Mr Jaffey’s submissions
Mr Jaffey’s submissions
Mr Jaffey submitted that when a business announces its management information “the market understands…that that information is subject to review and revision and emerging information”, and thus an announcement is not “misleading” so as to engage LR 1.3.3R if the figure in question “is subject to revision following quantification of an emerging issue”.
He referred to the version of the Listing Rules which existed in 2002; this contained LR 9, headed “General obligation of disclosure for companies”, and included the following:
“9.1 A company must notify the Company Announcements Office without delay of any major new act developments in its sphere of activity which are not public knowledge which may,
(a) by virtue of the effect of those developments on its assets and liabilities or financial position or on the general course of its business, lead to a substantial movement in the price of its listed securities;…
9.2 A company must notify the Company Announcements Office without delay of all relevant information which is not public knowledge concerning a change:
(a) in the company’s financial condition;
(b) in the performance of its business; or
(c) in the company's expectation as to its performance
which, if made public, would be likely to lead to substantial movement in the price of listed securities
9.3 …
9.3A A company must take all reasonable care to ensure that any statement or forecast or any other information it notifies to, or makes available through, the Company Announcements Office is not misleading, false or deceptive and does not omit anything likely to affect the import of such statement, forecast or other information.
9.4 The company need not notify the Company Announcements Office of information about impending developments or matters in the course of negotiation and could give such information in confidence to recipients within the categories described in paragraph 9.5…
9.5. The categories of recipient referred to in paragraph 9.4 are:
(a) the company’s advisers and advisers of any other persons involved or who may be involved in the development or matter in question;
(b) persons with whom the company is negotiating, or intends to negotiate, any commercial, financial or investment transaction…
(c) representatives of its employees or trades unions acting on their behalf; and
(d) any government department, the Bank of England, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission or any other statutory or regulatory body or authority.”
Mr Jaffey emphasised LR 9.4, which had specifically provided that companies need not notify the market about “information about impending developments or matters in the course of negotiation”. He said that the same exception continued today, referring to Section 2.5.2G of the Authority’s Disclosure, Guidance and Transparency Rules sourcebook, which reads:
“(1) Delaying disclosure of inside informationwill not always mislead the public, although a developing situation should be monitored so that if circumstances change an immediate disclosure can be made.
(2) Investors understand that some information must be kept confidential until developments are at a stage when an announcement can be made without prejudicing the legitimate interests of the issuer.”
That passage was, said Mr Jaffey, consistent with Regulation 17(4) of the MAR, set out at §34 above. He summarised the position as follows:
“Participants in the London Stock Exchange understand when they see an RIS announcement that it will always have a metaphorical asterisk next to it that information in here may well be affected by these type of matters [ie impending developments or matters in the course of negotiations] and you have to read this RIS announcement subject to caveats, which everyone in the market understands.”
- Heading
- Introduction
- The jurisdiction of the Tribunal
- The burden and standard of proof
- The PRA and capital requirements
- The Bank’s lending
- CRE loans
- CLIP loans
- PBTL loans
- COREP reporting
- The Authority
- Listing Rule 1.3.3R
- The MAR
- The evidence
- Approach to the evidence
- Mr Arden
- Mr Donaldson
- Ms Gillan
- Ms Roberts
- Mr Somers and Mr Dransfield
- Mr Sutherland
- Mr Lane
- Mr Brierley
- Individuals who were not called as witnesses
- Findings of fact
- The early years
- Linklaters
- Key personnel during the period from March 2018
- Relationship with the PRA and the Authority
