Ban for Keydata compliance officer confirmed as he withdraws his Tribunal appeal

Former Keydata Investment Services compliance officer and operations director Peter Johnson has withdrawn his appeal to the Upper Tribunal, and so the ban and censure the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) wished to impose on him has now come into effect.
Mr Johnson is prohibited from carrying out any regulated activity, and had it not been for his adverse financial situation, he would also have been fined £200,000.

His most serious act of wrongdoing was to mislead the FCA in formal interviews, when he stated that he was not aware of any liquidity problems with the Keydata portfolio.

The firm’s directors also failed to make advisers selling the products aware of the associated investment risks; and did not act on warnings that the firm’s financial promotions were inadequate and misleading. Again there were issues over the way the firm described the risks of the investments; and in addition, the firm became aware in December 2008 that their products were unlikely to qualify for ISA status, but ignored these warnings and continued to promote them as being available within the ISA wrapper.

As compliance officer, Mr Johnson was ultimately responsible for signing off the firm’s promotional material.

The FCA believes that he breached Principle 1 of the Statements of Principle for Approved Persons, by failing to act with integrity in carrying out his controlled functions; and Statement of Principle 4 by failing to be open and cooperative in his dealings with the FCA.

Keydata was an investment firm that offered complex structured investment products that were underpinned by investment in bonds issued by Luxembourg special purpose vehicles. The firm entered administration in June 2009, landing authorised firms with a £326 million interim levy from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, which had to take over the task of compensating investors who had lost money.

The Keydata saga began in October 2011 when law firm Herbert Smith Freehills launched legal action against Keydata’s advisers, seeking to recover £75 million in compensation for clients who were allegedly sold unsuitable investments.

In November 2014, well known financial advisory firm Chase de Vere was fined £560,000 by the FCA for mis-selling Keydata investments. John Joseph Financial Services was fined £20,000 in September 2015 over the same issue.

The Tribunal proceedings continue in respect of former Keydata CEO Stewart Ford and sales director Mark Owen. The FCA wants to ban both men and fine them £75 million and £4 million respectively. Mr Ford has also launched legal proceedings against the FCA, saying the regulator abused its powers by forcing Keydata into administration.

Former finance director Craig McNeil accepted his ban and £350,000 fine in September 2015.

The information shown in this article was correct at the time of publication. Articles are not routinely reviewed and as such are not updated. Please be aware the facts, circumstances or legal position may change after publication of the article.


Growing North West FinTech sector gets a free breakfast with the launch of the FinTech Northern Breakfast Club

There’s no such thing as a free lunch, but the same can’t be said for breakfast for the North West’s FinTech sector with the launch of the FinTech Northern Breakfast Club; a dedicated briefing and networking event being held in Manchester.  The regular event is hosted by Manchester based Scott Robert, and sister company Automate Tech, which together provide risk, compliance, and technology solutions to the financial services industry.

The UK leads the world in FinTech according to a recent report by EY1 which attributed the number 1 ranking to, amongst other things, the strong availability of capital for investment in start-ups and the most supportive government policy towards Fintech.  In the North West the Northern Powerhouse agenda has seen recent initiatives, such as Barclay’s RISE community2, propel FinTech growth in the region and according to a leading report3  Manchester has strong credentials to be a FinTech hub as it benefits from a rich talent pool, owing in part to its high student population, and has recently seen £3.5bn of investment to support the digital and technology infrastructure in the city.

Commenting upon the launch of the breakfast club, Rob Cooper, FinTech specialist at Scott Robert, said

“Over recent months we’ve seen a significant increase in the number of firms instructing us in the FinTech space who are based in the North West, with Manchester in particular becoming increasingly popular for new start-ups in the sector.  Historically most of our FinTech clients have been London based but there is lots happening in Manchester with more and more financial services firms choosing to relocate.  That combined with a great technology and innovation culture in the city makes Manchester an obvious choice for FinTech firms.  We’re looking forward to bringing the sector together on a regular basis to explore the fantastic opportunities that are available for both established firms and new start-ups.”

