Brothers, a Block Trade, and a Board Seat
Over six trading days, two brothers each acquire 4.5% of the shares of a listed Kuwaiti bank. Their cousin acquires 1.5%. The three then meet a fund manager to discuss "collectively seeking a board seat". Neither brother has filed a substantial-shareholding notice. Separately, one brother sits on the board of a listed supplier that is about to be awarded a KWD 20 million contract. He learns of the award on Sunday and buys call options over the supplier's shares on Monday; the award is announced on Tuesday. At a licensed broker, a client places an order to buy 2 million shares of a thinly traded company. Before executing, the broker's proprietary desk buys 300,000 shares for its own account; the client order then moves the price by 4%.
1. Analyse the shareholdings of the brothers and cousin. Are they acting in concert, and what disclosure and offer obligations arise?
Read the worked answer
The starting point is that each brother is below 5% individually, but the cousin's 1.5% brings the family group to 10.5%. If they are acting in concert, their holdings are aggregated for disclosure purposes. The meeting to discuss "collectively seeking a board seat" is strong evidence of a common purpose: they are not independent investors who happen to be related; they are coordinating to influence control. Concert-party status is based on the agreement, not on formal documentation, and can be inferred from conduct.
Under the CMA substantial-shareholding regime, a person who acquires 5% or more of a listed company must notify the CMA and the exchange, and subsequent changes of 1% or more must also be disclosed. The brothers should have disclosed when the aggregated holding crossed 5%, and again at 10%. The cousin may also be a concert party. A mandatory offer is not triggered at 10.5%, but the applicable mandatory-offer threshold (30% under the takeover rules) must be monitored, and any further acquisitions by the group should be assessed on an aggregated basis.
The failure to file is a serious disclosure breach. The CMA can require corrective disclosure, impose fines, restrict voting rights, and refer the matter for further action. The brothers should file immediately, disclose the concert-party arrangement, and suspend further purchases until the position is regularised.
2. Evaluate the supplier board member's option purchases. What insider-dealing issues arise, and how should the CMA treat the options?
Read the worked answer
The board member learned of the KWD 20 million contract award on Sunday. That information is specific, non-public, and likely price-sensitive: a contract of that size relative to the supplier's business would affect its share price. Trading on Monday before the Tuesday announcement is classic insider dealing. The fact that he bought call options rather than shares does not avoid the prohibition; derivatives referencing the shares are within the market-abuse rules, and options magnify the profit from inside information.
The board member also owed a duty of confidentiality to the supplier. He should have been walled off from trading and should have obtained clearance before dealing. His position as a director is an aggravating factor because he had access to inside information and was expected to set the tone for compliance. The CMA should investigate his trading records, communications, and any tipping to family members or associates.
Remedies can include disgorgement of profits, fines, a ban from serving as a director of a listed company, and criminal referral. The supplier's own disclosure controls should be reviewed: the board should have had a clear protocol for the contract award, including a blackout on dealing. The options may also trigger disclosure obligations if they give economic exposure above the substantial-shareholding threshold, although the primary issue here is insider dealing.
3. Assess the broker's proprietary purchase ahead of the client's 2 million-share order. What conduct rules are engaged, and what should the broker have done?
Read the worked answer
This looks like front-running. The broker's proprietary desk had advance knowledge of a large client order in a thinly traded stock and bought 300,000 shares before executing it. The client order then moved the price by 4%, creating a profit for the proprietary book at the client's expense. The conduct breaches the duty to act in the client's best interests, the conflict-of-interest rules, and the market-abuse prohibition on trading ahead of client orders.
The broker should have had a clear order-handling policy: client orders must be executed promptly and in accordance with the client's instructions; proprietary trading ahead of a known client order is prohibited; information barriers should separate the desk receiving the order from the proprietary desk. If the broker intended to trade for its own account, it should have waited until the client order was executed or disclosed and obtained consent under a written policy.
The firm should also review whether the client order was executed at a fair price and whether the client should be compensated. The CMA can impose fines, suspend the proprietary desk, require disgorgement, and take action against the responsible individuals. The firm should self-report, preserve records, and strengthen surveillance for front-running and wash trading.