English High Court Clarifies Scope Of FSMA Securities Litigation

Contributor

Mayer Brown is a distinctively global law firm, uniquely positioned to advise the world’s leading companies and financial institutions on their most complex deals and disputes. We have deep experience in high-stakes litigation and complex transactions across industry sectors, including our signature strength, the global financial services industry.

Explore Firm Details

The High Court's recent ruling on securities class actions under FSMA s90A and Schedule 10A limits claims against UK-listed companies by requiring direct reliance and rejecting claims for "ongoing" delays.

United Kingdom Corporate/Commercial Law

A recent decision of the High Court in a strike out application in securities class action litigation has clarified the scope of s90A and Schedule 10A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 ("FSMA") regarding reliance and dishonest delay, making it harder for claimants to bring securities claims against UK-listed companies. In the specific case, the decision has led to the claims of 241 of the 465 claimants being struck out, resulting in a £330 million reduction from the £560 million overall claim value.

Background

S90A and Schedule 10A FSMA allow shareholders of UK-listed companies to bring a claim against the company if:

the company either (a) made an untrue or misleading statement in published information or (b) omitted a material fact in the same;
a "person discharging managerial responsibilities" ("PDMR") knew that this was the case (or in the case of untrue/misleading statements, was reckless);
the shareholder relied upon the statement or omission; and
the shareholder suffered a loss as a result.

S90A and Schedule 10A FSMA also provide for a remedy without the requirement for reliance when:

a listed company delays publishing information;
a PDMR acted dishonestly in delaying publication; and
the shareholder suffered a loss as a result.

The claimants sought to argue that the market price of the defendant's listed shares incorporated consideration of all public information, such that investors who relied on that market price should be considered to have "read" the misleading documents which lead to that incorrect market price. The claimants also asserted that "delay" in this context meant not only the act of deferring or postponing a publication but also not publishing it at all – i.e., delay by "procrastination" or "waiting".

Comment

In striking out certain of the claims, this judgment clarified that:

Reliance: to satisfy the reliance requirement of s90A and Schedule 10A FSMA claims, claimants must prove that a person had read the publication containing the untrue/misleading statements or material omission in question (or the gist of it was communicated to them by others). The court's application of this test, arising from the common law tort of deceit, means that claimants are not permitted to establish reliance based on their reliance on market price.
Dishonest delay: a claimant cannot bring a claim for dishonest delay of a publication in respect of a publication that the defendant never actually published – that "ongoing delay" will not suffice to establish a dishonest delay claim.

This decision is clearly beneficial to UK-listed companies, as the requirement to prove both inducement and causation in this way prevents passive investors (e.g., tracker or index-linked funds) from bringing claims against them under s90A and Schedule 10A of FSMA.

It also provides welcome guidance on the scope of dishonest delay claims. Nevertheless, listed companies should be aware that unlike misleading/omissions claims, these types of claim remain available to passive investors, as there is no reliance requirement.

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global services provider comprising associated legal practices that are separate entities, including Mayer Brown LLP (Illinois, USA), Mayer Brown International LLP (England & Wales), Mayer Brown (a Hong Kong partnership) and Tauil & Chequer Advogados (a Brazilian law partnership) and non-legal service providers, which provide consultancy services (collectively, the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are established in various jurisdictions and may be a legal person or a partnership. PK Wong & Nair LLC ("PKWN") is the constituent Singapore law practice of our licensed joint law venture in Singapore, Mayer Brown PK Wong & Nair Pte. Ltd. Details of the individual Mayer Brown Practices and PKWN can be found in the Legal Notices section of our website. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of Mayer Brown.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.