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
EBA seeks to allay Simm divergence concerns
EU validator pledges to co-ordinate with global regulators, but retains ability to act alone “if needed”
FRTB models find salvation in US Basel III proposal
Changes to P&L attribution test and NMRFs make IMA viable for US banks, risk managers say
US blows the floors off Basel III
Barr criticises “downward deviations” in US rule; Bowman rejects “blind adherence” to global standards
Basel III endgame – a timeline
A review of Risk.net’s coverage of the US implementation saga
Leaked EU plans offer extra temporary relief for FRTB models
Risk factors would need only two observations to be modellable. Do changes foreshadow US Basel III?
Iosco chief talks cyber, AI and clearing
Buenaventura discusses Iosco’s role in aiding market resilience and cross-border co-operation
US regulators bid to save FRTB IMA, but it’s no small task
Even if industry wish-list is granted, a 2028 start date might be too soon for model adoption
Hopes rise for cross-product netting under SA-CCR
Banks want rule change in Basel III endgame to lower capital costs of clearing UST repos