Suing the Lawmakers: Deutsche Börse Takes on Brussels
One of the more eye-catching headlines this week is that Deutsche Börse will begin proceedings against the European Commission for blocking its proposed merger with NYSE Euronext.
The exchange says—perhaps fairly—that it disagrees with several aspects of the ruling, although it declines to say which ones. The smart money is on the definition of derivatives markets, specifically the exclusion of over-the-counter (OTC) trades from the decision that the combined entity would have a quasi-monopolistic hold over European activity in these areas. Competition from non-European exchanges was also dismissed, which Deutsche Börse says is unfair. In a press conference shortly after the ruling was made, CEO Reto Francioni said the decision marked a "black day" for Europe.
Lone Ranger
Interestingly, NYSE Euronext isn't taking part in the litigation, leaving Deutsche Börse to go it alone against the Commission. A spokesman says it has not yet decided what course of action to take. Reading between the lines, the implication is that NYSE wants to leave this episode behind and move on.
It is unclear whether Deutsche Börse’s move is more of a publicity stunt or an attempt to recoup some losses from the deal rather than a genuine attempt to change the decision. The Commission has said that it stands by its decision, and will defend it in court if necessary.
Litigating Legislation
This isn't the first instance of a governmental body being sued over financial services-sector decisions of late, either. In July 2011, a US federal court struck down the Securities Exchange Commission's (SEC’s) proxy rule after a challenge from industry groups. In December 2011, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (Sifma) and the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) filed a lawsuit against the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) regarding its position limits rules.
Competition commissions for corporate mergers and wholesale regulatory reform are different beasts, of course, but this new wave of litigious sentiment toward legislative bodies is interesting. Does it signal a shift in approach from backroom lobbying and continuous ex-parte meetings with regulators and comment letters, to discussions in court? Only time will tell, but I find it unlikely. Influencing legislation is one thing; butting heads with it is quite another, and the cards are usually stacked in the house’s favor, in these instances. Even the more controversial aspects of macro regulation, such as the Volcker Rule, are more likely to cause mass grumbling than outright court orders.
That being said, it's always a possibility. But provoking supreme authorities and, as CFTC Commissioner Bart Chilton famously said, “dancing on the head of a legal pin,” carries its own risks.
If anyone would like to discuss regulatory challenges, please feel free to call me on +44 207 316 9811 or e-mail me on james.rundle@incisivemedia.com.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@waterstechnology.com or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.waterstechnology.com/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@waterstechnology.com to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@waterstechnology.com to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@waterstechnology.com
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@waterstechnology.com
More on Regulation
BlackRock, BNY see T+1 success in industry collaboration, old frameworks
Industry testing and lessons from the last settlement change from T+3 to T+2 were some of the components that made the May transition run smoothly.
How ‘Bond gadgets’ make tackling data easier for regulators and traders
The IMD Wrap: Everyone loves the hype around AI, especially financial firms. And now, even regulators are getting in on the act. But first... “The name’s Bond; J-AI-mes Bond”
Can the EU and UK reach T+1 together?
Prompted by the North American migration, both jurisdictions are drawing up guidelines for reaching next-day settlement.
Waters Wavelength Ep. 293: Reference Data Drama
Tony and Reb discuss the Financial Data Transparency Act's proposed rules around identifiers and the industry reaction.
Clearing houses fear being classified as DORA third parties
As the 2025 deadline looms, CCP and exchange members are seeking risk information that’s usually deemed confidential.
Industry not sold on FIGI mandate for US reg reporting
Banks’ and asset managers’ tortured relationship with Cusip numbers remains tortured, as they tell regulators to keep the taxonomy in play.
T+1 shift sees out-of-hours human resourcing costs spike by as much as 20%
New research finds that trading firms are experiencing increased labor costs—which could be a boon for outsourced trading.
CBOE and Aquis to make bid for European equities tape
The challenger exchanges have plans to become the second public bidder for provider of the European equities tape, following EuroCTP’s incorporation last year.