Court of appeal ruling on discovery in civil litigation of regulatory information protected from disclosure by section 348 FSMA
| Pages | 337-342 |
| Date | 31 July 2007 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/13581980710762327 |
| Published date | 31 July 2007 |
| Author | Joanna Gray |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance |
LEGAL COMMENTARY
Court of appeal ruling on
discovery in civil litigation
of regulatory information
protected from disclosure by
section 348 FSMA
Joanna Gray
University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to report and comment on the Court of Appeal ruling on Real Estate
Opportunities Ltd v. Aberdeen Asset Managers Jersey Ltd and others.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper outlines the facts surrounding this decision and the
action involved.
Findings – The paper finds that this is a significant decision in terms of its potential practical effect
on the likely incidence of private law litigation against regulated financial services firms. It will
become increasingly common, in response to media and investor pressures, for the FSA to conduct
more extensive and long-running investigations into a particular industry sector or category of firms.
Originality/value – The paper provides useful information for all those involved in investment
management services.
Keywords Legal decisions , Investment funds
Paper type Viewpoint
Real Estate Opportunities Ltd v. Aberdeen Asset Managers Jersey Ltd and others (Court
of Appeal: Civil Division: L JJ Tuckey, Arden, Lawrence Collins)
Date of Judgment: 9 March 2007
Facts
The facts giving rise to this litigation have been set out in the case comment on
this case at first instance in the High Court in the last issue of JFRC Volume 15(2).
For convenience they are set out once again here.
In June 2001, the claimant company Real Estate Opportunities Ltd (REO) a
Jersey-based investment company, was floated with a split capital structure. The first
and second defendant companies, part of the Aberdeen asset management group were
appointed by the claimant to provide investment management services. The Aberdeen
group was one of the leading fund managers in the split capital investment companies
sector. The third defendant company was UBS which had acted as a sponsor to the
flotation of REO. UBS had considerable investment banking experience in the splits
market. The proceedings brought by the claimant against all three defendants sought
to establish case that all three defendants owed it duties of care in tort and that the first
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1358-1988.htm
Legal
commentary
337
Journal of Financial Regulation and
Compliance
Vol. 15 No. 3, 2007
pp. 337-342
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1358-1988
DOI 10.1108/13581980710762327
To continue reading
Request your trial