View more on these topics

Andrew Fisher’s Towry share worth up to £160m

Andrew Fisher’s 20 per cent share in Towry could be worth as much as £160m in the event of an initial public offering, it was revealed in the High Court yesterday.

The figure was revealed in a case where Towry is seeking £5.8m damages from Raymond James and seven former Edward Jones advisers over the alleged solicitation of clients.

Towry finance director Paul Wright was asked by the defendants’ QC Chris Quinn how much the company would be worth at flotation based on what he claimed was Towry’s 2009 valuation of £7 per share.

Wright said he wouldn’t predict the value at flotation but at £7 per share, Towry would be worth £750m to £800m.

Quinn then asked Wright to confirm his share in the company, which Wright said stood at around one per cent, giving his shares a value of around £8m.

It had previously been suggested that Fisher’s shares would be worth around £100m.

The defence alleges Towry was only interested in its ability to churn client’s investable assets into its own discretionary fund management proposition, the Independent Investment Management service, to “fatten itself up to have an IPO within two years of acquisition”.

Fisher defended the 12 month non-dealing covenants it imposes on its advisers, suggesting they were needed to explain the Towry proposition without commercial interference.

The case continues.

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 2 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Market abuse?

  2. So, if a client expresses a wish to maintain their relationship with their original adviser after s/he’s left TL, this is, according to Fisher, “commercial interference” is it?

    What about the client who, in the wake of having examined the TL proposition, decides that its funds are rubbish, the charges are unacceptably high and that if advice on anything else is required, they’ll be charged separately through the nose for it? Is that “commercial interference” too?

Leave a comment