header-logo header-logo

17 July 2008 / Richard Burger
Issue: 7330 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

An adequate plug?

Richard Burger reports on the FSA's efforts to stop the leak of inside information from the unregulated sector

Last summer the Financial Services Athority (FSA) reviewed the controls over inside information during public takeover and merger transactions (see “Plugging the leaks” 157 NLJ 7287, p 1,222). The review considered how inside information leaks from such transactions, identified good practices to combat these leaks and suggested the introduction of a voluntary code for non-FSA regulated firms who participate in mergers and acquisitions (M&A) work. A year later, the FSA has published a set of Principles of Good Practice (the principles) for the handling of inside information, aimed at the unregulated sector.

The Market Misconduct Problem

The FSA aims to reduce the number of abnormal or informed price movements (IPMs) in advance of significant regulatory and/or takeover announcements to the market by listed companies. According to ongoing FSA research, in 2007 some 28.7% of M&A announcements were preceded by IPMs. It is entirely possible to attribute such movements to accurate financial analysis or deliberate strategic leakage of

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

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