Prudential requirements—credit institutions and systemically important investment firms

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis

This Overview provides a guide to the Lexis+® UK Financial Services content within the Prudential requirements—credit institutions and systemically important investment firms subtopic with links to the appropriate materials.

EU CRD IV and EU CRR

The Capital Requirements Directive (Directive 2013/36/EU) (EU CRD IV) and the Capital Requirements Regulation (Regulation (EU) 575/2013) (EU CRR) (also known collectively as the EU CRD IV package) is the mechanism through which the EU implemented the global capital adequacy framework, Basel III. The CRD IV package of reforms was adopted and published in the first half of 2013, with implementation of the majority of provisions on 1 January 2014. As the EU CRD IV package comprised EU CRD IV and EU CRR, elements of the

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Existing user? Sign-in TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Financial Services News

PRA publishes letter on solvency-triggered termination rights in BPA transactions

The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) has published a 'Dear Chief Risk Officer' letter by its executive director of insurance supervision, Gareth Truran, to share its view of the potential risks arising from the use of solvency-triggered termination rights clauses (STTRs) in bulk purchase annuity (BPA) transactions and its assessment of how firms are mitigating those risks. The letter follows a thematic review of STTRs, which allow pension scheme counterparties to terminate BPA buy-in arrangements if an insurer’s solvency position falls below a defined threshold. The PRA notes that while these clauses are becoming more common, they may introduce financial and operational risks, particularly in stressed conditions, and could affect firms’ liquidity, asset composition and matching adjustment (MA) portfolios.

FCA announces two individuals sentenced for £1.5m crypto fraud

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has announced that Raymondip Bedi and Patrick Mavanga have been sentenced to a combined 12 years’ imprisonment for their roles in a £1.5m crypto fraud. Between February 2017 and June 2019, the individuals cold-called victims and sold fake investments in crypto consultancy services. At least 65 investors were defrauded, with total losses amounting to £1,541,799. Bedi was sentenced at Southwark Crown Court to five years and four months’ imprisonment, and Mavanga received a sentence of six years and six months. Both had previously pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud and conspiracy to breach the general prohibition under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Bedi also admitted to money laundering offences, while Mavanga was additionally convicted of perverting the course of justice. Confiscation proceedings are continuing. The FCA says that it has attempted to contact investors who lost out and has asked any who have not yet been contacted to come forward.

European Commission adopts Delegated Act regarding the use of alternative internal models under the CRR

The European Commission has adopted a Delegated Regulation supplementing Regulation (EU) 575/2013 (Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR)) with regard to regulatory technical standards specifying the conditions for assessing the materiality of extensions of, and changes to, the use of alternative internal models, and changes to the subset of the modellable risk factors. The Delegated Regulation enters into force on the 20th day of its publication in the OJ.

FCA announces two individuals sentenced for £1.5m crypto fraud

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has announced that Raymondip Bedi and Patrick Mavanga have been sentenced to a combined 12 years’ imprisonment for their roles in a £1.5m crypto fraud. Between February 2017 and June 2019, the individuals cold-called victims and sold fake investments in crypto consultancy services. At least 65 investors were defrauded, with total losses amounting to £1,541,799. Bedi was sentenced at Southwark Crown Court to five years and four months’ imprisonment, and Mavanga received a sentence of six years and six months. Both had previously pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud and conspiracy to breach the general prohibition under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Bedi also admitted to money laundering offences, while Mavanga was additionally convicted of perverting the course of justice. Confiscation proceedings are continuing. The FCA says that it has attempted to contact investors who lost out and has asked any who have not yet been contacted to come forward.

View Financial Services by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?What is an appeal?An appeal in insolvency proceedings is no different to an appeal in normal litigation. An appeal will be allowed only if the appeal court is satisfied that the decision of the lower court was 'wrong' or 'unjust because of a

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the current registered owner? Or does the informal exoneration only apply to the parties to the document which informally exonerated the rentcharge?This Q&A considers the situation where, at some

Strike out—making an application to strike out a statement of case

Strike out—making an application to strike out a statement of caseA strike out order can be made either following an application by the parties or on the court's own initiative. This Practice Note deals with the scenario of the order being made following a party's application.Making an application

Can shares in a limited company that have not been paid-up at all be cancelled?

Can shares in a limited company that have not been paid-up at all be cancelled?A limited company having a share capital may not alter that share capital, except in the ways listed in section 617 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). Shares in a company cannot simply be cancelled without following an
What is the difference between an appeal and a review?

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?What is an appeal?An appeal in insolvency proceedings is no different to an appeal in normal litigation. An appeal will be allowed only if the appeal court is satisfied that the decision of the lower court was 'wrong' or 'unjust because of a

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the current registered owner? Or does the informal exoneration only apply to the parties to the document which informally exonerated the rentcharge?This Q&A considers the situation where, at some

Strike out—making an application to strike out a statement of case

Strike out—making an application to strike out a statement of case

Strike out—making an application to strike out a statement of caseA strike out order can be made either following an application by the parties or on the court's own initiative. This Practice Note deals with the scenario of the order being made following a party's application.Making an application

Can shares in a limited company that have not been paid-up at all be cancelled?

Can shares in a limited company that have not been paid-up at all be cancelled?

Can shares in a limited company that have not been paid-up at all be cancelled?A limited company having a share capital may not alter that share capital, except in the ways listed in section 617 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). Shares in a company cannot simply be cancelled without following an