English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The resolution process of PPI scandal was led and driven by the UK’s FCA- financial regulator based on powers stipulated in Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. FCA made rules requiring financial institutions concerned to assess mis-selling claims of PPI holders and pay redress to them if mis-selling was found. The opt-out class action, in contrast, is not likely to handle finance mis-selling collectively because commonality requirement is not easily satisfied. The PPI resolution process overcame this problem by assigning the investigation and assessment of individual aspects of the disputes to the financial institutions concerned. This approach is equitable in that financial institutions which are liable to the scandal bears the time and pecuniary cost instead of relying on public resources of courts as in the litigation. The regulator-led resolution can be helpful in designing collective resolution system of finance mis-selling which is characterized as mass victims with small damages.

Regulator-led Resolution in Mass Finance Mis-selling: Implication of the UK PPI Scandal