The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently published its 2019 Risk Monitoring and Examination Priorities Letter. Unlike previous letters, the 2019 letter focuses primarily on priorities that FINRA considers to be materially new. The first highlighted priority, online distribution platforms, will be of particular interest to the growing number of companies providing financial services through online platforms.
A recent judgment concerning a rather bold request for judicial assistance by the Chapter 11 trustee of a company within the China Fisheries Group provides a useful reminder of the common law criteria to be applied for recognition of foreign office holders. However, a more interesting point, perhaps, is that the Hong Kong courts will not be afraid to defend the integrity of their orders if and when attempts are made to circumvent them.
Section 14A of the Limitation Act sets out the position on latent damage in negligence claims. Litigation around the application of Section 14A has predominantly centred on when the claimant has the requisite knowledge to bring a claim and if a claim could, and should, have been brought earlier. This has been brought into sharp focus in a recent case relating to a claim brought against the Bank of Scotland.
The Financial Services Authority recently issued a new regulation which provides a framework to establish the Securities Finance Agency (SFA). The agency aims to boost transaction volumes and liquidity in the Indonesian stock market, particularly by encouraging margin trading and short selling. Upon its establishment, the SFA will provide securities financing to brokerage firms.
In a drawn-out dispute between the Kataeb Political Party and The Modern Media Company (MMC), the Beirut Supreme Court has confirmed that ownership of a trademark or trade name is acquired through use and not through registration with the relevant authorities. However, the MMC believes that the court made a serious error in its decision and has thus appealed to the country's highest court.
The Milan Court of Appeals recently rejected an appeal against a Milan Court of First Instance judgment concerning an interest rate swap derivative contract. The complainant had asked the first-instance court for a statement of nullity regarding the contract, claiming that its purpose could not be determined and that no adequate risk exposure information had been provided. However, the first-instance court confirmed existing case law and excluded any reason for nullity of the contract.