UK: Highlights of Recent Developments in Banking Law

Investor´s statutory right of action for bank´s alleged breach of IMRO rules
Last Updated: 3 May 2002

in short...December 2001 Issue No. 17

In Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v. Cattan & Anor (2 August 2001), the Court has highlighted the significant degree of care required when classifying customers for investment business. Although the requirements of the SROs relating to customer classification were merged as from 1 December 2001 within the FSA Conduct of Business Rules, the case remains of general relevance to future customer classification.

The bank sued for losses incurred by the defendant customer as a result of trading in emerging market debt (EMD). The customer, C, alleged that although he had entered into the trades, he did so as a result of the bank improperly categorising him as non-private investor, in breach of the IMRO Rules, and that he did not possess the knowledge and experience to be so classified. In reality, he asserted, he should have been treated as a private investor to whom the bank owed a duty of care to ensure that he did not enter into deals which he did not understand and which were inherently so risky that they were not suitable for a person of his standing and means. Therefore, C argued that he was not indebted to the claimant and had a counterclaim for losses made during his unsuccessful trading, pursuant to section 62(1) of the Financial Services Act 1986 (see now Section 150 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000).

Under the bank’s procedures, no private individual could be accepted as an investor in EMD.

Under Rule 2.1 of Chapter II, Section 2 of the IMRO Rules, a firm must take reasonable steps to establish whether a customer is a private or non-private customer. A firm may treat a customer as non-private, if:

  • It believes on reasonable grounds that the customer has sufficient experience and understanding to waive the protections provided for private customers.
  • It has given a clear written warning to the customer of the protection which he will lose, including any right of action under Section 62 FSA 1986 for breach of any IMRO rules.
  • The customer has given his written consent after a proper opportunity to consider the written warning, unless the customer is ordinarily resident outside the UK and is reasonably believed not to wish to consent in writing.

Before reaching any conclusion about whether a customer has sufficient experience and understanding, firms must consider whether, on the basis of information known about the customer and/or any representations made by the customer, he understands the nature and suitability of the investments and has sufficient experience to assess the suitability of the relevant transactions.

After hearing lengthy cross-examination, the court concluded:

  • C was introduced to the bank by the Deputy Governor of the Central Bank of Jordan.
  • C displayed considerable knowledge of EMD, including information of interest about Algerian debt which the bank’s officers did not know. C was a well-informed man who knew about at least part of the EMD market and the sort of factors which affected its value.
  • Discussions with C at the first meeting included discussion about other parts of the EMD market, such as the sovereign debt of Gabon and Sudan which were very specialised sectors of the market and about which C talked in an informed way and to a degree of familiarity beyond the norm.
  • Throughout his career, C had had a reasonably high level of dealings with bankers and government officials in relation to the financing of large and important projects.
  • C presented himself as an intelligent, sophisticated, well-connected and urbane individual, who knew his way around the international financial circuit.
  • In relation to earlier similar trading through a corporate vehicle, C had displayed keenness to open the relevant trading account as soon as possible and was impatient with form filling.
  • C understood emerging market risk in leveraged structures and was generally conversant with international capital markets and different types of investment products.
  • Although a risk warning letter was sent to C after certain trades had been carried out, this was a technical breach of the IMRO rules. C wanted the trades to be carried out and showed no desire to come out of his positions subsequently. He continued to hold investments until after they had gone sour.

A right of action under Section 62(1) FSA 1986 only exists if the investor can show that he has suffered loss as a result of the breach of an SRO’s rules.

The market had turned against C and margin calls made. The relevant debt was then re-scheduled and C was invited to consider his position. He was faced with a relatively unattractive choice of closing-out and sustaining a loss or persisting with the investment in the hope of getting his money back and making a profit. In order to do the latter, he was offered the opportunity of entering into a deferred purchase agreement whereby he was "credited" with the amounts he had already paid by way of principal and margin call but undertook other obligations contained in the agreement. After a period of reflection, C returned the agreement duly signed. However, problems persisted and eventually the bank was forced to bring proceedings for monies due under the agreement.

The Court considered that any breach of the IMRO rules in respect of customer classification had not caused any loss. Even though C had to be treated as a private customer until the formalities, including a risk warning letter, had been completed, he should and would have been advised not to enter into the transaction. However, had he been given that advice, he would have rejected it. It was clear that C was anxious to enter the trades as the market was favourable at the time and if the bank had refused to make the trades then the same trades would have been made subsequently, and there was no evidence before the Court to show any difference in price in C’s favour. Therefore, whatever the breach, whether of IMRO rules or indeed of any duty of care, C had suffered no recoverable loss. Furthermore, the loss sustained did not arise directly from the trades, but rather from the subsequent agreement under which he agreed to buy restructured debt. It could not be said that any breach of duty (statutory or otherwise) gave rise to the losses which he had suffered under the agreement.

Undue influence

Barclays Bank v. O’Brien revisited

In Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v. Etridge (No. 2) and other appeals (12 October 2001), the House of Lords redefined the doctrine and effects of undue influence as between wives providing security, banks lending to their husbands on the basis of that security, and solicitors advising banks, husbands and wives.

Clear guidelines have emerged which will bring legal certainty to existing transactions and enable banks to avoid being fixed with notice of undue influence in the future.

Eight appeals were before the House of Lords. Each appeal arose out of a transaction in which a wife (W) had charged her interest in the matrimonial home to a bank as security for the indebtedness of her husband (H), or indebtedness of the company through which H carried on business. W then asserted that she had signed the charge under the undue influence of H. Seven of the appeals concerned the applicable principles in these circumstances. In each case, the bank sought to enforce the charge signed by W. In each bank’s claim for possession, W raised a defence that the bank was on notice that her involvement in the transaction had been procured by H’s undue influence.

