The Financial Conduct Authority v Robin Scott Forster & Ors

The Financial Conduct Authority v Robin Scott Forster & Ors

The arrangements constituted collective investment schemes under s.235 FSMA, the Investment Companies promoted them using false and misleading statements and impressions in breach of s.89 and s.90 FSA 2012, Mr Forster was knowingly concerned in these contraventions, and was personally enriched as a result. Reliance on legal advice was not a defence as it was based on inaccurate factual assumptions.

Parties
Claimant: The Financial Conduct Authority; First Defendant: Robin Scott Forster; Second Defendant: Fortem Global Limited; Third Defendant: Richard Paul Tasker
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Trial of Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Findings for the Claimant on all preliminary issues.
Legal Topics
Collective Investment Schemes, Misleading Statements, Knowing Concern, Restitution, Director Liability
Financial Services Law Corporate Law Fraud Regulatory Law Collective Investment Schemes Misleading Statements Knowing Concern Restitution +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Financial Conduct Authority

Claimant

Robin Scott Forster

First Defendant

Fortem Global Limited

Second Defendant

Richard Paul Tasker

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Trial of Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the investments constituted collective investment schemes under s.235 FSMA
  2. 2 Whether false or misleading statements/impressions were made in contravention of s.89 and s.90 FSA 2012
  3. 3 Whether Mr Forster was knowingly concerned in the contraventions

Ratio Decidendi

The arrangements constituted collective investment schemes under s.235 FSMA, the Investment Companies promoted them using false and misleading statements and impressions in breach of s.89 and s.90 FSA 2012, Mr Forster was knowingly concerned in these contraventions, and was personally enriched as a result. Reliance on legal advice was not a defence as it was based on inaccurate factual assumptions.

Court Disposition

Findings for the Claimant on all preliminary issues.

Orders

  • The investments constituted collective investment schemes under s.235 FSMA.
  • The Investment Companies promoted the schemes using false and misleading statements/impressions in breach of s.89 and s.90 FSA 2012.