10. Litigation, investigations and reviews
NatWest Group and certain members of the RBS Group are party to legal proceedings and the subject of investigation and other regulatory and governmental action ("Matters") in the United Kingdom (UK), the United States (US), the European Union (EU) and other jurisdictions.
The RBS Group recognises a provision for a liability in relation to these Matters when it is probable that an outflow of economic benefits will be required to settle an obligation resulting from past events, and a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of the obligation. While the outcome of these Matters is inherently uncertain, the directors believe that, based on the information available to them, appropriate provisions have been made in respect of the Matters as at 30 June 2017 (refer to Note 8).
In many proceedings and investigations, it is not possible to determine whether any loss is probable or to estimate reliably the amount of any loss, either as a direct consequence of the relevant proceedings and investigations or as a result of adverse impacts or restrictions on the RBS Group's reputation, businesses and operations. Numerous legal and factual issues may need to be resolved, including through potentially lengthy discovery and document production exercises and determination of important factual matters, and by addressing novel or unsettled legal questions relevant to the proceedings in question, before a liability can reasonably be estimated for any claim. The RBS Group cannot predict if, how, or when such claims will be resolved or what the eventual settlement, damages, fine, penalty or other relief, if any, may be, particularly for claims that are at an early stage in their development or where claimants seek substantial or indeterminate damages.
In respect of certain matters described below, we have established a provision and in certain of those matters, we have indicated that we have established a provision. The RBS Group generally does not disclose information about the establishment or existence of a provision for a particular matter where disclosure of the information can be expected to prejudice seriously the RBS Group's position in the matter.
There are situations where the RBS Group may pursue an approach that in some instances leads to a settlement agreement. This may occur in order to avoid the expense, management distraction or reputational implications of continuing to contest liability, or in order to take account of the risks inherent in defending claims or investigations even for those matters for which the RBS Group believes it has credible defences and should prevail on the merits. The uncertainties inherent in all such matters affect the amount and timing of any potential outflows for both matters with respect to which provisions have been established and other contingent liabilities.
The Group may not be directly involved in all of the following litigation, investigations and reviews but due to the potential implications to the RBS Group of such litigation, investigations and reviews, if a final outcome is adverse to the RBS Group it may also have an adverse effect on the Group.
The future outflow of resources in respect of any matter may ultimately prove to be substantially greater than or less than the aggregate provision that the RBS Group has recognised. Where (and as far as) liability cannot be reasonably estimated, no provision has been recognised.
Other than those discussed below, no member of the Group is or has been involved in governmental, legal or regulatory proceedings (including those which are pending or threatened) that are expected to be material, individually or in aggregate. The RBS Group expects that in future periods additional provisions, settlement amounts, and customer redress payments will be necessary, in amounts that are expected to be substantial in some instances.
For a discussion of certain risks associated with the Group's litigation, investigations and reviews, see the Risk Factor relating to legal, regulatory and governmental actions and investigations set out in the Group's 2016 Annual Report and Accounts on page 211 and in the Group's 2016 Annual Report on Form 20-F on page 246.
10. Litigation, investigations and reviews (continued)
Litigation
UK 2008 rights issue shareholder litigation
Between March and July 2013, claims were issued in the High Court of Justice of England and Wales by sets of current and former shareholders, against the RBS Group (and in one of those claims, also against certain former individual officers and directors) alleging that untrue and misleading statements and/or improper omissions, in breach of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, were made in connection with the rights issue announced by the RBS Group on 22 April 2008. In July 2013 these and other similar threatened claims were consolidated by the Court via a Group Litigation Order. The RBS Group's defence to the claims was filed on 13 December 2013. Since then, further High Court claims have been issued against the RBS Group under the Group Litigation Order. Prior to the partial settlement described below, the aggregate value of the shares subscribed for at 200 pence per share by all of the then claimant shareholders was approximately £4 billion.
In December 2016 the RBS Group concluded full and final settlements with four of the five shareholder groups representing 78 per cent of the claims by value. Further full and final settlements, without any admission of liability, have since been reached and the RBS Group has now concluded the action with over 98 per cent of the claimants.
The aggregate settlement figure available is £900 million and is subject to validation of claims. The RBS Group has increased its total provision to £900 million in relation to this matter.
The Court directed that any claimant choosing not to enter the settlement should, by 28 July 2017, issue an application to restore the proceedings. In the event that any claimant is subsequently permitted to continue with the proceedings, they would be defended by the RBS Group on the grounds previously set out. The RBS Group is not aware of any such application having been made.
Residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) litigation in the US
RBS Group companies have been named as defendants in their various roles as issuer, depositor and/or underwriter in a number of claims in the US that relate to the securitisation and securities underwriting businesses. These cases include actions by individual purchasers of securities and a purported class action suit.
In general, plaintiffs in these actions claim that certain disclosures made in connection with the relevant offerings of RMBS contained materially false or misleading statements and/or omissions regarding the underwriting standards pursuant to which the mortgage loans underlying the securities were issued.
In September 2011, the US Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) as conservator for the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), filed a lawsuit against the RBS Group in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, relating to approximately US$32 billion of RMBS for which RBS Group entities acted as sponsor/depositor and/or lead underwriter or co-lead underwriter. On 12 July 2017, the RBS Group announced the settlement of this matter. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the RBS Group has paid FHFA US$5.5 billion, and FHFA has withdrawn its claims relating to the securities at issue in the case. Of that settlement amount, US$754 million has been reimbursed to the RBS Group under indemnification agreements with third parties. The net cost to the RBS Group of the settlement was largely covered by existing provisions. An incremental charge of US$196 million (£151 million) was recorded in relation to this matter.
RBS Securities inc. remains a defendant in a separate, unresolved FHFA lawsuit relating to RMBS issued by Nomura Holding America Inc. (Nomura) and subsidiaries, which is the subject of an appeal. On 11 May 2015, following a trial, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a written decision in favour of FHFA on its claims against Nomura and RBS Securities Inc., finding, as relevant to the RBS Group, that the offering documents for four Nomura-issued RMBS for which RBS Securities Inc. served as an underwriter, relating to US$1.4 billion in original principal balance, contained materially misleading statements about the mortgage loans that backed the securitisations, in violation of the Securities Act and Virginia securities law.
10. Litigation, investigations and reviews (continued)
RBS Securities Inc. estimates that its net exposure under the Court's judgment is approximately US$383 million, which consists of the difference between the amount of the judgment against RBS Securities Inc. (US$636 million) and the estimated market value of the four RMBS that FHFA would return to RBS Securities Inc. pursuant to the judgment, plus the costs and attorney's fees that will be due to FHFA if the judgment is upheld. The estimated net exposure in this matter is covered by an existing provision.
