The Supreme Court of Appeal gave judgment last week in Tristar Investments v The Chemical Industries National Provident Fund (455/12) [2013] ZASCA 59: see here or here (pdf). The court considered the meaning of 'intermediary service' and unanimously held that a company had not provided such services in breach of section 7 ("Authorisation of financial services providers") of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act 37 of 2002.
Friday, 24 May 2013
South Africa: financial regulation and the meaning of 'intermediary service'
The Supreme Court of Appeal gave judgment last week in Tristar Investments v The Chemical Industries National Provident Fund (455/12) [2013] ZASCA 59: see here or here (pdf). The court considered the meaning of 'intermediary service' and unanimously held that a company had not provided such services in breach of section 7 ("Authorisation of financial services providers") of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act 37 of 2002.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment