F CA Imposes a Penalty of £46m on Neil Woodford and Woodford Investment Management due to Fund Collapses
Woodford and WIM Appeal £46 Million FCA Fine Over Liquidity Management
Neil Woodford and Woodford Investment Management (WIM) are currently appealing a £46 million fine issued by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to the Upper Tribunal. The appeal stems from the FCA's Decision Notices published on August 5, 2025, which also resulted in fines and bans for both Woodford (£5.9 million) and WIM (£40 million), preventing them from managing retail funds or holding senior management roles due to inappropriate investment decisions and poor liquidity management within the Woodford Equity Income Fund (WEIF)[1][3].
The core legal dispute centers on who was responsible for monitoring the fund’s liquidity. Woodford and WIM argue that Link Fund Solutions, the authorised corporate director (ACD), held the principal responsibility for liquidity oversight, as this framework was designed and approved in conjunction with regulators. In contrast, the FCA holds Woodford and his firm accountable for failing to maintain adequate liquidity and for prioritising investment strategies over investor protection[2][3].
The hearing for the appeal is expected to face a significant delay because the Upper Tribunal currently has a backlog, with at least 15 cases ahead of Woodford’s still awaiting hearing dates. This delay could extend the resolution timeline to several years[1].
During the fund's suspension in June 2019, only eight per cent of investments held by WEIF could be sold within seven days, breaking rules in place at the time. The FCA found that Woodford did not react appropriately as the fund's value declined and its liquidity worsened. Between July 2018 and June 2019, both Woodford and WIM made unreasonable and inappropriate investment decisions[2].
In an interview with City AM, Woodford denied misleading investors and insisted on being transparent to retail shareholders. However, the FCA concluded that Woodford held a "defective and unreasonably narrow understanding of his responsibilities" in his senior role[3].
The FCA's decision has generated significant attention due to its implications for fund management oversight and regulatory enforcement in the UK investment sector. An open letter to Sir Chris Wormald, chair of the Honours Forfeiture Committee, urges Wormald to swiftly remove Woodford's CBE. Calls are mounting for Woodford to be stripped of his CBE due to the "terrible harm the Woodford scandal" has caused[1].
Woodford and WIM strongly disagree with the FCA's decision and intend to challenge it. In a statement, WIM claims that Woodford managed the fund within a framework designed to ensure sufficient liquidity. Steve Smart, joint executive director of enforcement and market oversight at the FCA, stated that Neil Woodford does not accept any role in managing the liquidity of the fund[3].
References:
[1] Financial Times (2025). Woodford appeal faces long wait as Upper Tribunal struggles with backlog. [online] Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- The FCA's decision to fine Woodford and Woodford Investment Management (WIM) £46 million for inappropriate investment decisions and poor liquidity management within the Woodford Equity Income Fund (WEIF) has sparked intense debate in the finance and business sectors.
- The Upper Tribunal hearing for Woodford and WIM's appeal against the FCA fine emphasizes a key question about the division of responsibilities between fund managers and authorized corporate directors (ACDs) in terms of liquidity management.
- Despite the FCA's allegations of inadequate liquidity management within the WEIF, Woodford and WIM assert that their investment strategies prioritized investor protection and that the ACD held primary responsibility for liquidity oversight.
