MEDIA RELEASE: 11 April 2024

Statement issued on behalf of WilmerHale and BCLP, legal counsel to Woodford
Investment Management and Neil Woodford, in response to the FCA announcement
today
Today, the FCA announced that it has initiated regulatory enforcement action against both Woodford
Investment Management (WIM) and Mr Woodford. This announcement comes nearly five years after
the investigation commenced.
The FCA alleges that WIM and Mr Woodford failed to act with due skill, care and diligence during the11 months from 31 July 2018 to 3 June 2019, when Link decided to suspend the Fund.
It is striking that the FCA’s only criticisms of Neil Woodford relate to his involvement in mattersrelating to the Fund's liquidity framework, which was, in fact, Link's responsibility and supervised by
the Depositary (the Depositary is responsible for the safekeeping of the Fund’s assets and foroverseeing the Fund’s Authorised Corporate Director) and the FCA.
Even though, as Authorised Corporate Director, Link delegated the daily investment management
responsibilities to WIM, it remained the Fund Manager and retained ultimate responsibility for therunning of the Fund. As the delegated Investment Manager, WIM was required to manage the Fundin accordance with both the liquidity framework and all the other portfolio constraints set by Link.
Central to the failings alleged against WIM and Mr Woodford is the FCA’s claim that the frameworkused to measure and monitor the Fund’s liquidity risk and the corresponding parameters of theFund’s liquidity were not appropriate.
Importantly, that framework and its parameters were set by Link, one of the most experienced
Authorised Corporate Directors in the industry. At the time, Link managed fund assets for over 100
investment managers. As acknowledged by Andrew Bailey shortly after the Fund’s suspension,responsibility for liquidity rested with Link.
Additionally, staff at WIM had it confirmed by Link that the FCA and the Depositary knew the detailsof the liquidity framework that was being applied to the Fund, including its parameters, throughout theperiod. In fact, WIM knew that the FCA had been monitoring the Fund’s liquidity continuously since
the beginning of 2018. The oversight and investment functions at WIM all understood that theframework’s parameters, set by Link, overseen by the Depositary and known to and monitored by theFCA, represented the acceptable liquidity profile of the Fund.
The team at WIM, including Mr Woodford, having not had any prior warning, were surprised by Link’s
decision to suspend the Fund, only being informed on the morning of the suspension. Subsequently,
the entire WIM team were shocked by Link’s damaging decision to liquidate the Fund, and that Link
took responsibility for the management of that process, as well as the losses that investors suffered
as a result.

However, the FCA’s case is that Neil Woodford should have known that Link’s liquidity framework
was deficient and that he should have challenged it, even though the FCA appeared to havesanctioned the framework and closely monitored it.
WIM and Mr Woodford disagree with the FCA’s findings, which they believe are unprecedented andfundamentally misconceived. The findings will be challenged by WIM and Mr Woodford.
ENDS

Media contact
Sarah Peters, Bell Yard Communications (PR adviser to law firm, WilmerHale)
07977 997927 / sarah@bell-yard.com