Search results

The paper's aim is to report and comment on two preliminary issues that arose from claims being pursued by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) against Abbey National Treasury Services (ANTS) and NDF Administration Ltd (NDF).

The paper outlines the facts and explains the decision.

The FSCS commenced action against ANTS as assignee of the assigned claims and alleged that ANTS had collaborated with NDF in product development and promotion of the Structured Capital at Risk Products and was liable in negligence and misrepresentation to the investors whose claims it held as assignee. Having considered the arguments, the Judge concluded that FSA did have power to make rules enabling FSCS to take assignment of investor claims.

The issues in this case go to the heart of the funding mechanism of the FSCS. The financing of such compensation schemes is a perennially controversial issue in every jurisdiction that has them.

The purpose of this paper is to report and comment on Financial Services Compensation Scheme Ltd v. Abbey National Treasury Services plc.

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

The Court agreed with the FSCS's view and upheld its claim to legal advice privilege for both the questions and answers and the relevant narrative commentaries that appeared on the investor claim checklists.

This decision represents an interesting consequence of the rationalisation and assignment to the FSCS of private investors' claims for redress in the wake of firms' default triggering regulatory compensation payments.

This paper aims to examine the prospect for international investment disputes in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic due to measures implemented by the Australian government to tackle the pandemic.

Doctrinal research. Contains qualitative analysis.

This paper finds that claims based on the protections in the International Investment Agreements (IIAs) signed by Australia are unlikely to succeed and that Australia’s COVID-19 measures can be justified as necessary measures under the general and security exception clauses included in more recent IIAs and under customary international law.

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, scholars have written papers apprehending possible claims by international investors against emergency measures adopted by host countries to face the pandemic which might also have damaged the interest of the foreign investors. The existing literature is too vague and general. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first paper that draws some specific conclusions in this regard applicable to the COVID-19 regulatory measures taken by Australia. While the existing literature projects the possibility of such investor claims, this paper argues that at least no such claim would succeed against the COVID-19 measures taken by Australia.

Mr and Mrs Martin, the claimants, received financial advice from Mr Sherman, a representative of the Life Association of Scotland in 1991. The long‐term insurance business of the Life Association for Scotland was transferred to Britannia Life Ltd. in 1994, hence their position as Defendant to this claim. The financial advice the Martins received involved, in brief, a remortgage of their house, the surrender of a number of existing life policies which were collateral security for an existing mortgage on the house, the taking out of a new endowment policy and a pension policy with the new endowment policy being charged as collateral security on the mortgage. The judge described Mr Sherman as being, at the material time, a self‐employed financial consultant but he was actually for the purposes of the Financial Services Act 1986 a company representative of the Life Association for Scotland (LAS) authorised only to advise, market and sell that group's products. Mr Sherman was therefore a company representative of LAS within the meaning of rule 1.2 of the then applicable rules of the Life Assurance Unit Trust and Regulatory Organisation (LAUTRO).

This case concerned the validity of assignments to the Investors Compensation Scheme (ICS) of the claims of various individual investors which arose out of the widespread mis‐selling of home income plans between 1989 and 1991. The factual background to the case is given in a statement of facts agreed between all parties and appended to the judgment. A FIMBRA regulated firm of independent financial advisers, Fisher Prew Smith Ltd advised the claimants (including Messrs Alford and Armitage in this action), to take out home income plans involving equity release mortgages with the West Bromwich Building Society (WBBS) which were arranged by Hopkin & Sons (the Solicitor Defendants). The firm of independent financial advisers concerned failed and, as they were authorised persons (FIMBRA members), claims against them for negligence, breach of contract, fiduciary and statutory duty were to an extent covered by the s.54A Financial Services Act (FSA) statutory compensation scheme. The claimants were duly compensated by the ICS within a range of 50—75 per cent of their claims at law but despite this many of the individuals affected (including the Plaintiffs in the third and fourth actions) still have outstanding liabilities to the WBBS. When the individual claimants received offers of compensation from the ICS they signed a standard claim form which contained a declaration that the claimants had received no compensation of any kind in relation to the claim and confirmed that they did not expect to receive any such in the future, a declaration that ICS would take over the claimants' rights and claims against third parties on the payment of any compensation. The claim form further provided ‘ICS agrees that the following claim shall not be treated as a third party claim for the purpose of this agreement and the benefits of such claim shall inure to you absolutely: Any claim (whether sounding in recission for undue influence or otherwise) that you have or may have against [the WBBS] in which you claim an abatement of sums which you would otherwise have to repay to that society in connection with the transaction and dealings giving rise to the claim (including interest on any such sums’. The claim form further provided that the claimants agreed, in the event of their receiving any money or assets in respect of the claim from the scheme participant firm or from any FSA trustee, to transfer such money or assets to the ICS. It provided for an assignment to ICS of claimants' third party claims in the following words ‘We hereby assign to ICS each and every third party claim and the benefit thereof’.

