Co-op Bank Now Demutualised but Name Debate Continues

On Friday, phase 1 of the deal to rescue and demutualise the Co-op Bank was finalised. It was supported at all necessary meetings of classes of creditor and shareholder and approved by the Court. Effective majority control of the Bank has now passed to investors with the issue of new ordinary shares and the cancellation of the Group's existing shares.

However, the question of the Bank's continued use of the word "Co-operative" in its name remains open. Back in early November when the basic effects of the deal were announced, I expressed my views and outlined the relevant legal provisions about its continued use of the word "Co-operative" in its name.

That led to Letters in the print edition of the Co-op News of 19.11.13 to 03.12.13 from my old mate, Iain Williamson, fellow Co-op news scribbler and secretary of the Co-operative Press, and Brian Taylor, long time co-op activist and employee, arguing that it's OK for the name to be used by a PLC 70% owned by investors.

Some readers of this blog may not subscribe to the paper edition of the Co-op News. So here's my reply to Iain and Brian, published in the print edition of 03.12.13 to 17.12.13:

"23rd November 2013

Dear Sir,

Co-op Bank, Co-op Group, The Name and the Brand

Please allow me to respond to the letters that appeared in the print version of the Co-op News of 19th November to 3rd December from Iain Williamson and Brian Taylor.

First, I heartily agree with Iain Williamson's comments on the Bank rescue and the current Group CEO. The leadership  shown by Mr Sutherland and the job that he and his colleagues have done in seeking to rescue what they can from the Bank disaster is excellent. They had a very poor hand in the negotiations and played it very well. We must all hope and pray that the recapitalisation plan is supported by the necessary majorities of each class of creditor and by the preference shareholders on 11th December when they meet.

I also agree with Brian Taylor's comments on the importance of the “Co-operative” brand and its value as an intangible asset, although I think he may have overstated the effect on the share price of a suitable name change for the Bank within a year or two of the recapitalisation.

However, the argument of Messrs Williamson and Jones that the Bank never was a co-operative is disingenuous. While the legal entity of the Bank has long been a PLC, the Co-op Group has always argued that the whole “family of businesses” is one Co-operative family. That was based on the Group’s status as a bona fide co-operative owned and controlled by its corporate and individual co-operative members and, crucially, its 100% ownership of the Bank PLC and the Co-operative Insurance Society.

That is a wholly different situation from  the retention of the name “Co-operative” by a Bank 70% owned by stock market investors. This new situation is a long way down a slippery slope. The recapitalisation deal actually permits the continued use of the name if the Group's stake reduces to 20% and the stake of the investors rises to 80%. The Group is already legally committed not to use the word “co-operative” or any similar word in conjunction with the word “bank” for many years.  That disposal of an aspect of the brand was presumably a necessary price for retaining a 30% stake in the Bank and getting the constitutional entrenchment of ethical values. That is certainly in the interests of all the stakeholders in both the Bank and the Group.

However, the Group is neither the whole UK Co-operative Movement nor the whole global Co-operative Movement. That wider interest requires that only organisations which conform with the ICA definition should be regarded as co-operatives. In many countries that is legally achieved by preventing the use of the name by any entity not registered under a specific Co-operative Law. In the UK we have the flexible and liberal approach of allowing co-operatives to use any business structure that they wish. However, the restriction on the use of the name “co-operative” by business structures other than I & P societies is the legal price paid for that. As I have noted elsewhere, the restriction only applies to new company registrations but there is power to prohibit the use of a misleading name at any time in a company’s life. That explains Paul Gosling’s observation on page 4 of the same issue of the News that a change of name ordered under those provisions is listed in the Prospectus as a risk factor for investors. That shows that the point is not merely “academic”. It is with a heavy heart that I re-emphasise this issue because it is obviously one that is irritating and worrying for the Bank and Group Executives and Boards.

However, the wider interests of cooperatives cannot be ignored and BIS is the ultimate guardian of those interests in this situation as it is the only agency that can force a change. Surely consideration of a transition to another “ethical” name for the Bank within the next couple of years would be helpful to all the bank’s stakeholders - especially the investors who may well have rescued it from oblivion. Such an approach might also help to deal with any process by BIS that results from complaints about the use of the name and could help to  avoid an abrupt forced name change. I appreciate that any change will have be made some time after the recapitalisation plan has been carried out, as the unfettered use of the name by the Bank is the basis on which next month’s votes take place.

I hope that I am acting as a critical friend on this. As Daren Hale implies in his letter on the same page of the News as Brian Taylor’s, an absence of critical debate may have contributed to the development of these problems. We should all try to prevent any repetition of that by encouraging more robust, better informed and sympathetic debate as well as more thorough scrutiny by members and the press of management and boards.

