RBS defends CC review appointment after conflict claims
The Royal Bank of Scotland has defended claims that its instruction of Clifford Chance to lead an independent review into the bank's lending activities amounts to a conflict of interest.
November 28, 2013 at 07:04 AM
2 minute read
The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) has defended claims that its instruction of Clifford Chance (CC) to lead an independent review into the bank's lending activities amounts to a conflict of interest.
On Monday (25 November), RBS confirmed it had instructed CC to investigate claims the bank conducted a "systematic" effort to profit on the back of small business customers in financial distress.
Several commentators, including the journalist Ian Fraser, have taken to Twitter to suggest CC cannot offer independent advice to the bank, given the firm's appointment to the bank's legal panel last year.
Fraser cited evidence that the magic circle firm was separately acting for the bank in on-going litigation.
An RBS spokeswoman said the partners involved in the investigation – understood to include partners Carlos Conceicao and Kelwin Nicholls – have had no previous dealings with the bank's global restructuring group (GRG), the part of the bank which is alleged to have mistreated business customers.
"Clifford Chance will conduct the review on an independent basis, it will be led by a regulatory partner within the firm and with a team that has had no previous dealings with GRG matters," said RBS in a statement.
"Clifford Chance will review the key findings of the Tomlinson Report, review the relevant policies and practices within RBS through relevant interviews and targeted sample and data analysis, advise RBS on whether the allegations appear to have substance and make recommendations about steps, if any, RBS should implement as a result."
The bank also confirmed the final report would be delivered by 31 January 2014, and "will recommend appropriate thematic responses based on its conclusions".
CC's work will be overseen by the bank's head of conduct and regulatory affairs Jon Pain.
The move is not the first time members of CC's regulatory team have been put into silos on high-profile work. Last year, the firm put a so-called "Chinese Wall" in place to allow it to advise both RBS and Barclays on matters resulting from the Libor scandal.
CC declined to comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Cleary vs. White & Case: NYC Showdown Over $5 Billion Brazilian Bankruptcy
Singapore's Drew & Napier Secures $3.5B Award in Civil Suit
Trending Stories
- 1Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Customers: Developments on ‘Conquesting’ from the Ninth Circuit
- 2Biden commutes sentences for 37 of 40 federal death row inmates, including two convicted of California murders
- 3Avoiding Franchisor Failures: Be Cautious and Do Your Research
- 4De-Mystifying the Ethics of the Attorney Transition Process, Part 1
- 5Alex Spiro Accuses Prosecutors of 'Unethical' Comments in Adams' Bribery Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
