Artemis Investment Management, Hargreave Hale, Newton Investment Management and River and Mercantile Asset Management have all been accused by the FCA of sharing, or accepting from others, the price they intended to pay in two IPOs and one placing.
The regulator issued a first statement of objections against the four firms on Wednesday morning, but made clear it had only “provisional findings” and the investigation may not lead to a full infringement decision.
It alleged that in 2015, Newton, Hargreave Hale and River and Mercantile disclosed and/or accepted details about the price they were set to pay for shares in one IPO and one placing.
In 2014, the FCA claims Artemis and Newton shared information about the price they were willing to pay for shares in another IPO.
The investigation with regards to Newton is in relation to its UK-equity focused strategies which can invest in small and mid cap stocks, its multi-asset strategies are not involved.
River and Mercantile said the investigation does not affect any of its clients or the NAV of any fund or segregated mandate.
“The Group is cooperating fully with the FCA’s ongoing investigation in relation to the matter,” the firm said in a statement.
“The SO is a statement of the FCA’s provisional findings only and all parties will now have the opportunity to respond to the statement before the FCA decides if there has been an infringement. The Group will review the SO and respond in due course.”
Artemis said: “We note the FCA’s provisional findings. We will continue to cooperate with the FCA as its investigation proceeds.”
The FCA will investigate the four firms to find if they breached any part of the Competition Act 1998 which prohibits agreements, practices and conduct that may damage competition in the UK.
In a statement, the FCA said: “A statement of objections gives firms notice that the FCA thinks that they have infringed competition law and the opportunity to respond by making written and oral representations.
“The FCA will carefully consider any representations from the firms before deciding whether the law has been broken.”
