Our articles are written by experts in their field and include individual barristers, solicitors, academics, judges, and leading firms in relevant areas of practice. JIBFL offers authoritative insights into global banking and financial law, providing essential updates for legal practitioners and policymakers. Covering key topics like lending, security interests, derivatives, debt capital markets, banking and finance related disputes, crypto, FinTech and financial regulation, JIBFL serves as a trusted resource for navigating complex legal challenges and staying informed in the financial sector. If you would like to contribute, please email Amanda.Cohen2@lexisnexis.com.
A comparison of re-proposed SEC Rule 9j-1 and the UK/EU Market Abuse Regulation
© Copyright LexisNexis 2024. All rights reserved.
Despite industry criticism of the Rule 9j-1 originally proposed in 2010, the SEC recently re-proposed Rule 9j-1 with even further reach in antifraud, anti-manipulation liabilities for security-based swaps. In particular, the re-proposal lowers the standard of mental state requirement for insider trading liabilities, adds a new prohibition on acts and attempted acts of price manipulation, and seeks to apply similar expanded violations to assets underlying or related to the security-based swap. Compared to the re-proposed Rule 9j-1, the UK/EU Market Abuse Regulation has a different scope and is not specifically designed to apply to swaps and derivatives, but contains prohibitions in the same categories as those under the re-proposed Rule 9j-1.
If you are already a User, sign in
Or you can register free of charge to read a limited amount of subscriber content per month.
Once you have registered, you will receive an email directing you back to read this article in full.
Alternatively you can subscribe here to read unlimited content.
