Search Filters

Advanced Search Advanced Search
Type:
Date range:

Search Results

Showing 16681 - 16690 of 18301 matches filtered by 'news item'

  • OFT: Anticipated acquisition by IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. of a majority stake in the gas, derivatives and biomass operations of APX-ENDEX Holding B.V.

    01/03/2013
    OFT has cleared this acquisition and will publish the text of its decision shortly.
    Support Information
    Show more Show less
  • Pensions Regulator: Pension liberation fraud - know the signs

    01/03/2013
    The Pensions Regulator has announced the launch of an e-learning tool to help pension trustees and administrators to recognise the warning... signs of pension liberation fraud. It takes the user step-by-step through actions they may take, including identifying the first warning signs, contacting the member and the receiving ‘suspect’ scheme to find out more and deciding whether it is appropriate to pay the transfer. The Pensions Regulator is holding a webinar on this topic on 20 March 20`3 – see this link for further information.
    Support Information
    Show more Show less
  • TSC: HBOS report

    01/03/2013
    TSC has announced that it has appointed Sir Nicholas Monck, former Second Permanent Secretary at HMT, Stuart Bernau, former Chairman and... Chief Executive of the Chelsea Building Society, and Iain Cornish, former Chief Executive of the Yorkshire Building Society, to review the report that FSA is preparing on the failure of HBOS. TSC has also published the ToR for its review – second link below.
    Support Information
    Show more Show less
  • CC: Understanding past market investigation remedies - home credit

    28/02/2013
    CC has published an evaluation of the remedies it introduced following its investigation into the home credit market in 2006, concluding... that whilst customers now benefit by around £35m a year from more generous early rebate settlements as well as the ability to compare pricing, other measures to increase competition have been undermined by the effect of the recession on lending.
    Support Information
    Show more Show less
  • EBA/ESMA: Contracts for difference

    28/02/2013
    EBA/ESMA has published a document which warns retail investors of the dangers of investing in CFDs. It states that retail... investors should only consider trading in CFDs if they have extensive experience of trading in volatile markets, if they fully understand how these operate and have sufficient time to manage their investment on an active basis. It is noted that concurrently with the publication of this warning, the EBA is addressing an internal Opinion under Art. 29 of the EBA Regulations to national supervisory authorities on the prudential supervision of CFDs.
    Support Information
    Show more Show less
  • EC: Actions expected to be adopted in 2013

    28/02/2013
    The EC has published an updated version of this document which sets out legislative and non-legislative proposals in tabular format.
    Support Information
    Show more Show less
  • EC: Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No ../.. of 19.12.2012 supplementing Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regards to exemptions, general operating conditions, depositaries, leverage, transparency and supervision

    28/02/2013
    This is the text of statement by Finland, Denmark, Czech Republic, Latvia, Sweden, Ireland, Netherlands, UK, Germany, Austria, Luxembourg and Portugal... in which they raise their concerns over the manner in which the post-Lisbon process of producing delegated acts is being conducted. It notes that the EC’s draft Delegated Act for the AIFMD Regulation departs from ESMA's advice in a number of areas, without explanation, adding that whilst the EC is not obliged to follow EMA advice: “the credibility of the process of producing delegated acts must be ensured. One avenue forward would be to openly consult the Member States. We therefore urge the Commission to adopt a more open and consultative approach in future, when drawing up delegated acts”. It also states that Member States had only had the opportunity to give comments on the draft Delegated Act in mid-March-April 2012, concluding “his large opaque piece of the AIFMD regulatory package sets enormous challenge to the hearings of stakeholders and the national parliamentary process”..
    Support Information
    Show more Show less
  • Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Exercise of Powers under Part 4A) (Consultation with Home State Regulators) Regulations 2013/431

    28/02/2013
    Section 55R(2) FSMA requires the FCA or PRA (“appropriate regulator”), when it is giving permission under Part 4A of the Act... in response to an application made by a person who is connected with certain EEA firms to consult with the home state regulator of the EEA firm in prescribed circumstances. The appropriate regulator must also consult the home state regulator when cancelling or varying such a permission, in prescribed circumstances. These regulations prescribe two circumstances in which consultation with the home state regulator must take place. First, the appropriate regulator must consult the home state regulator when giving permission unless the permission relates only to a “relevant activity” (as defined by regulation 2(4)). Second, the appropriate regulator must consult the home state regulator when varying permission unless the permission relates only to a “relevant activity” or where the effect of the variation is to give permission for the purposes of a single market directive other than the one for the purposes of which the existing permission was granted. (Date in force: 1/04/13)
    Support Information
    Show more Show less
  • *Financial Services Authority v Sinaloa Gold plc and others (Barclays Bank plc intervening)

