Member Info for Jperryuk

They did AND i seem to remember someone saying that the SC felt that they had enough input already from interested parties; so Treasury input wasn’t ‘refused’, it just wasn’t felt it was needed. I could be wrong on that recollection.

To take an over positive slant, perhaps its post market close because the judgment is going to silently but surgically nuke the CMC industry

Chid - ‘computer says no’:

Tone: “I don’t trust any of this”

• The poster positions themselves as a lone truth-teller, surrounded by blind optimists and “mass reassurance.”

• It’s the old “I don’t believe the hype” stance — emotionally appealing, especially when markets are volatile.

• They want to sound insightful, but they’re offering no alternative hypothesis, just suspicion and cynicism.

That’s not analysis. That’s mood music.

⸻

🧠 Argument 1: “Popular upbeat takes are just emotional pacifiers for the unwashed masses.”

Yes, blind optimism is dangerous. But so is:

• Assuming confidence = manipulation

• And equating tone with lack of intelligence or rigour

Plenty of bullish posters have done serious legal reading, balance sheet modelling, or analysed FCA/FOS data.

✅ Critique optimism? Fine.

❌ Assume it’s delusion or deceit? That’s lazy.

⸻

💰 Argument 2: “Winterflood sale is proof they expect a bad result.”

Interesting angle, but it falls apart on contact with facts:

• The Winterflood sale was already being telegraphed for strategic reasons — it doesn’t serve their SME/lending-first model.

• Close Brothers already raised capital from CBAM. The Winterflood proceeds are more about streamlining, not survival.

• If the judgment was so apocalyptic that Winterflood cash was needed just to stay afloat — they’d be toast anyway.

So this logic:

“They sold Winterflood because they know it’s going bad”

isn’t sharp — it’s paranoid. And it ignores the pre-provision CET1 buffer they still have.

⸻

⚖️ Argument 3: “Everyone has no idea, so all analysis is suspect.”

That’s nihilism, not insight.

We can form probability-weighted views based on:

• Legal precedent (Libor, Wood, Hurstanger)

• Supreme Court judicial philosophy (Reed, Leggatt)

• The FCA’s own rules (CONC, Plevin)

• Capital structure and disclosure from Close Brothers

Saying “no one knows anything so don’t listen to anyone” is a lazy cop-out. Yes, we don’t know the outcome — but we can model likelihoods, assess logic, and assign confidence intervals.

⸻

🎵 The Dylan quote: “What’s good is bad, what’s bad is good”

It’s great for lyrics, not for investing.

You want nuance? Here’s real-world nuance:

• Optimism isn’t always blind.

• Caution isn’t always wisdom.

• Timing doesn’t always signal intent.

• And uncertainty doesn’t mean paralysis.

⸻

🧭 Final verdict

This post wants to sound like insight, but it’s just a mood piece:

• Anti-optimist

• Anti-establishment

• Anti-confidence

But without proposing a single meaningful scenario, data point, or alternative path.

In investing, we weigh probabilities. This post shrugs and sneers. That’s not how money is made.

Any further thoughts on likely outcome Knot? The timing of the judgment seems to have spooked many including me.

Thanks as ever for input

Not sure what the ‘overtly negative stance’ is but hey no.

Phrases such as ‘supremely confident’ and ‘ utterly convinced’ always give me pause especially in such volatile circumstances.

You’re taking exception to a computer generated opinion by the way, not a human.

I’m confident in CBG’s long term prospects and listen to people like Knot and Liberty when they talk about positive impact of doubt being removed etc.

But Chats comment re this not sounding great for Close alarmed me but also sounded plausible. Go figure.

GLA

Close Brothers RNS – Supreme Court Judgment Coming 1 August (My Full Take)

⸻

1. The Supreme Court is playing it tight

“The parties will not receive a copy of the draft judgment in advance.”

That’s unusual. Normally parties get a draft 24–48 hours before publication to check factual accuracy. Refusing that suggests:

• High sensitivity, possibly due to expected market impact

• Political or regulatory volatility (e.g. Reeves preparing legislation)

• Possibly a split judgment or something legally delicate

In short: the Court is worried about leaks or pre-judgment manoeuvring. This feels like more than just legal housekeeping.

⸻

2. Timing is very deliberate: 4:35pm, Friday 1 August – after market close

This is calculated. Designed to avoid intraday volatility and give markets, media, and regulators the weekend to digest.