The breakfast club launches on the 23rd June and is being held on the last Thursday of each month at the Radisson Edwardian on Peter Street.  Each meeting will feature a regular briefing on developments in the FinTech sector as well as a talk by a guest speaker.  Breakfast is available from 7.30am with the meeting commencing at 7.45am, followed by 30 minutes of networking from 8.30am.

Admission to the breakfast club is free of charge but by reservation only.  Reservations can be made by visiting www.scottrobert.co.uk/FinTechNorthernBC, by emailing enquiries@scottrobert.co.uk or by calling 0161 914 5727

1 UK FinTech: On the Cutting Edge (Feb 16); https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-fintech-on-the-cutting-edge

2 Think Rise Manchester; https://thinkrise.com/manchester.html

3 Tech City UK TechNation Report; http://www.techcityinsider.net/the-uks-21-tech-clusters-by-jobs/


Adviser numbers fall by three quarters in a decade

Freedom of information requests by trade publication Financial Adviser have suggested that the number of financial advisers in the UK has fallen by almost three quarters in the last decade. The magazine believes that there were 105,710 authorised advisers on January 1 2006 and just 29,144 in February 2016. This generally tallies with information from the trade association the Association of Professional Financial Advisers, which estimated that there were 31,153 advisers in its 2015 annual survey of the sector.

The number of firms authorised to offer advice has not fallen by as much, from 11,286 back in 2006 to 9,955 now, reflecting the fact that in the past banks, insurers and other large firms typically had large adviser ‘sales forces’, which either no longer exist or are much smaller in nature.

The costs of regulation, the high average age of the adviser population and the unwillingness of many firms to invest in new entrants have all been cited as reasons for the reduction in numbers. Many people speak of an ‘advice gap’ having been created as a result, where some consumers wish to receive financial advice but do not do so, perhaps because they cannot afford it, or do not know how to go about accessing it.

The Treasury and the Financial Conduct Authority jointly launched the Financial Advice Market Review to look at whether the financial advice market is working in the interests of consumers, and one of the aims of the review was to “radically improve access to financial advice.”

However, some commentators have suggested that the main aim of the Review is to facilitate the return of the banks to mass advice, and that the recommendations contain little of relevance to advisory firms.

In total, the Review made 28 recommendations for changes to the financial services marketplace. These recommendations include:

• The Treasury should launch a consultation on a proposal to amend the definition of regulated advice, so that a firm’s actions are only considered to be regulated advice when a personal recommendation is made
• The FCA should issue guidance to firms on how they can offer ‘streamlined advice’ and still meet regulatory requirements, guidance which should include a series of illustrative case studies. Firms have previously suggested they could limit the costs of giving advice if they were able to carry out ‘simplified advice’ focussed on a single need area, but have been wary of how the regulator and the Financial Ombudsman Service might view the matter
• Trainee advisers to be allowed to give advice under supervision for four years, up from the existing two and a half years, before being required to pass an appropriate Diploma qualification
• The FCA should work with the industry to look at reducing the length of suitability reports
• The FCA should set up an Advice Unit aimed at assisting firms in launching automated advice (or robo-advice) systems
• The Treasury should consider allowing consumers to access a small percentage of their pension fund before the usual age of 55 in order to pay for regulated advice on retirement planning
• The Financial Services Compensation Scheme should look at introducing risk-based levies based on individual products, and on reforming the existing funding classes
• The FCA should review availability of professional indemnity insurance for smaller firms

The information shown in this article was correct at the time of publication. Articles are not routinely reviewed and as such are not updated. Please be aware the facts, circumstances or legal position may change after publication of the article.


CMC fined for failing to demonstrate data was legally obtained, as police raid unlicensed CMCs

The Claims Management Regulator at the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has fined Bournemouth-based claims management company Elkador Finance £315,000. The company is said to have committed ‘serious breaches’ in failing to ensure that customer data from third parties was obtained legally.

The company, which handles financial claims, personal injury claims and criminal injuries compensation, was found to have breached three sections of the MoJ’s Conduct of Authorised Persons Rules:

• General Rule 2d – the requirement to maintain appropriate records and audit trails
• General Rule 2e – the need to ensure referrals, leads and data sourced from third parties have been obtained in accordance with applicable rules and legislation
• Client Specific Rule 9 – the need to ensure marketing material issued on a CMC’s behalf by a third party complies with applicable rules and legislation

The company has 28 days to appeal against the fine to the First-Tier Tribunal.

