The Financial Conduct Authority v Skinner & Ors (Rev 2)

The Financial Conduct Authority v Skinner & Ors (Rev 2)

The court found that OPR, with Mr Skinner as the controlling mind and Ms Ferreira as co-director, contravened s. 21 FSMA by communicating unapproved investment invitations to the public, and contravened s. 89 FSA by making false or misleading statements in financial projections and omitting material facts about litigation. Mr Skinner was knowingly concerned in both contraventions; Ms Ferreira was knowingly concerned in the s. 21 contravention. Venor, Mr Mongelard, and Mr Miller were knowingly concerned in contraventions by M&O and Venor. Restitution orders were just and appropriate, reflecting the full investor losses for Mr Skinner, 75% for Ms Ferreira, and the losses attributable to M&O...

Parties
Claimant: The Financial Conduct Authority; First Defendant: Mr Lee Anthony Skinner; Second Defendant: Ms Karen Ferreira; Third Defendant: Miller & Osbourne Associates Limited; Fourth Defendant: Venor Associates Limited; Fifth Defendant: Mr Clive Harris Mongelard; Sixth Defendant: Mr Tyrone Miller
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil (financial Regulatory Enforcement) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed. Restitution orders and declarations granted. Injunctions not granted subject to undertakings.
Legal Topics
Contravention of S. 21 FSMA, Contravention of S. 19 FSMA, Contravention of S. 89 FSA, Restitution Orders, Knowing Concern Liability, False or Misleading Statements, Unlawful Financial Promotions
Financial Services Law Securities Regulation Company Law Contravention of S. 21 FSMA Contravention of S. 19 FSMA Contravention of S. 89 FSA Restitution Orders Knowing Concern Liability +2 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Financial Conduct Authority

Claimant

Mr Lee Anthony Skinner

First Defendant

Ms Karen Ferreira

Second Defendant

Miller & Osbourne Associates Limited

Third Defendant

Venor Associates Limited

Fourth Defendant

Mr Clive Harris Mongelard

Fifth Defendant

Mr Tyrone Miller

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (financial Regulatory Enforcement) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Skinner and Ms Ferreira were knowingly concerned in OPR's contravention of s. 21 FSMA
  2. 2 Whether OPR contravened s. 89 FSA by making false or misleading statements or dishonestly concealing relevant facts, and if so whether Mr Skinner was knowingly concerned
  3. 3 Whether restitution orders should be made against Mr Skinner, Ms Ferreira, Venor, Mr Mongelard and Mr Miller, and if so in what sums

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that OPR, with Mr Skinner as the controlling mind and Ms Ferreira as co-director, contravened s. 21 FSMA by communicating unapproved investment invitations to the public, and contravened s. 89 FSA by making false or misleading statements in financial projections and omitting material facts about litigation. Mr Skinner was knowingly concerned in both contraventions; Ms Ferreira was knowingly concerned in the s. 21 contravention. Venor, Mr Mongelard, and Mr Miller were knowingly concerned in contraventions by M&O and Venor. Restitution orders were just and appropriate, reflecting the full investor losses for Mr Skinner, 75% for Ms Ferreira, and the losses attributable to M&O...

Court Disposition

Claim allowed. Restitution orders and declarations granted. Injunctions not granted subject to undertakings.

Orders

  • Mr Skinner to pay £3,619,352 to the FCA for investor losses.
  • Ms Ferreira to pay £2,714,514 to the FCA for investor losses (75% of total).