Accounting, reporting and control report
Accounting, reporting and control report
The papers for the Audit Committee meeting also included a “Q3 Update on accounting, reporting and control matters” authored by Ms Petterson. The opening paragraph said:
“The purpose of this paper is to provide an update on accounting, reporting and control matters that will impact on Metro Bank’s 2018 year end reporting process, and to summarise other significant matters that we would like to bring to the Committee’s attention.
Within the paper, we cover the following items:
- Update on new accounting standards…
- Update on control matters: update on supplier payment practices, implementation of core asset finance system, and reporting of Risk Weighted Assets.
- Update on future accounting considerations:…”.
We note that our Q3 Trading Update has been prepared on a consistent basis to previous quarterly trading updates and there are no significant accounting or reporting matters to bring to the Committee’s attention.”
Under the heading “update on control matters” was the following passage:
“Reporting on Risk Weighted Assets:
- Following discussions at the September Audit Committee and Board meetings, we have commenced a piece of work to review our calculation of Risk Weighted Asset reporting to the regulator.
- The work, supported by Deloitte, will review our Policies and Rule Interpretation, Data Quality, and Processes and Controls, and will create a remediation plan to resolve both short and long term issues. We expect this plan to impact across different areas of the bank.
- We expect to complete this work by year end, and we will update the Committee on any corrections which will be reported to the regulator and any revisions required to our reporting methodologies.”
The passage therefore did not give a figure for the estimated quantum of the RWA errors. The minutes record as follows (our emphasis):
“Following discussions at the September Audit Committee and Board meetings, the team had commenced the work to review the calculation of Risk Weighted Asset reporting to the regulator.
The work, supported by Deloitte, would cover policies and rule Interpretation, data quality, and processes and controls. A remediation plan to resolve both short and long term issues would be implemented. It was expected that the work would be complete by year end, the Committee would be updated on any corrections required to be reported to the regulator and any revisions required to reporting methodologies. AG reported that a separate piece of work was being carried out by the Risk function to ensure that the systems and controls for regulatory reporting were fit for purpose. The impact of incorrect reporting on the balance sheet was not insignificant and the Committee reminded Management of the importance of ensuring that this was remediated fully.”
Ms Gillan was asked in cross-examination about the reference to “any corrections required” and agreed that she had understood that corrections of the order of £570m were likely to be required to commercial mortgages, based on the best estimates at the time. She also confirmed that the reference to the “separate piece of work” was to that being carried out by her team and finance to support Deloitte, see §157.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The jurisdiction of the Tribunal
- The burden and standard of proof
- The PRA and capital requirements
- The Bank’s lending
- CRE loans
- CLIP loans
- PBTL loans
- COREP reporting
- The Authority
- Listing Rule 1.3.3R
- The MAR
- The evidence
- Approach to the evidence
- Mr Arden
- Mr Donaldson
- Ms Gillan
- Ms Roberts
- Mr Somers and Mr Dransfield
- Mr Sutherland
- Mr Lane
- Mr Brierley
- Individuals who were not called as witnesses
- Findings of fact
- The early years
- Linklaters
- Key personnel during the period from March 2018
- Relationship with the PRA and the Authority
- 2016 and 2017
- The COREP audit and the CRE loans
- Mr Arden, the Board and the committees
- KPMG appointed
- April to June 2018
- July 2018
- The 2018 capital raise and half year results
- August 2018: PBTL and CLIP
- Communicating with the PRA
- KPMG decision trees