The Court has stayed the judgment pending the result of the appeal that the defendants are taking to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, though post-judgment interest on the judgment amount will accrue while the appeal is pending. RBS Securities Inc. intends to pursue a contractual claim for indemnification against Nomura with respect to any losses it suffers as a result of this matter.
RBS Group companies are also defendants in a purported RMBS class action entitled New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund v. Novastar Mortgage Inc. et al., which remains pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The RBS Group has settled this matter for US$55.3 million, which has been paid into escrow pending court approval of the settlement.
In addition to the above, the remaining RMBS lawsuits against RBS Group companies consist of cases filed by the Federal Home Loan Banks of Boston and Seattle and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation that together involve the issuance of less than US$1 billion of RMBS issued primarily from 2005 to 2007.
As at 30 June 2017, the Group's total aggregate of provisions in relation to certain of the RMBS litigation matters (described immediately above) and RMBS and other securitised products investigations (set out under "Investigations and reviews" on page 28), was £4.9 billion ($6.4 billion) of which £3.5 billion ($4.49 billion) related to the FHFA case that has now been resolved. The duration and outcome of these investigations and litigation matters remain uncertain, including in respect of whether settlements for all or any of such matters may be reached.
Further substantial provisions and costs may be recognised and, depending on the final outcome, other adverse consequences may occur.
With respect to certain of the RMBS claims described above, the RBS Group has or will have contractual claims to indemnification from the issuers of the securities (where an RBS Group company is underwriter) and/or the underlying mortgage originator (where an RBS Group company is issuer). The amount and extent of any recovery on an indemnification claim, however, is uncertain and subject to a number of factors, including the ongoing creditworthiness of the indemnifying party, a number of whom are or may be insolvent.
London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR)
Certain members of the RBS Group have been named as defendants in a number of class actions and individual claims filed in the US with respect to the setting of LIBOR and certain other benchmark interest rates. The complaints are substantially similar and allege that certain members of the RBS Group and other panel banks individually and collectively violated various federal laws, including the US commodities and antitrust laws, and state statutory and common law, as well as contracts, by manipulating LIBOR and prices of LIBOR-based derivatives in various markets through various means.
Most of the USD LIBOR-related actions in which RBS Group companies are defendants, including all purported class actions relating to USD LIBOR, were transferred to a coordinated proceeding in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
In the coordinated proceeding, consolidated class action complaints were filed on behalf of (1) exchange-based purchaser plaintiffs, (2) over-the-counter purchaser plaintiffs, and (3) corporate debt purchaser plaintiffs. Over 35 other USD LIBOR-related actions naming the RBS Group as a defendant, including purported class actions on behalf of lenders and mortgage borrowers, were also made part of the coordinated proceeding.
10. Litigation, investigations and reviews (continued)
In a series of orders issued in 2013 and 2014, the district court overseeing the coordinated USD proceeding dismissed class plaintiffs' antitrust claims and claims under RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), but declined to dismiss (a) certain Commodity Exchange Act claims on behalf of persons who transacted in Eurodollar futures contracts and options on futures contracts on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (on the theory that defendants' alleged persistent suppression of USD LIBOR caused loss to plaintiffs), and (b) certain contract and unjust enrichment claims on behalf of over-the-counter purchaser plaintiffs who transacted directly with a defendant. On 23 May 2016, the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' antitrust claims was vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which held that plaintiffs have adequately pled antitrust injury and an antitrust conspiracy, but remanded to the lower court for further consideration on the question of whether plaintiffs possess the requisite antitrust standing to proceed with antitrust claims.
In a decision issued on 20 December 2016, the district court held that it lacks personal jurisdiction over the RBS Group with respect to certain claims asserted in the coordinated proceeding. Following that decision, the RBS Group is dismissed from each of the USD LIBOR-related class actions in the coordinated proceeding, subject to appeal, although certain non-class cases on behalf of particular plaintiffs remain pending.
On 10 March 2017, the US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), on behalf of 39 failed US banks, issued a claim in the High Court of Justice of England and Wales against the RBS Group, other LIBOR panel banks and the British Bankers' Association, alleging collusion with respect to the setting of USD LIBOR. The action alleges that the defendants breached English and European competition law as well as asserting common law claims of fraud under US law. The FDIC previously asserted many of the same US law USD LIBOR-related claims against the RBS Group and others in a lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, though most of the claims in that case have been dismissed as a result of a series of rulings by that court.
Certain members of the RBS Group have also been named as defendants in two class actions relating to JPY LIBOR and Euroyen TIBOR, both pending before the same judge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In the first case, relating to Euroyen TIBOR futures contracts, the court dismissed plaintiffs' antitrust claims on 28 March 2014, but declined to dismiss their claims under the Commodity Exchange Act for price manipulation, which are proceeding in the discovery phase. In the second case, relating to other derivatives allegedly tied to JPY LIBOR and Euroyen TIBOR, the court dismissed the case on 10 March 2017 on the ground that the plaintiffs lack standing. Plaintiffs have commenced an appeal of that decision.
Certain members of the RBS Group have also been named as defendants in class actions relating to (i) Euribor, (ii) Swiss Franc LIBOR (iii) Pound sterling LIBOR, (iv) the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate and Singapore Swap Offer Rate, and (v) the Australian Bank Bill Swap Reference Rate, all of which are pending before other judges in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On 21 February 2017, the court in the action relating to Euribor dismissed all claims alleged against the RBS Group for lack of personal jurisdiction. The other matters described in this paragraph are subject to motions to dismiss that are currently pending.
Details of LIBOR investigations involving the RBS Group are set out under ''Investigations and reviews'' on page 29.
ISDAFIX antitrust litigation
Beginning in September 2014, The Royal Bank of Scotland plc (RBS plc) and a number of other financial institutions were named as defendants in several purported class action complaints (subsequently consolidated into one complaint) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging manipulation of USD ISDAFIX rates In 2015, RBS plc reached an agreement to settle this matter for US$50 million, and that settlement received preliminary approval from the Court on 11 May 2016. The settlement amount has been paid into escrow pending the final court approval of the settlement.
10. Litigation, investigations and reviews (continued)
FX antitrust litigation
In 2015, Group companies settled a consolidated antitrust class action (the "consolidated action"), pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserting claims on behalf of persons who entered into (a) over-the-counter foreign exchange (FX) spot transactions, forwards, swaps, futures, options or other FX transactions the trading or settlement of which is related in any way to FX rates, or (b) exchange-traded FX instruments. Following the Court's preliminary approval of the settlement on 15 December 2015, the RBS Group paid the total settlement amount (US$255 million) into escrow pending final court approval of the settlement.
