1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Regulatory Reform of the UK Financial Services Industry

Regulatory Reform of the UK Financial Services Industry

Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.03.13

For many years the principal regulator for the UK financial services industry has been the Financial Services Authority (FSA). As a result of the FSA's perceived failings during the financial crisis and subsequent recession, the FSA was this week abolished in its current form and replaced by:

  • the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), which sits as an independent subsidiary of the Bank of England and is responsible for the regulation of financial institutions of systemic importance such as banks and building societies;
  • the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), which has inherited most of the regulatory roles previously carried out by the FSA including responsibility for the conduct of all businesses which were regulated by the FSA; and
  • the Financial Policy Committee (FPC), which sits in the Bank of England and will oversee macro-economic risks as well as giving recommendations to the PRA and FCA.

PRA

Responsibility for the micro-prudential regulation of banks, insurers and major investment firms has passed from the FSA to the PRA. These types of institutions are now effectively subject to dual regulation as their conduct will be regulated by the FCA.

FCA

The FSA has effectively been renamed and rebranded as the FCA with the following three areas of responsibility:

  • conduct of business supervision of banks, insurers and major investment firms (as mentioned above, these institutions will also be subject to prudential regulation by the PRA);
  • conduct of business and market supervision of all regulated firms not falling within the remit of the PRA; and
  • enforcement (although the PRA has the same powers as the FCA to impose penalties and fines for regulatory breaches).

FPC

Whilst the PRA is responsible for micro-prudential regulation of systemically-important institutions, the FPC has responsibility for macro-prudential regulation i.e. the monitoring and safeguarding of stability of the UK financial system as a whole. Whilst the FPC does not have direct enforcement powers over institutions, it has the power to direct the PRA and the FCA to take action against an institution where the FPC believes that this is necessary to safeguard the UK's financial stability.

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights