UK: Update On Recent Summary Judgment For Barclays In Interest Rate Swap Litigation

Last Updated: 10 September 2014
Article by Richard Caird, Sam Coulthard and Alexandra Doucas

(1) Mark Thomas Raymond Bailey; and (2) MTR Bailey Trading Limited v. Barclays Bank plc [2014] EWHC 2882 (QB)

Summary

In a recent hearing in the Cardiff Mercantile Court, His Honour Judge Keyser QC (the Judge) considered various arguments advanced in relation to an interest rate swap.

Many of the points argued will be familiar to those who take an interest in swaps litigation, and the Judge's conclusions on the key points are summarised in this note. Those points include: the proper interpretation of COBS 9 and COBS 10 and the distinction between suitability and appropriateness; the entitlement of companies to bring claims for breach of COBS rules; and the effect which the regulatory regime may have on contractual obligations. Some of the claims advanced appear to be at the margins of the arguable in relation to this type of case. They were unsurprisingly rejected by the Judge and are not considered here.

The transactions in dispute

The facts of this case are unusual in some respects. The first claimant, Mr Bailey, borrowed some £1.26 million from Barclays in 2007, with a variable rate of interest, for the purchase of business premises occupied by the second claimant, a company wholly owned by Mr Bailey (the Company).

The judgment records (and the Bank does not appear to have disputed for the purposes of its application for summary judgment) that Mr Bailey's relationship manager at the Bank (who was not approved to give investment advice) told him that interest rates would go "through the roof" and suggested that he consider some form of interest rate hedging product. A presentation describing three hedging products was provided to Mr Bailey by another of the Bank's employees (who did have approval to provide investment advice). Mr Bailey then had a meeting with both these individuals during which the same advice and recommendations were repeated, and it was recommended that Mr Bailey enter specifically into an interest rate swap.

He did so on 4 May 2007. Economically, the Swap did not perform well for Mr Bailey and his evidence stated that he had made a series of complaints about it from 2009 onwards.

Crucially, in 2011 Mr Bailey wanted to transfer some properties from his own portfolio to the second claimant (the Company), for tax planning purposes. The Bank's position was that, unless the Swap was also transferred, Mr Bailey would have to pay substantial break costs to terminate it. The Swap was therefore novated from Mr Bailey to the Company in March 2011.

The Bank classified the Company as a retail client. The Bank's terms of business (the Terms) stated that it would not provide advice in relation to any transaction between it and the Company. This point was also explicitly made in the covering letter accompanying the Terms. The Swap confirmation contained the usual representations and warranties, including that no advice from the Bank was relied upon.

The applications

Mr Bailey's own complaints were considered as part of the review process agreed between banks and the (then) FSA. Redress was offered by the Bank and accepted by Mr Bailey, and his claim in the litigation was therefore to be discontinued.

The Company, however, pursued its claim for damages, rescission and a declaration of unenforceability. In order to do so, it sought to add a number of additional claims to those it had already advanced. The Bank, by contrast, sought strike-out or alternatively summary judgment on the Company's claims.

Could the Company claim for breaches of COBS?

A. On the facts?

The Company alleged that the Bank had breached a number of duties owed under the COBS rules, including those below.

COBS 9.2.1R (failing to take reasonable steps to ensure that a personal recommendation is suitable) and COBS 10.2.1R (in a sale where there is no personal recommendation, failing to ask the client for information regarding his knowledge or experience in the relevant investment field, so as to enable the firm to assess whether the product is appropriate).

The Judge held that there was no personal recommendation to the Company for the purposes of COBS 9. This is not a surprising conclusion given the contents of the contractual documents relied upon by the Bank.

More interesting is the Judge's treatment of COBS 10 and his summary of the difference between it and COBS 9. The Company alleged that it could never be appropriate for it to enter into the Swap on such disadvantageous terms, and that there was therefore a breach of COBS 10. In making its case in that way (and in company with many claimants in swaps cases), the Company effectively treated COBS 9 and 10 as interchangeable and focused in relation to both rules on the merits of the product in order to establish whether there was a breach of the rule.

The Bank argued successfully that this was not the correct approach. It is clear from the Judge's reasoning that COBS 9 relates to the suitability of the product in question, whereas COBS 10 relates to the knowledge and understanding of the client. It raises what might be described as a threshold question of whether the client has sufficient knowledge and understanding to make it appropriate to sell the relevant product, not whether the product is either appropriate or suitable for the client's needs. This distinction is helpfully drawn and doubtless will be relied on in other cases.

COBS 11.2.1R and best execution - the judgment ventured briefly into the grey area of best execution, the full implications of which are yet to be defined in the swaps context. A client's right to best execution is set out in COBS 11 and is also frequently contained in banks' terms of business, which are designed to cover situations where the bank trades as the client's agent as well as with the client as principal. In the latter case, it is difficult to see how the duty of best execution should apply. However, FCA's recent thematic review on best execution makes it clear that the duty of best execution is not excluded merely because the bank trades as principal.

In this case, the Judge did not take the opportunity to resolve these uncertainties, but the Company failed nonetheless to establish a breach of the duty of best execution. It focused its attack on the merits of the Swap rather than the mechanics by which it was executed, and the Judge held that allegations of this sort could have no realistic prospects of success. It remains to be seen whether other claimants are able to advance more successful arguments on this point.

B. As a matter of principle

(i) under FSMA?

