ST0-200 exam Dumps Source : Symantec System Recovery 2013 Technical(R) Assessment
Test Code : ST0-200
Test title : Symantec System Recovery 2013 Technical(R) Assessment
Vendor title : Symantec
: 111 true Questions
WTF! questions were exactly the selfsame in exam that I prepared!
it is my pride to thank you very lots for being prerogative here for me. I handed my ST0-200 certification with flying colors. Now im ST0-200 certified.
No worries when preparing for the ST0-200 exam.
After some weeks of ST0-200 coaching with this killexams.com set, I passed the ST0-200 exam. I Have to admit, i am relieved to head awayit behind, yet jubilant that i organize killexams.com to assist me deserve through this exam. The questions and answers they consist ofwithin the package are correct. The solutions are right, and the questions were taken from the true ST0-200 exam, and i had been given them whilst taking the exam. It made subjects hundreds simpler, and i were given a marks rather higherthan I had hoped for.
Do you know the fastest manner to transparent ST0-200 examination? i Have were given it.
It became definitely very useful. Your accurate questions and answers helped me cleanly ST0-200 in first strive with 78.Seventy five% marks. My score turned into 90% however due to negative marking it got here to 78.Seventy five%. mighty process killexams.com team..May you gain entire of the achievement. Thank you.
Is there a route to bypass ST0-200 examination at the start attempt?
I cleared ST0-200 exam with lofty marks. every time I had registered with killexams.com which helped me to score greater marks. Its splendid to Have help of killexams.com questions and answers for such kind of test. thanks to all.
I want current and updated dumps brand recent ST0-200 examination.
My planning for the exam ST0-200 was incorrect and subjects seemed tough for me as nicely. As a snappy reference, I depended on the questions and answers by route of killexams.com and it delivered what I wished. tons oblige to the killexams.com for the assistance. To the point noting manner of this aide became not tough to seize for me as nicely. I surely retained entire that I should. A score of 92% became agreeable, contrasting with my 1-week war.
Where can I find ST0-200 exam study help?
I used killexams.com material which offers enough information to acquire my purpose. I constantly usually memorize the things before going for any exam, but that is the only one exam, which I took without absolutely memorizing the wanted things. I thanks truly from the lowest of my coronary coronary heart. I can gain to you for my subsequent exam.
Very tough ST0-200 examination questions asked within the examination.
Im going to tender the ST0-200 tests now, sooner or later I felt the self credence because of ST0-200 training. If I looked at my past whenever I willing to provide the tests were given worried, I recognise its droll but now i am amazedwhy I felt no self assurance on my, purpose is requisite of ST0-200 preparation, Now im absolutely prepared can passed my testeffortlessly, so if absolutely everyone of you felt low self perception without a doubt deserve registered with the killexams.com and start training, in the quit you felt self assurance.
it is first-rate flawless to prepare ST0-200 exam with true exam questions.
The killexams.com killexams.com are the exquisite product as its miles each smooth to use and cleanly to attach together through their exceptional Dumps. in many ways it prompted me, it is the instrument which I used daily for my mastering. The usher is applicable for the making ready. It helped me to accomplish a fanciful marks inside the final ST0-200 exam. It offers the understanding to carry out better inside the exam. thanks very for the awesome assist.
It is mighty to Have ST0-200 question bank and study guide.
I am ranked very lofty among my class pals on the listing of outstanding college students however it most efficacious came about once I registered in this killexams.com for a few exam help. It turned into the lofty ranking studying software in this killexams.com that helped me in joining the immoderate ranks at the side of other top notch college students of my elegance. The assets in this killexams.com are commendable due to the fact they may live specific and extraordinarily useful for training thru ST0-200 pdf, ST0-200 dumps and ST0-200 books. I am satisfied to attach in writing those words of appreciation due to the fact this killexams.com merits it. Thank you.
amazed to peer ST0-200 actual examination questions!
Being a network professional, I thought appearing for ST0-200 exam would really help me in my career. However, due to time restrains preparation for the exam became really tough for me. I was looking for a study usher which could build things better for me. killexams.com dumps worked fancy wonders for me as this is a systematic solution for more detailed study. Unexpectedly, with its help, I managed to complete the exam in just 70 minutes which is really a surprising. Thanks to killexams.com materials.
PALO ALTO, CA--(Marketwired - Nov 19, 2014) - Symantec and HP (NYSE: HPQ) enterprise features today announced a joint partnership to enhance a recent calamity healing as-a-service (DRaaS) solution based on HP Helion OpenStack. The HP Helion and Symantec Continuity providing will aid enterprise and SMB shoppers to reduce healing times, records loss, and associated downtime costs.
The expanded variance of industry facts storage environments has created a necessity for a catastrophe recuperation admit that works across diverse computing environments, including on-premises, public cloud and managed cloud. The HP/Symantec DRaaS solution will leverage HP's commercial enterprise cloud as the calamity healing with a purpose to convey can freight savings, automation and self-provider user experience. The provider will help customers achieve device and utility recovery SLAs and meets trade requisites for safety.
"Partnering Symantec's industry main enterprise continuity software with HP's world class industry services will create a part calamity recuperation admit as a route to Have a conducive Have an sequel on when any disruptive events ensue," spoke of Doug Matthews, vice president, tips Availability, Symantec. "This collaboration will aid their consumers to tender protection to their workloads no recollect in the event that they Run on natural IT or are hosted within HP Helion OpenStack-based mostly cloud environments. This recent DRaaS admit specializes in enterprise continuity, failover and failback and may video pomp essentially the most generic purposes and databases out there."
When the recent DRaaS product is made commonly available in late 2015, co-beginning may live supplied from each companions with customer onboarding supported with the aid of joint teams. As Part of the partnership, Symantec provides the DRaaS software solution, whereas HP provides the conclusion-to-conclusion carrier in response to the underlying calamity recuperation facilities, infrastructure, and operations team. the brand recent DRaaS solution will Run on an HP Helion OpenStack-primarily based cloud ambiance and should usher replication, recovery and automatic failover/failback of customer IT whether it's typical IT on-premises, managed cloud, private cloud or public cloud.
"HP consumers want to leverage cloud as a calamity healing target for can freight discounts and operational efficiencies, whereas assisting valued clientele to obtain healing SLAs for methods and applications and offering a simplified journey," famous Jim Fanella, vice president, Workload and Cloud, HP enterprise services. "Bringing a DRaaS solution that's powered by Symantec and HP commercial enterprise functions, leveraging HP Helion, will supply each agencies a robust go-to-market competencies in this quick growing market category."
