The UK Treasury has recently published a new, and near final, version of the implementing Regulations for the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (the “AIFMD”). (We have commented on the consequences of the AIFMD for EU managers and non-EU managers in our 4 January, 11 January, 27 February and 27 March client alerts.) This updated version of the implementing Regulations represents a considerable improvement for managers compared to the initial draft.

In summary, with effect from the implementation date (22 July 2013), European managers of Alternative Investment Funds (“AIFs”) – essentially:

• (a) any European manager of a PE, VC, hedge or real estate fund will need to be authorised in its home member state and comply with various requirements regarding the funds that it manages concerning information disclosure and third-party service providers; and
• (b) any non-European manager of a PE, VC, hedge or real estate fund will need to comply with various marketing and registration restrictions if it wishes to obtain access to European investors.

This post discusses the major changes to the AIFMD implementing Regulations.

…continue reading: UK Treasury Releases Draft Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive

This post provides a brief summary of recent updates to the UK’s City Code on Takeovers and Mergers (the “Code”), the primary rule book governing the regulation of takeovers in the UK, and in particular those relating to the categories of companies that are subject to the Code, as well as certain issues affecting the trustees of offeree companies’ defined-benefit pension schemes.

Introduction

On April 22, 2013, the Code Committee of the UK Takeover Panel (the “Code Committee”) published its Response Statement to its consultation paper on certain pension scheme issues. This was followed by a Response Statement to its consultation paper on the type of companies that fall within the jurisdiction of the Code, which was published on May 15, 2013. [1] The amendments to the Code to be introduced in relation to those proposals relating to offeree company pension schemes will come into force on May 20, 2013 and an amended version of the Code will be published on that date. The amendments to the Code in relation to those companies and offers that are subject to the Code will take effect on September 30, 2013 (so as to allow any companies that may be affected to make any changes to their constitutional documents and/or operational procedures they feel are appropriate in light of those changes), although the updated Code will apply to any transactions that straddle that date.

…continue reading: Forthcoming Changes to UK’s City Code on Takeovers and Mergers

Exit consents are often used as a restructuring tool by issuers of bonds. Issuers invite bondholders to exchange their existing bonds for new bonds (usually with a lower principal amount). In order to participate in the exchange, bondholders must agree to vote in favour of a resolution that amends the terms of the existing bonds so as to negatively affect (or, in Assénagon, [1] substantially destroy) their value. This is referred to as ‘covenant-stripping’. If the issuer does not achieve the majority needed to pass the resolution, the covenant-strip and the exchange do not happen. But if the resolution is passed, each participating holder’s bonds are exchanged for the new bonds, and the terms of the old bonds are amended to remove most of the protective covenants. This incentivises bondholders to participate in the exchange: accepting the new bonds (even though they will usually have a lower face amount than the existing bonds) may be preferable to being ‘left behind’ in the old bonds, which will cease to have any meaningful covenant protection.

Facts of the case

Anglo Irish Bank Corporation Limited (the “Bank”) suffered severe financial difficulties as a result of the financial crisis, and was nationalised in January 2009. As part of its restructuring, the Bank proposed an exchange offer whereby:

…continue reading: Exit Consents in Restructurings – Still a Viable Option?

Almost half a decade after the onset of the financial crisis, populist sentiment and the resulting political environment continue to fuel stricter regulation of executive and director compensation, with the latest wave in Europe including substantive restrictions on compensation in the financial services industry and “say-on-pay” initiatives (i.e., initiatives providing for shareholder approval of compensation). This post describes these recent European compensation developments, namely:

• The so-called “banker bonus cap” – substantive limits on the amount of variable compensation that can be paid to certain employees at financial institutions; and
• Say-on-pay developments in the E.U. and Switzerland.

…continue reading: European Compensation Developments: Financial Institutions and Beyond

Since April 2010, companies looking to list in the UK have had a wider choice for listing their shares on the main market for listed securities (the “Main Market”) of the London Stock Exchange plc (the “LSE”). The Main Market is the LSE’s principal market for listed companies from the UK and overseas. There is a choice between a “premium” and a “standard” listing on the UKLA’s Official List. Alternately, there is the option to list on the Alternative Investment Market (“AIM”), on which many smaller and growth companies are traded. [1]

On 27 March 2013, the LSE launched the new High Growth Segment (the “HGS”) of its Main Market and published the final version of the HGS Rulebook. [2] The HGS has been designed for high growth issuers that are seeking a listing on the Main Market due to their size and stage of development. There are some parallels with the US’s relaxation of certain regulatory requirements under the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act to encourage “emerging growth companies” to list in the US. The HGS is intended to provide issuers with a transitional route to the UKLA’s Official List and, as such, should help issuers prepare for admission to the UK’s listed premium market over time and the obligations that accompany it. Indeed, HGS issuers must “clearly set out their intention” to eventually join the Main Market (if and when they become eligible).

…continue reading: High Growth Segment: New Route to UK’s Equity Capital Markets

This post provides a summary of certain principles of English law and UK and European regulation applicable to UK-listed public companies and their shareholders that may affect shareholder activism, namely (i) stake-building, (ii) shareholders’ rights to require companies to hold general meetings, (iii) shareholders’ rights to propose resolutions at annual general meetings and (iv) recent developments in these and related areas.

I Own or Am Intending to Acquire Shares; Do I Need To Make Any Disclosures?

