Takeover Rumour and a Hedge Fund Dinner
At a London broker, an equity research analyst covers Kestrel plc, a FTSE 250 industrial company whose shares trade at 240p. In a private meeting, Kestrel's CFO tells the analyst that a US private equity firm has made a 350p cash offer and the board is minded to recommend it. The information is not public. The analyst's firm is not advising on the offer, but its corporate finance team is pitching for a mandate with Kestrel next week. That evening, the analyst has dinner with a hedge fund manager and says: 'You might want to look at Kestrel; something is coming.' The hedge fund buys £4 million of contracts for difference. Two days later the offer is announced and the shares close at 341p. The analyst then publishes a 'buy' note with a 360p target and does not mention the offer. Compliance is reviewing whether to submit a suspicious transaction and order report (STOR).
1. Is the CFO's information inside information? What offences may have been committed by the analyst and the hedge fund?
Read the worked answer
The CFO's information is inside information under MAR Article 7. It is precise (a 350p cash offer, board minded to recommend), non-public, and likely to have a significant effect on price: the offer is a 46% premium to 240p, and the shares closed at 341p on announcement. The analyst therefore became an insider.
The analyst did not trade, but his dinner comment was a disclosure of inside information. That is unlawful disclosure under MAR Article 10 and may be the criminal disclosure/encouraging offence under ss.52–54 CJA 1993. The hedge fund manager traded on the information by buying £4m of CFDs; CFDs are financial instruments, so that is insider dealing under MAR Article 8 and the CJA 1993. The research note is a separate problem: publishing a 'buy' note with a 360p target while knowing of the offer, and omitting it, is likely to be misleading and may amount to market manipulation under MAR Article 12 or a breach of the research rules in COBS 12. The firm also faces control failures over information barriers and conflicts.
2. What should compliance do about the STOR, the research note and the analyst?
Read the worked answer
Compliance should submit a STOR to the FCA without delay under MAR Article 16(2). The report should set out the inside information, the analyst's disclosure, the hedge fund's identity and the £4m CFD trade, and the timing. The firm must not tip off the analyst or the hedge fund beyond what is necessary to investigate, and should preserve notes, emails and trading records.
The research note should be suspended or withdrawn pending review; it may have misled the market and must be corrected if inaccurate. The analyst should be restricted from research and client contact while the investigation runs, and the firm should consider disciplinary action and whether his conduct affects fitness and propriety. The firm should also review its Chinese walls, wall-crossing procedures, personal account dealing and market-abuse training. Because the corporate finance team is pitching to Kestrel, the firm may be in a restricted position; compliance should assess whether the pitch can continue and whether the firm should decline it.
3. How should the firm manage the corporate finance pitch and the conflicts?
Read the worked answer
The corporate finance pitch creates a conflict and a potential flow of inside information. The firm must maintain an information barrier between the corporate finance team and research/sales. The analyst should not be involved in the pitch or receive information about it. If the corporate finance team needs to be wall-crossed to work on the offer, the firm must keep an insider list, record the wall-crossing, and restrict access on a need-to-know basis.
The firm must also consider whether it can manage the conflict at all. If the pitch team is likely to receive inside information and the firm's controls are weak, the safer course may be to decline the mandate. Any conflicts should be managed and, where appropriate, disclosed under Principle 8 and SYSC. A senior manager should own the decision, and the firm should document the rationale. The FCA expects market-abuse systems and controls proportionate to the firm's business; a failure here could support enforcement against the firm as well as the individuals.