The FSA imposed a financial penalty on Besso in the sum of £20,000 for Besso's conduct in relation to a former employee (who had been convicted of fraud) and a subsidiary company of Besso, which acted as the appointed representative, to carry out controlled functions. The former employee was not at any time an approved person. The FSA stated that the requirement that only approved persons carry out controlled functions extends to firms that use appointed representatives to perform those controll ...
|
Permission under Part IV of FSMA 2000 cancelled for failing to conduct business in compliance with proper standards and for failing to comply with Principle 11 and in particular for failing to submit its Retail Mediation Activities Return for the period ended 31 July 2005.
|
Permission under Part IV of FSMA 2000 cancelled on the basis that FSA was not satisfied Easylife was a fit and proper person and for failing to comply with Principle 11 and in particular for failing to pay fees to the FSA.
|
Permission under Part IV of FSMA 2000 cancelled on the basis that FSA was not satisfied Easylife was a fit and proper person and for failing to comply with Principle 11 and in particular for failing to pay fees to the FSA and to submit its Retail Mediation Activities Return.
|
The FSA imposed a financial penalty on an individual in the sum of £35,000 in respect of misconduct whilst being an approved person. Mr Tebbutt was the Chief Executive of Millfield Group plc, which operated a network of financial advisers. The action arose as a result of misleading information provided by Mr Tebbutt to the FSA during its consideration of an application for change of control. The change of control in this case was an intended merger between Millfield Group plc and Inter-Alliance ...
|
Credit card companies have “connected lender liability” under section 75 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 in respect of transactions entered into abroad.
|
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).
|
| 1 2 3 |