    28/02/2013
    [2013] UKSC 11 Supreme Court 27 Feb 2013 Financial services — Financial Services Authority (FSA) — Regulation of financial services... — FSA obtaining injunction freezing defendants assets prior to issuing proceedings — First defendant company having bank accounts with intervenor bank — FSA providing undertaking in respect of costs incurred by third parties — Following Court of Appeal decision FSA not required to give undertaking in respect of losses incurred by third parties — Senior Courts Act 1981, s 37(1) — Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, s 380(3). In December 2010, proceedings were commenced by the Financial Services Authority against three defendants on the basis that: (i) the first defendant company was promoting the sale of shares without being authorised to do so and without an approved prospectus, contrary to ss 21 and 85 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (the FSMA); (ii) the second and third defendants were knowingly engaged in that activity; and (ii) the second defendant was an unauthorised person carrying on regulated activities in breach of s 19 of the FSMA in various other respects. The first defendant had six bank accounts at the intervenor bank. Prior to issuing those proceedings the FSA obtained without notice an injunction freezing the defendants' assets under s 380(3) of the FSMA and/or s 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA). The bank were subsequently notified of the order and the injunction was continued at a hearing on notice. In Sch B to the injunction the FSA gave undertakings to the court. In October 2011, the Court of Appeal ordered a cross-undertaking, the effect of which was to preserve the FSA's undertaking in respect of costs incurred by third parties, but to eliminate any requirement that the FSA give an undertaking in respect of losses incurred by third parties. The bank appealed. The issue was whether and if so in what circumstances the FSA should, as a condition of obtaining a freezing injunction under s 380(3) of the FSMA and/or s 37(1) of the SCA, be required to give to the court a cross-undertaking in damages in favour of third parties affected by the injunction. Consideration was given to: (i) whether and how far the position of the FSA, seeking an interim injunction pursuant to its public law function and duty, was to be equated with that of a person seeking such an injunction in pursuance of private interests; (ii) whether and how far the position regarding the giving of any cross-undertaking differed according to whether it was to protect a defendant or a third party; and (iii) whether there was any coherent distinction between cross-undertakings in respect of third party costs, which the FSA had accepted that the bank should receive, and a cross-undertaking in damages, which was at issue in the instant case. The appeal would be dismissed. (1) There was no general rule that an authority like the FSA acting pursuant to a public duty should be required to give a cross- undertaking in damages in favour of a third party affected by a freezing injunction. The starting point was that the FSA should not have to give any cross-undertaking in order to obtain an injunction under s 380(3) of the FSMA. No cross-undertaking should be required unless circumstances appeared which justified a different position (see [1], [41], [43] of the judgment). In private litigation, a claimant acted in its own interests and had a choice whether to commit its assets and energies to doing so. If it sought interim relief which might, if unjustified, cause loss or expense to the defendant, it was usually fair to require the claimant to be ready to accept responsibility for the loss or expense. Different considerations arose in relation to law enforcement action, where a public authority was seeking to enforce the law in the interests of the public generally, often in pursuance of a public duty to do so, and enjoyed only the resources which had been assigned to it for its functions. Ultimately, there was a choice. Either the risk that public authorities might be deterred or burdened in the pursuit of claims in the public interest was accepted as a material consideration, or authorities acting in the public interest had to be expected generally to back their legal actions with the public funds with which they are entrusted to undertake their functions. The distinction between public and private claims depended upon accepting the former approach (see [30], [31], [33] of the judgment). Hoffmann-La Roche & Co AG v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [1974] 2 All ER 1128 followed; Highfield Commodities Ltd, Re [1984] 3 All ER 884 Director General of Fair Trading v Tobyward Ltd [1989] 2 All ER 266 Kirklees Borough Council v Wickes Building Supplies Ltd [1991] 4 All ER 240 Securities and Investments Board v Lloyd-Wright [1993] 4 All ER 210 considered. (2) There was no general rule that the FSA should be required to give a cross-undertaking, in respect of loss suffered either by the defendants or by third parties. There was no distinction to be drawn between a cross-undertaking intended to protect a defendant or a third party. In either case, it was loss caused by the grant of an injunction in circumstances where the person incurring the loss was essentially innocent that was covered by the cross-undertaking (see [34], [36] of the judgment). (3) There was however a distinction to be drawn between a cross-undertaking in respect of costs and a cross-undertaking in damages (see [35] of the judgment). There was a pragmatic basis for a distinction between specific costs and general loss. The rationale that public authorities should be able to enforce the law without being inhibited by the fear of cross-claims and of exposing financially the resources allocated by the state for their functions, applied with particular force to any open-ended cross-undertaking in respect of third party loss. It did not apply in the same way to a cross-undertaking in respect of third party expense (see [35] of the judgment). Hoffmann-La Roche & Co AG v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [1974] 2 All ER 1128 Miller Brewing Co v Mersey Docks and Harbour Co [2003] All ER (D) 362 (May) considered. (4) In the instant case, the FSA had been acting under its express power to seek injunctive relief conferred by s 380(3) of the FSMA. It had been acting in fulfilment of its public duties in s 3- 6 of the FSMA to protect the interests of the United Kingdom’s financial system, to protect consumers and to reduce the extent to which it was possible for a business being carried on in contravention of the general prohibition being used for a purpose connected with financial crime. In the circumstances, there was no reason to move away from the starting position that the FSA should not have to give any cross-undertaking in order to obtain an injunction under s 380(3) (see [36]-[38], [41] of the judgment). Decision of Court of Appeal, Civil Division [2012] 2 BCLC 130 affirmed
    Support Information
    Show more Show less
  • FSA: Insider dealing investigation

    28/02/2013
    On 27 February 2013, FSA executed six search warrants in the City of London and Greater London Area. Three men were... arrested and to be questioned in connection with an investigation in to insider dealing and market abuse. FSA notes that no individuals have been charged and that the arrests are not linked to any other ongoing insider dealing investigation.
    Support Information
    Show more Show less