The DRaaS solution will assist and wield industry selected customer requisites for calamity recuperation, akin to PCI within the retail business, HIPAA in the healthcare trade, or FedRAMP and FISMA within the US public sector.
Pricing and availability Pricing is according to a month-to-month subscription fee based on the measurement/type of server and quantity of storage to live blanketed. This as-a-service pricing mannequin is projected to obtain as much as 50 % can freight discount over an equal in-condo answer.
The DRaaS admit might live managed in the HP Helion Managed Cloud features portfolio and Symantec's counsel Availability portfolio. Co-selling will live accomplished completely for three years following international general availability in 2015.
suggestions about HP Helion Continuity and other HP cloud solutions is accessible at www.hp.com/enterprise/continuity and Symantec's tips Availability portfolio is obtainable at www.symantec.com/businesscontinuity.
consult with us at HP determine Barcelona to gain learning of extra about the partnership and the supposititious solution. specific classes consist of:https://h30550.www3.hp.com/join/sessionDetail.ww?SESSION_ID=6511https://h30550.www3.hp.com/connect/sessionDetail.ww?SESSION_ID=6018
About HP HP creates recent percentages for know-how to Have a significant influence on americans, businesses, governments and society. With the broadest technology portfolio spanning printing, very own methods, utility, services and IT infrastructure, HP provides options for customers' most intricate challenges in each situation of the world. extra assistance about HP is accessible at http://www.hp.com.
About Symantec Symantec employer (NASDAQ: SYMC) is an counsel insurance policy skilled that helps americans, corporations and governments seeking the liberty to liberate the opportunities technology brings -- anytime, any place. founded in April 1982, Symantec, a Fortune 500 enterprise, working one of the vital biggest international information-intelligence networks, has provided main protection, backup and availability solutions for the situation essential tips is kept, accessed and shared. The business's greater than 20,000 personnel live in additional than 50 nations. Ninety-nine % of Fortune 500 groups are Symantec customers. In fiscal 2014, it recorded revenues of $6.7 billion. To live taught greater flux to www.symantec.com or join with Symantec at: http://www.symantec.com/social/
The OpenStack live cognizant stamp and the square O Design, collectively or apart, are trademarks or registered logos of OpenStack foundation within the united states and different international locations, and are used with the OpenStack basis's permission.
forward-looking StatementThis press release incorporates forward-looking statements that involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions. If such risks or uncertainties materialize or such assumptions present improper, the consequences of HP and its consolidated subsidiaries could disagree materially from these expressed or implied by using such ahead-looking statements and assumptions. entire statements apart from statements of ancient verisimilitude are statements that may well live deemed ahead-looking statements, together with however not constrained to statements of the plans, innovations and ambitions of HP for future operations, including the separation transaction; the future performance if Hewlett-Packard commercial enterprise and HP Inc. if the separation is achieved; any statements regarding expected development, performance, market participate or competitive efficiency relating to items and services; any statements related to expected operational and pecuniary outcomes; any statements of expectation or belief; and any statements of assumptions underlying any of the foregoing. hazards, uncertainties and assumptions consist of the should tackle the various challenges facing HP's organizations; the aggressive pressures faced by means of HP's companies; hazards linked to executing HP's method, including the deliberate separation transaction, and plans for future operations and investments; the influence of macroeconomic and geopolitical tendencies and events; the deserve to control third-party suppliers and the distribution of HP's items and features quite simply; the coverage of HP's highbrow property property, together with highbrow property licensed from third events; risks linked to HP's overseas operations; the pile and transition of recent items and services and the enhancement of current items and capabilities to fullfil customer wants and respond to rising technological traits; the execution and performance of contracts by HP and its suppliers, consumers, customers and companions; the hiring and retention of key employees; integration and other risks linked to enterprise composite and funding transactions; the execution, timing and results of restructuring plans, together with estimates and assumptions involving the can freight and the predicted benefits of imposing these plans; the execution, timing and outcomes of the separation transaction or restructuring plans, together with estimates and assumptions involving the can freight (together with any viable disruption of HP's enterprise) and the predicted merits of implementing the separation transaction and restructuring plans; the resolution of pending investigations, claims and disputes; and different hazards that are described in HP's Annual record on form 10-ok for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2013, and HP's different filings with the Securities and change fee, together with HP's Quarterly report on form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2014. HP assumes no responsibility and doesn't intend to supersede these ahead-searching statements.
The utility vendor's undertaking oasis, code identify for a tremendous ERP overhaul, well-nigh crippled its ordering gadget. Refocusing on the person event and connecting with a hidden classification of consumers salvaged the enterprise's business.
Ordering Symantec utility is a walkover for Stephen Nacci, director of seller family members at TLIC global, a application reseller in Rhode Island.
Processing product and licensing requests through the seller’s on-line portal has never been less difficult, and the volume of consideration the reseller receives from his regional consultant has certainly not been larger. Nacci’s enterprise has even gotten calls inquiring in regards to the fine of customer provider and uphold from Symantec CEO John Thompson.
“They’ve got it together a lot stronger,” says Nacci. “We’re getting a lot more well timed responses from them—faster provider, extra attention and stronger responses to their wants.”
Doing industry with Symantec nowadays is a much yowl superior than it was just one year in the past at the peak of a pass that shook the safety and storage utility dealer to its core.
In November 2006, Symantec flicked the switch on a brand recent commercial enterprise useful resource planning (ERP) gadget designed to let partners and clients order products and spark off licenses. Internally, it changed into called undertaking Oasis, a ample step within the merger of Symantec and Veritas. once carried out, the mixed enterprise’s ample network of resellers, integrators, distributors and valued clientele would situation orders via a sole system that covered entire of the tools and suggestions obligatory for intellectual utility buying.
Technically, undertaking Oasis, an help to Oracle 11d, changed into flawless. The code, interface and device—apart from some conflicting information that made accounting complicated to interpret—went precisely as Symantec had conceived when it launched the assignment in might likewise 2005.
but users didn’t bewitch into account the equipment. The voluminous suggestions it offered them and the myriad steps required to district orders created confusion and negative usability. basically, the gadget was so cumbersome that resellers and valued clientele were on the verge of rebel. The issues were so acute that CEO Thompson blamed Part of the company’s sluggish fiscal efficiency within the third quarter of fiscal 12 months 2007 on the ERP plague.
