RBS has issued its six monthly figures, and has reported a surprise return to profit, confirming it expects pre-tax profits of £2.65bn for the first half of the year, up from £1.37bn last year.
The provisional report issued to the London Stock Exchange confirms that the Bank has set aside a further £100 million in regards to redress payment for Interest Rate Hedging Products.
This announcement comes after RBS were forced to write to the Treasury Select Committee this week (22nd July 2014) to confirm that when Chris Sullivan and Dereck Sach gave evidence to the Committee they had misled the Committee by stating that GRG was “not
a profit centre” when in fact it was. Mr Sullivan had also informed the Committee in evidence that he had never seen a draft of Clifford Chance’s draft report. Mr Sullivan admits that this was not true, he had in fact seen a draft of the report before it
One must question why Mr Sullivan would not remember seeing the Clifford Chance report (into RBS’s use of GRG) prior to it being published. It was a very important and crucial document.
One must also question why Clifford Chance sent a draft or even more than one, to RBS. The report was a s.166
independent report into RBS. Why then was this independent report sent to RBS before publication inviting RBS to make amendments and comments? Does this not make the independent report seem a little “un-independent”?
For more information about any of the above or for practical advice on this or any other aspect of banking and financial disputes, please contact Kalvin Chapman of the Berg Banking Litigation Team on 0161 833 9211 or email him at
(The information and opinions contained in this article are not intended to be comprehensive, nor to provide legal advice. No responsibility for its accuracy or correctness is assumed by Berg or any of its partners or employees. Professional legal advice
should be obtained before taking, or refraining from taking, any action as a result of this article.)