Earlier this year the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) upheld a decision of the Financial Services Authority to fine a Canadian company £8 million for market abuse under section 118 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000: see here (pdf). This decision was upheld yesterday by a majority in the Court of Appeal (Longmore and Floyd LJJ; Lewison dissenting in respect of one ground of appeal): see 7722656 Canada Inc v The Financial Conduct Authority [2013] EWCA Civ 1662. The court's decision is an important one, not least because of what is said about the definition of market abuse under section 118. For example, Lord Justice Longmore stated that the words "in relation to" - used in the definition of market abuse that requires behaviour to occur in relation to qualifying investments - were of "great width".
Friday 20 December 2013
UK: England and Wales: Court of Appeal considers definition of market abuse
Earlier this year the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) upheld a decision of the Financial Services Authority to fine a Canadian company £8 million for market abuse under section 118 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000: see here (pdf). This decision was upheld yesterday by a majority in the Court of Appeal (Longmore and Floyd LJJ; Lewison dissenting in respect of one ground of appeal): see 7722656 Canada Inc v The Financial Conduct Authority [2013] EWCA Civ 1662. The court's decision is an important one, not least because of what is said about the definition of market abuse under section 118. For example, Lord Justice Longmore stated that the words "in relation to" - used in the definition of market abuse that requires behaviour to occur in relation to qualifying investments - were of "great width".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment