City lawyer acquitted of insider dealing
Thursday 03 June 2010 by James Dean
A City lawyer accused by the financial services watchdog of insider dealing was today acquitted by Southwark Crown Court.
Michael McFall, a former partner at US firm McDermott Will & Emery, was acquitted of eight counts of insider dealing by the Financial Services Authority (pictured). Finance director Andrew King was also acquitted of the same charges.
Andrew Rimmington, former partner at US firm Dorsey & Whitney, had also been on trial on the same charges. However, Judge Testar discharged the jury from considering the case against him midway through proceedings for personal reasons. The FSA offered no evidence against Rimmington and not guilty verdicts were entered on his behalf.
Both Rimmington and McFall previously worked in the London offices of their firms.
The charges related to the takeover of UK pharmaceutical company NeuTec Pharma by Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis in 2006.
FSA director of enforcement and financial crime Margaret Cole said today: ‘Insider dealing cases are challenging to prove, but these were serious charges and we considered that the evidence provided a proper basis to put the case before a jury for them to decide.
‘We remain 100% committed to the strategy of achieving credible deterrence. Bringing criminal prosecutions sends a message, loud and clear, that insider dealing is a serious crime and we are not afraid to pursue cases through the criminal courts.’
The FSA secured its first insider dealing convictions in March. Christopher McQuoid, former general counsel at TTP Communications, was jailed for eight months. His father-in-law, James Melbourne, was given an eight-month suspended sentence. McQuoid’s appeal against his sentence was dismissed in September.
The FSA is currently prosecuting a number of other insider dealing cases involving lawyers.
Comments
Shame on the Law Society Gazette
I hope that I am not alone in my disgust at the fact that this is your headline today.
On the day after a solicitor was shot in Cumbria all you can do is report an acquittal of another lawyer.
You do not even have the common decency to report the death of one of our colleagues, who would appear to have been shot because of the work he was doing.
I am afraid that this failure says all we need to know about the Law Society Gazette.
No wonder this profession is in such a mess when its official newspaper's website doesn't even think to report such a tragic and singular event.
I couldn't agree more.
I agree completely with this comment. I too am surprised that no mention of this tragic incident has appeared on the LSG website . Clearly you believe a story about an acquitted Solicitor will attract more interest than one about a murdered Solicitor. Shame on you.
You misunderstand the purpose
You misunderstand the purpose of a professional publication.
This appalling event has been reported exhaustively by the national media, as you will be aware. There was nothing to be added yesterday by simply stating the fact of Mr Commons' murder, in the absence of anything further to report other than its dreadful circumstances. When we have been able to speak to his colleagues and peers we will have something worthwhile to say.
Moreover, if you wish to express your 'disgust' at the Gazette then perhaps you might have the courtesy to identify yourselves.
Paul Rogerson
Editor in chief
One might have thought that
One might have thought that the "courtesy" was to be extended to the profession and its members by the person being paid by it. Apparently not.
I'm not sure what is
I'm not sure what is 'courteous' about anonymous sniping - and your statement is erroneous in any case. The profession does not pay our wages; quite the contrary. The Gazette generates a healthy surplus for the Law Society.
Paul Rogerson
Paul Rogerson
If not the Law Society, funded by the profession, who does pay your wages? Advertising revenue is a completely separate matter.
Anonymous-18.00 has got there
Anonymous-18.00 has got there first.
Whilst it is heartening that at least one section of the Law Society turns a profit for its owners, it is extremely disturbing that an editor of a law journal (of all things!) does not understand that the fact a business creates a profit for its owners, does not negate the fact that the owners of that business pay the wages of the employees.
No doubt Tesco shareholders would be surprised to learn that their dividends are the charitable donations of the employees.
One would also hope that an Editor in Chief might have a somewhat thicker skin-but evidently he is in the wrong job. Doubtless there is no shortage of applicants, possibly the owners may consider a suitable replacement. Who knows, they may even choose one sympathetic to the profession.
Mr Commons
This seems to be the only place that I can post my sincere condolensces to Mr Commons' family and friends. This is a lose felt by every solicitor. Whatever area of work is undertaken, many people come into contact with a solicitor because of their difficult personalities. Few will take such extreme steps but the risk is there.
The Gazette may not say anything at this time, but the profession cares and Mr Commons deserves better in his memory
Who pays for the Gazette
We do indeed care about members of our profession and appalling acts of violence against them should be given at least similar standing to an acquitall from market abuse charges.
It's quite clear who pays for the Gazette because since I have no longer held an English practising certificate (upon being admitted as an Advocate of the Royal Court of Jersey) I have no longer received the Gazette...
Mr Commons
I would also like to extend my condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of Mr Commons and associate myself with the comments of Lynette Abbott and Gregory White.
I doubt that the public is aware of the risks faced by those solicitors who deal with troubled individuals, particulary in the fields of mental health, criminal and family law.
Like Mr White, I am also retired from practice and read the Gazette on line. I do not know precisely what Paul Rogerson understands the purpose of a professional publication to be but I am sure that in the past deaths of and injury to solicitors as victims of violence have been acknowledged at the earliest opportunity.
anonymous letters
I have only just picked up this edition and have no knowledge of the two incidents referred to above. However, I am intrigued that despite a perfectly reasonable (in my opinion) response by Paul Rogerson pp the LSG to the comments of the anonymous correspondents they pointedly refused to identify themselves - why?