Money Covered: The Week That Was – 9 October 2026

Welcome to The Week That Was, a round-up of key events in the financial services sector over the last seven days.

Headline developments 

FCA proposes 90-day notice period for withdrawals to strengthen liquidity risk management

The FCA has proposed new rules requiring investors in funds holding illiquid assets, such as property, to provide 90 days’ notice before withdrawing their money. The measure aims to reduce the risk of forced asset sales, which can disrupt markets and negatively affect investors. The FCA believes the extended notice period would give fund managers more time to sell assets in an orderly manner, reducing the likelihood of funds suspending withdrawals due to liquidity pressures.

Existing funds would have two years to comply with the proposed requirements and must provide investors with at least one year’s notice before implementing the changes. The proposals are designed to strengthen liquidity risk management, ensuring funds can meet withdrawal requests in accordance with their terms. They also aim to protect remaining investors and maintain market integrity.

Additionally, the FCA stated that the new rules would bring the UK into line with emerging international liquidity standards for open-ended funds, supporting greater consistency in fund regulation.

To read more, please click here.

Relevant case law updates 

Barrett v The Information Commissioner and another [2026] UKFTT 1364: Tribunal favours keeping FOS–FCA exchanges private

The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) (FTT) dismissed an appeal under section 57 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) challenging the Financial Ombudsman Service’s (FOS) refusal to disclose correspondence with the FCA about changes to DISP Rule 3.3.4AR. 

The Information Commissioner had already agreed with the FOS that the information should be withheld. However, the case had been sent back by the Upper Tribunal because the first hearing was procedurally unfair, and so the FTT heard it again. The FTT accepted that section 36 of FOIA applied, which covered information where disclosure would likely harm how a public body works, for example by making staff less willing to speak openly. The FTT thought disclosure could have a chilling effect, meaning the FOS and FCA might be less frank in future discussions.

Section 36 of FOIA is “qualified” meaning, the FTT also had to apply the “public interest test”. Here, the FTT had to consider whether the public benefitted more from disclosure or whether it should keep it confidential. In the end, it was decided that keeping it confidential was better, partly because the final DISP rules were already public. For completeness, the FTT also said some material was protected by legal advice privilege and should stay private. It considered the use of “closed material” was handled as fairly as possible.

Click here to read a summary of the judgment. 

Barrett v The Information Commissioner and another [2026] UKFTT 1364: Tribunal favours keeping FOS–FCA exchanges private

In GI Globinvestment Limited and another v XY ERS UK Limited [2026] EWCA Civ 1248, the Court of Appeal ruled that a fiduciary has no discrete positive duty of disclosure and that informed consent must be assessed in respect of the recipient's sophistication.  

The appellants had invested in a Luxembourg fund initiated by the owner of the respondent. Following severe market movements during the Covid-19 pandemic, certain compartments of the fund were liquidated or failed, leading to large capital losses for the appellants. The claims were dismissed at trial, but the appellants appealed against the decision in so far as it concerned the claim against the respondent for breach of fiduciary duty, arguing the respondent owed a positive obligation to disclose all information relevant to their affairs. 

The Court of Appeal held that disclosure can facilitate informed consent where the "no conflict" and/or "no profit" rules might otherwise bite, but there is no discrete fiduciary duty of disclosure. The court also held that the sufficiency of disclosure can depend on the sophistication and intelligence of the persons to whom disclosure must be made, and that if a recipient's sophistication means they do in fact draw an inference, and so are aware of the matter, that must be taken into account. 

Overall, the court ruled that the appellants, as sophisticated investors, had given informed consent to any conflict. The appeal was dismissed.

To read the full decision, please click here.

With thanks to this week's contributors: Haiying Li, Daniel Parkin, Dorian Nunzek, David Allinson and Rachael Healey.

If you have any queries please do get in contact with a member of the team, or your usual RPC contact.