Yours faithfully,

Ian Snaith"

Vince Cable has indicated that, if complaints are received, he will consider requiring that the name no longer be used. That possibility was highlighted in the Bank prospectus as a risk for investors. Surely it is time for the Bank to look at phasing out the use of the word "Co-operative" in the name to deal with that risk?

© Ian Snaith 2013 This work is licensed under the 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.

Hear the 2013 Co-op Fortnight Lecture and Discussion

Here is a recording of the Co-op Fortnight Law Lecture and Discussion in mp3 form for you to download if you have an hour to spare or trouble sleeping.....If you look at the slides while listening, it may make more sense.
Thanks to the UK Society for Co-operative Studies, DWF LLP and Co-operatives UK for the support and to the audience for good questions and a vigorous discussion in the finest traditions of Co-op Debate.
© Ian Snaith 2013 This work is licensed under the
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.

UK Co-operative Law Proposal of 1995 now Online

UKCC Legal Working Group 1995 Proposal for a Co-operatives Act for the UK:

Part I: UKCC Co-op Law Proposal pp1-25 &
Part II: UKCC Co-op Law Proposal pp26-53

After the Thatcher Government abolished the UK's national Co-operative Development Agency in 1990, some of the money from it was used to finance the UK Co-operative Council. That was an apex co-operative body including the Co-operative Union (consumer co-ops), ICOM (worker co-ops) and the main agricultural co-op and housing co-op bodies. Co-operatives UK is now the equivalent body and, before developing as such, contracted to administer UKCC's affairs.

I was the co-ordinator of the UKCC Legal Working Group. The members were Charlie Cattell for ICOM (now part of Co-operatives UK), Roger Jones (then CWS Secretary) for the consumer movement and Michael Finch from NFU representing agricultural co-ops.

The Proposal represented the fruit of many years' work by that group in attempting to develop a modern Co-operative Law for the UK that would accommodate and meet the needs of all the sectors. By 1997 it was turned into a voluminous Parliamentary Bill which was presented to the incoming Blair Government early in May 1997.

From then on, despite the sterling efforts of Lord Dennis Carter and Ted Graham (Lord Graham of Edmonton), and the work of Sir Graham Melmoth   ("the man who saved the co-op") and the late John Tilley as CWS Parliamentary Officer, lack of Parliamentary time prevented the development of a Government Bill. However, some but not all of its proposals became law through a series of private members' bills and pieces of secondary legislation between 2002 and 2011.

Changes for Co-ops and Bencoms from April 1st

Among co-ops, the Financial Services Act 2012 will have the biggest impact on credit unions. Most of their regulation moves to the Prudential Regulation Authority on 1st April 2013 - see my last post.

However, other industrial and provident societies may see some changes on or after 1st April 2013. That may happen for two reasons:

• the move of the registration role to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) on 1st April 2013 and
• the implementation (whenever that happens) of section 1 of the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Act 2010.

Clearer Regulatory Role for the FCA and nature of Its Guidance

In general, the draft Mutual Societies Order simply transfers the functions of registering societies under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 to the FCA with a possible role for the PRA where necessary -see Schedules 2 to 4 of the Draft Order. However, Schedule 1 of the Draft Order makes two interesting changes.

Paragraph 4(1) of the Schedule provides:

"The FCA must maintain arrangements designed to enable it to determine whether persons are complying with requirements imposed on them by or under the mutuals legislation"

That imposes a legal duty on the FCA to have systems in place to police whether or not people (and societies) are complying with  requirements imposed on them by or under the "mutuals legislation". That expression includes the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts - see   para 1 of Schedule 1 of the Draft Order and section 50(2) of the Financial Services Act 2012 (which was the old clause 47(2) when the Draft order was written).

One of the requirements imposed on every society "by or under" that legislation is that, while they are registered, they should be either a bona fide co-operative or a community benefit society.

So, if the Mutuals Order is enacted as drafted, there will be an explicit legal duty for the FCA to "maintain arrangements" to make sure that is the case. That requires systems to ensure that on registration and while registered societies comply with those requirements so that, if they don't, their registration can be cancelled under the mutuals legislation.

Resources will have to be found by the FCA to operate that system and there will no longer be any ambiguity about their role. They are a registrar of co-operatives and bencoms and that involves more  scrutiny than is needed to register a non-CIC company and keep it on the register.

So how will the FCA decide who meets those requirements? They already publish some guidance together with the application form for registration - see pages 8-9 here. They have already taken legal advice and consulted on the advice and its suggested guidance and work continues on that.

While the content of future Guidance will be subject to further work and more consultation, the Draft Order makes it clear beyond doubt that FCA Guidance about mutuals is Guidance under the amended Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and not just information provided under the mutuals legislation -see paragraph 2(2)(f) of the Draft Order and section 139A of FSMA 2000 to substituted in the 2000 Act by section 24(1) of the Financial Services Act 2012.