The total amount of fines levied by the MoJ since it gained the power to fine CMCs at the start of 2015 now stands at more than £2 million. The other fines include:

• £850,000 to Zahier Hussain, who trades as National Advice Clinic, the Industrial Hearing Clinic or the Central Compensation Office, for making almost six million marketing calls about compensation for hearing loss. Many of these calls were made to consumers who had registered with the Telephone Preference Service (TPS). The firm also breached rules relating to: record keeping, obtaining leads and referrals and making introductions to solicitors
• £567,423 to Rock Law Limited regarding irregularities in its contracts with clients
£220,000 to Aurangzeb Iqbal, who traded as The Hearing Clinic, also for making millions of unsolicited marketing calls to TPS registered consumers and others about hearing loss compensation
£91,845 to Complete Claim Solutions Limited for unsolicited calls regarding personal injury claims

At the same time, the MoJ announced that it had teamed up with police to conduct raids on two CMCs suspected of acting without authorisation – one in Birmingham and one in Swansea. Both companies are said to have made large numbers of unsolicited cold calls, and the company in Swansea is alleged to have conned customers out of hundreds and thousands of pounds as a result of its marketing practices. At the Swansea company, five individuals were arrested and released on conditional bail. The companies are, according to the MoJ, “thought to be at the centre of large scale and sophisticated cold-calling operations”. Enquiries into both companies are continuing.

Kevin Rousell, Head of Claims Management Regulation at the MoJ, said:

“We have taken swift and decisive action to tackle these sham firms. Our intelligence suggested that these people wanted to defraud the public and cause misery.

“Firms should be in no doubt that if you attempt to operate outside the law and take advantage of vulnerable people – we will seek the most severe sanctions available.”

The information shown in this article was correct at the time of publication. Articles are not routinely reviewed and as such are not updated. Please be aware the facts, circumstances or legal position may change after publication of the article.


Public Accounts Committee publishes report on mis-selling

The Public Accounts Committee – the House of Commons Committee that scrutinises the value for money of public spending by civil servants, has published a report entitled ‘Financial services mis-selling: regulation and redress’.

The report says that “there remain substantial risks of further mis-selling” in the future, and also makes reference to “cultural problems within firms that make mis-selling more likely.” It urges the regulators and other authorities to act, adding that “the FCA and the Treasury must do more to know how much mis-selling is happening.”

It says there are two main drivers for mis-selling: products being complex and difficult for consumers to understand, and the culture and incentives to mis-sell that may exist within firms.

The Committee also comments that claims management companies (CMCs) have collected up to £5 billion of the compensation that was due to victims of mis-selling, and says that “[fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”yes” overflow=”visible”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”no” center_content=”no” min_height=”none”][Government] departments and regulators have been far too passive in allowing this to happen.” The fact that CMCs have collected so much of the compensation (as fees) is described as “a failure of the system of regulation.” The Committee calls for the Treasury and the Ministry of Justice to report on how they will reduce the role CMCs play in the payment protection insurance (PPI) compensation system; and requests that the Treasury and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) set out how they will ensure that CMCs do not collect as large a share of the compensation in future mis-selling episodes.

The FCA has been asked to report to the Committee in 12 months time on the actions it is taking to improve the culture within authorised firms, and on the steps it is taking to ensure firms check that their customers understand the products they are purchasing.

The Committee welcomed the fact that the FCA had promoted changes to firms’ remuneration systems and had introduced greater individual accountability via the Senior Managers Regime. However, it said the regulator had still not set out its expectations of what type of culture firms should operate, and warned that the recently introduced pension freedoms gave rise to considerable risks of future mis-selling.

The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has been asked to provide a clear timetable for reducing and ultimately eliminating its backlog of PPI cases. As of November 2015, 45% of the PPI cases being considered by the FOS were more than one year old, and 17% were more than two years old. Half of the PPI cases closed in the first half of the financial year 2015/16 had taken 15 months or more to resolve.

