STM Group PLC - Judgment in favour of Carey in Adams v Carey case
The information communicated in this announcement is inside information for the purposes of Article 7 of Regulation 596/2014.
("STM" or "the Company" or "the Group")
Judgment in favour of Carey Pensions in
Adams v Carey case
The judgment was handed down at
The key elements of the case were as follows:
· Carey is a non-advisory pensions administrator and therefore carried out the transaction on an execution-only basis as instructed
A concise summary of the judgment can be found at https://www.eversheds-sutherland.com/global/en/what/articles/index.page?ArticleID=en/Financial-services-and-dispute-investigation/Clarity_for_SIPP_providers, who acted as the lawyers for Carey.
"The judgment is a very welcome and clear precedent for the whole of the
"The STM Board considers that potential implications for any financial institution carrying out execution-only business to have become wholly responsible for their client's decisions would be inequitable and inappropriate. I am sure many financial service providers and institutions, as well as their respective trade associations, would wholeheartedly agree and can now look to the future with greater confidence post this ruling.
"STM is keen to put this case behind it and ensure its
"We are pleased that the judgment has now been delivered, and that the judge has found in our favour on all counts.
"It has been a long time coming and whilst we were confident of our position, the lengthy, comprehensive and detailed judgment recognises within it our approach to implementing strong contractual agreements and documentation, together with robust systems, controls and processes within the business. It was also clear that as a SIPP provider we are expected to carry out execution-only business based on decisions made by our clients.
"It is a judgment that has been long awaited by the SIPP industry and consumers alike, and gives clarity to what is expected of a SIPP provider under English law and the FCA Conduct of Business Principles when acting upon the instructions of a client. In addition, it has given a much better understanding of the legal relationship between an introducer and the service provider which will provide valuable guidance for both consumers and industry professionals.
"We now look forward to turning our minds to growing our
Details of the court decision:
The claim was based on three different principles; 1) that under the
In all three claims, the judge found in favour of Carey.
In the context of COBS 2.1.1R, the judge found that all of the contractual documentation between Carey and
In addition, under Claim 2 the judge found that the actions of the introducer fell far short of 'arranging' the investment, and that, crucially, the point at which the issue must be considered is when
On the final point, the judge concluded that facts were entirely inconsistent with any conclusion that Carey assisted in the commission of a tort by the introducer and that there was no common design.
For further information, please contact:
| || |
Tel: Via Walbrook
| || |
| || |
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7220 0500
| || |
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7933 8780
Mob: +44 (0) 797 122 1972
Notes to editors:
STM is a multi-jurisdictional financial services group which is listed on the AIM Market of the
Today, the Group has operations in the
STM's growth strategy is focussed on both organic initiatives and strategic acquisitions.
Further information on
This information is provided by RNS, the news service of the
Quick facts: STM Group PLC
Market Cap: £16.93 m
NO INVESTMENT ADVICE
The Company is a publisher. You understand and agree that no content published on the Site constitutes a recommendation that any particular security, portfolio of securities, transaction, or investment strategy is...FOR OUR FULL DISCLAIMER CLICK HERE