• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Financial Regulation & Compliance >Legal commentary
【24h】

Legal commentary

机译：法律评论

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to discuss the High Court's rejection of claims made against a UK bank by a US-based customer in relation to foreign exchange dealing it carried out as agent for its US affiliate based on common law and breaches of COBS Rules (BankLeumi (UK) plc v. Wachner, Queens Bench Division, Commercial Court; Mr Justice Faux). Design/methodology/approach – The paper discusses this action and counterclaim by the defendant. Findings – The Judge did not find any of the three causes of action underlying the counterclaim to have any foundation, and he found the defendant liable for the full amount of the claim. Originality/value – This paper draws attention to investors' attempts to shift trading losses onto the counterparties with or through whom they dealt through the use of common law, fiduciary principles or statutory tort claims. Such claims have no chance of succeeding unless the claimants can establish that they were incorrectly classified as an expert customer. Another point of interest to draw from this decision is to recall that product design and pre-emptive restrictions on product innovation are once again a prominent feature of current debates on regulatory reform.
机译：目的–本文的目的是讨论高等法院基于美国普通法和违反COBS的规定，拒绝美国客户就其作为美国附属公司的代理人进行的外汇交易向英国银行提出的索赔规则（BankLeumi（UK）plc诉Wachner，商业法院皇后区法官； Faux法官）。设计/方法/方法-本文讨论了被告的这一诉讼和反诉。调查结果–法官没有发现反诉所依据的三个诉因中的任何理由有任何根据，他认为被告应对全部索赔负责。原创性/价值-本文提请注意投资者通过普通法，信托原则或法定侵权要求将交易损失转移至与交易对方或与交易对方进行交易的交易方的尝试。除非索赔人可以确定他们被错误地归类为专家客户，否则此类索赔没有成功的机会。从这个决定中可以得出的另一个兴趣点是，回顾产品设计和对产品创新的先发制人限制再次成为当前有关监管改革的辩论的主要特征。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号