The main purpose of this study is to identify features and trends shaping the business models currently prevailing in the Canadian biopharma industry, by disaggregating the business model analysis into four key areas: value creation, investment strategy, business strategy, success factors

Results arise from an empirical fieldwork of qualitative nature, undertaken by the end of 2004, involving deep interviews to a broad variety of key stakeholders of the biopharma industry in the Quebec region, including biopharma firms, large pharma firms, venture capital funds, research centers and recognized experts from consultancy firms and Universities.

Biopharma firms encounter difficulties to bridge the gap between the research innovation focus to the large scale production focus. The biopharma firms need to announce achievable and promising hits in the near future, mainly by filing patents and also through scientific publications, and making believable their prospects to reach the release phase. Venture capitalists and private investors claim for original, innovative and marketable results, keeping away from just imitative enterprises. The one product firms still largely prevail.

Lessons learned through this fieldwork might in the future be complemented with a quantitative survey to biopharma firms in the Quebec region.

When funding biopharma firms, private investors claim for original, innovative and marketable results, keeping away from just imitative enterprises. The business model must evolve, and take into account the quick changes in the environment, coming either from the market or from the technologies and research streams.

Disaggregating the business model analysis into four key areas will make an original contribution to the limited knowledge about expectations and future prospects of the biopharma industry

Over the past fifteen years there has been a lot of research into the behaviour of share prices. This has largely involved investigating whether share prices were predictable by mechanical means and whether any class of investors has had consistent and substantial success in investment matters. The main researchers involved in these studies have been (a)academics, who were interested in determining the efficiency of stockmarkets in socio‐economic terms and (b) practising investors and investment advisory firms, who sought to derive profitable investment strategies. Perhaps not surprisingly the published results of the two categories of researchers tended to clash with investors claiming success for their methods whilst the academics have in general refuted their claims. Greater reliance can be placed on the academic investigations however as apart from their disinterested positions and their generally superior research methodologies, they have tested all the publicised “profitable” investment strategies.

These are set out in the earlier comment on this case when it arose at first instance and was considered in Vol. 5, No. 1, Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, p. 78. The investors concerned in this appeal had suffered losses through investment in Home Income Plans arranged by an independent financial adviser (IFA) and the West Bromwich Building Society (WBBS). The IFA was in default and so the Investors Compensation Scheme (ICS) had paid the investors compensation as a result thereof.

The study aims to examine how the vicious circle of blame for sustainable buildings can be turned into virtuous loops of adaptation when considering sustainable buildings and what are the drivers for tenants and investors regarding sustainable buildings and gaining insights of investors’ and tenants’ corporate responsibility (CR) actions.

The paper consists of a literature review and two surveys. The literature review concentrates on exploring investors’ and tenants’ CR and sustainability drivers. Empirical evidence was gathered via two specific surveys. The first survey targeted investors, and the second survey targeted tenants to determine the focus areas of sustainability.

The findings of this study indicate that the vicious circle of blame can be turned into one of cooperation with respect to sustainable buildings if the mutual drivers for improving sustainability are linked with investor–tenant collaboration. Based on the survey, the tenants claim that productivity, corporate culture and image are the primary drivers for sustainable buildings, whereas the investors claim that corporate culture and image, tenant demand and marketability are the primary drivers. Both parties mentioned the same sustainability drivers: corporate culture and image and lower operating costs. However, it was found that investors are not communicating their CR actions to public or promoting image and productivity benefits of green buildings to potential tenants.

The limitation of this study is the sampling of Nordic countries, as there are indications of different situation in other markets such as the USA.

Improving sustainability in the real estate industry is linked to investor–tenant collaboration. In addition to common drivers, both investors and tenants have their own list of benefits and drivers for sustainable buildings. These drivers are linked to each other. Making progress with respect to sustainability in the built environment depends on people in the industry being aware of the importance of and possibilities offered by sustainable buildings, as well as being able and willing to act on this knowledge. Only through partnership can the full potential of the built environment be realised and help deliver an economically, environmentally and socially sustainable future.

This chapter seeks to explain the effects of actions in investment treaty tribunals against states in the European Periphery. The chapter examines the case of Spain and the multiple actions brought against it due to changes in support structures for the production of solar electricity. The aim of this analysis is to test whether investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) can further the cause of environmental sustainability.

In its opening part the chapter employs a ‘socio-legal’ methodology, showing the links between legal frameworks and the evolution of social and political norms. The chapter then adopts a ‘law and economics’ approach in presenting recent developments seeking to tease out the dynamic between legal changes, economic effects, policy reactions and dispute resolution.

While there is significant uncertainty over the strength of the legal arguments of claimants, it seems possible that they will be successful in claiming compensation from the Spanish government. Nonetheless, a win for the investors is unlikely to reverse the Spanish policy of ending support for renewables due to fiscal constraints. The conclusion is that such actions have a negative impact in terms of promoting the spread of renewables and they inhibit recovery in crisis hit nations.

The chapter offers context on the use of ISDS against the background of the European crisis. This analysis has wider connotations for policy design as it feeds directly into concerns about multilateral agreements under negotiation, such as TTIP.

This is the first comprehensive academic study of the changes in Spanish regulatory frameworks regarding clean energy incentives. It is also the first comprehensive presentation of the actions brought against Spain as a result of these changes.