Market maker definition

View the related practice notes about Market maker

UK Market Abuse Regulation—insider dealing

UK Market Abuse Regulation—insider dealing This Practice Note provides an overview of the offence of insider dealing as prescribed by Retained Regulation (EU) 596/2014 (UK Market Abuse Regulation). The offence of insider dealing under Article 14 of the UK Market Abuse Regulation exists alongside the criminal offence of insider dealing under section 52 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 as well as the criminal offences of making misleading statements and misleading impressions under sections 89 to 91 of the Financial Services Act 2012. Background and purpose Regulatory framework The EU Market Abuse Regulation 596/2014 took effect across the EU on 3 July 2016. Its stated goal was to establish a common regulatory framework on insider dealing, the unlawful disclosure of inside information and market manipulation (all forms of market abuse) as well as measures to prevent market abuse to ensure the integrity of financial markets in the EU and to enhance investor protection and confidence in those markets. At the end of the Brexit implementation period (11 pm UK time on 31 December 2020), the EU Market Abuse Regulation was onshored into UK law and amended by the Market Abuse (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/522 supplementing the EU Market Abuse Regulation as regards an exemption for certain third countries public bodies and central banks, the indicators of market manipulation, the disclosure thresholds, the competent authority

International Financial Markets Guide—Iceland

International Financial Markets Guide—Iceland 1. Telephone taping (a)(i) What are the restrictions on the taping of telephone calls to or from a person outside an organisation in relation to sales of banking or financial products or insurance services? Article 48 of the Electronic Communications Act No. 81/2003 provides that a party to a telephone conversation wishing to record a conversation shall, when it commences, notify the opposite party of such intent. This general rule applies to telephone calls to or from a person outside an organisation in relation to sales of banking or financial products or insurance services. However, a party need not mention the recording of a conversation when the opposite party can clearly be assumed to be aware of the recording. Regarding financial institutions such as banks or insurance companies, this exception would generally only apply in the case of clients who have previously signed a contract or consented to clauses stating that telephone conversations may be taped. Other financial institutions or professional investors are generally thought to know that their calls to a financial undertaking are recorded and would thus not require a notification. However, the general principle being that the one being recorded should be aware of any such actions, the relevant financial institution doing the recording would be at risk of its practices being deemed illegal if it did not assure itself that one

View the related precedents about Market maker

Confidentiality and standstill agreement—public company takeover

Confidentiality and standstill agreement—public company takeover [TO BE TYPED ON OFFEROR LETTERHEAD] Strictly private and confidential The Directors [insert offeree name] plc [insert offeree address] Date: [insert date] Dear Directors Confidential supply of information 1 Introduction 1.1 We (the Recipient or we) have expressed an interest in receiving certain information relating to[ the company code-named ][insert offeree name] plc (the Company or you).[ We confirm that we are aware of the identity of the Company and that the use of a code-name in this letter shall not affect its enforceability.] Other defined words and expressions used in this letter are set out in paragraph 2 below. 1.2 This letter, which shall be effective from the date signed by us and the Company, sets out the terms on which the Company is prepared to disclose to us Confidential Information for the purpose of evaluating a possible recommended offer by us for the entire issued and to be issued share capital of the Company (the Proposal). 1.3 We acknowledge that the Company shall be entitled at any time to decline to provide any Confidential Information to the Recipient and may at any time terminate discussions and negotiations with us without incurring any liability to us. 2 Definitions 2.1 In this letter: Advisers • means in relation to any person, the professional advisers and bankers and brokers advising them in relation to the Proposal, including (unless the context requires otherwise) partners in,

View the related News about Market maker

London metal exchange faces fresh claim over trading halt

Law360, London: A US-based trading firm has filed a US$15.3m legal challenge against the London Metal Exchange (LME), the second lawsuit in a week accusing the exchange of illegally suspending the trading of nickel contracts after Russian sanctions sent prices skyrocketing.

A lesson on limitation periods—HSBC defeats ECU foreign exchange market manipulation claim (ECU Group plc v HSBC Bank UK plc)

Dispute Resolution analysis: This decision in the dispute between ECU Group plc (ECU) and HSBC (HSBC) highlights the importance of limitation periods and the law of causation in foreign exchange (forex) market claims. The Commercial Court decided that the proceedings brought by ECU against HSBC alleging manipulation of forex markets between 2004 and 2006 were barred by the limitation period. Additionally, the court held that HSBC’s actions did not directly cause any loss to ECU because ordinary market movements would have triggered the stop-loss orders. Clive Zietman, Head of Commercial Litigation, and Natalie Osafo, senior associate, review the court’s decision.