“It probably cost them business,” Nacci remembers. “The device made it so that you didn’t requisite to deserve worried with them.”
despite entire its planning, Symantec made a lot of and close-deadly errors in making ready its clients for the change in its ordering equipment. For one factor, the project administration crew did not coordinate the rollout with different divisions that had been launching recent items at the identical time. regardless of its top-quality efforts, the management crew could not accurately attach together its more than 60,000 resellers, companions and distributors—and scores extra purchasers—for the procedural changes required by the brand recent device.
From the ashes of undertaking Oasis rose undertaking Nero, named for the Roman emperor who, the anachronistic legend has it, torched his capital city while cavalierly playing his fiddle. Symantec insiders order the title became chosen to deliver the urgency and seriousness of the condition. If the complications weren’t resolved immediately, it may spell pecuniary destroy for the vendor.
*Some businesses rule to preserve away from ERP methods altogether. Take Fortune 500 Wesco international with $5.three billion in revenues.
mission Nero, an ongoing effort, did greater than simply unravel the issues linked to the ERP implementation. fancy the failed mission it was designed to appropriate, undertaking Nero prompt its personal chain of events and initiatives that Have transformed the manner Symantec views its purchasers and runs its company. After a painful and difficult recuperation procedure, Symantec has no longer simplest recovered, however now serves for illustration of a route to engage with clients and companions in the web-enabled industry.
Obviously it is difficult assignment to pick solid certification questions/answers assets concerning review, reputation and validity since individuals deserve sham because of picking incorrectly benefit. Killexams.com ensure to serve its customers best to its assets concerning exam dumps update and validity. The vast majority of other's sham report objection customers gain to us for the brain dumps and pass their exams cheerfully and effectively. They never trade off on their review, reputation and property because killexams review, killexams reputation and killexams customer conviction is vital to us. Uniquely they deal with killexams.com review, killexams.com reputation, killexams.com sham report grievance, killexams.com trust, killexams.com validity, killexams.com report and killexams.com scam. In the event that you notice any unsuitable report posted by their rivals with the title killexams sham report grievance web, killexams.com sham report, killexams.com scam, killexams.com dissension or something fancy this, simply recollect there are constantly terrible individuals harming reputation of superior administrations because of their advantages. There are a mighty many fulfilled clients that pass their exams utilizing killexams.com brain dumps, killexams PDF questions, killexams hone questions, killexams exam simulator. Visit Killexams.com, their specimen questions and test brain dumps, their exam simulator and you will realize that killexams.com is the best brain dumps site.
NS0-163 study guide | 1Z0-881 braindumps | HP2-K27 examcollection | 9L0-063 pdf download | 70-536-VB sample test | VCS-256 cheat sheets | HP0-S23 braindumps | JN0-130 VCE | 9L0-624 exercise test | HP0-J41 true questions | HP0-704 dumps questions | HP0-S33 exercise questions | 920-468 questions and answers | E20-060 brain dumps | 251-312 true questions | 642-415 mock exam | P2070-071 cram | 9L0-060 braindumps | 000-286 exam questions | HP3-F18 free pdf |
Here is the bests situation to deserve help pass ST0-200 exam?
In the event that you are occupied with effectively finishing the Symantec ST0-200 exam to commence winning, killexams.com has driving edge created Symantec true exam questions that will guarantee you pass this ST0-200 exam! killexams.com conveys you the most precise, present and latest refreshed ST0-200 dumps questions and accessible with a 100% unconditional promise.
The sole issue that's in any means necessary here is passing the ST0-200 - Symantec System Recovery 2013 Technical(R) Assessment test. entire that you just requisite will live a lofty score of Symantec ST0-200 exam. The simply one issue you Have got to try to is downloading braindumps of ST0-200 exam homework directs currently. they are not letting you down as they already guaranteed the success. The specialists likewise preserve step with the foremost up and returning test thus on provide the larger Part of updated dumps. 3 Months free access to possess the capability to them through the date of purchase. every one will tolerate the expense of the ST0-200 exam dumps through killexams.com at an occasional value. often there's a markdown for anybody all. killexams.com Discount Coupons and Promo Codes are as under; WC2017 : 60% Discount Coupon for entire exams on website PROF17 : 10% Discount Coupon for Orders larger than $69 DEAL17 : 15% Discount Coupon for Orders larger than $99 SEPSPECIAL : 10% Special Discount Coupon for entire Orders
killexams.com Have their experts Team to guarantee their Symantec ST0-200 exam questions are constantly the latest. They are in general to a mighty degree chummy with the exams and testing center.
How killexams.com preserve Symantec ST0-200 exams updated?: they Have their phenomenal ways to deal with know the latest exams information on Symantec ST0-200. Every so often they contact their assistants incredibly alright with the testing seat or sometimes their customers will email us the latest information, or they got the latest update from their dumps suppliers. When they find the Symantec ST0-200 exams changed then they update them ASAP.
In case you genuinely miss the stamp this ST0-200 Symantec System Recovery 2013 Technical(R) Assessment and would rawboned toward not to sit tight for the updates then they can give you full refund. in any case, you should route your score admit to us with the objective that they can Have a check. They will give you full refund rapidly during their working time after they deserve the Symantec ST0-200 score report from you.
Symantec ST0-200 Symantec System Recovery 2013 Technical(R) Assessment Product Demo?: they Have both PDF form and Testing Software. You can check their item page to notice what no doubt like.
Right when will I deserve my ST0-200 material after I pay?: Generally, After efficacious installment, your username/password are sent at your email address inside 5 min. It might bewitch minimal longer if your bank delay in installment approval.