The information shown in this article was correct at the time of publication. Articles are not routinely reviewed and as such are not updated. Please be aware the facts, circumstances or legal position may change after publication of the article.[/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]


Credit application refused for failing to disclose past disciplinary history

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has refused an application to carry out debt management activities from Manchester-based Nasser Yusuf, who intended to trade as Advance Money Management.

The two main reasons that the regulator refused the application were that Mr Yusuf failed to disclose details of his disciplinary history, and that he failed to show the necessary competence required to become a regulated person. He was intending to operate as a sole trader.

Applicants for consumer credit authorisation need to answer the following question on their application form:

“Has the Applicant ever been: criticised, censured, investigated, disciplined, suspended, expelled, fined, or been subject to any other disciplinary intervention action by any financial services regulator or government body in the UK or overseas?”

Mr Yusuf answered ‘No’ to this question even though he:

• Was warned by the former consumer credit regulator, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), in June 2007 for failing to inform them of a change of address
• Was warned by the OFT in April 2008 over non-compliant advertising material
• Continued to trade after March 22 2008 when his Consumer Credit Licence lapsed. He applied unsuccessfully for a new licence in June 2008
• Failed to refund brokerage fees to certain customers, even though he had been warned about this issue by the Financial Ombudsman Service and Trading Standards
• Did not deal with complaints in a timely manner in the past

Given this past history, it is unlikely that the FCA would have approved his application in any case had it been disclosed. However, the FCA regard any failure to disclose relevant information on an authorisation application as a very serious matter.

Regarding his competence, the FCA said that Mr Yusuf failed to provide satisfactory answers to the following questions:

• What a statute barred debt is
• The circumstances in which a Debt Relief Order would be revoked
• What the difference is between a Trust Deed and a Protected Trust Deed
• How a Debt Relief Order might affect a customer’s credit rating
• What a Debt Arrangement Scheme is

His Facebook page also contained a statement to the effect that he could freeze interest on customer’s debts. To state or imply this is a breach of the FCA’s rules. The statement has since been removed.

Mr Yusuf also failed to demonstrate that he had opened a client bank account (for the purposes of holding client money) and failed to provide a copy of the promotional material he intended to use on his website.

In summary, the FCA said it could not be satisfied that Mr Yusuf could satisfy as many as three of the Threshold Conditions: 2C (Effective supervision), 2D (Appropriate resources) and 2E (Suitability).

The information shown in this article was correct at the time of publication. Articles are not routinely reviewed and as such are not updated. Please be aware the facts, circumstances or legal position may change after publication of the article.


MoJ gives details of first quarter enforcement action against CMCs

During the first quarter of 2016, the Claims Management Regulator at the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) cancelled the authorisation of one claims management company (CMC), warned 84 others and commenced 13 new investigations into CMCs. During this period, 299 companies were visited by MoJ staff.

CMCs that take upfront fees, rather than simply taking a percentage of any compensation awarded, have been warned to expect close scrutiny from the MoJ.

Three of the new investigations concern CMCs who specialise in financial services, such as those handling payment protection insurance (PPI) and/or packaged bank account cases. 12 further investigations into companies in this area continue.

Regarding nuisance calls and texts, 15 warnings were issued, three new investigations were commenced and nine further investigations are ongoing. The one CMC to lose their authorisation during the period – Falcon & Pointer – made some 40 million automated nuisance calls over a three month period to promote its PPI claims services. Automated calls are only permitted where the recipient has given express consent to receiving them, and including an option within the call to decline future marketing calls is not sufficient.

Falcon & Pointer also pressured clients into signing contracts, and took payments, without allowing the clients time to understand the contract terms.

Later, the data protection watchdog the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) also took action against Falcon & Pointer. It fined the company £175,000 after some 5,535 complaints were received by ICO about its automated marketing calls regarding payment protection insurance claims.

The firm told the ICO in June 2015 that it had stopped making the marketing calls, yet the watchdog found evidence of the company making 2,475,481 calls in the two months following that. Many customers claimed the company were making calls in the middle of the night.

