Not upheld: failure to provide opportunity to manage/close investment position; unclear communication regarding trading restrictions complaint against Trading 212 UK Limited trading as Trading 212

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M invested £1,872 in Sunnova Energy International shares through Trading 212's execution-only investment account. When the company entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy, was delisted from the NYSE, and began trading over the counter as NOVAQ, Mr M repeatedly contacted Trading 212 expressing concerns about the falling value and requesting clarity on what would happen to his investment. On 18 November 2025, his shares were closed at nil value through a corporate action process. Mr M complained that he had not been given a fair opportunity to manage or close his position due to account restrictions and unclear communication. The ombudsman found the complaint not upheld, determining that the losses resulted from the underlying company's bankruptcy and delisting rather than any unfair action by Trading 212, and that Mr M had retained the ability to close his position during the 'close-only' period.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Trading 212 operated on an execution-only basis and was not responsible for the collapse in value of the shares caused by the underlying company's bankruptcy and delisting. While there was some inconsistency in terminology used ('suspended' versus 'close-only'), the ombudsman found no evidence that Mr M was prohibited from closing his position or that he attempted to sell and was prevented from doing so. The account restriction that was later applied occurred after the shares had already been closed at nil value, so it did not cause the losses. The ombudsman acknowledged Mr M's distress but found that Trading 212 provided material information about the bankruptcy and delisting as it became available.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website