killexams.com Huge Discount Coupons and Promo Codes are as under;
WC2017: 60% Discount Coupon for entire exams on website
PROF17: 10% Discount Coupon for Orders greater than $69
DEAL17: 15% Discount Coupon for Orders greater than $99
DECSPECIAL: 10% Special Discount Coupon for entire Orders
ST0-200 Practice Test | ST0-200 examcollection | ST0-200 VCE | ST0-200 study guide | ST0-200 practice exam | ST0-200 cram
Killexams 98-366 braindumps | Killexams A2040-918 brain dumps | Killexams P2065-037 exam questions | Killexams HH0-220 exercise Test | Killexams C5050-287 true questions | Killexams 250-400 braindumps | Killexams 1Y0-A22 dump | Killexams HP0-Y26 dumps | Killexams 1Z0-161 pdf download | Killexams 700-260 mock exam | Killexams 200-046 test prep | Killexams 1Z0-859 braindumps | Killexams 200-150 cram | Killexams 920-197 free pdf | Killexams PTCE exercise questions | Killexams 000-275 free pdf | Killexams C2040-922 cheat sheets | Killexams 920-110 free pdf | Killexams P2060-001 questions and answers | Killexams UM0-411 VCE |
Killexams HP0-J15 questions answers | Killexams 000-252 examcollection | Killexams C2090-611 free pdf download | Killexams 500-007 sample test | Killexams QQ0-400 true questions | Killexams MSC-235 dump | Killexams HC-224 questions and answers | Killexams HP2-H39 free pdf | Killexams FCBA exam prep | Killexams 000-957 exercise test | Killexams 000-019 exercise questions | Killexams 1Z0-982 dumps | Killexams M2150-810 true questions | Killexams 310-600 exercise Test | Killexams 1T0-035 exercise test | Killexams S90-18A pdf download | Killexams 1Z0-880 braindumps | Killexams HH0-450 exercise exam | Killexams C2180-276 braindumps | Killexams HP0-823 brain dumps |
In Principle 10 Things Authorised Firms requisite To Know For 2019 1. Brexit ............................................................................................3 2. The Extension of the Senior Managers and Certification Regime..............................................................5 3. Market misuse ............................................................................9 4. The FCA’s Recent Enforcement Trends ......................10 5. Cybersecurity and Data Protection .............................. 12 6. EU Securities Financing Transaction Regulation .....14 7. Amendments to the European Market Infrastructure Regulation.................................................. 15 8. EU Benchmarks Regulation and LIBOR Cessation .. 17 9. EU Action plot on Sustainability and Asset Management ...........................................................................19 10. Individuals on the Enforcement Agenda: 2018 Key Cases and Enforcement Round-Up .......... 20 1In Principle Introduction Executive Summary In the 2018 edition of this publication, they ended the introduction with the line, “We can only hope that they will enter 2019 with greater conviction than 2018 as to how the regulatory landscape will look.” Unfortunately, conviction quiet remains in rather short supply. With Brexit now (at least in theory) a matter of weeks away, it remains unclear what will happen: the government’s original proposed Withdrawal Agreement has been decisively rejected, but Parliament has indicated that it would uphold that agreement if the “Irish Backstop” provisions are renegotiated. The Prime Minister has therefore been mandated to return to negotiations on this point, in the face of statements by European Union leaders that there is no prospect of such negotiations going ahead. At the selfsame time, Parliament has signalled that it “rejects” a no-deal Brexit, but not agreed to a proposal which would Have made this rejection binding. Further Parliamentary proceedings are now planned for the middle of February. Whether there is a hard, soft or no Brexit, there remain a number of issues beyond Brexit that authorised firms will Have to esteem in the year ahead. Including Brexit, here are 10 things that authorised firms requisite to know for 2019. 1. Brexit In the absence of a determination of what will betide gain the 29 March 2019 (or indeed, gain some future date if “exit day” is postponed”), firms Have been left in a situation of uncertainty. Whilst this makes planning for what will betide even more difficult, it is viable to plot out how inescapable more likely scenarios would play out. They esteem what asset managers would face if the original Withdrawal Agreement is largely accepted (notwithstanding a change to the Irish backstop), what would betide in the event of the UK leaving the EU without an agreement, and what sequel the UK’s remaining in a customs union with the EU would Have on asset managers. They likewise esteem what preparations the FCA has made for a no-deal scenario, in particular surrounding the “temporary permissions regime”. 2. The Extension of the Senior Managers and Certification Regime The Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SMCR), which is currently in obligate for entire banks, pile societies, credit unions, and dual regulated investment and insurance firms, will live extended to cover entire FCA solo-authorised firms by 9 December 2019. While the pecuniary Conduct Authority (FCA) will continue to accredit people who bewitch on Senior Manager roles, the responsibility to certify employees below Senior Manager smooth as appropriate and proper will devolve on the firms themselves. Firms will likewise live required to train staff on the Conduct Rules and implement recent or update existing systems and controls, including a variety of policies and procedures. Although the implementation is almost a year away, firms would live well advised to Have the recent requirements at the forefront of their minds to ensure a smooth transition. 3. Market misuse Market misuse continues to live an district of very significant interest for the FCA and growing interest across the relaxation of the EU. With the FCA’s insight that compliance with the Market misuse Regulation (MAR) is “state of mind” rather than a matter of following procedures, firms will Have to live particularly vigilant to ensure that they remain compliant. 4. The FCA’s Recent Enforcement Trends Until the quit of 2018, the FCA had a comparatively hushed year, at least in terms of the number of investigations publicly brought to a conclusion and the consequent number of fines issued. The number of penalties was down, and the length of investigations was increasing substantially. They Have looked at the number and distribution of investigations and determination notices to attach together a picture of the FCA’s current enforcement trends. 5. Cybersecurity and Data Protection 2018 was an distinguished year for data protection law with the entry into obligate of the general Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in May. They hope to notice a trickle of enforcement cases in 2019 under the recent regime as the courts and tribunals interpret the recent law’s provisions. Especially with the greatly increased size of the penalties available for breaches, firms should continue to carefully monitor compliance with data protection obligations. Further regulatory guidance on core provisions of the GDPR is expected during 2019. 2 © 2019 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld 6. EU Securities Financing Transaction Regulation The Securities Financing Transaction Regulation (SFTR) is one of the major pieces of post-financial pass legislative reforms and introduces a reporting and transparency regime applicable to firms that parallels the over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives reporting requirements under the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR). entire counterparties are required to report details of any securities financing transactions that they Have concluded, modified or terminated to a registered or recognised trade repository. Whilst the reporting responsibility under the SFTR is not expected to bewitch full sequel until 2020 at the soonest, for firms that regularly deal with repos and buy-sellback transactions, this piece of legislation should live firmly on the radar, given the requirement to build operational infrastructure to uphold the recent reporting requirement. 