header-logo header-logo

06 October 2011 / Simon Goldstone
Issue: 7484 / Categories: Features , Banking , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Playing with fire?

FSA v Alexander: playing the system, or manipulating the market, asks Simon Goldstone

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) fined Barnett Alexander, a self-employed trader, £700,000 in June for market abuse. Alexander’s scheme was to deal in shares so as to influence the price of derivative “contracts for difference” (CFD’s); he would make a profit on subsequent CFD trades on automated exchanges. The trades were on the open market, with willing participants on the basis of transparent prices.

A CFD is an agreement to exchange the difference in value of a share between the time when the contract is opened and the time when the contract is sold. A trader can agree to buy, then sell, a CFD in XCo if he thinks that the share value will go up; he can sell, then buy, if he thinks the market will fall. You can trade CFD’s without owning the underlying shares—think instead of CFD’s as shadowing the shares. The value of an XCo CFD is directly related to the price at which XCo shares are

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll