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 ...
|
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.
|
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.
|
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 ...
|
| 1 2 |