapidly rising toll of fines and penalties levied on banks.  

Real inflation may be bumbling along at zero but fine inflation has soared as banks get hammered over everything from interest rate and currency rigging to money laundering and insurance mis-selling.

Anyone who thinks the spate of settlements over the past 18 months is the end of it should think again – a High Court battle in London is looming for scores of banks, which could see payouts of up to $4bn (£3bn) if litigators win their case.

Group-action lawsuits are due to land in the courts early next year against banks involved in the forex scandal. Investors such as pension funds, hedge funds and multinational corporations are set to back the action, which follows a similar case against 16 banks in the US.

The US law firm Scott and Scott, which previously represented victims of the BP Gulf of Mexico oil disaster, is the most prominent outfit leading the forex charge in London. Lawyers from the company, which recently opened a London office, have been touring companies relentlessly, trying to convince them to come on board with the action.

“There’s been a tremendous amount of interest,” its managing partner David Scott said. “It makes sense given that all of the regulatory agencies who have looked into it have found the conduct we allege, and the conduct of the defendants pretty egregious. Multinationals, central banks, pension schemes all want to have information about it and have a discussion about what it can lead to.”

British banks implicated in the forex scandal, including Barclays, RBS and HSBC, settled civil cases in the US brought by the law firm in August. Barclays agreed to pay $384m, HSBC $285m and RBS $255m to settle a class action alongside BNP Paribas and Goldman Sachs. The total haul from the five was $1.2bn.

RBS and Barclays declined to comment on the prospect of UK court action yesterday, while HSBC did not respond to a request for comment.  The five banks’ August settlement followed another four – Citi, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, UBS and JP Morgan – who settled earlier in the year. The total forex settlements paid out by banks in US civil cases so far is $2bn.

But payouts from similar actions in UK courts could dwarf those seen in the US.  About 20 per cent of global forex trading each day takes place in New York, while in London the volume is almost double that at closer to 40 per cent, meaning the quantum of compensation could be double that seen in the US.

“The figure [of claim] will be on some level contingent on the number of claimants,” Mr Scott said. “We have quite a number of sophisticated investors who have asked us to represent them. For the last year I have been in Europe and the UK meeting with clients.”

One advantage to the lawsuit is a recent legislative change making it easier for investors to pursue US-style class-action charges in UK courts.   The Consumer Rights Act 2015, which came into force on 1 October, means the Competition Appeal Tribunal can now be used for private actions against companies accused of breaching competition law, alongside claims that can be filed in the High Court. It also introduced new rules to fuel more collective proceedings on behalf of claimant groups, putting it closer to the US model of class action lawsuits.

The new “opt-out” clause means investors no longer have to opt in to be part of an action, in effect meaning one party can bring a case and represent scores of investors.   The ruling could be used to bring a case against banks in the forex scandal, although no decision has yet been made by parties examining claims about where to file a claim, or under which legal precedent.

Last modified on
Rate this blog entry:

Comments

  • No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment

Leave your comment

Guest Monday, 28 September 2020