Skip to content
International Adviser
  • Contact
  • Login
  • Subscribe
  • Regions
    • United Kingdom
    • Middle East
    • Europe
    • Asia
    • Africa
    • North America
    • Latin America
  • Industry
    • Tax & Regulation
    • Products
    • Life
    • Health & Protection
    • People Moves
    • Companies
    • Offshore Bonds
    • Retirement
    • Technology
    • Platforms
  • Investment
    • Equities
    • Fixed Income
    • Alternatives
    • Multi Asset
    • Property
    • Macro Views
    • Structured Products
    • Emerging Markets
    • Commodities
  • IA 100
  • Best Practice
    • Best Practice News
    • Best Practice Awards
  • Media
    • Video
    • Podcast
  • My IA
    • Events
    • IA Tax Panel
    • IA Intermediary Panel
    • About IA

ANNOUNCEMENT: Read more financial articles on our partner site, click here to read more.

SIGN IN INTERNATIONAL ADVISER

Access full content on the International Adviser site, access your saved articles, control email preferences and amend your account details

[login-with-ajax]
Not Registered?

Mini-bond victims to appeal FSCS judicial review

By Cristian Angeloni, 29 Mar 21

Judge expressed ‘greatest sympathy’ for investors but dismissed their claim

In another twist in the London Capital & Finance (LCF) mis-selling saga, a judicial review to quash the Financial Services Compensation Scheme’s (FSCS) decision not to compensate all victims has been unsuccessful.

The judge agreed with the investors’ argument that the ‘non-transfer’ clauses in the bonds issued by LCF were unfair and unenforceable.

But ultimately ruled that, since the bonds were unregulated, the FSCS’ decision should stand.

Judge Bourne said: “It goes without saying that the claimants and their fellow investors deserve the greatest sympathy for the plight in which LCF left them.

“Nevertheless, despite the force, lucidity and skill with which their case was advanced before me, the claim must be dismissed.”

The bondholders are planning to appeal the decision.

Disappointment

Thomas Donegan, partner at law firm Shearman & Sterling, who is representing some of the LCF bondholders on a pro bono basis, said: “We are pleased that the judge found in our favour that the non-transfer provisions of the LCF bonds were unfair and unenforceable.

“However, and with respect, we were disappointed that the bonds were then found not to be a ‘transferable security’ for regulatory purposes meaning their issuance was not subject to FSCS compensation.

“Our clients intend to seek permission to appeal the decision.”

Bondholders Emmet Donegan, Joanne Ellis-Clarke, Alan Considine and Nathan Brown, added: “LCF was authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority as an investment firm and was registered with HMRC as an Isa account manager.

“Many investors found LCF through price comparison websites, search engines and advertising in the mainstream press. LCF preyed on ordinary savers by offering products held out as secured, asset-backed investment bonds and Isas, with professional-looking documentation, UK account managers and slick marketing.

“However, in reality, there was no security backing the investments, investors’ savings were dissipated, and they appear to have been appropriated by those operating the scheme. It is now evident that LCF’s business was founded upon a questionable and novel regulatory arbitrage: it claimed not to be regulated for taking deposits, because the investments were in the form of bonds.

“However, it also claimed not to be regulated for issuing bonds, because the bonds it issued were stated to be ‘non-transferable’.

‘Good prospect of success’

The four bondholders added that they disagree with the judge’s ruling and will seek to appeal the decision.

“Whilst we are pleased with the court’s conclusions on unfairness and unenforceability, we respectfully disagree with the judge’s further conclusion – that even if the non-transfer clauses were invalid and unenforceable, the LCF bonds are not also ‘transferable securities’ for regulatory purposes.

“We, therefore, intend to apply for permission to appeal the decision – provided we have adequate arrangements in place to ensure we would not have to pay the FSCS’s costs.

“This decision to seek permission to appeal the judgment is made with mixed feelings – LCF investors have suffered for too long in their quest for redress – and we and our pro bono legal team have had to expend more effort and cost than we might have wished or expected on this case.

“However, whilst an appeal – if permission to appeal is granted – may prolong uncertainties, we believe that it is necessary and would have good prospects of success.”

Tags: FSCS | London Capital & Finance | Mini-bonds

Share this article
Follow by Email
Facebook
fb-share-icon
X (Twitter)
Post on X
LinkedIn
Share

Related Stories

  • Businessman hand plan growth business graph financial chart on improvement blue background with success investment diagram marketing strategy or increase arrow stock profit data and analysis market.

    Investment

    Global wealth new business set to top £67bn by 2030 – Utmost report

    Latest news

    BBY former executive chairman charged over ‘dishonest use’ of $1.95m client money – ASIC

  • ISA - acronym from wooden blocks with letters, ISA Individual Savings Account concept (Industry Standard Architecture ), top view on grey background

    Financial planning

    Titan Wealth study highlights need for UK ISA reform

    IA 100

    IA 100 Industry’s Most Influential 2025 revealed


NEWSLETTER

Sign Up for International
Adviser Daily Newsletter

subscribe

  • View site map
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Contact

Published by Money Map Media – part of G&M Media Ltd Copyright (c) 2024.

International Adviser covers the global intermediary market that uses cross-border insurance, investments, banking and pension products on behalf of their high-net-worth clients. No news, articles or content may be reproduced in part or in full without express permission of International Adviser.