Pre-IPO TerminalUK Listing Rules & IPO Intelligence
← The current edition
FPPP post-mortems17 September 2026

Where the procedures failed, and what would have caught it

A casebook, not a news feed. Each entry takes a case where a regulator, a court or the company itself has said that financial position and prospects procedures fell short, and names the criterion in the pack whose evidence test addresses it.

Archived edition — a finding may have been appealed or overturned since. Read the current one

The takeaway

The window since 11 September 2026 produced no new case in which an authority stated that a listed or recently listed company's listing-related procedures failed; one older case that had not been covered is carried here.

  • The FCA items published in the window address financial crime, cryptoasset regulation, consumer vulnerability and SME finance, not listing procedures or FPPP.
  • The FRC news index returned navigation links only, with no concluded investigation or sanction retrievable from the fetched material.
  • The market announcements reviewed for the window are routine trading updates, results and AGM notices; none contained an admission or restatement bearing on procedures.
  • If no authority has stated that the procedures fell short, the case is not eligible, however the share price behaved.

Cases published 11 to 17 September 2026 · mapped to the criteria that address them

This casebook covers situations where a listed or recently listed company's financial position and prospects procedures (FPPP) demonstrably failed, as found by a regulator, a court, or the company itself. FPPP is the work a company must do to satisfy a sponsor that it has adequate systems, controls and procedures to comply with its listing obligations and to identify and manage financial and other risks — a condition of a London Main Market listing under UKLR 24.3.2R(5). This edition covers the window since 11 September 2026. The window produced nothing that meets the editorial threshold: the FCA material published in the period concerns financial crime, crypto, consumer vulnerability and SME finance rather than listing procedures, and the market announcements reviewed are routine trading and results statements. One older, previously uncovered case is included.

Searched the FCA news and publications feeds and the FRC news index for the window since 11 September 2026, together with UK RNS announcements covering annual reports, half-year reports, trading updates and suspensions. Found nothing eligible: the FCA and FRC material does not concern a listed company's listing-related procedures, and no announcement in the window contained a regulator or company statement that procedures failed. Two older cases that had not been covered are included.

1. High Court disqualification following failure to maintain adequate accounting records

The FCA banned Howard Roland Duckett from working in financial services, stating that he posed a serious risk to consumers and markets because of a serious lack of honesty and integrity. The FCA said Mr Duckett was a senior manager at Beauforce Corporation Limited, a debt management firm. The FCA also said the High Court had disqualified Mr Duckett from acting as a company director for 10 years, having found that he failed to maintain adequate records while a director of an unrelated company. The FCA published its decision; no finding of dishonesty was made by the FCA against any named adviser, and none is reported.

What would have caught it: A records-integrity check — can the company produce complete and reliable accounting records that a sponsor or reporting accountant can test — answers directly the question of whether the financial information a listing rests on is trustworthy.

Touches re-4, re-5 — check yours · run the free scan

2. Client money taken from accounts without permission

The FCA banned Nurul Miah, also known as Neil Mia and Neil Miah, from working in financial services. The FCA stated that it acted after the Solicitors Regulation Authority found that Mr Miah, who was a non-legal manager at Kingly Solicitors Limited, dishonestly caused or allowed more than £28 million of client money to be taken from client accounts without permission between April 2019 and July 2020. The finding was made by the SRA, not by the FCA.

What would have caught it: A check that assets and monies the company holds for others are reconciled, segregated and supported by records, and that movements are authorised, is the test that would have exposed unauthorised transfers.

Touches re-4, re-6 — check yours · run the free scan

Sources

It was found in their procedures. Is it open in yours?

Every case above names the criteria it touches. The free scan walks 15 of the 73 across all nine FPPP areas, checks your answers against each other, and tells you where they contradict. It runs entirely in your browser — nothing is sent anywhere, and nothing is stored.

Run the free scan →Read all 73 criteria

Published Thursdays. This is a casebook rather than a news feed: an older case that has not been covered is as welcome as a recent one. Compiled from public regulatory notices, court judgments and companies’ own announcements, and cited to them. It is not legal advice, not investment advice, and not a comment on any company’s prospects or securities.