Deloitte requests more info from Keydata claimants on KPMG
Share
Deloitte has written to Keydata investors with non-Isa secure income bonds 1-3 asking them to clarify how influential marketing literature representations about KPMG were in their investment decision.
The Financial Services Compensation Scheme has appointed the firm to help it investigate whether ongoing claims with Keydata are eligible.
In a letter sent to investors on March 29, Deloitte says it is currently investigating claims against Keydata and requires further information before it is able to complete its investigation and issue a decision.
In a 2005 brochure for its secure income bond 1, Keydata described KPMG as “one of the ’big four’ accountancy firms” and stated that: “KPMG constructed the financial models used to structure the bond. It also checks the credit ratings of the insurance companies issuing the contracts and monitors the credit rating of the portfolio of investments.”
KPMG did not see the statement for issue 1 but when the same wording was used in issue 2 KPMG objected “most strongly” to Keydata about the use of its name and the “inaccurate and misleading description.”
A letter sent last year by KPMG UK chairman John Griffiths-Jones to a member of the Keydata victims action group says the firm referred the matter onto the FSA after failing to receive an adequate response from Keydata.
John Joseph Financial Services principal John Joseph says: “If someone says they relied on KPMG as being part of the Keydata investment analyst team then under no circumstances should Deloitte try and trip any client up.”
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
Readers' comments (1)
Richard Brydon | 31 Mar 2010 11:51 am
I have the key features relating to series 3 and I was clearly duped by KeyData and so was my client. My post sale client confirmation letter refers to the involvement of KPMG and HSBC in the structural process. It seems that neither company was actually involved. Last year my client received a valuation and yet the money was already stolen. And yet we expected to believe that KeyData was not to blame for this fiasco and the FSCS want to send me the bill. Why do individuals need to make a further claim? The lies made are in the key features.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment