@Law360 reports Judge strikes out case of 8 UK councils represented by @HausfeldGlobal vs Barclays over LIBOR rigging. Judge relies upon the various case law that has been obtained by the banks in prior cases including PAG. Case law that represents a dishonest illusion...
Banks have cherry picked cases to defend in Court that they know they can defeat because the pleadings or arguments put forward, allow them to defeat the claims by creating a dishonest illusion as to what truly went on, but without technically being dishonest....
How is a bank acting with honesty & integrity as demanded by FCA codes and its obligations, when it defeats an argument & claim that it knows to be true, entirely on technicalities and/or because of the way in which it has been pleaded or argued. And where is the @TheFCA ?
Whilst the Court has been misled or deceived in this case and the cases to which the case law applies, or can only be judged on that which is before it, the FCA is bound to hold the bank accountable where it is clear that the bank has presented a position it knows to be false...
This case law is now providing the toxic perversion of justice to all future cases that it did in the original case to which it applies. But perhaps more concerning is the Court's willingness to consider case law over and above the merits of this case.....
This case law is further used by banks to deter victims from, or threaten victims that consider, pursuing civil action. How is this fair and just, and how is this representative of a legal system that is supposed to be the pride of the world?
U.S. law firms get a bad press, but in my experience those that represent victims have been top draw. Likewise the U.S. legal system gets a bad press, BUT compare the successful court cases and class action settlements in banking cases in the U.S to those in the UK.....
Justice in the UK is now, more than ever, dependant upon the depth of your pockets as opposed to strength of your case. Indeed, and most often, the evidence exists to prove a case, the banks know it exists, know it proves the case, but the Court is prevented from ever seeing it
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Of note: 1. FSMA, the legislation used repeatedly by the FCA to conceal & deny, is prominent. 2. Whole of section 2 of MOU is problematic. It seeks to limit information flow, particularly restrictions it establishes in respect to information flow from the FCA to COLP......
Para 2.6 - Enables FCA to withold info from COLP. States FCA must not disclose confidential info relating to business affairs of any person received by FCA for purposes of discharge of its functions, without consent of person it obtained it from or person to whom it relates.....
I'm therefore concerned that the BBRS terms state there is an obligation on the customer who 'must' disclose information, but that the bank 'can' provide information. This is disturbing and open to the same abuses used in the IRHP Review and as routine by FOS......
Furthermore, the terms do not oblige the BBRS to share all information received from the bank with the customer and, perhaps worse still, appear to allow the BBRS discretion to ask the bank for only the information that it the BBRS deems relevant. WRONG ON EVERY LEVEL....
Bailey already veering down the route he wants to take this, as opposed to addressing the issues before him. The failings were not reliant upon 'core' changes to address. The failings were basic.
You don't need structural reform or change to address many of the failings. Simply upholding the codes and taking appropriate action, which is the FCA's role, is a basic and minimum standard.
'Build to rent' aka opposite of fair distribution of wealth, returning property ownership to the top 1%, and one of the biggest dangers to growth in the UK. @graingerplc heavily involved despite their role in destruction of property firms by Lloyds BSU... propertyinvestortoday.co.uk/breaking-news/…
Home ownership by individuals generates substantial inheritance annually. Inheritance and wealth that is re-distributed to multiple members of families and invariably generating significant consumption and help to younger family members to own their own property......
'Build to rent' is seeing substantial & ever growing numbers of properties being built by large 'funds', and with Government funding to do it. These funds own the completed properties which will never be available for the public to buy, and receive the lucrative rents from them
An older story but one that needs exposing. The bank claims it had no knowledge that an extra 0.06% had been added to the price/spread on FX payments between 2010-2014. Nonsense. The price/spread would've been signed off by senior managers and subject to all manner of oversight
Indeed, EVERY FX deal ticket, no matter how small will feature the amount of 'mark up' taken. It was a key performance metric of employees, departments and senior managers running those departments. Let's be clear, even a discrepancy of 0.06% would have been noticeable.....
Grant Thornton partner Kevin Hellard, represented by @MoonBeever acting as 'independent' Trustee in bankruptcy for the owner of this company & formerly owner of the Canary Wharf site, has sold the 50% stake in these strips of land owned by the bankrupt individual for £300,000...
Call me old fashioned, but if nobody can enjoy the £300mio or any profit that would be achieved upon completion of this development, then the strips of land are worth a minimum of £50mio. Pay £50mio and enjoy a net £250mio profit. Don't acquire the strips of land, make £0 profit.