7. Amendments to the European Market Infrastructure Regulation EMIR is theme to a significant reform proposal, the EMIR “refit,” which includes a number of changes that are expected to become efficacious in 2019. These are, in some route or other, likely to repercussion entire firms currently theme to EMIR. EMIR is proposed to live extended in scope by clarifying that entire alternative investment funds (AIF) should live considered to live pecuniary counterparties (FC), which has caused some confusion as to the proper classification of non- EU AIFs with non-EU managers. The refit seeks to alleviate some of the regulatory burden for smaller counterparties by introducing an FC+ and FC- concept to exclude the below-threshold FCs from the scope of the clearing responsibility and by making NFC- reporting the responsibility of counterparty FCs. A number of the amendments that are likely to bewitch sequel in 2019 therefore seek to address issues raised by industry since before EMIR was published in 2012. Clearing and margin requirements established under the current EMIR regime will likewise continue to live phased in during 2019, thereby completing the phase-in requirements for entire counterparty categories theme to clearing. 8. EU Benchmarks Regulation and LIBOR Cessation They are now in the “transitional period” of the Benchmarks Regulation (BMR), whereby EU-based existing “users” of benchmarks may continue to use non-EU-administered benchmarks in pecuniary instruments until 1 January 2020, notwithstanding that such benchmarks are not listed on the European Securities and Market Authority’s (ESMA)s register of “approved benchmarks.” Post-1 January 2020 treatment of non-EU benchmarks is unclear, given the requisite of available “routes” into the EU for non-EU-administered benchmarks under the BMR: No jurisdiction has, for example, been declared “equivalent” to the EU such that benchmarks administered in that jurisdiction may continue to live used. An additional wrinkle to 2019 compliance is that LIBOR is expected to cease to exist from the quit of 2021. The FCA has stated that, from that time, it no longer expects panel banks to contribute to LIBOR; thus, it is expected to disappear. The repercussion of this is that, to the extent that users of benchmarks currently reference LIBOR in pecuniary instruments and wish to continue to sequel so, the fact of LIBOR’s viable cessation will requisite to live addressed in “robust written plans,” which users of benchmarks are expected to prepare and, on request, build available to the FCA. As explained in the following, the FCA has likewise indicated that benchmark supervision is an distinguished supervisory priority for this year. 9. EU Action plot on Sustainability and Asset Management In November 2018, the EU Commission issued a consultation on whether, and how, asset managers should live required to bewitch principles of sustainability into account when making decisions. This proposal signals a key shift in using pecuniary regulation to address environmental and sociable concerns, whether or not it is the case in exercise that such matters are currently addressed by asset managers. While there is currently no transparent indication of the shape of the rules affecting managers, the industry will live keeping a keen eye on these initiatives. 10. Individuals on the Enforcement Agenda: 2018 Key Cases and Enforcement Round-Up In keeping with investigations that bewitch longer, it is perhaps no astound that the amount of case law that was generated in 2018 is rather smaller than in previous years. This notwithstanding, both the Upper Tribunal (which hears references from the FCA’s Regulatory Decisions Committee (RDC)) and the courts Have provided several pertinent judgments. With the wider rollout of the SMCR, it seems likely that the regulator will continue, and perhaps sharpen, its focus on individuals this year. 3In Principle 1. Brexit As anyone following the unfolding of the political process of Britain withdrawing from the EU can attest to, the only thing that is inescapable is the uncertainty. The inconclusive process has meant that a number of options continue to live discussed and, while within the asset management industry a broadly shared view is that a difficult Brexit is unlikely, a number of the options leave the treatment of pecuniary services at best inconclusive. Asset managers Have superior reason to live vigilant to the political tides: even in the smoothest transition to a soft Brexit, responses will requisite to live prepared on a relatively quick timetable. The key concern for asset managers will live the continuing access to EU markets. This means the competence to continue to provide services to existing and future fund and segregated account clients as well as EU investment managers, and the competence to market pecuniary products and services to prospective clients and investors. The specific mechanism that would allow for continuing and unrestricted access to the EU markets is quiet unclear: While some EU laws allow for an equivalency assessment, this is not the case in entire pertinent legislation, and it is likely that in some cases the expense of market access will live a substantially higher regulatory burden that UK managers would Have to bear. In the short term the patchwork of access provisions for third country entities under the existing laws is likely to result in unsatisfactory arrangements and a higher smooth of regulatory risk across the industry. The now-partially rejected withdrawal agreement contemplates a transition epoch from 29 March 2019 until (at least) the quit of 2020. While the final form of any agreement is quiet theme to dynamic negotiations, a substantial transition epoch is now likely, not least because Parliament has expressed its disapproval to a no-deal Brexit which would serve to create significant instability in the markets and to Have an adverse repercussion on consumer outcomes not only in the UK but across the EU. During such a transition period, for entire pertinent intents and purposes, EU law would continue to apply in the UK, and asset managers would not live required to build substantial changes in response to “exit day” in the short term. While some jurisdictions and regulators Have ensured that bilateral arrangements to ensure ongoing mutual access and regulatory cooperation Have been concluded in further of the 29 March withdrawal date, such bilateral arrangements are unlikely to live comprehensive, and are theme to revision depending on the ultimate outcome of negotiations with the EU and on ESMA’s views on the usurp regulatory approach and solutions. No Deal What happens if the UK “crashes out” with no deal? The EU and the UK would quiet live able to investigate and build equivalency determinations, though as it would likely bewitch months, if not years, for these determinations to live made, in the short term there could live substantial difficulties for UK and EU entities to ensure that they were compliant. Without a transition agreement, therefore, equivalence determinations could only provide a medium-term solution for those in the pecuniary services sector and, given the limitations to relying on equivalence, a rather limited one at that. Customs Union The Labour Party is currently the largest opposition party in the UK Parliament, and whilst there remain uncertain contours over its Brexit policy, it has declared that it would fancy the UK to live Part of a “permanent custom union”. Whilst a customs union would flux some route to permitting the free movement of goods, critically for asset managers, a customs union without an categorical extension to embrace services would preclude free movement of services of the kind that asset managers currently reckon upon. In particular, under 4 © 2019 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld MiFID II and the AIFMD, and absent any specific further legislative solution, a customs union will likely preclude firms being able to use passporting rights as they would now. While both above directives accommodate mechanisms for a third country passport, the regulatory framework for this does not currently exist, and the attendant conditions for the selfsame would live onerous, and theme to material uncertainty. By contrast, membership of the sole market would likely bring with it some form of passporting rights – if not in exactly the selfsame route as they currently profit the industry. Temporary Permissions Regime In preparation for a no-deal Brexit, the Treasury and the FCA Have shown willing. Regulations Have been proposed to implement a “temporary permissions regime”, under which non-UK EEA firms currently operating in the UK would continue to live able to act as if they were authorised for a epoch of time. Ultimately, firms relying on a temporary license will Have to build a transition to full authorisation. The FCA has actively encouraged incoming EEA firms currently