RBS expects £3bn litigation hit as bank prepares for huge losses
The Royal Bank of Scotland has set aside £3bn towards compensation and litigation costs, as part of an expected £7-8bn pre-tax loss for 2013...
January 28, 2014 at 11:40 AM
2 minute read
The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) has set aside £3bn for compensation and litigation costs, as part of an expected £7-8bn pre-tax loss for 2013.
In a statement released on Monday (27 January), the lender said full-year financial results – due to be published on 27 February 2013 – will contain a series of extra provisions for mis-sold products, litigation and conduct claims.
A total of £1.9bn has been earmarked to cover "various claims and conduct related matters affecting Group companies", primarily related to mortgage-backed securities and securities related litigation.
The bank has also identified another £465m to be used for Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) costs, bringing the company's total PPI provisions to £3.1bn, £2.2bn of which had been used by 31 December 2013.
RBS also expects redress and administration costs surrounding the mis-selling of interest rate hedging products to cost it a further £500m, reflecting both higher volumes and anticipated costs.
No specific mention is given to a Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) investigation or potential penalties resulting from claims the bank's lending had directly led to the failure of a number of small and medium sized enterprises (SME). In November, RBS appointed Clifford Chance (CC) to conduct an internal inquiry into the claims.
RBS also becomes the latest in a string of major global banks to see their balance sheets dented by significantly litigation costs.
Two weeks ago, Deutsche Bank and Morgan Stanley both confirmed they had had to set aside additional cash for legal expenses, with the pair racking up Q4 2013 legal costs of €528m (£435.7m) and $1.2bn (£730m).
Earlier this month, US banking giant JP Morgan reported a profit drop for the final quarter of 2013, with earnings hit by $1.1bn (£669m) of legal expenses, including its settlement in relation to the Bernie Madoff investment fraud case.
This content has been archived.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 AllLatAm Moves: DLA Piper Chile, Brazil’s Demarest Build Out Disputes Muscle
Kingsley Napley and Lord Pannick Spearhead Private Schools' Challenge to Government VAT Policy
Spain Loses Appeal as London Court Rejects Claim of Immunity in €101 Million Arbitral Award Enforcement
Jones Day Expands European Footprint with Global Disputes Partner in Madrid
Trending Stories
- 1Securities and Securities Intermediaries: How Secure are Intermediated Holdings?
- 2Lawyers Can Live Worthy of the Calling They Have Received and The Gifts With Which They Have Been Blessed
- 3Did Static Case Management Mortally Injure Our Democracy?
- 4'This Trend Isn't Over': Law Firm Partner De-Equitizations Expected to Continue
- 5Attorney-Client Privilege: Recent Informative Decisions
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