Not upheld: Investment mis-selling complaint against Janus Henderson Fund Management UK Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr K complained that Janus Henderson Fund Management UK Limited & Co Ltd unfairly closed an investment fund without adequate explanation or rationale, and without consulting investors or allowing a vote. Mr K argued the closure was not in investors' best interests, contradicted positive market indicators, and caused forced taxable events and disruption to investment strategies. JH responded that it had closed the fund in accordance with regulatory requirements after determining the fund was unlikely to grow or attract new investors, and had considered alternative options including merger. The ombudsman found JH acted fairly and reasonably, complied with COLL rules, obtained FCA approval, provided sufficient explanation, and had discretion to close the fund without shareholder agreement. The ombudsman determined it was not the FOS's role to conduct independent value assessments or interfere with commercial decisions, which is the FCA's remit, and therefore did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that JH had discretion under COLL rules to close the fund if it determined the fund was not providing value, and did not require shareholder agreement. JH complied with specific regulatory requirements, obtained FCA approval, and considered alternative options including merger before making the decision. The ombudsman determined that JH's assessment was rational and not unreasonably flawed, and that the explanations provided were substantive and logical enough for Mr K to understand the reasons even if he disagreed. The ombudsman noted that the FOS role is not to conduct independent value assessments or substitute its judgment for the fund manager's commercial decisions, which is the FCA's remit. The ombudsman found JH's communication was understandable, sufficient and reasonable, and that JH had appropriately considered the Consumer Duty by identifying that the fund was not delivering value.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website