30/6/20
THE FINANCIAL CONDUCT AUTHORITY v ACADE LTD [2020] EWHC 1673 (Ch)
Considers whether activities by a company which did not have FCA authorisation had been regulated activities within the FSMA 2000. Considers whether the company had been “making arrangements” for investments within article 25 of the Regulated Activities Order (RAO) [193] and advising on investments within article 53 of the RAO [298]. Also considers the meaning of financial promotions [356], whether false or misleading statements had been made [379] and whether the individuals involved had been knowingly concerned in the contraventions [448] for the purpose of making restitution orders against them under s 382 FSMA. On the facts the contraventions alleged by the FSA had been made out and the individuals were found to have been knowingly concerned in the relevant infringements.
8/8/17
PALMER v FINANCIAL CONDUCT AUTHORITY [2017] UKUT 313 (TCC)
The FCA had rightly concluded that the applicant had not acted with due skill, care and diligence by failing to take adequate steps to address the risk of customers not being treated fairly by the group of companies which the applicant controlled. The £86,691 penalty which the FCA had imposed under s 66 of FSMA 2000 had been appropriate. There were no grounds to interfere with a prohibition order which the FCA had imposed under s 56 of FSMA 2000 preventing the applicant from performing any ‘significant influence function’ in relation to any regulated activity carried on by an authorised person, exempt person, or exempt professional firm.