UT (Tax & Chancery) UT-2022-0000150 - [2024] UKUT 00254 (TCC)
Fecha: 10-Jul-2024
Heading

UT (Tax & Chancery) Case Number: UT-2022-0000150
FINANCIAL SERVICES – Decision Notice issued on basis that the Authority not satisfied an individual was “fit and proper” to perform Chief Executive and Executive Director functions – Decision Notice referred to Tribunal – possible overlap with references made by Barclays –– Decision Notice based in part on findings of other court and Tribunal hearings – whether admissible – whether Tribunal should place weight on them – no witnesses called by the Authority – whether individual dishonest and/or lacked candour when responding to questions asked by the Authority during interviews in 2013 and 2014 – held, yes – whether Tribunal should also make other findings based on evidence put forward by Applicant – yes – if remitted to consider new facts, the outcome would inevitably be the same – Reference dismissed
Heard on 8-10 July 2024
Judgment given on: 24 August 2024
Before
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ANNE REDSTON
MS SUSAN DALE
MR PETER FREEMAN
Between
SARANAC PARTNERS LIMITED
Applicant
and
THE FINANCIAL CONDUCT AUTHORITY
Respondent
Representation:
For the Applicant: Ian Winter KC, instructed by CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP
For the Respondent: Paul Stanley KC, instructed by the Financial Conduct Authority
DECISION
- Heading
- Introduction and Summary
- The Barclays references
- The Tribunal’s view
- Subsequently
- Legislation, case law and the Handbook
- The legislation and related case law
- The Handbook
- The Decision Notice
- Evidence
- The evidence on the capital raising issue
- Mr Beauchamp
- Mr Tinney
- Mr Perry
- Mr Mason
- Mr Biesinger
- Findings of fact
- Mr Kalaris
- Capital raising, GenVen and the Interviews
- The criminal proceedings
- Saranac
- The SWF initiative
- The economic situation
- The ASA
- The link between the ASA and the capital raising
- The text of the ASA
- The Prospectus
- The second capital raising and PCP
- The 2013 Interview
- What Mr Kalaris knew
- What the Authority knew
- What Mr Kalaris believed about the Authority’s knowledge
- Mr Kalaris’s responses relied on by the Authority
- Question 1: The “genesis of the agreement”
- Q1: The Authority’s position
- Who came up with the idea?
- The two paths
- Strategic relationship
- Unnecessary?
- The Tribunal’s findings
- Question 2: the purpose
- Q2: The Authority’s position
- Q2: Saranac’s position
- Q2: The Tribunal’s findings
- Question 3: the calculation
- Q3: The Authority’s position
- Q3: Saranac’s position
- Q3: The Tribunal’s findings
- Question 4: connection
- Q4: Saranac’s position
- Q4: The Tribunal’s findings
- Motive?
- Overall conclusion on the 2013 Interview
- THE 2014 INTERVIEW
- The culture at Barclays Wealth Americas
- The cultural audit
- The pre-meeting communications
- Briefing and the subsequent meetings
- Ms Hilgart
- The Cultural Workshop
- The Whistleblower email
- The Fed update
- The 2014 Interview
- The position of the parties
- Discussion and consideration
- The briefing on 30 March 2012
- The meeting on 5 April
- The meeting on 10 December 2012
- The weekend of 14-15 December 2012
- Overall findings
- OTHER FINDINGS
- The other evidence
- The Saranac assessment
- The personal references
- The capital raising and the GenVen Report
- Financial services experience
- Mr Kalaris’s approach to regulatory requirements in the past
- Compliance with restrictions
- Training
- The standing of the NEDs
- Mr Elliott
- Mr Neilly
- The Tribunal’s conclusion
- Conclusions