• Late Friday drop = managing PR and trading response

• After market close = Supreme Court expects a market-moving outcome

• No early access = prevent pre-positioning or information leakage

This isn’t routine — it’s regulatory theatre. Something big is coming.

⸻

3. Close Brothers is keeping its head down

“CBL therefore does not know the outcome… no further announcements until after the judgment.”

They’re in full damage-limitation mode:

• No expression of confidence or pessimism

• No commentary on provisions or forward guidance

• Just: “We’ll respond when it’s published.”

Standard on paper, but very cautious in tone. Classic when a company is preparing for a ruling that could go either way.

⸻

4. My read between the lines

• The Supreme Court believes this ruling could move markets — significantly.

• They’re trying to minimise volatility, which usually means they know it won’t be taken lightly.

• The unusual timing and secrecy point toward a decision that will change something fundamental — legal precedent, liability scope, or regulatory credibility.

Honestly? My hunch is we’re headed for a judgment that doesn’t go Close Brothers’ way, or at the very least raises more questions than it settles. But the fact that it’s being handled with such caution also opens the door to legislative response — think Rachel Reeves stepping in with retrospective action if needed.

UK governments have passed retrospective legislation, though it’s rare and controversial. It’s typically reserved for tax, national security, or correcting judicial misfires. That said, it has been done — and survived legal challenge.

Here are notable examples:

⸻

🧾 1. Finance Act 2008 – Retrospective Taxation (BN66)

• Context: Targeted tax avoidance schemes used between 1987 and 2008.

• Effect: Applied changes retrospectively to deny relief and collect unpaid tax.

• Controversy: Sparked fury among contractors and freelancers.

• Legal Challenge? Yes — but courts upheld it, ruling that Parliament has the right to legislate retrospectively, especially on public interest grounds.

⸻

⚖️ 2. War Crimes Act 1991

• Context: Allowed UK courts to prosecute Nazi war crimes committed in the 1940s.

• Effect: Applied criminal law retrospectively, which goes against the usual rule in criminal law.

• Challenge? Yes — critics argued it violated the rule of law, but it passed under intense moral/political pressure.

• Result: Used in very limited cases.

⸻

🛑 3. Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013

• Context: After courts ruled that certain benefit sanctions were unlawful, the government passed a law to retroactively validate those sanctions.

• Effect: It overturned legal decisions, denying thousands their compensation.

• Challenge? Yes — brought to the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled in 2020 that it violated the right to a fair trial (Article 6 of the ECHR).

• Impact: Widely seen as a legal overreach. A warning shot for future governments.

⸻

🧠 So can Reeves do it in the motor finance case?

Technically? Yes.

Politically and legally? Risky as hell.

She’d have to:

• Show a compelling public interest, e.g., “saving the financial system from collapse.”

• Craft the law narrowly, targeting outcomes not individuals.

• Be prepared for judicial review, possibly an ECHR challenge.

But if the sums involved are really £40–50bn, and the SC rules for consumers, she might just do it — especially if the banks, the FCA, and the Treasury are aligned.

Scenario

Judgment Outcome

Price Reaction

Suggested Action

Bear Case

SC rules for consumers

15–25% drop

Cut losses fast. Long slog ahead.

Base Case

SC rules narrowly for lenders

+10–20% relief bounce

Hold for 6–12 months, reassess on fundamentals.

Bull Case

SC slaps down lower courts hard

+25–40% over months

Trim some into strength but keep a stake. Dividends + upside.

Not advice. Fun.

The Libor judgment handed down today (23 July 2025) offers clear signals about how the current Supreme Court is thinking. While it’s a criminal law case, the judicial philosophy on display has deep implications for civil cases like Hopcraft v Close Brothers, FirstRand, and the Barclays motor finance litigation.

Here’s what today’s Libor ruling suggests for those motor finance cases awaiting judgment:

⸻

🔎 1. SC is wary of legal overreach — and willing to call it out

In Libor, the SC said lower courts extended the meaning of fraud beyond what Parliament intended. That tells us they’re:

• Pushing back against activist interpretation.

• Preferring a narrow, statute-based reading.

• Keen to ensure that “bad behaviour” ≠ automatically illegal.

📌 Implication for motor finance: If lower courts (or the FCA/FOS) stretched “fiduciary duty” or “unfair relationship” too far, expect the SC to push back hard — potentially narrowing the basis on which consumers can claim redress.