On 24 March 2017, the court dismissed a second FX-related antitrust class action, holding that the alleged class of "consumers and end-user businesses" lacked standing to pursue antitrust claims. The plaintiffs in that case have since filed an amended complaint, which is subject to a renewed motion to dismiss.
A third FX-related class action, asserting Employee Retirement Income Security Act claims on behalf of employee benefit plans that engaged in FX transactions, including claims based on alleged non-collusive FX-related conduct, was dismissed on 20 September 2016 on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to plead that the defendants had ERISA-based fiduciary duties to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' appeal of this dismissal remains pending.
Beginning in September 2016, several class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims on behalf of "indirect purchasers" of FX instruments. The plaintiffs define "indirect purchasers" as persons who were indirectly affected by FX instruments that others entered into directly with defendant banks or on exchanges. It is alleged that certain RBS Group companies and other defendant banks caused damages to the "indirect purchasers" by conspiring to restrain trade in the FX spot market. The plaintiffs have asserted claims under federal and state antitrust laws. The RBS Group and the other defendants anticipate making a motion to dismiss the claims asserted in these actions after the plaintiffs file a single, consolidated complaint.
On 12 July 2017, a class action complaint was filed against RBS Group companies in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that the RBS Group breached contracts with counterparties by rejecting FX orders placed over electronic trading platforms through the application of a function referred to as "Last Look", and that the rejected orders were later filled at prices less favourable to putative class members. The complaint contains claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
In September 2015, certain members of the RBS Group, as well as a number of other financial institutions, were named as defendants in two purported class actions filed in Ontario and Quebec on behalf of persons in Canada who entered into foreign exchange transactions or who invested in funds that entered into foreign exchange transactions. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the Canadian Competition Act by conspiring to manipulate the prices of currency trades. The RBS Group has settled these matters for approximately CAD 13 million. The settlement amount has been paid into escrow pending court approval of the settlement.
Certain other foreign exchange transaction related claims have been or may be threatened against the RBS Group in other jurisdictions. The RBS Group cannot predict whether any of these claims will be pursued, but expects that several may.
US Treasury securities antitrust litigation
Beginning in July 2015, numerous class action antitrust complaints were filed in US federal courts against a number of primary dealers of US Treasury securities, including RBS Securities Inc. The complaints allege that the defendants rigged the US Treasury securities auction bidding process to deflate prices at which they bought such securities and colluded to increase the prices at which they sold such securities to plaintiffs. The complaints assert claims under the US antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act on behalf of persons who transacted in US Treasury securities or derivatives based on such instruments, including futures and options. On 8 December 2015, all pending matters were transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings. The RBS Group anticipates making a motion to dismiss these claims.
10. Litigation, investigations and reviews (continued)
Swaps antitrust litigation
Beginning in November 2015, RBS plc and other members of the RBS Group, as well as a number of other interest rate swap dealers, were named as defendants in a number of class action antitrust complaints filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaints, filed on behalf of persons who entered into interest rate swaps with the defendants, allege that the defendants violated the US antitrust laws by restraining competition in the market for interest rate swaps through various means and thereby caused inflated bid-ask spreads for interest rate swaps, to the alleged detriment of the plaintiff class.
In addition, two complaints containing similar allegations of collusion were filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of TeraExchange and Javelin, who allege that they would have successfully established exchange-like trading of interest rate swaps if the defendant dealers had not unlawfully conspired to prevent that from happening through boycotts and other means, in violation of the U.S. antitrust laws. On 2 June 2016, all of these matters were transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
On 28 July 2017, the Court overseeing the above matters dismissed all claims against RBS Group companies relating to the 2008 - 2012 time period, but declined to dismiss certain antitrust and unjust enrichment claims covering the 2013 - 2016 time period, which will now proceed to the discovery phase.
On 8 June 2017, TeraExchange filed another complaint against the RBS Group and others in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, this time relating to credit default swaps instead of interest rate swaps. TeraExchange alleges it would have established exchange-like trading of credit default swap if the defendant dealers had not engaged in an unlawful antitrust conspiracy. The RBS Group anticipates making a motion to dismiss the complaint in this matter.
Thornburg adversary proceeding
RBS Securities Inc. and certain other RBS Group companies, as well as several other financial institutions, are defendants in an adversary proceeding filed in the US bankruptcy court in Maryland by the trustee for TMST, Inc. (formerly known as Thornburg Mortgage, Inc.). The trustee seeks recovery of transfers made under certain restructuring agreements as, among other things, avoidable fraudulent and preferential conveyances and transfers. On 25 September 2014, the Court largely denied the defendants' motion to dismiss this matter and, as a result, discovery is ongoing.
Interest rate hedging products litigation
The RBS Group is dealing with a large number of active litigation claims in relation to the sale of interest rate hedging products (IRHPs). In general claimants allege that the relevant interest rate hedging products were mis-sold to them, with some also alleging the RBS Group made misrepresentations in relation to LIBOR. Claims have been brought by customers who were considered under the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) redress programme, as well as customers who were outside of the scope of that programme, which was closed to new entrants on 31 March 2015. The RBS Group encouraged those customers that were eligible to seek redress under the FCA redress programme to participate in that programme. The RBS Group remains exposed to potential claims from customers who were either ineligible to be considered for redress or who are dissatisfied with their redress offers.
Property Alliance Group (PAG) v The Royal Bank of Scotland plc was the leading case before the English High Court involving both IRHP mis-selling and LIBOR misconduct allegations. The amount claimed was approximately £33 million and the trial ended in October 2016. On 21 December 2016 the Court dismissed all of PAG's claims. PAG has been granted leave to appeal that decision by the Court of Appeal. The decision (subject to the appeal by PAG) may have significance to other similar LIBOR-related cases currently pending in the English courts, some of which involve substantial amounts. The case of Wall v RBS plc, which concerns certain similar allegations to those in PAG, is currently scheduled to go to trial in October 2017. The sum claimed is between £114 million and £669 million.
10. Litigation, investigations and reviews (continued)
In addition to claims alleging that IRHPs were mis-sold, the RBS Group has received a number of claims involving allegations that it breached a legal duty of care in its conduct of the FCA redress programme. These claims have been brought by customers who are dissatisfied with redress offers made to them through the FCA redress programme. The claims followed a preliminary decision against another UK bank. The RBS Group has since been successful in opposing an application by a customer to amend its pleadings to include similar claims against the RBS Group, on the basis that the bank does not owe a legal duty of care to customers in carrying out the FCA review. An appeal of that decision was dismissed in July 2017.
