A NOTEPAD ON COMPANY AND FINANCIAL LAW, NEWS AND REGULATION
The Bill received Royal Assent on 19 December 2012, becoming the Financial Services Act 2012.
HM Treasury confirmed on the same day that the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority will start work on 1 April 2013: i.e. that is the legal cutover day to the new regulators.
The Treasury also confirmed that the FCA will take on responsibility for consumer credit regulation from 1 April 2014.
The Commission adopted the Delegated Regulation supplementing the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive on 19 December 2012. The Delegated Regulation can be read here.
From the press release:
“The AIFMD is part of the Union’s response to the financial crisis, and aims to create a comprehensive and effective regulatory and supervisory environment for alternative investment fund managers in Europe. The Delegated Regulation is a precondition for the application of the AIFMD in EU countries and was adopted to supplement certain elements of the AIFMD. These rules concern the:
- conditions and procedure for the determination and authorisation of AIFMs, including the capital requirements applicable to AIFMs;
- operating conditions for AIFMs, including rules on remuneration, conflicts of interest, risk management, liquidity management, investment in securitisation positions, organisational requirements, rules on valuation;
- conditions for delegation;
- rules on depositaries, including the depositary’s tasks and liability;
- reporting requirements and leverage calculation;
- rules for cooperation arrangements.
The Delegated Regulation adopted today is subject to a three-month scrutiny period by the European Parliament and the Council and will enter into force, provided that neither co-legislator objects, at the end of this period and the day following publication in the Official Journal.”
UPDATE 11 January 2013: Here is Nabarro on the implications of the Delegated Regulation.
See also: FSA consultation paper on implementing the AIFMD into UK law
Inevitably BPP Law School is involved. From the BIS press release:
“Graduate and post-graduate level apprenticeships will soon be available in subjects including law, accountancy and advanced engineering, Skills Minister Matthew Hancock announced today.
From next year, changes to the Specification of Apprentices Standards for England (SASE) will mean that level six and seven apprenticeships – equivalent to bachelors and masters degree level – are available for the first time, making vocational learning an attractive alternative to the traditional higher education route.
There are already a number of these top-level schemes in development, including in accountancy, law and human resources. BPP Law School is looking to develop a Legal Apprenticeship pathway which could be an alternative route to the legal profession and qualification as a solicitor. It is in discussion with the relevant regulatory body and sector skills council, Skills for Justice, to progress its proposals.
Skills Minister Matthew Hancock said:
“In the past, apprenticeships were restricted to only some trades, and some parts of the economy.”
“Now we are introducing apprenticeships in all types of jobs, including a new route to the professions, to ensure everyone can reach their potential.”
“These new apprenticeships will help more young people to receive on-the-job training at top companies like BPP Law School, ensuring a vocational route to success in accounting, insurance, and the law.”
Director of BPP Professional Apprenticeships James Hammill said:
“We are committed to improving social mobility and diversity in the work place by opening up some of the most prestigious professions and employers to school leavers as an alternative to the traditional route. Apprenticeships are an excellent way for employers to recruit talent early and design a structured training programme that incorporates technical learning as well as invaluable work based skills.”
See also: The University of Law
The Association of British Insurers published on 12 December 2012 a report on the “comply or explain” approach to corporate governance as practised in the UK. From the executive summary:
read more »
The Private Equity Monitoring Group on Transparency and Disclosure has published its fifth report (December 2012) on compliance with the Walker Guidelines.
One of the few provisions of the Companies Act 1985 which remain in force is being used in the Insolvency Service’s investigation into the demise of Comet. Section 447, Companies Act 1985 gives the Secretary of State “power to require documents and information” from a company.
FSA fines UBS £160 million for LIBOR, EURIBOR misconduct.
The Final Notice is here. From the FSA press release:
“UBS’s breaches of the FSA’s requirements encompassed a number of issues, involved a significant number of employees and occurred over a period of years in a number of countries. Between 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2010 the misconduct included:
• UBS’s traders routinely making requests to the individuals at UBS responsible for determining its LIBOR and EURIBOR submissions to adjust their submissions to benefit the traders’ trading positions.
• Giving the roles of determining its LIBOR and EURIBOR submissions to traders whose positions made a profit or loss depending on the LIBOR / EURIBOR fixes. This combination of roles was a fundamental flaw in organisational structure given the inherent conflict of interest between these two roles.
• Colluding with interdealer brokers in co-ordinated attempts to influence Japanese Yen (JPY) LIBOR submissions made by other panel banks. Corrupt brokerage payments were made to reward brokers for their efforts to manipulate the LIBOR submissions of panel banks.
• Colluding with individuals at other panel banks to get them to make JPY LIBOR submissions that benefited UBS’s trading positions.
• Adopting LIBOR submissions directives whose primary purpose was to protect the bank’s reputation by avoiding negative media attention about its submissions and speculation about its creditworthiness.
The misconduct was extensive and widespread. At least 2,000 requests for inappropriate submissions were documented – an unquantifiable number of oral requests, which by their nature would not be documented, were also made. Manipulation was also discussed in internal open chat forums and group emails, and was widely known. At least 45 individuals including traders, managers and senior managers were involved in, or aware of, the practice of attempting to influence submissions. The routine and widespread manipulation of the submissions was not detected by Compliance or by Group Internal Audit, which undertook five audits of the relevant business area during the relevant period.
Even when the trading and submitting roles were split in Autumn 2009, UBS’s systems and controls did not prevent traders from camouflaging their requests as “market colour”. Given the widespread and routine nature of the requests to change LIBOR and EURIBOR and the nature of the control failures, the FSA found that every LIBOR and EURIBOR submission, in currencies and tenors in which UBS traded during the relevant period, was at risk of having been improperly influenced to benefit derivatives trading positions.
The misconduct occurred in various locations around the world including Japan, Switzerland, the UK and the USA.”
Much more LIBOR here.
