*Mark Anthony Financial Management and another v Financial Services Authority

Financial Services Financial Services Authority (FSA). The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) gave reasons for its earlier decision that it was appropriate to impose a penalty of 150,000 on the applicants in circumstances where it had previously found that the applicants had submitted mortgage applications on his own behalf and, as its first applicant trading business on behalf of clients on several occasions and that the applications had contained false and misleading information which the second applicant either had known to be false or misleading or had been reckless as to whether such information had been true and complete.

Re Fowler

Bankruptcy Petition. The respondent had given personal guarantees to the petitioning creditor for loan facilities of three companies, which had not been paid. The petitioning creditor presented a bankruptcy petition. In granting the petition, the Bankruptcy Division of the High Court held that there was a claim for liquidated sums, the petitioning creditor had not been unreasonable in dismissing the respondent's offers, there was no counterclaim, set off or cross-demand equal to or greater than the petition debt and the statutory demand could not have been said to be stale.

Davies v Watkins

Trust and trustee Trustee's costs. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in proceedings brought by the executor of an estate, held that a costs order in Beddoe proceedings had been wrong in law and the result of an implicit misdirection. It was declared that the claimant was entitled to an indemnity out of the estate for his costs of the Beddoe application, up to the date of a consent order.

*Sejean v Financial Services Authority

Financial services Financial Services Authority (FSA). The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) decided not to adjust the penalty of 650,000 it had imposed on the applicant in respect of market abuse in circumstances where the applicant had failed to provide clear evidence of excessive hardship.

*Arch Financial Products LLP and others v Financial Services Authority

Financial services Financial Services Authority (FSA). The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dismissed an application pursuant to r14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 for an order prohibiting the publication of decision notices issued by the respondent Financial Services Authority as well as an application for a direction that the register of references maintained by the Upper Tribunal be amended so as not to include particulars of the references made by the applicants in respect of the decision notices.

*R v YDG and another

Criminal Law Proceeds of crime. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division dismissed the defendants' appeal against the judge's ruling that it was not an abuse of process to continue proceedings in relation to money laundering offences charged on the basis that the money laundered was the proceeds derived by a third party from a conspiracy prior to 2001, and in respect of which a drug trafficking order had been made. There was nothing in the language of the which suggested that a certificate issued by the court as to the value of a defendant's proceeds of drug trafficking was a certificate which had effect against anyone other than the person in respect of whom it had been made.

Close Brothers Ltd v Ridsdale and others

Bank Bank loan. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant merchant bank was entitled to collect on the guarantee provided by the husband and wife in respect of the loan given by the claimant to a company of the husband and wife.

*Saltri III Ltd v MD Mezzanine SA Sicar and others

Company Contract. The proceedings related to an enforcement and restructuring of a group of companies known as Stabilus Group in April 2010. JP Morgan Europe Ltd (JPMEL), in its capacity as senior facility agent and security trustee, issued an enforcement notice to itself to accept an offer to transfer the business of the Stabilus Group to the third and fourth parties. As part of the acquisition of the group, companies in the group assumed substantial indebtedness to various lenders under senior and mezzanine facilities agreements. The Commercial Court granted a declaration in favour of the claimant that the restructuring was valid. It further held, in dismissing the defendants' claims, that that there had been no breach of fiduciary or contractual duties by JPMEL, in effecting the restructure.

*Re Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration)

Contract Construction. Administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) sought the court's directions as to the interpretation, characterisation, validity and effect of security provisions in two agreements. The principal issues were whether security interests created under the agreements had constituted a floating charge and, if so, the implications of that fact. The Companies Court found that the security interest was properly characterised as a floating charge.

Financial Services Authority v Asset L.I. Inc (t/a Land Investments Inc) and others

Practice Preliminary point of law. In the course of proceedings against a number of defendants by the Financial Services Authority, a preliminary question arose as to the meaning of 'day-to-day control' within of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The court held that the various factors in the case pointed in favour of answering the question in the course of a full trial, and so ruled that it would not answer the question on a preliminary basis.