Tax dispute
HMRC issued a tax assessment in 2012 against the RBS Group for approximately £86 million regarding a value-added-tax ("VAT") matter in relation to the trading of European Union Allowances ("EUAs") by an RBS Group joint venture subsidiary in 2009. The RBS Group has commenced legal proceedings before the First-tier Tribunal (Tax), a specialist tax tribunal, challenging the assessment (the "Tax Dispute"). In the event that the assessment is upheld, interest and costs would be payable, and a penalty of up to 100 per cent of the VAT held to have been legitimately denied by HMRC could also be levied. Separately, the RBS Group is a named defendant in proceedings before the High Court brought in 2015 by ten companies (all in liquidation) (the "Liquidated Companies") and their respective liquidators (together, "the Claimants"). The Liquidated Companies previously traded in EUAs in 2009 and are alleged to be defaulting traders within (or otherwise connected to) the EUA supply chains forming the subject of the Tax Dispute. The Claimants are claiming approximately £80 million plus interest and costs by alleging that the RBS Group dishonestly assisted the directors of the Liquidated Companies in the breach of their statutory duties and/or knowingly participated in the carrying on of the business of the Liquidated Companies with intent to defraud creditors. The trial in that matter is currently scheduled to start in June 2018.
Weiss v. National Westminster Bank Plc (NatWest)
NatWest is defending a lawsuit filed by a number of US nationals (or their estates, survivors, or heirs) who were victims of terrorist attacks in Israel. The plaintiffs allege that NatWest is liable for damages arising from those attacks pursuant to the US Anti-terrorism Act because NatWest previously maintained bank accounts and transferred funds for the Palestine Relief & Development Fund, an organisation which plaintiffs allege solicited funds for Hamas, the alleged perpetrator of the attacks. On 28 March 2013, the trial court (the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York) granted summary judgment in favour of NatWest on the issue of scienter, but on 22 September 2014, that summary judgment ruling was vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeals court returned the case to the trial court for consideration of NatWest's other asserted grounds for summary judgment and, if necessary, for trial. On 31 March 2016, the trial court denied a motion by NatWest to dismiss the case in which NatWest had argued that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over NatWest. NatWest has since asserted other grounds for summary judgment that the trial court has not previously ruled upon.
Investigations and reviews
The RBS Group's businesses and financial condition can be affected by the actions of various governmental and regulatory authorities in the UK, the US, the EU and elsewhere. The RBS Group has engaged, and will continue to engage, in discussions with relevant governmental and regulatory authorities, including in the UK, the US, the EU and elsewhere, on an ongoing and regular basis, and in response to informal and formal inquiries or investigations, regarding operational, systems and control evaluations and issues including those related to compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including consumer protection, business conduct, competition/anti-trust, anti-bribery, anti-money laundering and sanctions regimes.
10. Litigation, investigations and reviews (continued)
The NatWest Markets (formerly CIB) segment in particular has been providing information regarding a variety of matters, including, for example, the setting of benchmark rates and related derivatives trading, conduct in the foreign exchange market, and various issues relating to the issuance, underwriting, and sales and trading of fixed-income securities, including structured products and government securities.
Any matters discussed or identified during such discussions and inquiries may result in, among other things, further inquiry or investigation, other action being taken by governmental and regulatory authorities, increased costs being incurred by the RBS Group, remediation of systems and controls, public or private censure, restriction of the RBS Group's business activities and/or fines. Any of the events or circumstances mentioned in this paragraph or below could have a material adverse effect on the RBS Group, its business, authorisations and licences, reputation, results of operations or the price of securities issued by it.
The RBS Group is co-operating fully with the investigations and reviews described below.
RMBS and other securitised products investigations
In the US, the RBS Group is involved in reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by federal and state governmental law enforcement and other agencies and self-regulatory organisations, including the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and various other members of the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group (RMBS Working Group) of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force (including several state attorneys general, including those mentioned below), relating to, among other things, issuance, underwriting and trading in RMBS and other mortgage-backed securities, collateralised debt obligations (CDOs), collateralised loan obligations (CLOs) and synthetic products.
In connection with these inquiries, Group companies have received requests for information and subpoenas seeking information about, among other things, the structuring of CDOs, financing to loan originators, purchase of whole loans, sponsorship and underwriting of securitisations, due diligence, representations and warranties, communications with ratings agencies, disclosure to investors, document deficiencies, trading activities and practices and repurchase requests.
These ongoing matters include, among others, active civil and criminal investigations by the DOJ, relating primarily to due diligence on and disclosure related to loans purchased for, or otherwise included in, securitisations and related disclosures.
Ongoing investigations into the same or similar issues by several state attorneys general are at various stages, with those of the New York and California attorneys general being further progressed than the others.
As at 30 June 2017, the total aggregate of provisions in relation to certain of the RMBS investigations (described immediately above) and RMBS litigation matters (set out under "Litigation" on page 22) was £4.9 billion ($6.4 billion), of which £3.5 billion ($4.49 billion) related to the FHFA case that has now been resolved. The RBS Group continues to cooperate with the DOJ in its civil and criminal investigations of RMBS matters and with several state attorneys general in their investigations. The duration and outcome of these investigations and RMBS litigation matters remain uncertain, including in respect of whether settlements for all or any of such matters may be reached. Further substantial provisions and costs may be recognised and, depending on the final outcome, other adverse consequences may occur as described above and in the Risk Factor relating to legal, regulatory and governmental actions and investigations set out in the Group's Annual Report and Accounts on page 211 and in the Group's 2016 Annual Report on Form 20-F on page 246.
10. Litigation, investigations and reviews (continued)
RBSSI has also been responding to an ongoing criminal investigation by the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut relating to alleged misrepresentations in the trading of various forms of asset-backed securities, including RMBS, commercial mortgage-backed securities, CDOs, and CLOs. In March and December 2015, two former RBSSI traders entered guilty pleas in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, each to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud while employed at RBSSI.
RBSSI is in advanced discussions to resolve the matter.
US mortgages - loan repurchase matters
RBS's NatWest Markets business in North America was a purchaser of non-agency residential mortgages in the secondary market, and an issuer and underwriter of non-agency RMBS.
In issuing RMBS, NatWest Markets in some circumstances made representations and warranties regarding the characteristics of the underlying loans. As a result, NatWest Markets may be, or may have been, contractually required to repurchase such loans or indemnify certain parties against losses for certain breaches of such representations and warranties. Depending on the extent to which such loan repurchase related claims are pursued against and not rebutted by NatWest Markets on timeliness or other grounds, the aggregate potential impact on the RBS Group, if any, may be material.
