Skip to content

AXA

Controversies

Controversies tied to this brand in public sources. A listing is not a finding of fault.

Back to profile4 entries

  1. 2020

    Genworth and AXA reach settlement over PPI mis-selling losses

    Settlement

    Genworth Financial said it reached a settlement agreement with AXA over liability for payment protection insurance mis-selling losses. Genworth agreed to pay AXA £100 million by July 23, 2020, in addition to an interim payment, and to issue a secured promissory note for deferred payments totaling about £317 million. The settlement followed a High Court ruling that Genworth was obligated to pay AXA for its losses under the sale and purchase agreement.

    Source excerpt

    • Genworth has agreed to pay AXA £100 million, or approximately $125 million, by July 23, 2020.
    • Genworth Financial Inc. (GNW) Monday said it has reached a settlement agreement with AXA to settle the dispute between them relating to liability for payment protection insurance mis-selling losses.
    • The court ruled that Genworth was obligated to pay AXA for its losses, per the terms of the sale and purchase agreement.
  2. 2018

    Criticism over investments linked to Israel and Elbit Systems

    AXA faced sustained pressure from nongovernmental organizations and boycott campaigners over investments associated with Elbit Systems and Israeli banks. AXA reduced some direct exposure, although campaigners continued to debate indirect holdings and the scope of the divestment.

  3. 2013

    AXA Wealth investment-advice enforcement action

    The UK Financial Conduct Authority fined AXA Wealth £1.8 million after finding serious defects in the way advisers operating through several banking and building-society channels assessed the suitability of investment advice.

  4. 2009

    Swiftcover advertising ruled misleading

    A Swiftcover television advertisement featuring Iggy Pop was banned after the advertising regulator determined that the presentation could mislead consumers because the performer would not have been eligible for the insurance policy under its occupational exclusions.