Findings of fact not in dispute
Findings of fact not in dispute
At the September 2018 board meeting, a new NED, Catherine Brown, was appointed with effect from 1 October 2018, see §154. On 5 October 2018, Mr Lane, Mr Sadler and Mr Cheyne came to the Bank’s offices to provide Ms Brown with a training session covering the Listing Rules Corporate Governance, the Bank’s Share Dealing Policy and its Disclosures Procedures Manual.
Mr Arden and Ms Roberts were aware that the training session was taking place, and decided to ask whether Mr Lane would be available for a meeting subsequently. In the course of, or shortly before, that training, Ms Roberts popped into the training room to say that she and Mr Arden would like to speak to Mr Lane afterwards.
That meeting took place in Mr Arden’s office. It had not been pre-arranged; no papers, written instructions or briefing was provided to Linklaters either in advance or at the meeting. No note of the meeting was taken, and Linklaters was not asked to confirm in writing the advice which was given.
After the meeting, at 14.22 the same day, Ms Roberts sent Mr Arden an email which was headed “For DisCo” and read as follows:
“David, please review and add to minutes below as needed:
David Arden and I met with Linklaters (John Lane, Jonty Sadler and Rupert Cheyne) at 11.45am today to discuss the ongoing work and dialogue with the PRA on the classification of our RWAs. We explained that we had identified a problem with the risk weight classification of some commercial assets; that current estimates based on sampling was c.£600m and the impact on core equity capital of c.£50m but further work was being undertaken (with the help of Deloitte) to finalise the amount; that the PRA had agreed that there were no immediate changes necessary for our CoReg [COREP] reporting; and the intention was to notify the market once finalised and resolved in line with our usual full year and Pilar 3 disclosures. Linklaters concurred with our view that it is neither specific or material information at this point and was in the ordinary course of ongoing dialogue with the regulator over a complex issue and no market announcement was necessary at this point.”
Mr Arden read the email, and responded around 30 minutes later saying “Perfect – thanks Jo”. He did not think anything needed to be added. He copied his reply to Ms James, Ms Roberts’ email was appended. Neither he nor Ms Roberts sent a copy of the email to Mr Lane, or to anyone else at Linklaters. However, Mr Arden discussed the meeting with Mr Donaldson the same day, and during October he also told Ms Gillan.
Mr Arden agreed in cross-examination that the following information in the email was incorrect:
The statement that the “current estimates” of c.£600m were “based on sampling”. As we have already found, see §123, the CLIP loan figures had been arrived at on the basis of recalculating risk-weighting of those loans in the Bank’s books by 100% instead of 50%, along with other minor changes.
The statement that the PRA had “agreed that there were no immediate changes necessary” for the Bank’s COREP reporting. Instead, at the date of the meeting with Linklaters, Mr Arden had emailed Mr Sutherland setting out what the Bank planned to do, but had not received a response.
Ms Roberts’s email is the only contemporaneous evidence of what happened at this meeting, which Mr Arden read at the time and agreed was “perfect”. However, from the witness box, he initially suggested that the email had incorrectly recorded what had been said in relation to the two points in the previous paragraph. However, in reliance on the contemporaneous evidence, and on Mr Arden’s subsequent responses in cross-examination, we find that the email is not wrong, and that Mr Arden told Mr Lane that the £600m was “based on sampling”; and had also told him that the PRA had agreed no immediate change was required to the COREP reporting.
In addition to the points recorded by Ms Roberts in the email, it is clear from Mr Arden’s own evidence that he also gave Mr Lane the following information, which he accepted was incorrect:
He told Mr Lane that the PSM letter had raised the risk-weighting “as a potential issue”, but agreed under cross-examination that the PSM letter had not said there was a “potential issue”; instead it had referred to it as an issue which the Bank had accepted needed remediation.
He told Mr Lane there were “regulatory interpretation issues” about the RWAs, when he knew at the time that the position had been confirmed by both KPMG and Deloitte, and that on 12 September 2018, he and Mr Donaldson had told the PRA that the Bank had made an error, see §§137-138.
Mr Arden also agreed in cross-examination that the Q3 Update was not mentioned during the meeting, and in particular:
he did not inform Linklaters that that the Bank was going to report the RWAs as part of the Q3 Update; and
he did not ask for advice on whether the Bank could report the RWAs on a basis it knew to be incorrect, pending completion of the Deloitte work.
On 16 October 2018, the text of Ms Roberts’s email (other than the first two sentences) was replicated in the minutes of the Disclosure Committee meeting, as can be seen from the text set out at §163. That is consistent with the header on the email, which was “for Disco” and with the opening sentence “David please review and add to minutes below as needed”.
After the meeting on 5 October 2018, there was no further discussion or communication between Mr Lane and the Bank for the rest of that calendar year on any disclosure or market-related issue.
- 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)