View more on these topics

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.”

Recommended

Neptune soft-launches income funds

Neptune has bolstered its fund range with the soft- launch of both a US income fund and a higher income fund. The US income fund will have 40 to 60 holdings, which will predominantly invest in high yielding North American companies. The fund, which sits in the IMA North America sector, is managed by Rebecca […]

Brain storming

Getting about on the conference circuit is good to test the attitudes and opinions of the adviser market. There is a lot going on in this regard at present. The Institute of Financial Planning is holding its conference this week, Transact has been busy with its Connect updates for a week or two and Cofunds […]

IMF warns of short-term pains caused by budget cuts

Fiscal consolidation is set to have more negative short-term effects on global economies than usual, according to the International Monetary Fund’s latest world economic outlook. The IMF yesterday published chapters two and three of its latest WEO, in which it looks at the impact of fiscal consolidation. In chapter three of the WEO, entitled Will […]

Newby wants to make Northern Rock a mutual again

Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Lord Newby has called for Northern Rock to be remutualised. Reports last week suggested that the Government-owned bank is planning to sell off some of its mortgage portfolios in an effort to repay its £22.5bn Government loan. It is reportedly looking to repay around two-thirds of the loan in the next […]

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. “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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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?.

Leave a comment