Search

As investment banks, large shareholders and directors find themselves simultaneously on both sides of merger and acquisition (M&A) activity, significant conflicts of interest raise legal challenges. What is the proper role for directors to meet their fiduciary obligations in such circumstances? What degree of disclosure of such conflicts to the stockholders does the law mandate? This article discusses how the most influential American court on corporate issues views these issues and subjects the board's decisions to enhanced scrutiny, except when full disclosure is made to shareholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the quest fo r additional financial returns, investment banks are increasingly seeking roles on both the sell and buy sides in M&A activity. Such situations yield an increased focus upon the proper role fo r the directors in meeting their obligations to shareholders. This article examines how an influential American court evaluates the legal standards the board must meet and discusses the ethical theories that may apply in the presence of such conflicts of interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses prudential regulation in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in relation to wealth effects and changes in the systemic risk that is associated with the return structure of the Functional/Segmented Two-Pillar system in the UAE as of 2015. Several deregulatory banking directives are mentioned, along with the nation's investment firms and banking sector. The Gulf Cooperation Council organization, financial regulations, and UAE Central Bank are also examined.

The article focuses on the client assets regime in the U.S. and the European Union in 2014. Topics include the law of trusts, the protection of client monies after the collapse of financial services firm Lehman Brothers, and rules governing property rights. Information is provided on investment bank regulation.

The article discusses the Great Britain High Court's determination in the case Worldspreads Ltd., Re Investment Bank Special Administration Regulations 2011 that the court did not have jurisdiction to give directions to special administrators with regards to the distribution of client money.

The article reports that the British High Court has released guidelines on how the court decides whether to approve a distribution plan under the Investment Bank Special Administration (England and Wales) Rules 2011.

The article discusses the Great Britain High Court Chancery Division's ruling in the 2014 case MF Global UK Ltd., Re Investment Bank Special Administration Regulations 2011 which deals with clarification on the application of the Client Assets Sourcebook (CASS) rules regarding investment firms which receive from or hold money for their clients which are contained in the British Financial Conduct Authority Handbook. Settlement agreements and client money pools are also examined.

The article focuses on a British court case involving client money trusts. Topics include the distribution of client monies, the British Financial Conduct Authority's jurisdictional authority to make distribution orders, and the required segregation of client funds at investment firms. Information is provided on inherent jurisdiction.

The article reports on plans of the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC) towards implementation of the EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive establishing recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms.

The article discusses the Great Britain High Court's determination in the 2015 case Hartmann Capital Ltd., Re Investment Bank Special Administration Regulations 2011 that a British Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 exemption does not apply to certain administrators.