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
Foreign banks can swerve US Basel op risk capital charges
New proposal offers category III and IV banks op-out from regime, but intragroup trades penalised
BoE’s Bailey expects global consensus on FRTB internal models
Isda AGM: UK is reviewing proposals from US and EU regulators before finalising its IMA rules
DRW chief slams ‘ridiculous’ OCC stablecoin rule
Isda AGM: Wilson warns week-long redemption freeze would deter use of Genius Act coins as cash leg of tokenised repo
Dealers push for more revisions to Basel III endgame
Isda AGM: Goldman, JP Morgan bankers want changes on cross-product netting, CVA and default risk charges
StanChart: UK, EU should copy US ‘commercial’ Basel III
Isda AGM: Exec warns divergent Basel III rules will push trading into less-regulated entities
NBFI oversight ‘no longer adequate’, say BdF economists
Researchers call for stronger supervision of non-bank sector ‘before risks actually materialise’
Why Brexit still stirs up trouble for cross-border business
As EU erects another obstacle, banks consider ways around it – or exit strategies
Can US regulators keep Collins happy with one capital stack?
Legal experts say Basel III endgame redraft retains spirit if not letter of the floor