LIBOR and other trading rates
From February 2013 to December 2016, the RBS Group entered into settlements with various governmental authorities in relation to investigations into submissions, communications and procedures around the setting of LIBOR and other interest rates and interest rate trading, which, among other things, required the RBS Group to pay significant penalties. As part of these resolutions, the RBS Group made certain undertakings regarding benchmark interest rates, including the undertakings contained in its February 2013 resolution with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The RBS Group continues to co-operate with investigations and requests for information by various other governmental and regulatory authorities, including in the UK, US and APAC.
On 3 February 2017, it was announced that the RBS Group and the CFTC entered into a civil settlement resolving the CFTC's investigation of ISDAFIX and related trading activities. As part of the settlement, the RBS Group has paid a penalty of US$85 million and agreed to certain undertakings.
Foreign exchange related investigations
In November 2014, RBS plc reached a settlement with the FCA and the CFTC in relation to investigations into failings in the RBS Group's FX businesses within its NatWest Markets segment. RBS plc agreed to pay penalties of £217 million to the FCA and US$290 million to the CFTC to resolve the investigations. The fines were paid on 19 November 2014.
On 20 May 2015, RBS plc announced that it had reached settlements with the DOJ and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve) in relation to investigations into its FX business within its NatWest Markets segment. RBS plc paid a penalty of US$274 million to the Federal Reserve and agreed to pay a penalty of US$395 million to the DOJ to resolve the investigations.
As part of its plea agreement with the DOJ, RBS plc pled guilty in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut to a one-count information charging an antitrust conspiracy. RBS plc admitted that it knowingly, through one of its euro/US dollar currency traders, joined and participated in a conspiracy to eliminate competition in the purchase and sale of the euro/US dollar currency pair exchanged in the FX spot market.
The charged conspiracy occurred between as early as December 2007 to at least April 2010. On 5 January 2017, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut imposed a sentence on RBS plc consisting of the US$395 million criminal fine previously agreed with the DOJ and a term of probation, which among other things, prohibits RBS plc from committing another crime in violation of US law or engaging in the FX trading practices that form the basis for the charged crime and requires RBS plc to implement a compliance program designed to prevent and detect the unlawful conduct at issue and to strengthen its compliance and internal controls as required by other regulators (including the FCA and the CFTC). A violation of the terms of probation could lead to the imposition of additional penalties. Subsequent to the sentencing, RBS plc paid the criminal fine, which had been covered by an existing provision.
10. Litigation, investigations and reviews (continued)
RBS plc and RBS Securities Inc. have also entered into a cease and desist order with the Federal Reserve relating to FX and other designated market activities (the FX Order). In the FX Order, which is publicly available and will remain in effect until terminated by the Federal Reserve, RBS plc and RBS Securities Inc. agreed to take certain remedial actions with respect to FX activities and certain other designated market activities, including the creation of an enhanced written internal controls and compliance program, an improved compliance risk management program, and an enhanced internal audit program. RBS plc and RBS Securities Inc. are obligated to implement and comply with these programs as approved by the Federal Reserve, and are also required to conduct, on an annual basis, a review of applicable compliance policies and procedures and a risk-focused sampling of key controls.
The RBS Group is co-operating with investigations and responding to inquiries from other governmental and regulatory (including competition) authorities on similar issues relating to failings in its FX business within its NatWest Markets segment. The timing and amount of financial penalties with respect to any further settlements and related litigation risks and collateral consequences remain uncertain and may well be material.
Interest rate hedging products (IRHP) redress programme
Since 2013, the RBS Group and other banks have been undertaking a redress exercise and past business review in relation to the sale of interest rate hedging products to some small and medium sized businesses classified as retail clients or private customers under FSA rules. This exercise was scrutinised by an independent reviewer, KPMG (appointed as a Skilled Person under section 166 of the Financial Services and Markets Act), and overseen by the FCA. The RBS Group has reached agreement with KPMG in relation to redress determinations for all in scope customers, as well as the majority of the consequential loss claims received.
The Group's provisions in relation to the above redress exercises total £1 billion to date for these matters, virtually all of which had been utilised at 30 June 2017.
Judicial Review of Skilled Person's role in IRHP review
The RBS Group has been named as an interested party in a number of claims for judicial review of KPMG's decisions as Skilled Person in the RBS Group's previously disclosed IRHP redress programme. This follows a similar claim from a customer of another UK bank, also against KPMG.
All of these claims were stayed pending the outcome of the other bank's case. The trial in that case was heard on 25 January 2016. The court decided in favour of KPMG, finding that (1) KPMG is not a body amenable to judicial review in respect of its role as Skilled Person in this matter; and (2) that there was no unfairness by the other bank in the procedure adopted. The claimant has been granted permission to appeal that decision, and the appeal hearing is scheduled to take place in December 2017.
The majority of the claims that name the RBS Group as an interested party have been discontinued but there are still several cases which remain stayed pending the outcome of the appeal in the other bank's case. If the appeal court finds that a section 166-appointed Skilled Person is susceptible to judicial review, these remaining claims against the RBS Group may then proceed to full hearing to assess the fairness of KPMG's role in the redress programme in those particular cases. If deemed unfair, this could have a consequential impact on the reasonableness of the methodology applied to reviewed and settled IRHP files generally. As there remains some uncertainty, it is not practicable reliably to estimate the impact of this matter, if any, on the RBS Group which may be material.
Investment advice review
In February 2013, the FSA announced the results of a mystery shopping review it undertook into the investment advice offered by banks and building societies to retail clients. As a result of that review the FSA announced that firms involved were cooperative and agreed to take immediate action. The RBS Group was one of the firms involved.
10. Litigation, investigations and reviews (continued)
The action required included a review of the training provided to advisers, considering whether changes are necessary to both advice processes and controls for new business, and undertaking a past business review to identify any historic poor advice (and where breaches of regulatory requirements are identified, to put this right for customers).
Subsequent to the FSA announcing the results of its mystery shopping review, the FCA has required the RBS Group to carry out a past business review and customer contact exercise on a sample of historic customers that received investment advice on certain lump sum products through the UK Financial Planning channel of the UK Personal & Business Banking (UK PBB) segment of the RBS Group, which includes RBS plc and NatWest, during the period from March 2012 until December 2012.
