The FSA alleged that Mr Baldwin had through his investment vehicle engaged in market abuse as defined by s 118 of FSMA. It was said that he had been given information about the performance of a company's principal asset which was not generally available to the market. WRT purchased shares which subsequently rose by more than 100% on announcement of the information to the public thereafter. Fines of £25,000 and £24,000 were imposed respectively by the FSA. On reference to the Tribunal, Couns ...
|
The FSA refused the application by Gale Financial to vary Part IV permission to include the regulated activity of making arrangements with a view to regulated mortgage contracts, as they had not satisfied the threshold conditions in relation to being a ‘fit and proper person’.
|
The FSA decided that Eurodis had contravened the continuing obligations rule and were in breach of the Listing Rule 9.2 as they had failed to announce ‘without delay’ a material change in their financial condition.
|
Sections 380 (2) and 382 Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 were not mutually exclusive. The preconditions for s. 380 (2) were that (1) a relevant contravention had to have taken place; and (2) there had to be steps intended to and reasonably capable of remedying that contravention. The solicitors knowingly concerned in the contravention could be sanctioned within s. 380 (2).
|
An unauthorised collective investment scheme would be investment business carried on in the UK, for the purposes of section 235 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, if the activities in question which took place in the UK were a significant part of the business activity running the collective investment scheme.
|
The Court was entitled to draw adverse inferences from a party's decision not to give or call evidence as to matter within the knowledge of the witness or his employees. The weight would vary in each case. Where the witness had been the directing mind of a group and his control of the group had been gravely criticised, a decision not to testify was a strong indication that the witness had no satisfactory answer to what had been alleged judged by different standards.
|
Where personal guarantees had been provided in respect of an initial loan of £100,000 and a further advance was made of £150,000 and the guarantors of the initial loan signed a letter agreeing to that advance, then although not express in the letter, the personal guarantees extended to the full amount.
|
The test for liability for dishonest assistance in Royal Brunei Airlines v Tan had not been altered by Twinsectra. It requires a dishonest state of mind on the part of the person who assists in a breach of trust. Such a state of mind may consist in knowledge that the transaction is one in which he cannot honestly participate or in suspicion combined with a conscious decision not to make inquiries which might result in knowledge. Although a dishonest state of mind is a subjective mental state, th ...
|
Although the Tribunal was enjoined to consider whether to publicise its decision arising out of an unchallenged reference from the Authority’s decision, it would generally be in the public interest to publish such a decision.
|
Third Party Rights: The tribunal considered the rights of a third party in a market abuse case under s. 393 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and the application of rule 13 of the Financial Services and Markets Tribunal Rules 2001.
|
| 1 2 |