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
Dispute emerges over ‘ambiguity’ of perp markets
Kalshi execs hit back at report’s findings of regulatory fogginess
EBA brainstorming ways to make capital rules competitive
Watchdog aims to provide advice on future revisions before year-end
FRTB revamp won’t restore models to past glory, risk managers say
US-inspired reform only expected to lead to small boost in adoption, with limited desks on IMA
Regulators must think bigger to tackle tech risks, says Hong Kong SFC
Leung warns AI adoption and recent cyber scares show new threats require global co-operation
Time to let some air out of the banking system?
Watchdogs worry about lowering standards, but policy-makers eye growth – they face a difficult dilemma
Competitiveness mandate for Esma faces uphill battle
European Parliament offers last chance to force Esma to take more nuanced approach
Europe expects FRTB to bite on XVA hedges
Risk Benchmarking: One-third of European dealers fear new market risk rules will have major effect on hedges
Burning ambition: will Europe join the US in setting fire to the rules?
As the US dismantles post-crisis regulations, some think Europe will follow in a bid to boost economic growth