Related provisions for BIPRU 7.5.2
81 - 100 of 233 items.
(1) Where it is compatible with the nature of the obligation imposed by a particular rule and with the Principles, in particular Principles 1 (Integrity), 2 (Skill, care and diligence) and 3 (Management and control), firms may rely on third parties in order to comply with the rules in this sourcebook.(2) For example, where a rule requires a firm to take reasonable steps to achieve an outcome, it will generally be reasonable for a firm to rely on information provided to it in writing
Examples of when the FSA may require the suspension of trading of a financial instrument include:(1) if an issuer fails to make a RIS announcement as required by the disclosure rules within the applicable time-limits which the FSA considers could affect the interests of investors or affect the smooth operation of the market; or(2) if there is or there may be a leak of inside information and the issuer is unwilling or unable to issue an appropriate RIS announcement within a reasonable
The extent to which a person can rely on individual guidance given to him will depend on many factors. These could include, for example, the degree of formality of the original query and the guidance given, and whether all relevant information was submitted with the request. Individual guidance is usually given in relation to a set of particular circumstances which exist when the guidance is given. If the circumstances later change, for example, because of a change in the circumstances
The issuer or the owner, as the case may be, should review legal advice as necessary. For example, advice should be reviewed if a relevant statutory provision is amended or where a new decision or judgment of a court might have a bearing on the conclusions reached which is material to the issuer's or owner's compliance with the requirements of the RCB Regulations or the RCB.
For example, the complainant may have reasonably expected that the claim would have been paid where the firm failed to disclose appropriately an exclusion or limitation later relied on by the insurer to reject the claim and it should have been clear to the firm that that exclusion or limitation was relevant to the complainant.
(1) The FSA will not automatically suspend, cancel or restore the listing of securities at the request of an overseas exchange or overseas authority (for example, if listing of a listed3issuer'ssecurities are suspended, cancelled or restored on its home exchange).(2) The FSA will not normally suspend the listing of securities where there is a trading halt for the security on its home exchange.(3) If a listedissuer3 requests a suspension, cancellation or restoration of the listing
The RAP
regulations apply modified provisions of the Act to
an RAP. For example, an RAP is an exempt
person in respect of its business as an auction
platform due to the application of section 285 of the Act as modified by the the RAP
regulations. Similarly, section 293 of the Act is
applied and modified by the RAP regulations to
provide for notification rules and
notification requirements in relation to RAPs.
The operation of BIPRU 14.2.8 R can be illustrated by an example as follows: where the credit derivative is a first to default transaction, the appropriate percentage for the potential future credit exposure will be determined by the lowest credit quality of the underlying obligations in the basket. If there are non-qualifying items in the basket, the percentage applicable to the non-qualifying reference obligation should be used. For second and subsequent to default transactions,
The table in BIPRU 7.8.30G gives an example of the reduced net underwriting position calculation. The example is based on the firm starting with a commitment to underwrite £100 million of a new equity issue. Firms are reminded that in the case of an equity, the reduced net underwriting position should be treated under the simplified equity method (see BIPRU 7.8.27R (Simplified and standard equity methods) and BIPRU 7.8.27R).
Table: Example of the reduced net underwriting position calculation
This table belongs to BIPRU 7.8.29G
Time |
Percentage reduction (see BIPRU 7.8.28R) |
||||
At initial commitment 9.00am Monday |
£100m gross amount is reduced by £20m due to sales/sub-underwriting commitments confirmed in writing at the time of initial commitment (see BIPRU 7.8.17R (1)) and (4)). |
= |
£80m |
90% |
£8m |
Post initial commitment 9.02am Monday |
Remaining £80m is reduced by £40m due to further sales, sub-underwriting commitments obtained and allocations granted (see BIPRU 7.8.17R (2) - (5)). |
= |
£40m |
90% |
£4m |
At the end of working day 1 |
Remaining £40m is reduced to £20m due to further sales. |
= |
£20m |
90% |
£2m |
End of working day 3 |
Remaining £20m is reduced to £5m due to further sales. |
= |
£5m |
75% |
£1.25 m |
End of working day 4 |
Remaining £5m is reduced to £2m due to further sales. |
= |
£2m |
50% |
£1m |
End of working day 5 |
Remaining £2m is reduced to £1m due to further sales. |
= |
£1m |
25% |
£0.75 m |
Start of working day 6 |
£1m remaining |
= |
£1m |
0% |
£1m |
(1) For the purposes of ICOBS 8.4.4R (2)(c) and ICOBS 8.4.4R (2)(d), a firm may put in place appropriate screening on its employers’ liability register to monitor:(a) requests for information and searches to ensure that they are being made for a legitimate purpose by persons falling into one of the categories in ICOBS 8.4.4R (2)(c); and(b) requests from tracing offices to ensure that the information is necessary, and will only be used by the tracing office, for the purposes of
(1) In order for a loan to fall within the definition of a regulated mortgage contract, at least 40% of the total of the land to be given as security must be used as or in connection with a dwelling. Therefore, the variation in approach provided for in MCOB 1.2.3 R(2) can only apply where the loan being used for a business purpose is secured against a property at least 40 per cent of which is used as a dwelling. It cannot apply to a loan secured on property that is used solely
(1) Firms are reminded of the requirement in MCOB 2.2.6 R that any communication should be clear, fair and not misleading when substituting an alternative for the term 'mortgage' in accordance with MCOB 1.2.7 R(1).(2) Possible alternatives to the term 'mortgage' include, for example, 'secured business overdraft', 'secured loan' or 'secured business credit'.
(1) The guidance relevant to delegation within the firm is also relevant to external delegation ('outsourcing'). A firm cannot contract out its regulatory obligations. So, for example, under Principle 3 a firm should take reasonable care to supervise the discharge of outsourced functions by its contractor.(2) A firm should take steps to obtain sufficient information from its contractor to enable it to assess the impact of outsourcing on its systems and controls.
Where it is made possible and appropriate by the nature, scale and complexity of its business, a firm should segregate the duties of individuals and departments in such a way as to reduce opportunities for financial crime or contravention of requirements and standards under the regulatory system. For example, the duties of front-office and back-office staff should be segregated so as to prevent a single individual initiating, processing and controlling transactions.
A conflict of interest arises in a situation where a person with responsibility to act in the interests of one person may be influenced in his action by an interest or association of his own, whether personal or business or employment related. Conflicts of interest can arise both for the employees of UK recognised bodies and for the members (or other persons) who may be involved in the decision-making process, for example where they belong to committees or to the governing body.
The FSA recognises that a UK RCH2 has legitimate interests of its own and that its general business policy may properly be influenced by other persons (such as its owners). Such a connection does not necessarily imply the existence of a conflict of interest nor is it necessary to exclude individuals closely connected with other persons (for example, those responsible for the stewardship of the owner's interests) from all decision-making processes in a UK recognised body. However,
(1) The FSA may increase or decrease the amount of the financial penalty arrived at after Step 2, but not including any amount to be disgorged as set out in Step 1, to take into account factors which aggravate or mitigate the breach. Any such adjustments will be made by way of a percentage adjustment to the figure determined at Step 2.(2) The following list of factors may have the effect of aggravating or mitigating the breach:(a) the conduct of the firm in bringing (or failing
(1) If the FSA considers the figure arrived at after Step 3 is insufficient to deter the firm who committed the breach, or others, from committing further or similar breaches then the FSA may increase the penalty. Circumstances where the FSA may do this include:(a) where the FSA considers the absolute value of the penalty too small in relation to the breach to meet its objective of credible deterrence;(b) where previous FSA action in respect of similar breaches has failed to improve