This review was conducted under section 166 of the Financial Services and Markets Act, under which a Skilled Person was appointed to carry out the exercise. Redress has been paid to certain customers in this sample group. Following discussions with the FCA after issue of the draft section 166 report, the RBS Group agreed with the FCA that it would carry out a wider review/remediation exercise relating to certain investment, insurance and pension sales from 1 January 2011 to 1 April 2015. The RBS Group started writing to the relevant customers during 2016 and redress payments have also commenced. The project is due to finish in Q4 2017. In addition, the RBS Group agreed with the FCA that it would carry out a remediation exercise, for a specific customer segment who were sold a particular structured product, in response to concerns raised by the FCA with regard to (a) the target market for the product and (b) how the product may have been described to customers by certain advisers. Redress has been paid to certain customers who took out the structured product.
The Group's provisions in relation to investment advice total £105 million to date for these matters, of which £54 million had been utilised at 30 June 2017.
Packaged accounts
As a result of an uplift in packaged current account complaints, the RBS Group proactively put in place dedicated resources in 2013 to investigate and resolve complaints on an individual basis. The Group has made gross provisions totalling £229 million to date for this matter.
The FCA conducted a thematic review of packaged bank accounts across the UK from October 2014 to April 2016, the results of which were published in October 2016. The RBS Group is taking into consideration and, where relevant, addressing the findings from this review.
FCA review of the RBS Group's treatment of SMEs
In November 2013, a report by Lawrence Tomlinson, entrepreneur in residence at the UK Government's Department for Business Innovation and Skills, was published ("Tomlinson Report"). The Tomlinson Report was critical of the RBS Group's treatment of SMEs.
The Tomlinson Report was passed to the PRA and FCA. Shortly thereafter, the FCA appointed an independent Skilled Person under section 166 of the Financial Services and Markets Act to review the allegations in the Tomlinson Report. The Skilled Person's review was focused on the RBS Group's UK small and medium sized business customers with credit exposures of up to £20 million whose relationship was managed within the RBS Group's Global Restructuring Group or within similar units within the RBS Group's Corporate Banking Division that were focused on customers in financial difficulties. In the period 2008 to 2013 the RBS Group was one of the leading providers of credit to the UK SME sector.
Separately, in November 2013, the RBS Group instructed the law firm Clifford Chance to conduct an independent review of the principal allegation made in the Tomlinson Report: the RBS Group was alleged to be culpable of systematic and institutional behaviour in artificially distressing otherwise viable businesses and, through that, putting businesses into insolvency. Clifford Chance published its report on 17 April 2014 and, while it made certain recommendations to enhance customer experience and transparency of pricing, it concluded that there was no evidence to support the principal allegation.
10. Litigation, investigations and reviews (continued)
A separate independent review of the principal allegation, led by Mason Hayes & Curran, Solicitors, was conducted in the Republic of Ireland. The report was published in December 2014 and found no evidence to support the principal allegation.
The Skilled Person review focused on the allegations made in the Tomlinson Report and certain observations made by Sir Andrew Large in his 2013 Independent Lending Review, and was broader in scope than the reviews undertaken by Clifford Chance and Mason, Hayes & Curran which are referred to above. The Skilled Person delivered the draft findings from its review to the FCA in March 2016. The RBS Group was then given the opportunity to consider and respond to those draft findings before the Skilled Person delivered its final report to the FCA during September 2016.
On 8 November 2016, the FCA published an update on its review. In response, the RBS Group announced steps that will impact SME customers in the UK and the Republic of Ireland that were in GRG between 2008 and 2013. These steps are (i) an automatic refund of certain complex fees; and (ii) a new complaints process, overseen by an Independent Third Party. These steps have been developed with the involvement of the FCA which agreed that they are appropriate for the RBS Group to take.
The Group estimates the costs associated with the new complaints review process and the automatic refund of complex fees to be approximately £223 million, which was recognised as a provision in 2016. This includes operational costs together with the cost of refunded complex fees and the additional estimated redress costs arising from the new complaints process.
The FCA announced in November 2016 that its review is continuing. The RBS Group continues to cooperate fully with the review.
FCA investigation into RBS plc's compliance with the Money Laundering Regulations 2007
On 21 July 2017, the FCA notified the RBS Group that it is undertaking an investigation into RBS plc's compliance with the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 in relation to certain customers. The RBS Group is cooperating with the investigation.
Multilateral interchange fees
On 11 September 2014, the Court of Justice upheld earlier decisions by the EU Commission and the General Court that MasterCard's multilateral interchange fee (MIF) arrangements for cross border payment card transactions with MasterCard and Maestro branded consumer credit and debit cards in the EEA are in breach of competition law.
In April 2013, the EC announced it was opening a new investigation into interchange fees payable in respect of payments made in the EEA by MasterCard cardholders from non-EEA countries. The EC's case is ongoing.
On 8 June 2015, a regulation on interchange fees for card payments entered into force. The regulation requires the capping of both cross-border and domestic MIF rates for debit and credit consumer cards. The regulation also sets out other reforms including to the Honour All Cards Rule which require merchants to accept all cards with the same level of MIF but not cards with different MIF levels.
On 6 May 2015, the Competition & Markets Authority (CMA), announced that it had closed the investigations into domestic interchange fees on the grounds of administrative priorities.
Whilst there are no recent developments on the above to report, there remains uncertainty around the outcomes of the ongoing EC investigation, and the impact of the regulation, and they may have a material adverse effect on the structure and operation of four party card payment schemes in general and, therefore, on the RBS Group's business in this sector.
Payment Protection Insurance (PPI)
Since 2011, the RBS Group has been implementing a policy statement agreed with the FCA for the handling of complaints about the mis-selling of PPI. The RBS Group is also monitoring developments following the UK Supreme Court's decision in the case of Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd in November 2014. That decision was that the sale of a single premium PPI policy could create an 'unfair relationship' under s.140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the 'Consumer Credit Act') because the premium contained a particularly high level of undisclosed commission.
10. Litigation, investigations and reviews (continued)
The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has confirmed on its website that unfair relationship provisions in the Consumer Credit Act and the Plevin judgment are 'potentially relevant considerations' in some of the PPI complaints referred to FOS.
On 26 November 2015, the FCA issued Consultation Paper 15/39, in which it set out proposed rules and guidance for how firms should handle PPI complaints fairly in light of the Plevin decision and how the FOS should consider relevant PPI complaints. The Consultation Paper also contained proposals for the introduction in 2018 on a date to be confirmed of a deadline for submission of PPI complaints. The RBS Group submitted its response to the Consultation Paper on 26 February 2016.
The proposals in the Consultation Paper included an FCA-led communications campaign to raise awareness of the deadline and to prompt those who intend to complain to act ahead of the deadline.