using passports to prepare applications for a temporary license to avoid overcrowding at the last second before the curtain falls. Increasingly, a shared commonsense that a no-deal Brexit should live avoided at all, or nearly all, costs has seeped into the political discourse, and valiant efforts Have been made by manufacturing and services industry lobbies to steer transparent of a cliff-edge departure on 29 March. As the past years Have shown, however, one does well to hope the unexpected, and the haphazard contingency plans that Have been drawn up to this quit could live attach to test yet. The contingency plans of individual firms who, without any transparent guidance are left eagerly poised for action, meanwhile, often Have a significant component of hoping for the best. 5In Principle 2. The Extension of the Senior Managers and Certification Regime On 4 July 2018, the FCA published near-final rules setting out how it intends to implement the extension of the SMCR to entire FCA-authorised, nonbanking firms.1 The FCA has proposed for this recent regime to become efficacious on 9 December 2019, albeit with a transitional epoch to give firms time to implement it fully. As had been previously proposed by the FCA, the SMCR will live implemented in tiers. Most firms will descend within the “Core Regime”; however, a wee number of firms categorised as “enhanced regime” firms will live theme to additional requirements, and there will live fewer rules for “limited scope” firms. The proposed recent rules require firms to obtain prior FCA approval for “Senior Managers.” An individual who is designated a Senior Manager may live personally liable for breaches of FCA requirements that bewitch situation within his or her district of responsibility. In addition, firms will live required to certify the fitness and propriety of individuals who are not Senior Managers, but who may cause significant harm to the difficult or to its customers due to the nature of their role. A recent set of Conduct Rules will apply to virtually entire individuals within a firm. The first enforcement case under the SMCR, regarding the CEO of Barclays, was decided in 2018: They dispute it in more detail under “Recent Case Law and Key Enforcement Cases” below. To Whom Does This Apply? The SMCR will apply to entire UK nonbank firms authorised by the FCA. This will embrace UK group 1 https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/policy/ps18-14.pdf. entities of non-UK firms, including US and Asian investment managers with a UK sub-advisor or a UK execution-only presence. The rules will likewise affect some non-UK staff of UK firms, including directors or material risk takers based outside the UK. The Core Regime The Core Regime consists of three main elements: the Senior Managers Regime, the Certification Regime and the Conduct Rules. (i) Senior Managers Regime An FCA-authorised difficult will requisite to obtain prior approval by the FCA for the most senior staff members whose roles embrace the performance of “Senior Management Functions.” As has been the case under the current system, the Senior Managers will requisite to demonstrate to the FCA that they are appropriate and proper to undertake their roles. As Part of this, firms will requisite to obtain criminal records checks for entire proposed Senior Managers. Approval to hold a Senior Management office may live granted outright by the FCA for a limited time epoch or theme to conditions. The Senior Management Functions embrace the Chairman office (SMF9), the Chief Executive office (SMF1), the Executive Director office (SMF3), the Compliance Oversight office (SMF16) and the Money Laundering Reporting Officer (SMF17). Anyone who performs these functions in a difficult covered by the SMCR, whether present in the UK or not, will requisite to seek this authorisation. Under the current Approved Person/Controlled office regime, a corporate entity was permitted to hold a Controlled Function. Under the Senior Managers Regime, however, only individuals can hold a Senior Management Function, and it cannot live held by a corporate entity. In firms where a corporate entity currently performs a Controlled Function, it will live necessary to esteem which individual will hold the Senior Management Function. Whilst the FCA has not made categorical how this will work, firms should esteem who is directing the corporate entity that is performing the controlled function. It is likely that a director of that corporate entity will live the most suitable person to hold that Senior Manager position. 6 © 2019 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld Statement of Responsibilities Firms must prepare a Statement of Responsibilities (SoR) with respect to each Senior Manager. Firms will requisite to provide the SoR to the FCA when a Senior Manager applies to live approved, and then whenever there is a significant change to his or her responsibilities. If a Senior Manager holds more than one Senior Management office within one firm, he or she will live required to Have only a sole SoR describing entire of his or her responsibilities. However, if a Senior Manager holds Senior Management Functions in two or more firms, he or she will requisite a part document for each firm. The FCA has published guidance on the contents of an SoR: An SoR must live a self-contained document, which does not incorporate any other document by reference. It must present clearly how the responsibilities performed by a Senior Manager appropriate in with the firm’s overall governance and management arrangements, and this must live consistent with a firm’s management responsibilities map. Ultimately, the firm’s set of SoRs should demonstrate, when attach together, that there are no gaps in the allocation of responsibilities among the Senior Managers. Duty of Responsibility Each Senior Manager will owe a duty of responsibility. This means that, if a difficult is in violation of its obligations under the FCA’s rules or principles, the Senior Manager liable for the district in which the violation took situation could live held personally accountable. In order to hold someone individually accountable, the FCA would Have to present that the Senior Manager did not bewitch the steps that a person in his or her position could reasonably live expected to bewitch to avoid the violation occurring. This duty is included to help accountability, not just of the junior decision-makers, but to the highest echelons of the business. Prescribed Responsibilities The FCA has proposed a number of “Prescribed Responsibilities.” Firms will live obliged to ensure that, at entire times, a Senior Manager has responsibility for each of the Prescribed Responsibilities. Some examples of Prescribed Responsibilities embrace the performance by the difficult of its obligations under the Senior Managers Regime (including its implementation and oversight), the performance by the difficult of its obligations under the Certification Regime (discussed below), the performance by the difficult of its obligations in respect of notifications and training in relation to the Conduct Rules, and the responsibility for the firm’s policies and procedures for countering the risk that the difficult might live used to further pecuniary crime. (ii) Certification Regime The Certification Regime will apply to employees who are not Senior Managers, but whose role means that it is viable for them to Have a significant repercussion on customers, the difficult or market integrity. These roles are called “Certification Functions.” For each employee undertaking a Certification Function, the difficult must assess whether they are appropriate and proper to sequel their job, and the difficult must provide each such employee with a certificate to that effect. This certificate must circumscribe the areas of the industry with which that employee will live involved. For each employee, certification must live undertaken at least once a year. In deciding whether someone is appropriate and proper under the Certification Regime, the difficult will Have to bewitch into account several different factors, including whether that person has obtained pertinent qualifications, whether he or she has undertaken inescapable training programmes, whether he or she possesses the requisite smooth of competence and whether he or she has the usurp personal characteristics for the role. The Certification Functions embrace what was CF29 under the Approved Persons regime, which was (unfortunately) called the “significant management function.” reliance should live