The company claimed the calls had been made by a third party, who had told them that all individuals who were phoned had consented to receiving calls, but this defence did not impress the ICO, who again stressed that companies cannot rely on third party assurances of this type, and must conduct their own checks. Automated calls can only be made to customers who have given explicit consent to receiving them.

A further nine CMCs active in the personal injury claims area were warned between January and March. The bulletin also gives details of ways the MoJ has co-operated with the police and with fraud prevention agencies regarding personal injury claims.

The most eye-catching piece of news from the first quarter, that affects the claims management sector, was a Government announcement that the Financial Conduct Authority will take over regulation of CMCs. Their tougher regulatory regime is expected to come into force within two years.

The information shown in this article was correct at the time of publication. Articles are not routinely reviewed and as such are not updated. Please be aware the facts, circumstances or legal position may change after publication of the article.


Debt manager to appeal FCA decision to refuse authorisation application

Manchester-based debt manager Money Matcher Limited is to appeal against a decision by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to refuse its application for full authorisation. The Upper Tribunal will now look into the case, but until the Tribunal has had time to consider the matter, the firm’s interim permission has been revoked, and the firm is therefore not permitted to carry out regulated activities.

The FCA refused the application as it had numerous concerns over the competence of the firm’s director, who has not been named.

The firm has operated in the debt management sector since 2012.

Many of the issues stem from the departure of the firm’s former compliance officer in autumn 2014. The firm is still to appoint a successor. The director said he would carry out the role in the meantime, and he duly applied for permission to carry out the CF10 (compliance oversight) function, but the FCA is not convinced that he has the skills and experience required. The firm has indicated that it will engage an external compliance consultant, but could not provide details of the scope of the consultant’s involvement.

In the Final Notice, the FCA says that the director “admitted that he was not aware of which
Authority rules or guidelines he needed to read.” He was unable to give a satisfactory answer when asked by the FCA what risks to clients existed as a result of the firm’s business model, and conceded he had “no idea” as to what was included in the firm’s vulnerable clients procedures.

Since the compliance officer left, the firm has not carried out monitoring of the quality of advice provided by its staff, relevant management information has not been monitored and staff training has not been kept up to date. The director said that training requirements would be addressed by the compliance consultant, but could not provide details of exactly what this training would involve, or when it would be carried out.

The firm’s complaints procedure does not explain the timescale for resolving complaints, or the process by which they will be handled. Its procedure for handling client assets consists of little more than a statement of applicable FCA rules, without explaining how these will be applied within the firm, and it also fails to identify which ‘director or senior manager’ has responsibility for client assets.

In summary, the FCA believes that the firm is unable to satisfy threshold condition 2D (Appropriate resources) or condition 2E (Suitability).

The information shown in this article was correct at the time of publication. Articles are not routinely reviewed and as such are not updated. Please be aware the facts, circumstances or legal position may change after publication of the article.


Clydesdale’s PPI provision tops £1.5 billion

A sixth UK banking group has announced that the amount it has set aside for payment protection insurance (PPI) has reached the £1.5 billion mark.

Clydesdale Bank plc, which operates the Clydesdale bank and Yorkshire Bank brands, has added a further £450 million to its compensation reserve, taking its total provision to around £1.5 billion.

This total is exceeded only by the ‘big four’ banking groups, where Lloyds Banking Group’s PPI provision stands at £16 billion, Barclays’ reserve at £6 billion, Royal Bank of Scotland’s at £4.3 billion and HSBC’s at £2.63 billion. Santander has also made provision of around £1.5 billion for PPI, meaning that collectively the six banks have now set aside £31.93 billion.
Clydesdale was spun off into an independent entity by parent company National Australia Bank (NAB) earlier this year. However, NAB will still need to contribute £406 million of the additional £450 million.

Clydesdale blamed the Plevin court judgement – which will allow claims to be tabled on the grounds that PPI commission was not disclosed – for the latest increase. The bank has also set aside £600 million for mis-selling claims in areas other than PPI.

In April 2015, the financial regulator the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) fined Clydesdale £20,768,300 over a number of issues regarding its handling of PPI complaints. The Glasgow-based bank was also required to pay compensation to affected customers as part of the settlement with the regulator.