Following feedback received on its Consultation Paper, on 2 August 2016, the FCA issued a further Consultation Paper (CP 16/20) on certain aspects of the proposed rules and guidance. As a result of this second Consultation Paper, it was expected that the complaint deadline would be end of June 2019 rather than 2018 as proposed in the initial Consultation Paper. The BBA and the RBS Group submitted responses to the Consultation Paper on 11 October 2016.
Following feedback received on its second Consultation Paper (CP16/20), on 9 December 2016, the FCA issued a statement explaining that it was carefully considering the issues raised and would make a further announcement before 31 March 2017.
On 2 March 2017, the FCA published Policy Statement 17/3, its final rules and guidance on PPI complaint handling. The Policy Statement made clear the FCA's intention to implement a two year PPI complaints deadline with effect from 29 August 2017, bringing an end to new PPI complaints in August 2019. New rules for the handling of Plevin complaints will also come into force on 29 August 2017. The proposals in the Policy Statement are largely as previously anticipated.
In June 2017, the claims management company 'We Fight Any Claim' issued judicial review proceedings challenging elements of the FCA's Policy Statement, including the proposed 2019 deadline.
The Group has made provisions totalling £2.9 billion to date for PPI claims, including an additional provision of £362 million in 2016, in response to the anticipated further delay in guidance. Of the £2.9 billion cumulative provision, £2.2 billion had been utilised by 30 June 2017. The Group does not currently anticipate that an additional provision for PPI will be required.
UK retail banking
In November 2014, the CMA announced its decision to proceed with a market investigation reference (MIR) into retail banking, which would cover PCA and SME banking. On 9 August 2016, the CMA published its final report. The CMA concluded that there are a number of competition concerns in the provision of PCAs, business current accounts and SME lending, particularly around low levels of customers searching and switching, resulting in banks not being put under enough competitive pressure, and new products and new banks not attracting customers quickly enough. The final report sets out remedies to address these concerns. These include remedies making it easier for customers to compare products, ensure customers benefit from technological advantages around open banking, improve the current account switching service and provide PCA overdraft customers with greater control over their charges along with additional measures targeted at SME customers.
On 2 February 2017 the CMA published the Retail Banking Market Investigation Order 2017 which is the primary legal framework setting out the obligations for the implementation of the majority of remedies, including an implementation deadline for each. Other remedies are to be delivered via undertakings signed by Bacs and recommendations to be taken forward by other regulators (including the FCA).
10. Litigation, investigations and reviews (continued)
At this stage there remains uncertainty around the financial impact of the remedies once implemented, and so it is not practicable to estimate the potential impact on the RBS Group, which may be material.
FCA Wholesale Sector Competition Review
In February 2015, the FCA launched a market study into investment and corporate banking. In October 2016 the FCA published its final report. It found that whilst many clients feel well served by primary capital market services there were some areas where improvements could be made to encourage competition, particularly for smaller clients. It set out a package of remedies, including prohibiting the use of restrictive contractual clauses and ending league table misrepresentation by asking league table providers to review their recognition criteria. The FCA has announced that the prohibition on restrictive contractual clauses is to take effect from 3 January 2018.
In November 2015, the FCA also announced that a market study would be undertaken into asset management. In November 2016, the FCA published the interim report which indicated that price competition is weak and expressed concerns around the lack of transparency on the objectives, and appropriate benchmarks, for reporting fund performance. On 28 June 2017, the FCA published the final report which was broadly in line with the interim report and sets out an extensive package of remedies which include providing further protection to investors and driving competitive pressure on asset managers.
Some uncertainty remains around the financial impact of the remedies once implemented and so it is not practicable reliably to estimate the potential impact on the RBS Group. However, at this stage, this impact is not expected to be material.
FCA Mortgages Market Study
In December 2016, the FCA launched a market study into the provision of mortgages. The FCA has announced that it intends to publish an interim report in summer 2017 with the final report expected in Q1 2018.
At this stage, as there is considerable uncertainty around the outcome of this market study, it is not practicable reliably to estimate the aggregate impact, if any, on the RBS Group which may be material.
FCA Strategic Review of Retail Banking Models
On 11 May 2017 the FCA announced a two phase strategic review of retail banking models, The FCA will use the review to understand how these models operate, including how 'free if in credit' banking is paid for and the impact of changes such as increased use of digital channels and reduced branch usage.
Phase 1 will allow the FCA to enhance its understanding of existing models and how these impact competition and conduct. Phase 2 will evaluate the impacts of economic, technological, social and regulatory factors on these models. A project update is expected in Q2 2018 outlining the FCA's preliminary conclusions from Phase 1.
At this early stage, as there is considerable uncertainty around the outcome of this review, it is not practicable reliably to estimate the aggregate impact, if any, on the RBS Group, which in due course may be material.
Governance and risk management consent order
In July 2011, the RBS Group agreed with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the New York State Banking Department, the Connecticut Department of Banking, and the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation to enter into a consent Cease and Desist Order (Governance Order) (which is publicly available) to address deficiencies related to governance, risk management and compliance systems and controls in the US branches of RBS plc and RBS N.V. branches (the US Branches).
10. Litigation, investigations and reviews (continued)
In the Governance Order, the RBS Group agreed to create the following written plans or programmes:
Key points
● · · · |
a plan to strengthen board and senior management oversight of the corporate governance, management, risk management, and operations of RBS Group's US operations on an enterprise-wide and business line basis; |
● · · · |
an enterprise-wide risk management programme for RBS Group's US operations; |
● · · · |
a plan to oversee compliance by RBS Group's US operations with all applicable US laws, rules, regulations, and supervisory guidance; |
● · · · |
a Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering compliance programme for the US Branches on a consolidated basis; |
● · · · |
a plan to improve the US Branches' compliance with all applicable provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act and its rules and regulations as well as the requirements of Regulation K of the Federal Reserve; |
● · · · |
a customer due diligence programme designed to ensure reasonably the identification and timely, accurate, and complete reporting by the US Branches of all known or suspected violations of law or suspicious transactions to law enforcement and supervisory authorities, as required by applicable suspicious activity reporting laws and regulations; and |
● · · · |
a plan designed to enhance the US Branches' compliance with Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) requirements. |
The Governance Order identified specific items to be addressed, considered, and included in each proposed plan or programme. The RBS Group also agreed in the Governance Order to adopt and implement the plans and programmes after approval by the regulators, to comply fully with the plans and programmes thereafter, and to submit to the regulators periodic written progress reports regarding compliance with the Governance Order.