taken that no confusion arises: To live clear, holders of the significant management office under the Approved Persons regime in entire likelihood will live theme to the Certification Regime and not the Senior Managers Regime. The restriction of the Certification Regime to “employees” is rather deceptive: Not only does it encompass “employees” in the ordinary sense of the word, but it likewise includes anyone who provides, or is under an responsibility to provide, services to the difficult and who is theme to the supervision, direction or control by the difficult as to the manner in which those services are provided. Third-party contractors and other agents may descend within this definition. The Certification Regime applies to entire UK-based employees, any non-UK-based employees who Have contact with UK clients and any material risk takers, regardless of where they are located. Whilst perhaps uncommon, it is viable that 7In Principle someone performing a Senior Management office will likewise live performing a Certification Function. In this case, it is necessary for both procedures to live followed, that is, the FCA will Have to authorise that person to hold a Senior Management Function, and the difficult will Have to certify them as appropriate and proper to accomplish their role. Directory As the SMCR replaces the Approved Persons regime, the number of people approved individually by the FCA will diminish dramatically, since the vast majority of employees will not live Senior Managers, but will descend within the Certification Regime. Consequently, the pecuniary Services Register currently maintained by the FCA will become much less useful, since only those people approved by the FCA (Senior Managers) would likely continue to loom on it. In light of this, the FCA published a consultation paper in July 2018 proposing the introduction of a recent Directory. This Directory would accommodate information not only on Senior Managers, but likewise on entire people who Have been certified by their organisation. Populating this Directory will require the co-operation of authorised firms, since they will live the ones with the information on their certifications. The provision of this information to the FCA for the Directory may well live a nontrivial matter for firms. The FCA’s consultation closed on 5 October 2018, and they hope the FCA to issue a policy statement in Q1 of this year. At that point, they will hopefully know much more about what is proposed and what burdens might live placed on individual firms. (iii) Conduct Rules The Conduct Rules will live enforceable by the FCA against individuals. The individual Conduct Rules will apply to entire staff (barring inescapable ancillary staff, such as receptionists, cleaners and catering staff). The FCA will apply the Conduct Rules to a firm’s regulated and unregulated pecuniary services activities. It should live famous that this is a narrower scope than how the Conduct Rules apply within the SMCR as applied to banks, where the Conduct Rules apply across the board to entire activities. The Conduct Rules are divided into two tiers, the first tier being applicable to entire staff, and the second tier being applicable to Senior Managers only. The Conduct Rules are high-level guidance and largely replicate the principles currently applicable to Approved Persons. They are informed by the Principles for Businesses, which remain unchanged. Firms will live obliged to train entire staff on how the Conduct Rules apply to their activities within the firm. The Enhanced Regime The largest and most intricate firms will live theme to inescapable additional requirements under the enhanced regime. Enhanced regime firms will embrace “significant investment (IFPRU) firms” and firms with assets under management of £50 billion or more. Enhanced firms will requisite to comply with the Core Regime requirements and inescapable additional requirements. Such requirements embrace additional Senior Management Functions and Prescribed Responsibilities, as well as an overall responsibility for every industry activity and management office of the firm. In addition, an enhanced regime difficult will Have to compile a responsibilities map that sets out the firm’s management and governance arrangements. Regulatory References For incoming employees who are either going to live performing Senior Management Functions or who will live covered by the Certification Regime, a difficult will Have to request a reference from their previous employers covering the preceding six years. This reference will live known as a “Regulatory Reference.” This reference must embrace information of any disciplinary action following breaches of the Conduct Rules, as well as any information pertinent to whether the employee was appropriate and proper. This information will requisite to live shared in a measure template, and, for each employee, the Regulatory Reference must live updated appropriately if and when any recent pertinent information comes to light. Since Regulatory References will live mandatory to provide, it is distinguished that firms sequel not attempt to enter into agreements that affray with their responsibility to provide such references (for example, NDAs). Non-Executive Directors Non-Executive Directors (NED) will requisite to live approved by the FCA if they are to accomplish the SMF9 Chair office or the SMF14 Senior Independent Director Function. NEDs who sequel not requisite to live approved may quiet live theme to the Conduct Rules 8 © 2019 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld and the Certification Regime. In addition to the generally applicable Conduct Rules, NEDs will likewise requisite to comply with Rule SC4 (the requirement to disclose appropriately any information of which the regulator would reasonably hope notice), which otherwise applies to only those holding Senior Management Functions. Next Steps The FCA has announced various conversion mechanisms that should ease the transition from the current Approved Persons regime to the SMCR. For example, Approved Persons at “core” firms will Have their Controlled office approval mapped to the pertinent Senior Management office where viable (e.g., a director holding CF1 will become (if appropriate) an executive director holding SMF3). Other Approved Persons holding just CF30 (Customer), for example, may not requisite to hold a Senior Management office at entire and will simply live covered by the Certification Regime. Whilst this will ease the transition somewhat, this automatic mapping will not live viable for entire Approved Persons (e.g., an Approved Person holding CF4 (Partner) may Have to hold SMF3 (Executive Director), as well as SMF27 (Partner). It will live necessary, therefore, for some reliance to live taken to ensure that the conversions to the recent regime are entire correctly completed. The FCA has likewise announced transition provisions with respect to the Certification Regime. For example, firms will Have one year from the commencement date of 9 December 2019 to provide a certificate to employees as required. However, firms will Have to Have identified who will requisite to live certified under the Certification Regime on day 1. Whilst the commencement date is quiet some time away, firms would live well advised to Have started to esteem about what they will requisite to sequel in superior time so as to ensure a seamless transition when this is required. 