Christopher Addenbrooke, CEO at Capita Financial Managers, is under pressure to explain how the Arch Cru fund range was allowed to fail while his firm was in charge of its management.
Investors have written to their MPs asking that they bring Addenbrooke under the scope of next month's enquiry into the affair.
As authorised corporate director, Capita was in charge of the day-to-day management of the "low risk" funds which were found to have lost approximately 40% of their value when they were suspended in 2009.
Investors allege the firm failed to comply with any of the FSA's seven Statements of Principles regarding the management of compliance.
They want Addenbrooke to answer questions- see below - based on the statements about his firm's oversight of the investment.
At the time of the funds' suspension in March 2009, Addenbrooke was an FSA Approved Person at Capita, holding three controlling functions - CF 1 (Director), CF 3 (Chief Executive) and CF 8 (Apportionment and oversight).
"Mr. Addenbrooke...had daily operational overview for the compliance management of the Arch cru Funds, and clearly has questions to answer," the standard letter stated.
"He uniquely, has a total insight into what went wrong with the risk compliance and was the FSA's Approved Person for the Arch cru fund compliance work since 2007."
The letters to MPs are part of a campaign by the Regulatory Legal Steering Group to get a better deal for investors who this week found out the £54m redress deal on offer from Capita will return just 10%-15% of their capital.
Paul Pindar, chief executive of the Capita group, who has been sent copies of the letters, has written to investors stating Capita will carry out an internal investigation into the questions for Addenbrooke, and other complaints relating to accusations Capita has breached the FSA's Treating Customers Fairly principles.
Capita failed to reply to a request from IFAonline to answer the questions.
Seven awkward questions for Capita
Statement of Principle 1: An approved person must act with integrity in carrying out his controlled function.
Q. Since 13th March 2009, there has been not one word of explanation about how so many apparent compliance failings came about. Why has there been no explanation since 13th March 2009?
Statement of Principle 2: An approved person must act with due skill, care and diligence in carrying out his controlled function.
Q. Capita seems to have missed the two massive over-investments, totalling £112m, in a risky distressed Greek shipping venture, representing over 27% of the entire fund monies. What action was taken by Capita in 2007 to ensure this investment met the funds "Cautious" objective?
Statement of Principle 3: An approved person must observe proper standards of market conduct in carrying out his controlled function.
Q. Who took the decision to disregard whether the Arch cru marketing and now notorious video (see: http://ht.ly/760wB) met standards that were legal, decent, honest, and truthful, as required by the ASA?
Statement of Principle 4: An approved person must deal with the FSA and with other regulators in an open and cooperative way and must disclose appropriately any information of which the FSA would reasonably expect notice.
Q. When did the CFML CEO, director, and senior manager first become aware of possible Fund Risk Management issues? Was it:
a) 2007? (IMA statement)
b) 2008? (Concerned parties approach to FSA)
c) On/after the Oct 2008 ARROW visit?
Statement of Principle 5: An approved person must take reasonable steps to ensure that the business of the firm for which he is responsible in his controlled function is organised so that it can be controlled effectively.
Q. It is known even Capita realised its ACD controls were problematic. Did the CF 1/CF 8 at any time carry out an assessment of how the planned large-scale redundancies might further impact both the ACD function and possible downside risk to over 300 funds and untold numbers of savers? For assurance, can this assessment be released to the Arch cru Pensioners and other investors?
Statement of Principle 6: An approved person must exercise due skill, care and diligence in managing the business of the firm for which he is responsible in his controlled function.
Q. Can the CF 1 please explain why they considered the Arch cru cells were not part of their remit, when apparently parties had queried this determinedly since 3rd April 2008?
Statement of Principle 7: An approved person must take reasonable steps to ensure that the business of the firm for which he is responsible in his controlled function complies with the relevant requirements and standards of the regulatory system.
Q. Could Addenbrooke please detail what actions, if any, his company, Capita Financial Managers Ltd, actually did carry out to protect pensioners and other investors from Fund Managers who had claimed to invest in Cautious Managed Funds, but apparently, in clear, repeated, public view, had invested in everything but?
Will remain until completion of OM's managed separation
Dispute over structure of combined group
Financial Guidance and Claims Bill
Favorable tax treatment
What made financial headlines over the weekend?