Companies complaining of swaps misselling commonly argue that they can claim damages for breach of the COBS rules under s150 of FSMA (now s138D), notwithstanding that such rights are reserved to private persons, which generally means individuals. The Company's attempt in this case to overturn the judgment in Titan Steel Wheels v. RBS (giving a wide interpretation to the exclusion of companies acting in the course of their business from the definition of "private persons") was unsuccessful.

More interestingly, this may be among the first judgments to consider another line of attack on the limited availability of s150 claims. The statutory framework provides that those who are not private persons can claim under s150 in prescribed circumstances. Such circumstances include cases where the rule alleged to have been breached is one which prevents regulated firms from excluding or restricting any liability to clients.

The argument now made by some claimants is that by stating in their terms of business that they do not provide advice in relation to investments, banks are effectively limiting or excluding their duties under the regulatory system. This is said to be a breach of COBS 2.1.2R (which prohibits firms from excluding liability under the regulatory system) sufficient to allow companies to bring claims under s150 which would normally be reserved for private persons. Such claims are alleged to extend to damages for breach not only of COBS 2.1.2R but also of other rules, including those referred to above.

The counter to this argument is that, even if a bank were held to have breached COBS 2.1.2R, thus giving a corporate client a right to claim under s150, it is by no means clear that such a client would have a right to damages for breach of any rule other than COBS 2.1.2R itself, thereby effectively compensating it only for the exclusion of liability. It is not clear from the statute that any wider right to damages for breaches of other COBS rules is triggered and it is hard to see why it should be.

This issue is not completely resolved in the judgment. The Judge noted that the Claimant's case on breach of COBS 2.1.2R was obscure. However, he found that the terms themselves did not purport to exclude liability under the regulatory system, and he was not persuaded that there was any reasonably arguable allegation of breach of the COBS rules at all, rendering the issue irrelevant.

(ii) as part of its contract with the Bank?

The Judge rejected the suggestion that the COBS rules were incorporated by reference into the Terms, and that breaches of them therefore gave rise to a liability to pay damages for breach of contract.

The Company also argued that there was an implied term (pursuant to the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982) that the Bank must exercise reasonable skill and care in providing services under the Terms. This contractual obligation was to be measured (the Company said) by reference to the Bank's regulatory obligations. There is some parallel in cases where a bank agrees to assume a duty to advise a client: in such cases, the scope of the bank's common law duty can be affected by its regulatory obligations in relation to the provision of investment advice.

The Judge rejected this argument on the basis that he had found there to be no breach of the COBS rules on the facts. He therefore did not examine further whether this was an avenue for claimants wishing to bring the provisions of COBS within the terms of the contract between bank and client.

Did the role of the relationship manager in the sale mean that the Swap was unenforceable?

The claimants alleged that because the Bank's relationship manager had made positive recommendations in relation to the Swap, despite not being approved to do so, the provisions of s27 of FSMA were engaged. This section says (in essence) that an agreement entered into by an authorised person in consequence of something done by an unauthorised person is unenforceable as against the other party and makes provision for repayment of sums received pursuant to such an agreement. Such allegations are common in swaps cases, where the customer's contact has usually been with two individuals from the relevant bank: one with specialist knowledge and approval to sell investment products, and the other with a general relationship management role, who typically deals with the bank's lending to the customer.

A key point in this judgment for swaps cases generally is that the s27 regime does not apply to these types of cases. Even where a relationship manager strays into the territory of giving investment advice or information on products, he is still an employee of the (authorised) bank, and the bank has not entered into the agreement in consequence of anything done by an unauthorised person.

There is a separate provision (s59 of FSMA) which provides that authorised persons must take reasonable care to ensure that no person performs a controlled function unless acting in accordance with an approval from the relevant regulator. Contravention of that provision can give rise to a claim for damages under s71 of FSMA (again the claimant must be a private person). It does not, however, make the transaction unenforceable.

Conclusions

This judgment contains some points of real relevance to other swaps cases, and indeed more generally.

  1. Claimants who attempt to rely on COBS 9 and 10 interchangeably will be unsuccessful. COBS 10 is directed at the knowledge and understanding of the client, not the merits of the product.
  2. This case continues the line of authorities to the effect that companies will have difficulty in claiming damages under s150/s138D of FSMA, although it did not fully resolve the arguments concerning the effect of exclusions of liability.
  3. It also does not consider the principle behind the argument that banks have a contractual duty to their clients to comply with COBS rules because those rules represent the appropriate standard of reasonable skill and care contractually required of banks by the SoGSA. Nevertheless, it continues a line of authority to the effect that bringing such a claim will be difficult.
  4. The regime under s27 whereby agreements entered into by authorised persons in consequence of the actions of an unauthorised person are unenforceable does not apply in this context.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

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.

Authors
Events from this Firm
28 Sep 2017, Seminar, London, UK

On 26 July the FCA published its long-expected consultation paper on the extension of the SMCR to all FCA-authorised firms. The so-called "core regime" introduces the key concepts of regulator-approved senior managers, firm-approved certification staff and conduct rules applicable to virtually all staff.

3 Oct 2017, Conference, Zurich, Switzerland

As the founding Partner of the Europe-Iran Forum, Dentons Europe will once again support this year’s event. This compelling event which explores all Iran-related topics will take place in Zürich on 3rd and 4th October.

4 Oct 2017, Workshop, London, UK

We are hosting an interactive workshop where we will run a mock High Court trial of an employee competition case – where the members of the audience are the judges. The session, aimed at in-house counsel and HR professionals, will offer an insight as to how disputes involving employees moving to a competitor play out in practice.

 
In association with
Related Video
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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.