header-logo header-logo

31 March 2017
Issue: 7740 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Financial services

Financial Conduct Authority v Macris [2017] UKSC 19, [2017] All ER (D) 153 (Mar)

The Supreme Court, in allowing an appeal by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), held that the respondent former international chief investment officer of JP Morgan Chase Bank NA, which had been fined by the Financial Conduct Authority after incurring losses of $6bn in respect of a trading portfolio, was not a third party for the purposes of s 393 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Accordingly, he had not been entitled to be notified in notices sent to the bank by the FCA, under s 393. The court held, among other things, that, on the true construction of s 393 of the Act, a person was “identified” in a notice, under that section, if he was identified by name or by a synonym for him, such as his office or job title.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Katten Muchin Rosenman—Charlotte Hill

Katten Muchin Rosenman—Charlotte Hill

Katten strengthens financial markets and funds group in London

Hugh James—Keith Cundall & Lee Hart

Hugh James—Keith Cundall & Lee Hart

Hugh James expands national Serious Injury team with two new Partners

HFW—Rémi Ducloyer

HFW—Rémi Ducloyer

HFW continues Paris office growth with public law Partner hire

NEWS
The Court of Appeal's decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP has lifted months of uncertainty for Chartered Legal Executives while prompting a rethink of regulation and supervision
The assisted dying debate returns to Westminster as Lauren Edwards MP reintroduces legislation that stalled in the House of Lords last session despite clearing the Commons
A little-noticed provision of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 has fundamentally expanded corporate criminal liability
Artificial intelligence is transforming legal practice, but careless reliance on it is creating growing professional risks
The law offers cohabiting couples surprisingly greater protection after one partner dies than when they separate during life
back-to-top-scroll