- 2016 and 2017
- The COREP audit and the CRE loans
- Mr Arden, the Board and the committees
- KPMG appointed
- April to June 2018
- July 2018
- The 2018 capital raise and half year results
- August 2018: PBTL and CLIP
- Communicating with the PRA
- KPMG decision trees
- PBTL classification
- Annual Review of Commercial Lending
- September Audit Committee
- September NEDs meeting
- September Board meeting
- Engagement of Deloitte
- Internal work in support
- Communications with the PRA
- Meeting with Linklaters
- Disclosure Committee meeting
- Mr Somers’ email
- Meetings with Mr Hill and Mr Bernau
- The October CRPAC meeting
- RWA Report
- Business and Commercial Lending
- The October Audit Committee meeting
- The Q3 Update
- Accounting, reporting and control report
- The October ROC meeting
- Chief Risk Officer’s Report
- The RWA Report
- Business and Commercial Lending Review
- The October Board meeting
- Linklaters Governance Update
- Audit Committee Update
- The Q3 Update
- 2019 Budget Paper
- Whether the RWA issue was discussed
- Chief Risk Officer’s Report
- Response to PSM Letter
- The Q3 Update and analyst calls
- Deloitte’s reports
- Discussions with Linklaters
- Discussions with the PRA and the January announcement
- Subsequently
- The PRA
- The Authority
- Mr Donaldson’s and Mr Arden’s careers
- The common ground
- The Parties’ cases
- The Authority’s case
- The Applicants’ case
- ISSUE ONE: WHETHER THE BANK BREACHED LR 1.3.3R
- The PRA and the COREP Returns
- Findings of fact
- The Applicants’ position
- The Tribunal’s view
- The PRA and confidentiality
- Findings of fact
- The Applicants’ position
- The Authority’s position
- The Tribunal’s view
- Mr Lane’s advice
- Findings of fact not in dispute
- Who was at the meeting
- How long was the meeting
- Linklaters’ practice when giving advice
- Knowledge of the impending Q3 Update
- What was said by Mr Arden at the meeting
- Confidential matter?
- The Tribunal’s finding
- The purpose of the meeting
- Reasonable to rely?
- Overall conclusion on legal advice
- No breach if uncertain and under investigation?
- Mr Jaffey’s submissions
- Mr Stanley’s submissions
- The Tribunal’s view
- No material breach if unknown
- The knowledge issue
- Key findings already made
- The Authority’s overall position on the knowledge issue
- The Applicants’ overall position on the knowledge issue
- Rules on classification
- Data issues
- Nature of the data issues
- Extent of the data issues
- Effect on materiality
- SME supporting factor
- Residential property
- Conclusion on data issues
- The mitigants overall
- The AIRB application
- Pillar 2A Offset
- Submissions
- Findings of fact
- Conclusion on Pillar 2A offset
- Phasing in
- PRA discretion
- Taking all the above into account
- Overall conclusion on the Knowledge Issue
- The PBTL Loans
- Findings of fact
- Submissions and the Tribunal’s view
- Whether the alternatives were unreasonable
- The Applicants’ position
- The Authority’s submissions
- The Tribunal’s view
- Reliance on the board and the Committees
- Findings of fact
- September
- October Audit Committee
- October ROC meeting
- October Board meeting
- The position of the parties
- The Tribunal’s view
- The Audit Committee
- The Board
- Reliance on Ms James
- Findings of fact
- Submissions
- Discussion
- Overall conclusion on Issue one
- The legal principles
- The statutory provisions
- Burton v Bevan
- Scandex
- Capital Alternatives
- Avacade
- Ferreira
- Submissions on Ferreira
- The words of the provision
- The ratio of Ferreira
- The corporate veil
- Forster: meaning of “knowingly concerned”
- Forster: reliance on legal advice
- The Applicants’ submissions
- The Authority’s submissions
- The Tribunal’s view
- The principles summarised and the issues remaining
- Mr Arden
- Mr Donaldson
- The position of the parties
- The Tribunal’s view
- ISSUE THREE: PENALTIES
- The Tribunal’s approach
- The DEPP
- The Authority’s position
- The Applicants’ position
- The Tribunal’s view
- The penalty framework
- Applying the Steps
- Step 2(1)-(3): Earnings
- The Tribunal’s view
- Step 2(4)-(7): Seriousness
- Step 3: Mitigation
- DEPP
- Submissions and discussion
- Co-operation
- Remediation
- Compliance with the PRA’s requirements
- Communications with the Authority
- No negative factors
- Other consequences
- Difference between the Applicants?
- Conclusions
![[2025] UKUT 00185 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png)