This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more here.

MM Leader: FSCS must ensure fairness in Keydata claw back quest

  • Print
  • Comments (3)

The Financial Services Compensation Scheme has a duty on behalf of industry levy-payers to try to reclaim as much money as possible that has been paid out on their behalf.

With this in mind, its lawyers have sent letters to an undisclosed number of firms asking them to stump up for client Keydata losses which the scheme believes they are responsible for.

Letters have focused on losses associated with SLS Capital, the Luxemburg special purpose vehicle which administrators found had over £100m “misappropriated” from it. The FSCS will also be looking to take action in relation to Lifemark, a separate SPV which triggered a £326m levy.

The FSCS believes firms have breached their duty of care to the client in advising them into what it judges to be high-risk investments.

It is likely to focus most of its energy on bigger distributors and it is uncertain how far it will go in its attempts to reclaim costs from a raft of smaller firms. It may well be that pursuing a large number of small firms through the courts, and possibly triggering the bankruptcy of some, is not economical.

However, any firms who have received an FSCS letter should contact their PI insurer immediately to make them aware of the action.

Many readers who have suffered the huge FSCS bills associated with the downfall of Keydata will no doubt back the actions of the scheme. Money recouped should be rebated to levy-payers or used to pay for future levies.

But the FSCS’s action does raise a number of questions. Losses associated with SLS Capital were found to be principally the result of fraudulent activity while concerns have been raised about the accuracy of Keydata marketing literature and the role of the regulator in overseeing the firm. Bearing this in mind, should the IFA firm carry the can for all associated losses?

Would a wave of litigation lead to a large number of small firms going bust and hitting the FSCS with more costs in the long term? With a number of deals to rescue Lifemark assets currently on the table, which could offer considerable recoveries to the FSCS, is it too early to try and hold individual firms culpable for such large sums?

Firms found to have misold Keydata plans should pay the price but we need to make sure it is a fair price.

  • Print
  • Comments (3)

Daily Email Updates
If you enjoyed this article, sign up to receive the latest news and analysis from Money Marketing.

Money Marketing Awards 2015
Put your firm forward as the leading practitioner in your field. Adviser and Advertising categories are open to entries - Enter Now.

Readers' comments (3)

  • Given that the FSCS is effectively controlled by the FSA, any hopes of fair treatment for IFA's are fanciful to say the least. That's just the way things are.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Have Moneymarketing read a copy of the letter yet I wonder as Regulatory Legal have been sending out a redacted copy which has been sent on to AIFA to comment.
    AIFA cannot remain silent even if it means offending some members. Either those for lynching Keydata sellers are right or those who believe the regulatory system is what was at fault & on the whole, IFAs met their duty of care.
    Either the statement "Even without having conducted any of his own due dilligence, any reasonably competent IFA would or should have known that SLS and Lifemark Products were high risk investments" is factually correct OR AIFA will have to consider asking for the FSCS lawyers to withdraw this statement, or legal action against the FSCS may have to be considered.
    The rest of the letter from the FSCS lawyers Herbert Smith appears entirely reasonable and the suggestion of "alternative dispute resolution" appears entirely sensible for all parties. It is however at odds with the highlighted statement which is not a confirmed fact.
    Does the FSA agree with this assertion and does AIFA? If so the dispute resolution seems very sensible. If not, this falsehood needs correcting BEFORE any dispute resolution takes place.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What happens when the loss is higher than the FSCS limit?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your sayEdit my profile/screen name

You must sign in to make a comment

Fund Data

Editor's Pick


Do you see the value in adviser trade bodies?

Job of the week

Latest jobs

View all jobs

Most recent comments

View more comments