View more on these topics

Arch Financial faces £150m legal action over cru funds

The board of18 Guernsey-listed investment vehicles is suing Arch Financial for £150m over the failing of the £400m Arch cru fund range, according to reports.

The claimants are accusing Arch of failing in its mandate to exercise fundamental care of assets as well as a failure to account for secret profits, according to the Financial Times.

According to the FT, a high court writ issued by the board of directors, claims Arch ignored conflicts of interest by using money from the cells to buy the shares of Arch and cru Investment Management.

The FT says that at least £2m was invested in cru, giving the company a £9m value, although according to the writ the most recent audited accounts disclosed a net value of £8,413.

Arch’s largest deal totalled $167m to finance the conversion of seven oil tankers, which were owned by a Greek shipping yard.

The writ claims these were “old, of very poor quality and in very poor condition” and that the investment was “exceptionally risky”. Further it alleges that a bankruptcy petition was outstanding against Salamis at the time of the investment and that the owner had been involved in three previous shipping ventures, all of which have failed.

The investment resulted in losses of $162m, according to the writ, while Arch made “secret profits” of £1.7m.

Arch chief executive Robin Farrell said Arch and its principals “deeply deny these unfounded allegations in their entirety”. He claimed that any blame for the failure of the funds lay with authorised corporate director Capita, the FSA and the global financial crisis.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister David Cameron has rejected calls from an MP for an independent inquiry into the Arch Cru investment funds scandal.

Cameron acknowledged the difficulties faced by the 20,000 investors in the Arch cru funds but said the Government had “yet to be persuaded” that this was appropriate.

Recommended

3

Govt DB index plan targets future pensioners

Pensions minister Steve Webb’s plan to scrap inflation linking for defined-benefit schemes will only affect future retirees. Under current rules, occupational DB schemes must increase pension payments by the limited price index, which is capped at 2.5 per cent. In an interview with the Financial Times on Saturday, the Liberal Democrat MP (pictured) said removing […]

2

MM Leader: What next for Aifa?

It was not the biggest surprise in the world to see Aifa director general Stephen Gay quit after just over a year in charge to join the relative tranquillity of the Association of British Insurers. Aifa announced a £200,000 deficit late last year and Gay’s tenure has been spent implementing costcutting measures alongside grappling with […]

Big rise is planned for free ombudsman cases

The Financial Ombudsman Service is proposing to increase the number of free cases that firms are allowed before having to pay a case fee from three to 25 per year. Currently, firms have to pay a £500 case fee for the fourth and each subsequent case referred to the FOS over the course of a […]

8

EU gender directive does not apply to occupational pensions

The European Commission’s decision to ban gender discrimination when pricing annuities does not apply to occupational pension schemes. In March last year, the European Court of Justice ruled that insurers cannot price products based on gender from December 21, 2012. The move will mean that providers will have to radically change the way they price […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 5 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Let this disaster be a warning. If you don’t understand a fund or product, DON’T FLOG IT TO A CLIENT…..

    I was sick of Maguire and his salesmen about a week after Cru launched and I’m even more heartily sick of all things Cru now.

  2. Perhaps this latest info might persuade Mr Cameron that all is not as it seems!!!

  3. Joe Egerton - Justice in Financial Services 16th January 2012 at 9:06 am

    These allegations, if confirmed, would conclusively show that the responsibility for compensation rests with the ACD, Capita, and not advisers. The AFM or ACD has the duty to prevent such antics by a fund manager in the position of Arch. However it seems that Capita cannot afford to meet the compensation bill – hence the frantic and unjust efforts of teh FSA to blame advisers

  4. FSA should have started proper investigate long time ago!!!

  5. The FSA will hate this, it shows even more where the fault lies!

Leave a comment