The eighth appeal concerned a claim by W for damages from a solicitor who advised her before she entered into a guarantee obligation.

When is the bank put on inquiry?

The House of Lords reviewed the case of Barclays Bank Plc v. O’Brien [1993] 4 All ER 417, and determined that a bank was put on inquiry whenever W offered to stand surety for H’s debts. Their Lordships considered that the Court of Appeal had erred in holding that before a bank was put on inquiry, it was necessary to prove in each case that the transaction was on its face not to the financial advantage of W, and that there was a substantial risk that, in procuring W to act as surety, H had committed a legal or equitable wrong which entitled W to set aside the transaction.

A bank would also be put on inquiry where W became surety for the debts of the company, the shares of which were held by W and H, even when W was a director or secretary of the company. Such cases could not be equated with joint loans.

Steps to be taken by banks

A bank could be expected to take reasonable steps to satisfy itself that the practical implications of the proposed transaction, had been brought home to W, in a meaningful way. Provided a suitable alternative was available, banks ought not to be compelled to hold a personal meeting with W.

Ordinarily, it would be reasonable for a bank to rely on confirmation from a solicitor, acting for W, that he had advised W appropriately. The position would be otherwise if the bank knew that the solicitor had not duly advised W or if the bank knew facts from which it ought to have realised that W had not received the appropriate advice. In such circumstances, the bank would proceed at its own risk.

Content of legal advice

In the present case, it was not for the solicitor to veto the transaction by declining to confirm to the bank that he had explained the documents to W and the risks which she was taking upon herself. If the solicitor considered that the transaction was not in W’s best interest, he would give reasonable advice to W to that effect. At the end of the day, however, the decision on whether to proceed was the decision of W and not the solicitor.

Their Lordships disagreed with the Court of Appeal, where it had said that if the transaction was "one into which no competent solicitor could properly advise W to enter", availability of legal advice was insufficient to avoid the bank being fixed with constructive notice.

Scope of the responsibilities of W’s solicitor

As a general proposition, the scope of a solicitor’s duties was dictated by the terms, whether expressed or implied, of his retainer. As a first step, the solicitor would need to explain to W the purpose for which he had become involved. He would need to obtain confirmation from W that she wished him to act for her in the matter and to advise her on the legal and practical implications of the proposed transaction.

The content of the advice required from a solicitor before giving the confirmation sought by the bank would, inevitably, depend upon the circumstances of the case. Typically, the advice a solicitor could be expected to give should cover the following matters as the "core" minimum:

  • An explanation of the nature of the documents and their practical consequences for W;
  • Identification of the seriousness of the risks involved, including discussion of (i) W’s financial means and her understanding of the value of the property being charged; (ii) whether W or H has any other assets out of which repayment could be made if H’s business should fail.
  • A clear statement that W has a choice, including discussion of the present financial position, the amount of H’s indebtedness and the amount of his overdraft facility.
  • Verification that W wishes to proceed, with confirmation given to the bank only with W’s authority.

The solicitor’s discussion with W should take place at a face-to-face meeting, in the absence of H.

The solicitor should obtain from the bank any necessary information. If the bank failed for any reason to provide information requested by the solicitor, the solicitor should decline to provide the confirmation sought by the bank.

Independent advice

Their Lordships then turned to the question of whether the solicitor advising W, had to act for W alone, which was a novel question.

A balancing exercise was appropriate for determining whether the solicitor should act for W alone, or whether the solicitor should be permitted to act for H or the bank as well (provided the solicitor was satisfied that that was in W’s best interests and satisfied also that that would not give rise to any conflicts of duty or interest).

Their Lordships held that the latter was preferable. The advantages attendant upon the employment of a solicitor acting solely for W did not justify the additional expense that would involve for H. When accepting instructions to advise W, the solicitor assumed responsibilities directly to her, both at law and professionally. If, at any stage, the solicitor became concerned that there was a real risk that other interests or duties might inhibit his advice to W, he should cease acting for her.

Agency

Where a solicitor had accepted instructions to advise W, but failed properly to do so, W had a remedy in damages against the negligent solicitor. But what was the position of the bank which proceeded in the belief that W had been given the necessary advice?

In the ordinary case, deficiencies in the advice given were a matter for W and her solicitor. The bank was entitled to proceed on the assumption that the solicitor advising W had done his job properly, unless it knew or ought to have known that that was not so.

Obtaining the solicitor’s confirmation

Returning to the steps which a bank should take when it had been put on inquiry and in particular the protection afforded by the fact that W had been advised independently by a solicitor, their Lordships stated as follows:

  • The bank should take steps to check directly with W the name of the solicitor she wished to act for her. To that end, in future, the bank should communicate directly with W, and not proceed with the transaction until it had received an appropriate response directly.
  • It should become routine practice for banks, if relying on confirmation from a solicitor for their protection, to send to the solicitor the necessary financial information. What was required would depend on the facts of the case.
  • Exceptionally, there might be a case where the bank believed or suspected that W had been misled by H or was not entering into the transaction of her own free will. If such a case occurred, the bank should inform W’s solicitor of the facts giving rise to its belief or suspicion.
  • The bank should in every case obtain from W’s solicitor a written confirmation to the effect mentioned above.

The above steps would be applicable to future transactions.

In respect of past transactions, the bank would ordinarily be regarded as having discharged its obligations if a solicitor acting for W in the transaction, gave the bank confirmation to the effect that he had brought home to W the risks she was running by standing as surety.

In Short ... highlights current legal developments. It is not a substitute for proper advice. © Gouldens December 2001

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions