FSA facing compensation claim
The UK regulator is facing claims it failed to halt activities of a suspected rogue trader
LONDON - The UK Financial Services Authority (FSA) is facing a multimillion-pound compensation claim from a group of investors who allege the regulator allowed GFX Capital Markets to continue trading even though they had serious concerns about its head Terry Freeman, according to reports in The Times.
GFX Capital Markets collapsed with losses around £44 million late last year, with more than 800 investors losing money. Even though Freeman blamed administrative problems, sources suggest there are elements of a Ponzi scheme - paying high returns with money from other clients' capital.
Disgruntled investors are claiming that the FSA was suspicious of Freeman yet failed to act until it was too late. According to the report in the The Times, FSA officials had gathered intelligence on Freeman, a foreign exchange trader, for more than two years, and knew he had changed his name from Terence Sparks after being disqualified as a director until 2012 in response to a conviction in March 1997.
However, Freeman set up GFX in 2004. Several reports are alleged to have been made to the FSA concerning issues surrounding Freeman's business practices between 2004 and 2007. In a letter to the FSA, BSG Solicitors, representing the investors, state: "The FSA was in a unique position, and had various opportunities, to bring Mr Freeman's dealings to a halt and thus significantly reduce the financial decline that my clients' investments were subjected to."
Freeman, who is on police bail, protests his innocence. The FSA refused to comment on an ongoing criminal inquiry.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
FRTB revamp won’t restore models to past glory, risk managers say
US-inspired reform only expected to lead to small boost in adoption, with limited desks on IMA
Regulators must think bigger to tackle tech risks, says Hong Kong SFC
Leung warns AI adoption and recent cyber scares show new threats require global co-operation
Time to let some air out of the banking system?
Watchdogs worry about lowering standards, but policy-makers eye growth – they face a difficult dilemma
Competitiveness mandate for Esma faces uphill battle
European Parliament offers last chance to force Esma to take more nuanced approach
Europe expects FRTB to bite on XVA hedges
Risk Benchmarking: One-third of European dealers fear new market risk rules will have major effect on hedges
Burning ambition: will Europe join the US in setting fire to the rules?
As the US dismantles post-crisis regulations, some think Europe will follow in a bid to boost economic growth
Can US perpetual futures solve their identity crisis?
Market could fall under four different regulatory categories, with sharply diverging outcomes
Banks want AML data upgrade to complement US regulatory reform
FinCEN’s proposed overhaul sparks debate on whether it will lead to smarter or weaker supervision