Will still have to maintain their own register of certain types of charges
Rubenstein v HSBC: What constitutes advice, and foreseeability of loss
UPDATE 25 September 2012: The Court of Appeal has overturned the first instance decision discussed below. The Court of Appeal found that the loss suffered by Mr Rubenstein was reasonably foreseeable; he had expressly stated that he wanted to avoid any risk of loss of capital, but the product sold by HSBC (the AIG bond) was a product on which capital could be lost through market movements. So the loss was of a type that was in the reasonable contemplation of the parties and, contrary to the first instance decision, not too remote.
In short: HSBC were advising Mr Rubenstein; their instruction was that there was to be no risk to the capital invested; it was reasonable foreseeable that there could be capital loss on the AIG bond; so HSBC were in breach of duty and negligent in their advice. More discussion of the Court of Appeal decision in this Taylor Wessing note. And a good summary from Littleton Chambers here.