The RBS Group has created, submitted, and adopted plans and/or programmes to address each of the areas identified above. In connection with the RBS Group's efforts to implement these plans and programmes, it has, among other things, made investments in technology, hired and trained additional personnel, and revised compliance, risk management, and other policies and procedures for the RBS Group's US operations. The RBS Group continues to test the effectiveness of the remediation efforts it has undertaken to ensure they are sustainable and meet regulators' expectations. Furthermore, the RBS Group continues to work closely with the regulators in its efforts to fulfil its obligations under the Governance Order, which will remain in effect until terminated by the regulators.
The RBS Group may be subject to formal and informal supervisory actions and may be required by its US banking supervisors to take further actions and implement additional remedial measures with respect to these and additional matters. The RBS Group's activities in the US may be subject to significant limitations and/or conditions.
US dollar processing consent order
In December 2013 the RBS Group and RBS plc agreed a settlement with the Federal Reserve, the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS), and the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) with respect to RBS plc's historical compliance with US economic sanction regulations outside the US. As part of the settlement, the RBS Group and RBS plc entered into a consent Cease and Desist Order with the Federal Reserve (US Dollar Processing Order), which remains in effect until terminated by the Federal Reserve. The US Dollar Processing Order (which is publicly available) indicated, among other things, that the RBS Group and RBS plc lacked adequate risk management and legal review policies and procedures to ensure that activities conducted outside the US comply with applicable OFAC regulations.
10. Litigation, investigations and reviews (continued)
The RBS Group agreed to create an OFAC compliance programme to ensure compliance with OFAC regulations by the RBS Group's global business lines outside the US, and to adopt, implement, and comply with the programme. Prior to and in connection with the US Dollar Processing Order, the RBS Group has made investments in technology, hired and trained personnel, and revised compliance, risk management, and other policies and procedures.
Under the US Dollar Processing Order (as part of the OFAC compliance programme) the RBS Group was required to appoint an independent consultant to conduct an annual review of OFAC compliance policies and procedures and their implementation and an appropriate risk-focused sampling of US dollar payments. The RBS Group appointed the independent consultant and their reports were submitted to the authorities on 14 June 2015. The independent consultant review examined a significant number of sanctions alerts and no reportable issues were identified.
Pursuant to the US Dollar Processing Order, the authorities requested a second annual review to be conducted by an independent consultant. The second review was conducted by the independent consultant and reports were submitted to the authorities on 30 September 2016. In line with the first review, and following examination of a significant number of sanctions alerts, the independent consultant did not identify any reportable issues. The authorities have requested a third annual review to be conducted and independent consultant reports are expected to be issued during Q4 2017. In addition, pursuant to requirements of the US Dollar Processing Order, the RBS Group has provided the required written submissions, including quarterly updates, in a timely manner, and the RBS Group continues to participate in a constructive dialogue with the authorities.
US/Swiss tax programme
In August 2013, the DOJ announced a programme for Swiss banks (the Programme) which provides Swiss banks with an opportunity to obtain resolution, through non-prosecution agreements or non-target letters, of the DOJ's investigations of the role that Swiss banks played in concealing the assets of US tax payers in offshore accounts (US related accounts). In December 2013, Coutts & Co Ltd., a member of the Group incorporated in Switzerland, notified the DOJ that it intended to participate in the Programme.
As required by the Programme, Coutts & Co Ltd. subsequently conducted a review of its US related accounts and presented the results of the review to the DOJ. On 23 December 2015, Coutts & Co Ltd. entered into a non-prosecution agreement (the NPA) in which Coutts & Co Ltd. paid a US$78.5 million penalty and acknowledged responsibility for certain conduct set forth in a statement of facts accompanying the agreement. Under the NPA, which has a term of four years, Coutts & Co Ltd. is required, among other things, to provide certain information, cooperate with DOJ's investigations, and commit no U.S. federal offences. If Coutts & Co Ltd. abides by the NPA, the DOJ will not prosecute it for certain tax-related and monetary transaction offenses in connection with US related accounts.
Enforcement proceedings and investigations in relation to Coutts & Co Ltd
The Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) has been taking enforcement proceedings against Coutts & Co Ltd, a member of the RBS Group incorporated in Switzerland, with regard to certain client accounts held with Coutts & Co Ltd relating to allegations in connection with the Malaysian sovereign wealth fund 1MDB. On 2 February 2017, FINMA announced that Coutts & Co Ltd had breached money laundering regulations by failing to carry out adequate background checks into business relationships and transactions associated with 1MDB. FINMA accordingly required Coutts & Co Ltd to disgorge profits of CHF 6.5 million.
10. Litigation, investigations and reviews (continued)
Coutts & Co Ltd is also cooperating with investigations and enquiries from authorities in other jurisdictions in relation to the same subject matter. In this context, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS)'s supervisory examination of Coutts & Co Ltd's Singapore branch revealed breaches of anti-money laundering requirements. MAS imposed on Coutts & Co Ltd financial penalties amounting to SGD 2.4 million in December 2016. The outcomes of other proceedings, investigations and enquiries are uncertain but may include financial consequences and/or regulatory sanctions.
Regulator requests concerning certain historic Russian transactions
Recent media coverage has highlighted an alleged money laundering scheme involving Russian entities between 2010 and 2014. Allegedly certain European banks, including the RBS Group and 16 other UK based financial institutions, and certain US banks, were involved in processing certain transactions associated with this scheme. In common with other banks, the RBS Group is responding to requests for information from the FCA, PRA and regulators in other jurisdictions.
Review and investigation of treatment of tracker mortgage customers in Ulster Bank Ireland DAC (formerly Ulster Bank Ireland Limited)
On 22 December 2015, the Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) announced that it had written to a number of lenders requiring them to put in place a robust plan and framework to review the treatment of customers who have been sold mortgages with a tracker interest rate or with a tracker interest rate entitlement. The CBI stated that the intended purpose of the review was to identify any cases where customers' contractual rights under the terms of their mortgage agreements were not fully honoured, or where lenders did not fully comply with various regulatory requirements and standards regarding disclosure and transparency for customers. The CBI has required Ulster Bank Ireland DAC (UBI DAC), a member of the RBS Group, incorporated in the Republic of Ireland, to participate in this review and UBI DAC is co-operating with the CBI in this regard. The RBS Group made a provision totalling EUR 211 million in 2016 for this matter.
Separately, on 15 April 2016, the CBI notified UBI DAC that it was also commencing an investigation under its Administrative Sanctions Procedure into suspected breaches of the Consumer Protection Code 2006 during the period 4 August 2006 to 30 June 2008 in relation to certain customers who switched from tracker mortgages to fixed rate mortgages.
