UK MPs File SRA Complaint Against HSF Over Role in HBOS Fraud Scandal
The firm has been criticised for its involvement in the U.K. bank's compensation scheme for victims as well as for its role advising the Post Office.
July 06, 2020 at 07:22 AM
6 minute read
A U.K. Parliamentary group has filed a complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) against Herbert Smith Freehills over legal advice it gave Lloyds Bank in a long-running fraud case.
The complaint to the U.K. industry regulator, lodged by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Fair Business Banking, was filed in the last month and is the group's second against HSF over its Lloyds work, according to its co-chair Kevin Hollinrake, a Conservative MP.
Both allege that HSF mishandled the case, saying the firm attempted to discredit a witness and advised on a "flawed" compensation scheme for victims, according to Hollinrake.
The first complaint was filed at the start of 2019 and is still under investigation by the regulator, he added. The Parliamentary group for fair business banking consists of 17 members of Parliament and two Lords from across the political spectrum.
HSF has yet to be notified by the regulator regarding the second complaint, according to a person with knowledge of the situation. They also cast doubt on the group's findings, claiming they were "inaccurate".
The focus of both complaints is on the law firm's role acting for Lloyds Bank, which has been embroiled in a fraud case involving staff at the Reading branch of HBOS, which was acquired by Lloyds in 2009 during the financial crisis.
The fraud scammed the bank and small businesses out of upwards of £245 million. In 2017, six people were jailed for their role in the scam.
Whistleblower complaint
The Parliamentary group alleges that HSF was complicit in what it describes as Lloyds' erroneous handling of the fraud charges, including attempting to discredit a whistleblower who was pushed out of the bank after writing an internal report criticising the handling of a scandal at HBOS, Hollinrake said.
The MP for Thirsk and Malton said: "Herbert Smith in our view were complicit in the discrediting of the witness."
"Lloyds denied it for five years and Herbert Smith were the lawyers acting for Lloyds at the time, and we've got letters where they themselves discredited the whistleblower."
Compensation scheme complaint
The second complaint claims that HSF intentionally advised on the establishment of an inadequate compensation scheme for those affected by the fraud.
A person with knowledge of scheme said that HSF was not responsible for conducting or running the compensation scheme set up following the fraud, adding that the firm was just one of multiple stakeholders involved in a process run by the bank.
They also added that individuals claiming fraud compensation had access to independent legal advice and had their legal fees for participating in the customer review paid for by Lloyds.
A sample agreement document published by Lloyds Banking Group notes that agreements between Lloyds and those claiming fraud compensation were executed by Lloyds, "acting by its agent Herbert Smith Freehills LLP".
This was never signed by HSF as part of the customer review process, a person with knowledge of the agreement letter said, and a subsequent version does not name the firm, however both versions remain live on the Lloyds website.
An independent review of the scheme undertaken by Lord Ross Cranston stated that the "redress scheme was structured and implemented, minimised the likelihood of D&C [direct and consequential] losses being paid out."
Cranston's report found that the bank's compensation scheme had failed to acknowledge that the fraud had caused a single instance of direct or consequential loss. Instead the bank had said the failure of every single company was inevitable, and was not caused by the fraud.
Cranston's report found that the bank's compensation scheme sent a message that "all of those failures and all of that suffering were of the customers' own making. This is an unacceptable denial of responsibility."
Hollinrake claims that in the view of the Parliamentary group, the flaws in the scheme were deliberate and HSF had a role in ensuring that.
In the House of Commons in February, Hollinrake added: "[HSF] advised Lloyds on the establishment of the Griggs review, on its operation and on some legal points incorrectly, according to Sir Ross Cranston. It is unthinkable that Herbert Smith Freehills should have any influence on the future redress scheme."
However, another person with knowledge of Cranston's review pointed out that it noted the structure of the scheme was in line with case law.
Post Office allegations
In addition to the Lloyds complaints, Hollinrake has criticised HSF for its involvement in a compensation scheme run by the Post Office for victims of the Horizon tech scandal.
The scandal saw scores of Post Office employees prosecuted for fraud using information provided by the Post Office's Horizon system which turned out to be unreliable.
HSF acted for the Post Office, the U.K. mail supplies provider, in a court battle against affected workers, and helped secure it a settlement. It is now advising the Post Office on its historic shortfall scheme to pay victims.
In Parliament, Hollirake said that HSF's involvement could create similar problems in the Post Office compensation scheme to what occurred at Lloyds Bank and that victims would be unable to secure the compensation they deserved.
More recently, Hollinrake said: "It is precisely that inability and refusal to be objective and see what is staring them in the face – despite the mountain of available evidence – and their determination to stop at nothing, however absurd and immoral, to help and protect an important client that proves they are inappropriate to advise on the PO Review and are must be the subject of a robust investigation by the SRA.
"After all, this behaviour is exactly what the SRA Principles say they must not do."
Another person familiar with the matter said that there is no connection between HSF's work for Lloyds and its work for the Post Office, and that the Post Office was resolving past issues in good faith.
They added that eligible applications will be reviewed and assessed by an independent advisory panel and there is also a dispute resolution process that includes independent mediation.
|Read More
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 AllDentons Australian Chair Doug Stipanicev Back At Work After Investigation
4 minute readA&O Shearman Luminary, Former US Co-Chair, to Leave Partnership
Mayer Brown’s Hong Kong Split to Take Effect in the Coming Week
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1So You Want to be a Tech Lawyer? Consider Product Counseling
- 2US District Judge in North Carolina Will Take Senior Status
- 3From 'Confusing Labyrinth' to Speeding 'Roller Coaster': Uncertainty Reigns in Title IX as Litigators Await Second Trump Admin
- 4Critical Mass With Law.com’s Amanda Bronstad: Why Jurors in California Failed to Reach Verdict Over Zantac, Bankruptcy Judge Tables Sanctions Against Beasley Allen Attorney
- 5Jones Day Client Seeks Indemnification for $7.2M Privacy Settlement, Plus Defense Costs
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