Australian Securities watchdog loses insider-trading case against Citigroup
SYDNEY – Australia's corporate watchdog was dealt a blow in late June, when it lost a landmark insider-trading case against Citigroup. The country's Federal Court found Citigroup – acting as an adviser in 2005 to Toll Holdings in its $4.4 billion bid for dockyard company Patrick – did not engage in insider trading, conflict of interest or a lapse in fiduciary duty.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission now faces being ordered to pay Citigroup's legal costs. The trial was the first time the particular conflict-of-interest law had been tested in Australia.
ASIC's case surrounded Citigroup trader Andrew Manchee, who had bought more than a million Patrick shares the day before Toll was due to announce its takeover of Patrick. On a cigarette break with Citigroup head of equities Paul Darwell, he was told to stop buying Patrick shares. Manchee then proceeded to sell 200,000 Patrick shares late that afternoon.
Justice Peter Jacobsen said the claim failed because Manchee was not an 'officer' of Citigroup within the meaning of the Corporations Act. "His knowledge was therefore not attributable to Citigroup for the purposes of the insider-trading provision," Jacobsen said.
ASIC's other claims, that Citigroup had breached its fiduciary relationship with Toll by trading in shares of the company it was attempting to acquire, and an argument that it had engaged in a conflict of interest, were also dismissed.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Swiss report fingers Finma on Credit Suisse capital ratio
Parliament says bank would have breached minimum requirements in 2022 without regulatory filter
‘It’s not EU’: Do government bond spreads spell eurozone break-up?
Divergence between EGB yields is in the EU’s make-up; only a shared risk architecture can reunite them
CFTC weighs third-party risk rules for CCPs
Clearing houses could be required to formally identify and monitor critical vendors
Why there is no fence in effective regulatory relationships
A chief risk officer and former bank supervisor says regulators and regulated are on the same side
Snap! Derivatives reports decouple after Emir Refit shake-up
Counterparties find new rules have led to worse data quality, threatening regulators’ oversight of systemic risk
Critics warn against softening risk transfer rules for insurers
Proposal to cut capital for unfunded protection of loan books would create systemic risk, investors say
Barr defends easing of Basel III endgame proposal
Fed’s top regulator says he will stay and finish the package, is comfortable with capital impact
Bank of England to review UK clearing rules
Broader collateral set and greater margin transparency could be adopted from Emir 3.0, but not active accounts requirement