[Editor’s note: The text of this provision has been moved to SYSC 25 Annex 1G]4
Related provisions for MCOB 2.9.2
161 - 180 of 404 items.
1Enforcement cases often involve multiple parties, for example a firm and individuals in the firm. Enforcement action may be appropriate against just the firm, just the individuals or both. In some cases, it will not be possible to reach an acceptable settlement unless all parties are able to reach agreement.
1A disapplication order in relation to exempt regulated activities made against a member will be relevant should that member subsequently apply for authorisation under the Act. Whether or not such an application for authorisation is successful will depend on many factors, including the FCA's grounds for making the disapplication order. For example, if the order for disapplication of the exemption was made on the grounds of a breach of rules made under section 332(1) of the Act,
1Examples of situations where the FCA may use the own-initiative variation of approval power include where:(1) it has concerns about an SMF manager’s fitness to remain approved in relation to the performance of a designated senior management function but, in all the circumstances, it considers it appropriate to vary their approval by imposing one or more conditions or a time limitation, rather than making a prohibition order or withdrawing approval;(2) the nature or scope of the
The following is an example of behaviour3which may amount to a contravention of article 12(1)(c) of the Market Abuse Regulation3: (1) a person posts information on an Internet bulletin board or chat room which contains false or misleading statements about the takeover of a company whose shares are
financial instruments3
and the person knows that the information is false or misleading.33[Note: article 12(1)(c) of the Market Abuse Regulation.]
1In considering whether an applicant has satisfied LR 6.13.1R, the FCA will consider, among other things, whether the board of the applicant consists solely of non-executive directors and whether significant elements of the strategic decision-making of or planning for the applicant take place outside the applicant’s group, for example with an external management company.
The firm is responsible for ensuring delivery of the required report38 by the due date. If a report is received by the FCA28 after the due date and the firm believes its delivery arrangements were adequate, it may be required to provide proof of those arrangements. Examples of such proof would be:494949(1) "proof of posting" receipts from a UK post office or overseas equivalent which demonstrates that the report was posted early enough to allow delivery by the due date in accordance
Examples of reports covering a group are:(1) the compliance reports required from banks under SUP 16.6.4 R;(2) annual controllers reports required under SUP 16.4.5 R4949;(3) annual close links reports required under SUP 16.5.4 R;44(4) consolidated financial reports required from banks under SUP 16.12.5 R2424;(5) consolidated reporting statements required from securities and futures firms under 24SUP 16.12.11 R24.4417
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 |
In determining whether a UK recognised body has financial resources sufficient for the proper performance of its relevant functions, the FCA5 may have regard to:5(1) the operational and other risks to which the UK recognised body is exposed;(2) if the UK recognised body guarantees the performance of transactions in specified investments, the counterparty and market risks to which it is exposed in that capacity; 5(3) the amount and composition of the UK recognised body's capital;(4)
4The financial risk assessment should be based on a methodology which provides a reasonable estimate of the potential business losses which a UK RIE might incur in stressed but plausible market conditions. The FCA5 would expect a UK RIE to carry out a financial risk assessment at least once in every twelve-month period, or more frequently if there are material changes in the nature, scale or complexity of the UK RIE's operations or its business plans that suggest such financial
For example, when the tariff base for a particular class10 is based on a firm'sannual eligible income the valuation period for that class10 is the firm's last financial year ending in the year to 31 December preceding the financial year13 of the compensation scheme13 for which the calculation is being made.131010105
(1) The FCA2 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(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 FCA2 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 FCA2 may increase the penalty. Circumstances where the FCA2 may do this include:222(a) where the FCA2 considers the absolute value of the penalty too small in relation to the breach to meet its objective of credible deterrence;2(b) where previous FCA2 action in respect of similar breaches has failed
127In determining whether an enterprise19 meets the tests for being a micro-enterprise or a small business19, account should be taken of the enterprise’s 'partner enterprises' or 'linked enterprises' (as those terms are defined in the Micro-enterprise Recommendation). For example, where a parent company holds a majority shareholding in a complainant, if the parent company does not meet the tests for being a micro-enterprise or a small business19 then neither will the complainant.
127(1) 12718DISP 2.7.6R (5)and DISP 2.7.6R (6) include, for example, employees covered by a group permanent health policy taken out by an employer, which provides in the insurance contract that the policy was taken out for the benefit of the employee.(2) DISP 2.7.6R(2B) includes any complaint that the respondent did not do enough to prevent, or respond to, an alleged authorised push payment fraud. 18
713If a complaint relates to the sale of a payment protection contract, knowledge by the complainant that there was a problem with the sale of the payment protection contract generally (for example where there has been a rejection of a claim on the grounds of ineligibility or exclusion, or the complainant has received a customer contact letter explaining that they may have been mis-sold) would not in itself ordinarily be sufficient to establish for the purposes of the three-year