This does not impose the full panoply of formal consultation applicable to Guidance given to regulated persons in the financial services sector. But it does give the Guidance a more formal status than the present brief note to an application form. Interestingly, it also places beyond doubt the power of the FCA to pay other persons or organisations to give the guidance on its behalf - see new section 139A(2) of the amended FSMA 2000.

This means that the role of the FCA as the UK body making sure the society structure is only used by bona fide co-operatives or bencoms will have a firmer legal footing from 1st April 2013. It is  legally required carry out that function effectively.

Implementation of ss 1 and 2 of the 2010 Act

It is not clear when this will happen. It ought to happen by 1st April 2013. When it does, two important changes will be put in place.

One is that societies will formally, legally and for all purposes be known as co-operative or community benefit societies and not industrial and provident societies. Section 2 of the Act will achieve that.

The other is that any society which is registered will be registered formally and officially as EITHER a co-operative or a bencom.

Up to now, as long as a society met the criteria for one of these categories, it would be registered and there was room for some uncertainty or ambiguity about which category it was in at the time. Section 1 of the 2010 Act will amend industrial and provident society legislation with effect from the time of the amendment to make the basis of registration in one category or the other clear.

This, like the more formal legal status of Guidance on the criteria for these categories, makes clarity about the nature and role of the organisation vital.

Both of these developments bolster the role of the FCA as registrar and assist in protecting the "brand". The registration of phoney co-operatives or bencoms should be harder. Continued compliance with the registration conditions to avoid cancellation of registration is just as important.

Finally, when will this happen? In March this year, the Law Commission plans to provide a "draft Co-operative and Public (sic) Benefit Societies Bill to HMT" - see page 11 of this business plan. Will the 2010 Bill's implementation have to wait until parliament passes that new consolidating Bill?

Surely, it makes much more sense for sections 1 and 2 of the 2010 Act to be effective  on 1st April 2013 to coincide with the implementation of the Financial Services Act 2012 and a Mutual Societies Order made under it?

I & P Charities To Be Covered by “Gift Aid on Cash Donations” Scheme

At the House of Commons Committee Stage of the Small Charitable Donations Bill 2012 on 30^th October 2012, Gareth Thomas MP Co-operative Party Chair and Shadow Minister for Civil Society won an assurance from the Government Minister that I & P charities are within the Bill.

This means that those Community Benefit Societies registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts 1965 to 2003 which meet the criteria for charities will, once the Bill is in effect, like other charities, be able to claim a limited amount of tax rebate on cash donations if they already operate the Gift Aid Scheme for tax benefits and meet other conditions.

Minister's assurance could help if the inclusion of I & P's were seen as uncertain after the Bill is law - Pepper v Hart .

In addition, the Minister agreed, at Gareth's request, to write to the Charity Commission to ask them to speed up their decision about who should regulate charitable I & P's.

A good day's work for the Co-operative Party.

See Hansard section on Clause 17 from column 317. here is the Minister's clarification:

“Sajid Javid:  I understand the intention behind amendment 34, but I ask the hon. Member for Harrow West to withdraw it, because it is not necessary. Clause 17 sets out definitions for several of the terms used in the Bill. Subsection (1) defines what is meant by a charity which, for the purposes of the Bill, includes a charity eligible for UK charity tax reliefs, and certain organisations that are not charities in law, but that benefit from gift aid. Those are community amateur sports clubs, as well as certain named organisations. 

Amendment 34 would add a further type of organisation to the definition of a charity: industrial and provident societies that operate as charities. Industrial and provident societies are regulated by the Financial Services Authority, rather than the Charity Commission, but some of them are charities, as the hon. Gentleman said. Industrial and provident societies that are charities are entitled to claim UK charity tax reliefs, including gift aid, because they meet the definition of a charity as set out in subsection (1)(a). It follows that there is no need to specify that industrial and provident societies are a separate class of organisation to which the Bill will apply. When an industrial and provident society is not currently a charity, it is not eligible for the scheme. Those societies that are charities automatically qualify for the scheme, subject to their meeting the eligibility conditions.

[.....]
Forgive me, dear reader, for also quoting this extract:

Mr Thomas: The Minister has been helpful and given clarity to bencom societies that are charities, saying that they are covered under the Bill if they fulfill all the criteria that we have debated at some length. That will provide huge reassurance to those legal experts who advise industrial and provident societies, such as Mr Snaith, who is a distinguished former university lecturer and expert on the co-op and co-op law.

© Ian Snaith 2012 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Noderivs 2.0 England and Wales Licence. To view a copy of this licence visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/uk/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, California 94305, USA