The UK’s disclosure obligations (under the UK Listing Authority’s Disclosure and Transparency Rules (the “DTRs”)) apply once a person (or persons acting in concert) has (or together have) a holding of 3 per cent. or more of a listed company’s total voting rights and capital in issue (either as a shareholder or through a direct or indirect holding of relevant financial instruments) unless the relevant listed public company enters an “offer period” (as to which, see below). Thereafter, any changes to that holding that cause the size of the holding to reach, exceed or fall below every 1 per cent. above the 3 per cent. threshold (i.e. reaching, exceeding or falling below 4, 5, 6 per cent. etc.) must be disclosed by the relevant shareholder(s) to the listed company and the listed company is then obliged to announce those disclosures to the market. In addition, the disclosure obligations extend to the disclosure of voting rights held by a person as an indirect holder of shares, such as where a person is entitled to acquire, dispose of or exercise the voting rights attaching to shares (for example, via synthetic holdings or contract(s) for difference). It is important to note that any indirect holdings must be aggregated and separately identified in the relevant notification(s).

…continue reading: Shareholder Activism in the UK: An Introduction

About a year ago, we published A New Playbook for Global Securities Litigation and Regulation, in which we detailed dramatic changes in the global securities regulatory and litigation arena driven by various factors, including not only the financial crisis of 2007-2008, but also changes in tolerance in the United States to litigation brought by foreign investors against public companies listed on non-U.S. exchanges.

One year later, the regulatory environment continues to revamp with new rules being issued constantly in the United States to conform to the legislative mandates set forth in the Dodd Frank Act. The United Kingdom and European Union also seek to reinforce previous global initiatives to reform and strengthen the Pan-European financial markets.

What is more ever-present, however, is the marked increase in global enforcement activities by regulators in the United Kingdom, Canada, and the European Union, which are attempts to give teeth to the global financial reforms each jurisdiction felt necessary to potentially prevent a “repeat” of the financial crisis. This article seeks to address the increase in global securities enforcement activity and concludes that continued cooperation and coordination in enforcement activities will be required to seamlessly address the desire to strengthen global regulatory initiatives aimed at harmonizing and centralizing international securities regulation to create safer, more fundamentally sound financial markets for investors.

…continue reading: A New Playbook Part 2 — Global Securities Enforcement Stepping Up

The Financial Services Act 2012 (the “Act”), which comes into force on 1 April 2013, contains the UK government’s reforms of the UK financial services regulatory structure and will create a new regulatory framework for the supervision and management of the UK’s banking and financial services industry. The Act gives the Bank of England macro-prudential responsibility for oversight of the financial system and day-to-day prudential supervision of financial services firms managing significant balance-sheet risk. Three new bodies will be formed under the Act: the Financial Policy Committee (“FPC”), the Prudential Regulatory Authority (“PRA”) and the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”). While the Act mainly contains the core provisions for the UK government’s structural reforms and will therefore make extensive changes to Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (“FSMA”), as well as to the Bank of England Act 1998 and the Banking Act 2009, it also includes freestanding provisions in Part 3 (“mutual societies”), Part 4 (“collaboration between Treasury and Bank of England, FCA or PRA”), Part 5 (“inquiries and investigations”), Part 6 (“investigation of complaints against regulators”) and Part 7 (“offences relating to financial services”). With respect to the last of these, it should be noted that:

…continue reading: Financial Services Act 2012: A New UK Financial Regulatory Framework

The High Court in London has held that clients of insolvent UK brokers are entitled to a claim based on the value of their open positions as at the date of entry into administration or liquidation, rather than based on the value actually realised when those positions are closed. The “hindsight” principle – that where assets are later actually valued, actual values should be used – is not applicable.

Background

Under the client money and client asset rules contained in the CASS 7 and 7A sourcebooks of the UK Financial Services Authority (the “FSA”) Handbook (the “client money rules”), brokers are required to segregate money received from or held for their clients and will hold such funds pursuant to a statutory trust. In the event of the broker entering administration or liquidation, client money is segregated from the broker’s property and is distributed to clients on a pari passu basis (meaning “pro rata”).

The client money rules have been the subject of protracted litigation and judicial criticism in various cases due to their lack of clarity and even drafting errors. A number of issues regarding the client money rules were resolved by the UK Supreme Court in February 2012 in the litigation arising out of the Lehman insolvency, and have been discussed in a previous client publication. [1] The client money rules have also been amended in various ways and are currently subject to a consultation process for more wholesale amendment. [2]

On 31 October 2011, investment broker MF Global UK Limited became the first investment company to enter the special administration regime under the Investment Bank Special Administration Regulations 2011. It held client money as well as many open derivative positions for clients.

…continue reading: The “Hindsight” Principle and Clients of Insolvent UK Brokers

Fines imposed by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) since 1 January 2012 (through 20 December) have totalled £310 million, more than four times the total for 2011 (see Figure 1 below). This increase is due to a handful of very large fines, including the £160 million fine against UBS for LIBOR manipulation announced 19 December, which is the largest-ever FSA fine by a substantial margin.

The number of fines assessed against firms, 25, was in line with last year. In contrast, the number of fines against individuals fell to its lowest level since 2009, and the aggregate fine amount imposed on individuals fell slightly compared to 2011.

The dramatic increase in aggregate fines is the result of a few headline-grabbing penalties against banks, notably those against UBS and Barclays for manipulation of LIBOR and EURIBOR, and against UBS for failing to prevent unauthorised trading by a rogue trader, Kweku Adoboli. Those three fines alone totalled nearly £250 million. The size of fines against banks, of which there were nine in 2012 as compared to seven in 2011, largely explains the £244 million jump in the annual totals.

…continue reading: FSA Calendar Year-End Update 2012