- PBTL classification
- Annual Review of Commercial Lending
- September Audit Committee
- September NEDs meeting
- September Board meeting
- Engagement of Deloitte
- Internal work in support
- Communications with the PRA
- Meeting with Linklaters
- Disclosure Committee meeting
- Mr Somers’ email
- Meetings with Mr Hill and Mr Bernau
- The October CRPAC meeting
- RWA Report
- Business and Commercial Lending
- The October Audit Committee meeting
- The Q3 Update
- Accounting, reporting and control report
- The October ROC meeting
- Chief Risk Officer’s Report
- The RWA Report
- Business and Commercial Lending Review
- The October Board meeting
- Linklaters Governance Update
- Audit Committee Update
- The Q3 Update
- 2019 Budget Paper
- Whether the RWA issue was discussed
- Chief Risk Officer’s Report
- Response to PSM Letter
- The Q3 Update and analyst calls
- Deloitte’s reports
- Discussions with Linklaters
- Discussions with the PRA and the January announcement
- Subsequently
- The PRA
- The Authority
- Mr Donaldson’s and Mr Arden’s careers
- The common ground
- The Parties’ cases
- The Authority’s case
- The Applicants’ case
- ISSUE ONE: WHETHER THE BANK BREACHED LR 1.3.3R
- The PRA and the COREP Returns
- Findings of fact
- The Applicants’ position
- The Tribunal’s view
- The PRA and confidentiality
- Findings of fact
- The Applicants’ position
- The Authority’s position
- The Tribunal’s view
- Mr Lane’s advice
- Findings of fact not in dispute
- Who was at the meeting
- How long was the meeting
- Linklaters’ practice when giving advice
- Knowledge of the impending Q3 Update
- What was said by Mr Arden at the meeting
- Confidential matter?
- The Tribunal’s finding
- The purpose of the meeting
- Reasonable to rely?
- Overall conclusion on legal advice
- No breach if uncertain and under investigation?
- Mr Jaffey’s submissions
- Mr Stanley’s submissions
- The Tribunal’s view
- No material breach if unknown
- The knowledge issue
- Key findings already made
- The Authority’s overall position on the knowledge issue
- The Applicants’ overall position on the knowledge issue
- Rules on classification
- Data issues
- Nature of the data issues
- Extent of the data issues
- Effect on materiality
- SME supporting factor
- Residential property
- Conclusion on data issues
- The mitigants overall
- The AIRB application
- Pillar 2A Offset
- Submissions
- Findings of fact
- Conclusion on Pillar 2A offset
- Phasing in
- PRA discretion
- Taking all the above into account
- Overall conclusion on the Knowledge Issue
- The PBTL Loans
- Findings of fact
- Submissions and the Tribunal’s view
- Whether the alternatives were unreasonable
- The Applicants’ position
- The Authority’s submissions
- The Tribunal’s view
- Reliance on the board and the Committees
- Findings of fact
- September
- October Audit Committee
- October ROC meeting
- October Board meeting
- The position of the parties
- The Tribunal’s view
- The Audit Committee
- The Board
- Reliance on Ms James
- Findings of fact
- Submissions
- Discussion
- Overall conclusion on Issue one
- The legal principles
- The statutory provisions
- Burton v Bevan
- Scandex
- Capital Alternatives
- Avacade
- Ferreira
- Submissions on Ferreira
- The words of the provision
- The ratio of Ferreira
- The corporate veil
- Forster: meaning of “knowingly concerned”
- Forster: reliance on legal advice
- The Applicants’ submissions
- The Authority’s submissions
- The Tribunal’s view
- The principles summarised and the issues remaining
- Mr Arden
- Mr Donaldson
- The position of the parties
- The Tribunal’s view
- ISSUE THREE: PENALTIES
- The Tribunal’s approach
- The DEPP
- The Authority’s position
- The Applicants’ position
- The Tribunal’s view
- The penalty framework
- Applying the Steps
- Step 2(1)-(3): Earnings
- The Tribunal’s view
- Step 2(4)-(7): Seriousness
- Step 3: Mitigation
- DEPP
- Submissions and discussion
- Co-operation
- Remediation
- Compliance with the PRA’s requirements
- Communications with the Authority
- No negative factors
- Other consequences
- Difference between the Applicants?
- Conclusions
![[2025] UKUT 00185 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png)