header-logo header-logo

05 June 2015 / Alan Ward
Issue: 7655 / Categories: Opinion
printer mail-detail

3rd party rights & wrongs

Post Macris, Alan Ward predicts a significant change in how regulatory enforcement in the City is conducted & publicised

Anyone with even a passing interest in financial services and the City will be aware of the $5.7bn (£3.7bn) in regulatory and criminal penalties levied against major banks last month, following the global foreign exchange (FX) investigation.

Many newspaper headlines papers asked the question: “Why aren’t these crooked bankers in jail?” But a better question might be: have any of the five UK and US regulators involved in the settlements even thought to ask the traders vilified in the headlines what they think about it all?

The informed observer might assume that the agencies that conducted these high-profile investigations would, at some point, have asked the allegedly culpable individuals for their explanation. However, a Court of Appeal judgment handed down the day before the FX settlements were announced has highlighted (and directed criticism at), the manner in which the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) attributes blame to identifiable individuals in regulatory notices, without first giving those

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll