Was former chairman of Shell Group denied procedural fairness in the FSA's enforcement action against the group?. Financial Services and Markets Tribunal gives preliminary ruling
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/13581980610644815 |
| Date | 01 January 2006 |
| Pages | 123-130 |
| Published date | 01 January 2006 |
| Author | Joanna Gray |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance |
LEGAL AND REGULATORY COMMENT
Was former chairman of Shell
Group denied procedural fairness
in the FSA’s enforcement action
against the group?
Financial Services and Markets Tribunal gives
preliminary ruling
Joanna Gray
Newcastle Law School, University of Newcastle upon Tyne,
Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Abstract
Purpose – To discuss the FSA’s enforcement action against the Royal Dutch/Shell group, which had
been found to have made false or misleading announcements regarding its proved hydrocarbon
reserves and reserves placement ratio’s 1998-2003.
Design/methodology/approach – Presents the facts forming the background to the case.
Findings – Finds that the Chairman of Shell’s defence in the case contains some justifiable points,
although the tribunal’s decision went against him.
Originality/value – Arguably, lays the foundation for further discussion of points such as these,
foreshadowring a forthcoming publication on the UK financial regulation.
Keywords Financial ServicesAct, Tribunals, Companies
Paper type Viewpoint
Sir Philip Watts v. Financial Services Authority (Financial Services and Markets
Tribunal: William Blair QC, Chairman).
Date of decision: 7 September 2005-11-06
Facts
In order to fully appreciate how this reference to the Financial Services and Markets
Tribunal arose it is necessary to recap briefly upon the events leading up to and
surrounding the FSA’s 2004 enforcement action against the Shell Transport and
Trading Company plc and the Royal Dutch Petroleum Group Company NV (referred to
as the Royal Dutch/Shell group). That enforcement action was taken pursuant to
sections 91 and 123 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000) for
the Royal Dutch/Shell group’s breach of the Listing Rules and its contravention of the
market abuse regime. The action resulted in the imposition of a financial penalty of
£17 million, which, the FSA stated in the decision notice of 24 August 2004 that
outlined its decision and reasoning, was imposed in relation to the market abuse
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1358-1988.htm
FSA’s
enforcement
action
123
Journal of Financial Regulation and
Compliance
Vol. 14 No. 1, 2006
pp. 123-130
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1358-1988
DOI 10.1108/13581980610644815
To continue reading
Request your trial