FSCS rejects compensation claims for Arc, NDF and DRL investors
Investors in capital at risk products from NDF Administration, Defined Returns Limited (DRL) and Arc Capital and Income will not be able claim compensation from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.
The FSCS says that following a review, the firm was satisfied that the relevant marketing materials provided had adequate and appropriate warnings that there was a risk to investors’ capital if the organisation backing these investments failed.
Products at risk included the NDF fixed income and growth February 2008, NDF fixed income plan June 2008, DRL kick out performance plan issue 1, Arc fixed income plan 6 and Arc stepped kick out plan 5.
The FSCS says that investors will not have claims arising from the materials and that it will not send application forms to all known investors with Capital at Risk products.
The statement says: “However, if any investor wishes to submit a claim to us, for any specific other reason, they can do so by contacting us to request an application form. When completing the application form, investors should provide us with as much information as possible about why they believe their claim is eligible for compensation. We will then assess claims for compensation on a case-by-case basis.
“By completing the application form, the investor will be able to set out why they believe they have a valid claim against NDF, DRL or Arc. Please be aware, however, that we can only accept a claim where a claimant can demonstrate to us that a legal liability is owed to him or her by one of the firms in default.”
The decision comes more than 10 months after the groups failed due to exposure to the collapse of Lehman Brothers.
The FSCS announced a £22m levy on intermediaries in March to cover losses from certain other products from NDFA, DRL and Arc. This was in addition to the £58m levy charged to cover client losses from the Keydata collapse.
The FSCS says: “There have been a number of complex issues to resolve which required detailed review and external advice. Whilst we understand that investors will be disappointed by this news, we are grateful for the patience shown whilst we investigated the position.”
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
Most popular
Most commented
-
Neil Liversidge: Would anyone use 'hard fees' if they didn't have to?
-
Nic Cicutti: Advisers and fund managers need to tackle their charges
-
Providers: Scottish independence could end pension tax relief for millions
-
Threesixty launches DFM due diligence service
-
The death of bank advice: more than just the RDR to blame?
Most emailed
-
Providers: Scottish independence could end pension tax relief for millions
-
'Money Sickness Syndrome' doubles since credit crunch
-
Threesixty launches DFM due diligence service
-
The death of bank advice: more than just the RDR to blame?
-
Sue Whitbread: The difference between financial advice and financial planning






Readers' comments (3)
Evan Owen | 30 Sep 2010 2:45 pm
"External advice"?
I'm sure that many advisers who avoided these "esoteric and opaque" (Martin's words) products will breathe a sigh of relief, I know some firms who will be in a pickle though and if they fell over there would be a flood, nay a tsunami heading the way of the FSCS.
This compensation machine will become your prison, and theirs.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mr Smug | 30 Sep 2010 2:56 pm
Which only goes to prove that if the FSA was prepared to approve product literature we wouldn't now be paying up for Lifemark and Keydata.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 5 Oct 2010 9:11 pm
FSA sends both companies into administration primarily due to problems with literature for Lehman related products. FSCS finds literature had adequate risk warnings. Er, am I missing sumfink?.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment