Search results

This paper summarises the FSA's enforcement action taken to date under the market abuse regime and considers how the implementation of the Market Abuse Directive (‘MAD’) will affect the work of city compliance officers. In particular, this paper focuses on the new requirement for the regulated sector to make suspicious transaction reports in respect of market abusive behaviour as well as considering how the newly revamped market abuse regime will sit alongside the criminal offence of insider dealing.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the Court of Appeal's consideration regarding FSA's use of its investigation powers to assist an overseas regulator, focusing on The Financial Services Authority and others v. Amro International and Goodman Jones LLP (interested party).

The paper outlines the facts surrounding the case and comments on the decision.

The FSA's argument was successful and its appeal was allowed.

Financial regulators the world over will welcome this decision and the level of support it shows from the Court of Appeal for their need to work together and harness each other's regulatory and investigatory powers in pursuance of piecing together patterns of activity across national financial market boundaries.

To discuss the FSA's enforcement action against the Royal Dutch/Shell group, which had been found to have made false or misleading announcements regarding its proved hydrocarbon reserves and reserves placement ratio's 1998‐2003.

Presents the facts forming the background to the case.

Finds that the Chairman of Shell's defence in the case contains some justifiable points, although the tribunal's decision went against him.

Arguably, lays the foundation for further discussion of points such as these, foreshadowring a forthcoming publication on the UK financial regulation.

The UK Financial Services and Markets Act (FSMA) 2000 has introduced a new ‘lighthanded’ regulatory regime for energy market participants. The following paper shows how it changes the playing field for energy traders, producers and distributors.

The purpose of this article is to determine the burden of proof that is applicable in the range of activities covered by the civil offence of market abuse. It also considers the approach adopted in the USA and discusses the extent to which that approach may be worth applying in this country.

The methodology adopted is a mixture of black letter law in analysing the nature of the burden of proof and the relevant market abuse issues, historical research in examining how the modern law relating to the burden of proof has evolved and comparative research through the consideration given to the US approach.

The findings are that the burden of proof in market abuse cases is unclear, that the burden may well not be the same in all cases, that clarification is needed on the point and that the approach adopted in the USA offers the advantage of clarity. Therefore, its adoption should be considered.

The main practical implication is that cases are currently being brought without this key issue being properly considered and clarified.

The author can find no other research that has been published in this specific area.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the nature and content of the laws relating to market abuse with a view to determining whether they only offer a civil law remedy for the State. The three categories of insider dealing as defined by the Criminal Justice Act 1993 clearly offer a criminal law based response, but as is shown here virtually all cases of market abuse can potentially be a basis for a criminal prosecution.

The methodology adopted is to consider the other relevant areas of law, namely the Fraud Act 2006, the law of conspiracy to defraud and the law relating to misleading communications under s.397 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and then to determine whether between them they cover all the areas of behaviour caught by the definitions of market abuse.

The consequences of this paper are that the Serious Fraud Office and the Financial Conduct Authority now have the option in almost any case of market abuse of considering whether a criminal or civil law approach is appropriate.

The approach adopted over the last two years by the prosecuting authorities of using the criminal law to a greater extent in serious cases of insider dealing can now be extended to market abuse generally where it is thought appropriate.

The purpose of this paper is to answer a specific research question: How have EU and US regulators translated the idea of central clearing into law?

A meticulous legal research is carried out. First, the pre‐crisis regulatory regime for credit default swap (CDS) is reviewed, from a securities law angle as well as from a comparative Euro‐American perspective. Next, the regulatory processes leading to the adoption of the central clearing regulations are discussed. Thereafter, a material comparative analysis is made of the provisions related to central clearing in the EU and US regulatory initiatives. Finally, the paper is concluded with an evaluation of both legislations in the light of all previous analyses.

The research first shows that central clearing regulations rely on a series of presumptions, both concerning the gravity of counterparty risk threats and the necessity of central clearing. Additionally, the EU and US clearing regulations are similar with regard to the broad innovations they introduce, i.e. the mandatory central clearing of a variety of over‐the‐counter derivatives and counterparty risk management requirements for central clearing institutions and for non‐cleared swaps. However, the specific content of the provisions often differs. Furthermore, both legislations are limited to enouncing broad principles. This is also the case for the crucial provisions related to counterparty risk management. Therefore, these provisions in se do not guarantee the proper regulation of counterparty risk management practices. Consequently, much is to be expected from the implementing measures adopted by regulatory institutions.

The paper provides an overview of those provisions in the European and US regulations that specifically concern central clearing for CDS. It is one of the first papers which does this in a very well‐structured and clearly written manner. Also it is one of the first to provide a clear comparison between the provisions in the EU and the US regulations.

The purpose of this paper is to report and comment on the High Court ruling on whether Financial Services Authority (FSA) disclosures are exempt from freedom of information requests.

The paper outlines the facts surrounding the case and comments on the decision.

The High Court allowed the FSA's appeal in respect of the Owen appeal and the second part of the Lewis appeal (that the names of the seven firms investigated by the FSA as a result of the mystery shopping should not be disclosed) but agreed with the Tribunal on the first part of the Lewis appeal, that the names of the firms subject to the mystery shopping exercise could be disclosed.

This appeal shows how two very differently motivated, yet equally well‐intentioned, regulatory regimes can come into conflict.

What does the Financial Services Authority (FSA) mean by risk‐based regulation and why have it? If the regulator adopts such an approach, how should the firms it regulates react? This paper outlines the risk‐based approach taken in the UK by the FSA and outlines strategies to cope with this type of approach. The paper also argues that in light of developments such as Basel such risk‐based approaches by regulators are here to stay and will become increasingly popular. The paper suggests that as well as establishing a riskbased approach, regulators should seek to make the system transparent and to invite comment on it.

The article's aim is to report and comment on the High Court case Spreadex Ltd v. Sekhon.

The article outlines the facts surrounding the case and comments on the ruling.

The High Court rules that a customer who opted from private to intermediate customer status was contributorily negligent to his spread betting losses.

The article shows that there are many points in this decision where either what was revealed by the evidence or the Judge's comments and reasoning will echo beyond the parameters of the case itself.