September 15, 2026
The Upper Tribunal has dismissed a reference by prominent hedge fund manager Crispin Odey challenging the decision to the Financial Conduct Authority to prohibit him from performing future regulated activities.
Mr Odey had faced an internal disciplinary process from his firm, Odey Asset Management LLP (“OAM”), for breaching a final written warning in relation to his behaviour towards female employees. Using his powers as the ultimate majority beneficial owner of the firm, he twice dismissed the executive committees (“ExCos”) of the firm in order to avoid this disciplinary process, thereby putting the firm in breach of certain regulatory rules. These included the requirements for separate operational and risk management functions (FUND 3.7.2R) and for at least two persons of sufficiently good repute and sufficient experience to undertake the management of the firm (SYSC 4.2.1R and 4.2.2R).
The FCA had imposed a prohibition order pursuant to s. 56 of FSMA on the basis that Mr Odey lacked integrity and was accordingly not a fit and proper person, on the following grounds:
(a) Mr Odey’s removal of both ExCos was deliberately intended to frustrate the disciplinary process and limit his personal accountability, and was motivated by self-interest;
(b) he had demonstrated a reckless disregard for OAM’s governance and compliance with regulatory rules and obligations (and had, again, placed his own personal interests above that compliance and the interests of the firm and its clients);
(c) his conduct risked entrenching a culture at OAM which had normalised inappropriate behaviour by him towards female employees and had made employees reticent to raise concerns; and
(d) his dealings with OAM, its clients and investors, and the Authority about these matters had lacked candour; and
(e) he made a false assertion of fact to the Authority in an attempt to secure its endorsement of an indefinite deferral of the ongoing disciplinary process.
The Upper Tribunal accepted the Authority’s case, and dismissed Mr Odey’s, in relation to every one of these grounds. It rejected Mr Odey’s explanations for his behaviour as untrue, and in any event incapable of justifying his conduct. The Upper Tribunal also upheld the FCA’s jurisdiction to impose a penalty under s. 66/66A of FSMA in relation to Mr Odey’s actions, notwithstanding Mr Odey’s argument that the acts relied upon as a breach of COCON – named his dismissal of the ExCos – were taken in his capacity as a controller of OAM and not in his capacity as a certification employee. The penalty was slightly reduced from £1.83m to £1.53m based on the Upper Tribunal’s assessment of the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors.
This is an important case in clarifying the FCA’s jurisdiction to impose a penalty under s. 66/66A of FSMA. It will also be of interest to those practising in financial services law as to the importance the FCA and the Upper Tribunal will place on proper governance in AIFMs.
Lara Hassell-Hart acted for the FCA, alongside Clare Sibson KC and Simon Paul of Fountain Court Chambers.
The full judgment is available here.
