View more on these topics

Royal Liver sacks finance director

Royal Liver has sacked its finance director George McGregor, claiming that he sanctioned unauthorised payments, this week’s Money Marketing reveals.

In a statement given to Money Marketing, a Royal Liver spokesman alleges that McGregor (pictured) failed to follow risk management and procedural processes and “breached his duties” by sanctioning payments and entering into “alleged commercial arrangements” with a third party.

Royal Liver says the matter is now subject to legal proceedings.

In December, Royal Liver said McGregor had been placed on extended leave due to “personal circumstances” and his deputy, Tony Richards, was appointed interim chief finance officer.

Royal Liver says, after taking legal advice, it put McGregor on extended leave to achieve his co-operation while it gathered further information.

A spokesman says: “Royal Liver confirms that the board has dismissed its finance director, George McGregor, for breaches of his duties to the society.

“Following early detection by the society’s normal internal audit plan in late 2009, it was brought to the attention of the committee of management that George McGregor may have made unauthorised payments and entered into alleged contracts to the disadvantage of the society.

“It is now clear that McGregor failed to follow the society’s risk management and procedural processes and breached his duties.

“These unauthorised payments and alleged contracts are now the subject of legal proceedings which the society is robustly pursuing to recover monies which, in the society’s opinion, have been wrongfully paid, and challenge the alleged contracts. We are keeping the relevant authorities informed and will continue to do so.”

McGregor was unavailable for comment.

Last month, the FSA ordered Royal Liver to pay up to £7.8m in customer redress to clients for failings of its now defunct IFA arm, Park Row.

The regulator also fined former Park Row chief executive Peter Sprung £49,000 for failing to ensure sales were suitable.


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


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

  1. How many more are we going to see that the question and about time that these people are lossing their jobs and been fined.

    They give us all a bad name so it is now time to clean up the industry and get these jokers like out.

    I pay hgher FSCO fees because of these jokers !!!

  2. Was £20m in bonus payments to FSA staff and directors in 2008/09 legal? Firstly there are many who would question whether any bonuses at all were justifiable, given the FSA’s generally dismal performance. Plus, of course, paying those bonuses took the FSA £14m into the red with the very banks it should have been regulating. And yet, at the same time, the FSA has the temerity to lecture the industry on sound fiscal governance and probity.

    Then again, we all know that the FSA is basically above the law and just does pretty much whatever it likes (other than on instructions from the Treasury and Downing Street). The fact that we all have to pay for it is even more galling.

  3. Couldn’t agree more Julian. If the FSA was based in some third world country we would accept this as just another load of dishonest bureaucrats obtaining ‘graft” (as in A. ‘the unscrupulous use of one’s position to derive profit or advantages; extortion. B. Money or an advantage gained or yielded under such circumstances.)

    In what is claimed to be a democratic country where public servants are supposed to be accountable such behaviour is not acceptable. All the more so when ‘bankers’ are in the public dock for similar activities. Bankers can at least claim they work for ‘commercial’ companies looking to make profits for their shareholders, even if that includes UKFI.

    The idea of any public servant getting a bonus is gruesome anyway, but presumably those at the FSA just want to get themselves in the right frame of mind for when they go back to the banks they came from!

    As you suggest the FSA has no moral authority whatsoever, that is covered by the default position of those who have lost, or never had the agrument which is the bullying, arrogant attitude of ‘Do as I say, not as I do!’.

    I’d like to know which ‘Fee Group’ the FSA is expecting to pick up the tab for the arrangement fees and interest on that O/D and find out what research and subsequent negotiations they undertook to obtain the ‘best’ deal. I assume that the FSA had no ‘assets’ to offer as security, only its future ‘cash flow’ which it can alter at will to fit funding requirements.

    Of course had the FSA been a private company its ‘Regulator’ would have told it that paying bonuses with borrowed money was unacceptable as the management should have planned better and also that as a non profit making organisation its bankers would be unlikely to lend it money anyway. Probably this ‘Regulator’ would have banned the senior executives as not being ‘fit and proper persons’ to hold any managerial positions ever again!

Leave a comment