83,489
edits
Reverse inquiry: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
The second is {{t|ESMA}}s Q&A, released as firms readied themselves for that great New Year’s Day push into the sun-enlightened uplands of modern securities regulation. {{esma on reverse solicitation}} | The second is {{t|ESMA}}s Q&A, released as firms readied themselves for that great New Year’s Day push into the sun-enlightened uplands of modern securities regulation. {{esma on reverse solicitation}} | ||
===“It-definitely-was-a-reverse-inquiry-honest” letters=== | |||
The less imaginative [[legal eagle]] might hatch a plan to document your client’s stout assertion that it was her idea, and not yours, that you should do business. This is the classic “the lady doth protest too much” gambit, and we would heartily caution against it. | |||
For what kind of offshore client, of her own motion, innocently writes her broker such a letter? Only one who has been told to, we submit. Now if you really can evidence the genuine unsolicited request for your services, as it arrived unbidden on your potential client’s scented personal notepaper, then happy days: keep the letter somewhere safe. If you can’t, don’t think contriving a phony letter pretending that happened will help. | |||
While it undoubtedly aggrieves ESMA that huckster brokers from the failed states around the EEA periphery should be flirting outrageously with their innocent fund managers operating within the Internal Market, not even ESMA has got so much time or bureaucratic energy that it is going to send flying squads out to dawn raid its clients to see exactly how they came to meet their brokers: they are far too busy inspecting their [[Netting opinion|netting opinions]] for that. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Disclaimer]]s | *[[Disclaimer]]s | ||
*Art. {{mifid2prov|42}} of {{tag|MiFID}} | *Art. {{mifid2prov|42}} of {{tag|MiFID}} | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||