THE FINANCIAL CONDUCT AUTHORITY V AVACADE LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) (2) ALEXANDRA ASSOCIATES (U.K.) LIMITED (3) CRAIG STANLEY LUMMIS (4) LEE EDWARD LUMMIS (5) RAYMOND GEORGE FOX.
30 June 2020, Sheffield, UK
Omid Khub of Zakery Khub Solicitors:
—————————————————————————————–
Our clients, the Second to Fourth Defendants in the above matter are extremely disappointed about today’s decision. However, they sympathise greatly with those who have lost money on any investments.
Our clients operated as an introducer to a number of FCA regulated SIPP companies and IFAs. Those FCA regulated companies, (and not our clients), invested investor’s money only after approving the investments, and in some circumstances, only after advising upon those investments.
Today’s judgment therefore is an important judgment for anyone in the financial services sector that relies on introducers.
The case is to be tried by way of a two-stage trial and this first trial was concerned with the technical interpretation of the law and the specific financial regulations alleged by the FCA to have been breached by the introducers.
The High Court in the first trial has adopted a different interpretation of the law to that of the High Court decision in Adams v Options SIPP UK LLP (formerly Carey Pensions UK LLP) – a decision which was handed down by HHJ Dight CBE on 18 May 2020. This brings into focus once again the potential for misinterpretation and misapplication of the law.
Given the approach adopted in the Carey Pension’s decision we are carefully considering the grounds for appeal in this decision.
Our clients intend to appeal the first judgment in this case, before the second trial begins, to clarify the legal position by a senior court once and for all.
– END –
About Zakery Khub Solicitors
Zakery Khub Solicitors specialise in providing advice on complex commercial, corporate, fraud and a range of other civil legal issues. We are currently instructed on a number of high-profile regulatory disputes concerning matters of a complex nature.