The issues continued for more than two years, affecting complaints closed by Clydesdale between May 2011 and July 2013. The bank closed some 126,600 cases during this period, and the FCA says that up to a third of these complaints (42,200) may have been unfairly rejected as a result of these failings. A further 50,900 customers may have received insufficient redress.

The issues uncovered by the FCA included:

• Clydesdale had a policy of not conducting any searches for relevant documentation where the associated loan or mortgage had been repaid more than seven years prior to the PPI complaint, even though it was aware that documentation may still be available. The FCA did not criticise the policy of destroying certain documents after seven years, but does note that it was not acceptable to have automatically assumed all documents had been destroyed
• Clydesdale submitted false information to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). The FOS began asking for documentary evidence that the bank had searched for documentation in some of the older cases, so Clydesdale started deleting certain information from its systems and producing false screen prints to make it look like the searches had been unsuccessful. The FCA accepted that the practice was undertaken by one team within the bank’s complaint handling operation, and that management were unaware of the issue and had not approved its staff acting in this way
• Training provided to complaint handlers was inadequate, and they were failing to consider all necessary information when considering a complaint. In particular, staff were not giving due consideration to existing sickness benefits provided by customers’ employers

The FCA is expected to confirm later this year that a deadline for making a PPI claim will come into force in 2018.

The information shown in this article was correct at the time of publication. Articles are not routinely reviewed and as such are not updated. Please be aware the facts, circumstances or legal position may change after publication of the article.


Suspended prison sentence for debt management director

A debt management director has received a 15 month jail sentence, suspended for two years, and been ordered to carry out 200 hours of community service. David Hall – a director of Debts Reduced Limited, Linked Finance Limited and an additional firm in his own name – was found guilty at Cardiff Crown Court of fraud by abuse of position.

The regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), which assisted South Wales Police in Mr Hall’s prosecution, issued a statement following the sentence.

The court heard that Mr Hall charged his customers £10 per month for a product known as a ‘Cover Plan’. The plan was designed to assist customers if their circumstances changed, thus preventing them from making payments into their debt management plan. However, the customers had not consented to paying for this cover, and Mr Hall could not supply any correspondence which made customers aware they were paying for this.

The three firms did not take on new business after May 21 2014, and the FCA says that all affected customers have received full refunds. Mr Hall agreed to an FCA request to cease accepting new business, to make refunds to affected customers and to wind down the firms in an orderly manner. Once the regulator was satisfied that all monies had been returned to customers, the interim permissions of the three firms were cancelled.

The case highlights the importance of treating customers fairly, and specifically of ensuring that customers are never paying for a product without their knowledge or consent. Communications with customers must be clear, fair and not misleading.

Debt management firms can continue to expect close scrutiny, as the FCA regards them as high risk. Most firms visited by the regulator will not end up in court, but firms that fail to comply with regulatory requirements could see their interim permissions cancelled, or could be subject to regulatory action.

Basic obligations for debt managers under the FCA regulations include:

• All debt solutions must be affordable for the customer
• In its first communication with a customer, a firm carrying out debt management activities must make them aware that free debt counselling, debt adjusting and credit information services are available, and that more information can be obtained by contacting the Money Advice Service
• Firms need to have documented procedures for the treatment of vulnerable customers, and ensure that these procedures are followed when applicable. They must also be able to identify vulnerable customers, which might include those with mental capacity issues, those with limited financial knowledge, the elderly or the disabled. Many customers seeking debt advice are likely to be ‘vulnerable’ in some way
• A firm’s fees and charges should not be so large that they prevent a customer from making repayments under the agreed debt solution. Firms should also have regard to the timing of fees and charges payments, and ensure that, as far as possible, these fees and charges are taken at times best suited to the customer
• When administering a debt management plan, a firm must ensure that it maintains regular contact with the customer and continually reviews the customer’s circumstances
• If a customer who previously has a good payment record on their plan then misses one or more payments, then the firm should treat this as evidence of a material change in the customer’s circumstances, and should therefore carry out a review of the customer’s circumstances

The information shown in this article was correct at the time of publication. Articles are not routinely reviewed and as such are not updated. Please be aware the facts, circumstances or legal position may change after publication of the article.

Posts navigation