The Q3 Update
The Q3 Update
The text of the draft Q3 Update was the same as that considered by the Audit Committee other than in relation to minor amendments; in particular, the Paragraph was unchanged, other that the figure for the July capital raise had been corrected from £300m to £303m. Mr Arden confirmed in cross-examination that the Q3 Update had not previously been reviewed by Linklaters or shared with the PRA.
There is no record, either in Mr Arden’s contemporaneous notes or in the minutes, to the RWA issue having been discussed by the Board in the context of the Q3 update. The Applicants’ evidence was as follows:
Mr Donaldson said he had “pointed out [to the Board] that it was the numbers that were in COREP and the board had already been told that the COREP was not changing until we had concluded the work with Deloitte”. When asked by Mr Stanley if the Board had been told that the numbers were incorrect, he said “they were the correct numbers that everybody was aware of and were agreed with the PRA” and that the Board knew “there was an issue to be worked through”. He later added that “everybody knows you use the numbers from the COREP in your announcements” and “it was the best number we had”.
Mr Arden said (our emphasis) that the RWAs “would have been part of the conversation”. He thus did not say that the RWAs “were” part of the conversation, but instead used the conditional voice. He also said that the lack of any documentary record of the Board being informed of the RWAs as part of the Q3 Update “doesn’t mean it didn’t happen”.
When Mr Arden was interviewed by the Authority, he was asked if any consideration had been given by the Board to “putting any qualifier” around the figure of £7,398m, and he said “the honest answer is no, we didn’t consider a qualifier”, and he confirmed this in cross-examination.
We find as a fact that there was no discussion at the Board about the RWAs in the context of the Q3 Update because:
there was no contemporaneous evidence that they were discussed, either in the minutes or in Mr Arden’s own notes;
Mr Arden did not give evidence that they were discussed;
the absence of any discussion is consistent with Mr Donaldson’s position that the RWA figures in the Update were correct because they were the same as the figures used in the COREP reporting, and the PRA had agreed with that approach; and
the absence of discussion was consistent with the Board failing to consider whether to qualify the figure.
Other points of note in the Q3 Update include the following:
The following figures for gross loans and advances to customers as at 30 June 2018 were provided:
Commercial loans | £3,905m |
Residential mortgages | £7,889m |
Other | £259m |
Under the heading “Outlook”, the Update included this sentence: “there is no update to the AIRB application for residential mortgages submitted earlier this year and we still expect an outcome in 2H19”.
The Board formally approved the release of the Q3 Update to the market at 7am the following morning.
- 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)