View more on these topics

Keydata founder has £600m claim against FCA struck out

A judge has struck out Keydata founder Stewart Ford’s £600m legal claim against the FCA

Stewart-Ford-Keydata-500x320.jpg

Ford, along with former Keydata sales director Mark Owen and three Keydata related companies: – LAS Global Limited, LAS International Limited and Tandem Marketing Partners Sarl – began their case against the FCA for misfeasance in public office and conspiracy to injure last month.

Ford applied to put the claims on hold until an appeal of his record £75m fine from the regulator is settled in the Upper Tribunal, during which time he claimed more evidence would emerge to assist his case.

The FCA in turn applied for a summary judgment against Ford or, at the least, security for costs should the claims go ahead.

The claims against the FCA would have amounted to in excess of £633m; £122m plus interest per claimant.

Judge Christopher Butcher granted the FCA’s application for a strike out this morning.

His judgment reads: “The allegations of bad faith, which are an essential element of a claim of misfeasance, are inadequately particularised…The particulars of claim does not identify the officers at the FSA who are alleged to have acted in bad faith, or what facts form the basis of the inference of bad faith on the part of any specific individuals. Because of this all five claimants’ claims in misfeasance are deficient and embarrassing.”

Arranging an appeal

Ford told Money Marketing he was likely to appeal the judgment:

“This battle might be lost but we haven’t lost the war. It’s only half time.”

“I’m very disappointed that the judge hasn’t allowed me the opportunity to wait until the end of the Upper Tribunal. I respect his decision but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with it. It shows the level of immunity afforded to the regulator and senior managers that it is not enough to show they were negligent or grossly negligent.”

An FCA spokeswoman said the regulator welcomed the judgment.

The subject of the claims goes back to then regulator the FSA’s decision to close Keydata, which marketed bonds backed by life settlement products through advisers, in 2009, leading to a £326m Financial Services Compensation Scheme interim industry levy and the loss of around 140 jobs at Keydata.

Of Keydata’s £2.8bn in assets under management, hundreds of millions were later found to be misappropriated through one of the bonds’ Luxembourg-based issuers SLS Capital.

Recommended

Appeal-Court-High-Court-Building--700x450.jpg
12

FCA hits out at Keydata boss’s ‘fanciful’ legal fight

The FCA has described Keydata founder Stewart Ford’s £600m legal claim against the regulator for its role in the collapse of his investment company as “fanciful”. Yesterday Ford, along with former Keydata sales director Mark Owen and three Keydata related companies: – LAS Global Limited, LAS International Limited and Tandem Marketing Partners Sarl – began legal […]

Stewart-Ford-Keydata-500x320.jpg
14

Keydata boss calls for pause in legal battle amid FCA disclosure row

The former chief executive of collapsed investment company Keydata has applied to the Upper Tribunal for more FCA documents relating to the case. Stewart Ford is currently appealing a £75m fine from the regulator for his role in the company’s administration. Keydata, which distributed life settlement bonds through IFAs, entered administration in 2009 after authorities […]

FCA logo new 3 620x430
5

FCA bans ex-Keydata compliance officer but rules out £200k fine

The FCA has banned and publicly censured former Keydata compliance officer Peter Johnson for failing to act with integrity and misleading the FCA. Johnson had lodged an appeal with the Upper Tribunal against the regulatory action, but has since withdrawn his appeal. Upper Tribunal cases will still be held in relation to former Keydata chief […]

Europe: Domestic backdrop & China impact

By Rob Burnett, Head of European Equities In recent weeks equities have been buffeted by two shocks occurring at the same time: China’s devaluation of the renminbi and the prospect of the US Federal Reserve (Fed) raising interest rates. The market is not comfortable with the Fed raising rates at the same time that China […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 8 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. It looks as if his legal team wan’t up to the job.

  2. Close to the events, at the time 7th November 2016 at 3:29 pm

    Or the facts and law don’t support his assertions, Harry.

  3. “The particulars of [the] claim does [do] not identify the officers at the FSA who are alleged to have acted in bad faith”.

    Probably because their individual identities are all handily hidden behind what Hector Sants likes to describe as “a collective failure”.

    That aside, do the identities of individuals actually matter? Ford’s action is against the FSA, not any specific individuals within it. Sounds to me like a few strings were pulled behind closed doors to get Ford’s claim struck out on a technicality.

  4. As I said Julian, his legal team weren’t up to it. Facts and law always go to the fattest wallet.

  5. irony – def – a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often wryly amusing as a result.

    A reasonable person might think that a regulator has oversight thy examines the suitability of products available in the market place or maybe even some control over their release for sale

    A private individual might not unreasonably think that if it’s for sale in the U.K. And represented by an FCA regualated adviser or indeed bank then surely it’s ok.

    History says thy this belief is an error.

    The regulator is fundamentally complicit in the future of any product by not managing proper oversight of what’s for sale until it’s too late.

    Their actions as is more usual seem to be action akin to policing which is very different to creating policy.

  6. Where my phone types thy – read “that”

  7. “all five claimants’ claims in misfeasance are deficient and embarrassing.”

    That succinctly demonstrates the quality of the case brought. Add to that the insane claim amount of £660m and this appears to be a delusional effort on Fords part.

  8. Stewart Ford has tried and tried to maintain his innocence and gets rebuffed. If he wasn’t guilty the FCA wouldn’t be after his arse.

Leave a comment