March 2008

The Financial Services Authority invites comments on this Consultation Paper. Comments should reach us by 6 June 2008.

You can send your response by electronic submission using the following form or by emailing us at the address shown.

Alternatively, please send comments in writing to:

Helen Butterworth
Markets Division
Financial Services Authority
25 The North Colonnade
Canary Wharf
London E14 5HS

Tel: 020 7066 8258
Fax: 020 7066 8259

E-mail: cp08_05@fsa.gov.uk

It is the FSA's policy to make all responses to formal consultation available for public inspection unless the respondent requests otherwise

Note: You can take a printout of your response before clicking the 'Submit to FSA' button at the end of the form, but this will only print the visible text on screen, and you may have given longer answers. After submitting your response, the form will clear, but when we acknowledge receipt of your response by email, we can return to you a copy of your full submission as received. Check this box if you would like to have a copy of your submission returned:

Submission Details









as an individual
as a representative of an authorised firm
as a representative of a professional firm
other (please specify):

 

Subject to the exceptions set out above, do you agree that the Principles for sponsors should only apply when a sponsor is required by LR8.2?

 

Do you agree that the demonstration of a firm’s competence is key to retaining the integrity of the sponsor regime? If not, how do you believe the integrity of the regime should be maintained?

 

Do you agree that LR8.6.7 should be retained in substance? If not what amendments do you think are required and why?

 

Do you agree that the matters set out in LR8.6.8 (as revised) can be used by firms to demonstrate their competence? If not, what other factors do you think are relevant?

 

Do you agree that the experience of firms in advising Listed companies or new applicants on the LRs and DTRs, in circumstances other than in providing sponsor services, should, where relevant, be taken into account when assessing sponsor competence? If so, do you agree that we should, where relevant, also take into account the quality of the advice if it is detrimental to sponsors or sponsor applicants?

 

Do you agree that expertise in advising companies on the matters set out in LR8.2 is critical to demonstrating sponsor competence? If not, how would you demonstrate a firm’s ability to provide robust sponsor declarations and provide expert advice to issuers?

 

Do you agree that the SEE provisions should be deleted and that the responsibility for appropriate staffing and supervision of sponsor activity should be placed on a sponsor firm’s management?

 

Do you agree that we should retain the annual requirement for a sponsor to confirm that it continues to meet the approval criteria? If not, what sort of comfort do you believe should be sufficient to retain sponsor approval?

 

Do you agree with the proposal to move from ‘adequate’ to ‘appropriate’ systems and controls as a requirement for sponsor approval?

 

Do you agree that appropriate controls to ensure employees receive proper guidance and training in carrying out sponsor services will help sponsors comply with LR8.6.5(3)?

 

Do you agree that appropriate staffing to ensure proper performance of sponsor services will assist sponsors in complying with LR8.6.5(3)?

 

Do you agree that we should retain the other factors in LR8.6.12 and LR8.6.13 with the suggested amendments?

 

Do you agree we should give more specific guidance on identifying and managing conflicts given the proposals for the introduction of a new LR8.3.6ff? If so, do you agree that the proposals set out in LR8.6.12A provide useful guidance to sponsor firms?

 

In order to perform sponsor services in a competent manner are there any other systems and controls which you believe are important?

 

Do you agree that the proposed requirements for sponsors to identify and manage conflicts are an appropriate method of ensuring that sponsors perform their role in a proper manner?

 

Do you agree that appropriate conflict management arrangements should be sufficient in most cases to enable a sponsor to act where its group has more than one interest in a transaction?

 

Do you agree that the detailed thresholds contained in LR8.3.6 should be removed and replaced with a high level principle and guidance?

 

Do you agree that not all conflicts can be managed and that providing sponsor services in those cases could have an adverse impact on market confidence in the sponsor regime?

 

Do you agree that when identifying conflicts of interest a sponsor should consider those conflicts that could create a perception in the market that it may not be able to perform its functions properly?

 

Do you agree that disclosure in general is not an appropriate method of conflicts management for sponsors given a sponsor's regulatory obligations set out in LR8.3.1(1) and (2)? If you consider that disclosure may be an appropriate method of conflicts management, given the different objectives of the sponsor conflict provisions, please provide details of how disclosure would be used in this way.

 

Should LR8.4.5-6 be deleted in their entirety?

 

Alternatively, do you believe that the disclosure requirements in LR8.4.5(2) and (3) provide useful investor protection?

 

Do you agree that sponsor firms should retain records in relation to their compliance with LR8.6.5/6? Should this be subject to any time limit?

 

Do you agree that an annual confirmation should be retained? If so, do you agree that those confirmations should include details of the considerations the sponsor undertakes to reach its conclusions?