The court considered issues arising on an application by the regulator for an injunction to restrain the defendant operating what it said was an unregulated share dealing scheme. Barclays Bank, bankers to the main defendant complained that as third party creditors of the company they would be prejudiced by the intervention. The FSA offered no cross-undertaking as to damages.
Judges:
Hodge QC J
Citations:
[2011] EWHC 144 (Ch)
Links:
Statutes:
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
At First Instance – The Financial Services Authority v Sinaloa Gold Plc and Others SC 27-Feb-2013
The FSA sought injunctions to restrain the activities of the first defendants, including asset freezing orders under section 380 of the 2000 Act. The defendant’s bankers objected that they would be prejudiced by the restrictions without the FSA . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Financial Services
Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.434875