⸻

⚖️ 2. The Court is defending legal certainty, not populist outcomes

The Libor traders did morally dodgy things. But the Court focused on legal definition, not optics. That’s classic SC under Lord Reed — law first, headlines second.

📌 Implication for motor finance: Even if undisclosed commissions feel unfair, the SC may decide they don’t automatically render a relationship “unfair” or fiduciary. Especially if the law doesn’t require full commission disclosure in that context.

⸻

🛑 3. Reluctance to reclassify longstanding commercial norms as wrongful

In Libor, manipulating submissions was an industry-wide grey area — the SC refused to retro-fit criminal liability to it.

📌 Motor finance analogue: Discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs) were widespread, FCA-approved, and often poorly understood by lenders and borrowers. The Court may say:

“This wasn’t good, but it wasn’t illegal at the time — and we won’t rewrite the rules after the fact.”

⸻

🔧 4. Signals on deference: SC is not afraid to override regulators or courts below

The Libor judgment saw the Supreme Court go against the SFO, the Court of Appeal, and the original jury verdict.

📌 In the motor finance context, don’t assume the SC will defer to the FCA’s current stance. If the FCA leaned too hard on “treating customers fairly” as a catch-all, expect the Court to say:

“That’s policy. Our job is law.”

⸻

🧩 So what might happen in Hopcraft & Co?

My take — based on today’s tone:

• Fiduciary duty: The SC may rule that car dealers do not owe such duties by default. That would gut many cases at a stroke.

• Unfair relationship: The test will be narrowed — a lack of commission disclosure might not be enough on its own.

• Lender liability: The SC may say lenders shouldn’t be liable unless they were actively involved or negligent in the arrange

Apologies - yes was absolutely ChatGPT - i don’t have the brains.

Good luck all

It isn’t a hard rule — the Supreme Court normally lists upcoming judgments on Thursdays, but exceptions do happen.

Today’s surprise judgment in the Libor case — overturning convictions of Tom Hayes (and Carlo Palombo) — was one such exception. It wasn’t on the Thursday “Upcoming Judgments” list, yet judgment was delivered at the standard 9:45 AM slot on Wednesday 23 July 2025 .

This kind of surprise can occur for reasons like:

• Late developments in internal drafting or final review.

• Re-prioritised matters, especially high-profile ones—if the court wants to get them out quickly.

• Operational hiccups, though rare, can delay publication of the announcement.

Bottom line? Thursdays remain your go-to, but don’t be surprised when a high-stakes or sensitive case pops up unannounced — particularly those with public interest or media attention.

motor finance cases could absolutely be considered high-stakes, especially given the scale and potential impact across consumers, lenders, and the wider financial sector.

Why they’re high-stakes:

• Millions of consumers affected: These cases often touch on hidden commissions, affordability checks, or unfair practices that could invalidate thousands—or even millions—of car finance agreements.

• Financial exposure: If a ruling goes against lenders, the claims liability could run into the billions, similar in scale to PPI.

• Systemic implications: The FCA, FOS, and High Court are all involved. Any Supreme Court ruling could set a precedent that reshapes how motor finance is sold and regulated.

⸻

✅ Why they’re of public/media interest:

• Widespread public relevance: Car finance is one of the most common forms of consumer borrowing in the UK. People care. It’s not some obscure banking instrument.

• Press coverage is growing: Outlets like the FT, Which?, and BBC have started covering the motor finance claims wave more closely, especially around discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs) and hidden fees.

• Political attention: With an incoming or recently installed government, there’s potential for consumer protection narratives, especially if households are already under cost-of-living pressure.

⸻

📌 So would the Supreme Court list a motor finance case early or drop it in unannounced?

If it’s already high-profile or controversial, the Court might either:

• Announce early to build transparency and control the narrative,

• Or keep it close until release to avoid lobbying/media interference.

But yes, it has all the ingredients of a major consumer finance ruling.

Why they’re high-stakes:

• Millions of consumers affected: These cases often touch on hidden commissions, affordability checks, or unfair practices that could invalidate thousands—or even millions—of car finance agreements.

• Financial exposure: If a ruling goes against lenders, the claims liability could run into the

I’ve no idea of the workings of the SC, but does the Thursday 11am rule hold fast and true in all cases?

This judgement will be market moving and could cause some potential political headaches; is there an argument to suggest that they would just ‘drop’ the judgement once day to try to manage leaks / manipulation?

Thanks to all who post on here with reasoned views, regardless of that view.