Post by Sapphire Capital on Sept 5, 2008 3:48:15 GMT 4
ASIC v. Citigroup: Investment Banks, Conflicts of Interest, and Chinese Walls
Pamela Hanrahan
University of Melbourne - Law School
PRIVATE EQUITY, CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND THE DYNAMICS OF CAPITAL MARKET REGULATION, Justin O'Brien, ed., pp. 117-142, London, 2007
U of Melbourne Legal Studies Research Paper No. 349
Abstract:
In June 2007 the Federal Court of Australia handed down its decision in ASIC v Citigroup, a case in which the Australian securities regulator argued that an investment bank owed fiduciary duties to a client it was advising in relation to a takeover bid, that precluded the proprietary trading desk of the bank from trading in the target's securities in the lead-up to the bid. ASIC's action was unsuccessful. The chapter analyses the decision from the point of view of what it says about the fiduciary duties of investment banks and the use of Chinese walls as a means of managing conflicts of interest.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1184482_code658284.pdf?abstractid=1184482&mirid=2
Pamela Hanrahan
University of Melbourne - Law School
PRIVATE EQUITY, CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND THE DYNAMICS OF CAPITAL MARKET REGULATION, Justin O'Brien, ed., pp. 117-142, London, 2007
U of Melbourne Legal Studies Research Paper No. 349
Abstract:
In June 2007 the Federal Court of Australia handed down its decision in ASIC v Citigroup, a case in which the Australian securities regulator argued that an investment bank owed fiduciary duties to a client it was advising in relation to a takeover bid, that precluded the proprietary trading desk of the bank from trading in the target's securities in the lead-up to the bid. ASIC's action was unsuccessful. The chapter analyses the decision from the point of view of what it says about the fiduciary duties of investment banks and the use of Chinese walls as a means of managing conflicts of interest.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1184482_code658284.pdf?abstractid=1184482&mirid=2