View more on these topics

Chase de Vere confirms FSCS Keydata settlement

Chase de Vere has settled with the Financial Services Compensation Scheme in its long-running legal battle over Keydata advice.

Money Marketing revealed earlier this week a settlement was imminent.

Chase de Vere was one of six lead defendants selected by the FSCS last year in its long-running battle to recoup up to £75m out of around £400m paid out in Keydata compensation. It is thought Chase de Vere was among the firms with the largest Keydata claims against it. 

In December, the FSCS reached settlements with all of the lead defendants apart from Chase de Vere.

In July 2012, Chase de Vere said in its 2011 accounts that the FSCS had “substantially reduced” its original £64.5m claim against the company in relation to Keydata sales. 

The advice firm declined to comment on what level of discount, if any, it has secured.

In a statement, Chase de Vere says:  “Chase de Vere and the FSCS have reached an out of court settlement, with no admission of liability, in relation to the sale of Keydata investment products, the terms of which are confidential.”

The FSCS was unavailable for comment.

Experts have told Money Marketing the FSCS’ legal battle to recoup Keydata compensation from advisers is looking increasingly desperate, and may be dropped altogether. 

A case management conference was held today to request new lead case defendant criteria, which could see uninsured firms without legal representation chosen as lead cases where they have claims worth over £150,000.

Money Marketing understands there are 74 firms in the pool with claims worth more than £150,000.

The FSCS is so far facing total legal costs of £30m in the litigation, close to half the £75m it said last year it expects to recover in Keydata compensation. It has also settled with many firms at a significant discount.

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 3 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Julian Stevens 16th May 2014 at 2:22 pm

    How can you settle without admittng liability?

  2. Easy Julian

    The so and so’s are blackmailers. It will cost more to go to court than to give them some money just to go away.

  3. @Julian – Settling without admitting liability is common practice, especially where the cost of defence outweights the benefits of arguing the case.
    Firms SHOULD have settled within weeks of the FSCS letter as ALL firms who had capital adequacy of LESS than the cost of defending the claim, were effectively potentially in default of their FSA Cap ad from that day onward as the indication of potential costs of defending the claim in court I believe were about £200K, whether you’d advised a client to invest £3,000 or £300,00 is immaterial! Hence the need for “Test cases” for the larger amounts.
    Whilst I can’t talk about the terms of my settlement Julian, why do you THINK an argumentative SOB like me settled when I’d usually rather fight?
    @MM – Have Chase De Vere settlted on just the Lifemark claims or also on the SLS which I read previously the FSCS had stopped pursuing them on?

Leave a comment