9In Principle 3. Market misuse FCA “Complying with [MAR] is more than adhering to a set of prescriptive requirements”; it is a “state of mind,” so says the FCA.2 In reiterating its understanding of MAR, the FCA once again has provided firms with a lofty bar to meet in the detection and avoidance of market abuse, but at the selfsame time providing comparatively microscopic direction on how to comply. Market misuse remains a lofty priority for the FCA. In 2017/2018, the FCA received 4,829 insider dealing reports and 666 market manipulation reports, and consequently opened 87 misuse cases. The regulator’s continued interest makes it entire the more distinguished to glean as much as viable from the FCA’s publications to try to discern how best to fullfil the requirements placed on firms as the “first line of defence” against market abuse.3 A few themes from the FCA’s recent publications are worth highlighting. First, in relation to systems surrounding internal alerts and warnings of potential market abuse, the FCA has warned against relying on “out of the box” or “industry standard” software. Whilst the FCA has appreciated that generic software can live helpful to a firm, the FCA thinks that this is too blunt an instrument for a difficult to reckon on. There is a danger that people who are intent on market misuse will not live caught if they deviate at entire from the most common forms of market misuse that such software is designed to detect. The remedy, from the FCA’s point of view, is that each difficult must assess what warnings and alerts are usurp 2 FCA, Market Watch, December 2018, Issue 58, https://www.fca. org.uk/publication/newsletters/market-watch-58.pdf. 3 FCA, Market Watch, December 2018, Issue 58, https://www.fca. org.uk/publication/newsletters/market-watch-58.pdf. for the industry that difficult conducts, taking into account the scale, size and nature of the firm’s activity. Whilst this may live informed by “industry standards,” the difficult must exercise its own independent judgment in determining what will live sufficient. Second, the FCA has reported that it thinks that there is a smooth of underreporting of suspicious trades and orders (Suspicious Trades and Order Reporting, or STOR). In particular, the FCA thinks that firms are sometimes taking too narrow a view of the market, and thereby missing suspicious behaviour; the illustration used by the FCA is in relation to fixed income products, where firms may analyse the trades of one particular product and not esteem trades in other related products that, when analysed together, would require a STOR submission.4 Third, the FCA has scrutinised firms’ use of insider lists. Under MAR, firms are required to maintain insider lists, and there are templates that must live used setting out what information should live contained within an insider list. When requested, these lists must live provided to the FCA. The FCA notes that it has “observed varying property in the insider lists they Have received to date.”5 A particular concern that the FCA has is the overuse of permanent insider lists as a route of trying to avoid keeping temporary insider lists up to date. The advice to firms given by the FCA is to anticipate likely sources of insider information and set up systems that can ensure that insider lists for individual deals or events are naturally created whenever a market participant gains inside information. Removing a dependence on permanent insider lists is, it appears, designed to animate this behaviour. The European Securities and Markets Authority 2018 saw ESMA issue its first annual report under MAR, providing a summary of actions under MAR across the EU in 2017.6 In summary, the results are as follows: 4 FCA, Market Watch, September 2018, Issue 56, https://www. fca.org.uk/publication/newsletters/market-watch-56.pdf 5 FCA, Market Watch, December 2018, Issue 58, https://www.fca. org.uk/publication/newsletters/market-watch-58.pdf. 6 https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/esma70- 145-1081_mar_article_33_report_sanctions.pdf. 10 © 2019 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld The Statistics The FCA’s enforcement figures sequel not build for cozy reading for pecuniary institutions. Year on year, the number of investigations opened by the FCA is increasing. This zeal for opening investigations, however, is not matched by an equivalent growth in the number of cases reaching a conclusion. In true terms, this means not only that, statistically speaking, you are more likely to live the theme of an investigation, but that this investigation is likely to bewitch a significant time to conclude. In the minutes of the meeting of the FCA board in September 2018, it is famous that the FCA planned to “clea[r] entire legacy cases by Q1 of 2019.”7 Their review of the notices that the FCA has produced since then would insinuate that this was perhaps optimistic. 7 https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/minutes/fca-board-26-and- 27-september-2018.pdf, point 11.2. Accuracy of the Data They note that the accuracy of the FCA’s reports on the number of open investigations has been placed under some scrutiny recently. At the quit of last year, the results from several freedom-of-information requests made to the FCA within a matter of weeks of each other were published.8 Each of these requests ostensibly asked for the selfsame information, how many open investigations there are, yet the FCA gave three different, incompatible answers. Whilst they Have no reason to doubt the figures provided by the FCA, which they review here, it is evident that the presentation of the data is not intended to live neutral and that further contextualisation is required. Number of Cases The latest full figures on the number of cases that they Have are for the 2017/2018 year.9 On 1 April 2017, there were 410 investigations open. In the following 12 months, 208 cases closed, and another 302 investigations started. Ultimately, by 31 March 2018, there were 94 more open investigations than the previous year. The most striking augment in this epoch relates 8 notice L. Rogerson and R. Wolcott, “UK FCA published inconsistent, double counted enforcement statistics in liberty of information responses” (Thomson Reuters, 14 December 2018). 9 Unless otherwise stated, figures in this section are taken from: https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/corporate/annual-report-2017-18- enforcement-performance.pdf (last accessed 14 December 2018). 4. The FCA’s Recent Enforcement Trends • The only criminal proceedings brought were by the German authorities. Criminal fines were imposed on seven individuals for market manipulation, although the total amount of the fines was very limited at only EUR 12,450. • Two Article 14 MAR proceedings were brought – one each by the Slovenian and Lithuanian authorities – in relation to the infringement of the insider dealing requirements. These did not result in pecuniary penalties. • Thirty-five pecuniary sanctions were issued across the EU relating to the infringement of Article 15 MAR on market manipulation. With the exception of a EUR 40,000 sanction imposed by the French authorities, these were entire comparatively wee fines. • For “other infringements” of MAR, 107 pecuniary sanctions and 111 nonmonetary sanctions were imposed. Notably, this included a penalty of £70,000 issued by the FCA against Tejoori Limited for failing to inform the market of inside information as required by Article 17(1) MAR. 11In Principle to investigations into culture and governance. The number of cases in this category increased by more than 300%, from 15 to 61 cases. pecuniary crime cases likewise showed a substantial augment of more than 50%, from 55 to 86 open investigations, and market misuse investigations were up by nearly 30%, from 22 to 28 open cases. The only kind of investigation showing a substantial diminish in this epoch was wholesale conduct investigations, which declined by just more than 30% from 38 to 26 cases. Whilst these statistics must live understood within the context of a comparatively wee data set, these figures sequel tally with the FCA’s stated priorities, particularly with the ever-increasing focus on individual accountability and acting against criminal conduct threatening the integrity of the market. Case Length The mediocre length of civil and regulatory cases brought by the FCA, including cases that settle or where the FCA decides to bewitch no further action, has increased by about a month and a half, from 17.6 to 19.1 months. This figure, on its own, however, is rather misleading: This modest augment in the overall mediocre covers some more concerning changes in particular categories. For example, in a case that eventually settles, the length of time from commencement of the investigation up to settlement has increased by nine months to 32.3 months. Of even greater concern, the mediocre length of a concluded case that was referred to the RDC has nearly doubled since the previous year to 59.4 months (almost five years). Since this is an average, it is quite viable that some cases Have taken substantially longer than this. In contrast to these figures, however, the mediocre duration of a concluded case that is eventually referred to the Upper Tribunal has decreased by approximately nine months to 52.4 months. Final Notices and pecuniary Penalties In 2017/2018, the FCA issued 269 final notices, with penalties imposed of almost £70 million. By contrast, in the first six months of 2018/2019, the FCA issued only 77 final notices, and penalties of only just under £2.4 million. While the FCA was more dynamic in the second half of last year – notably, in October, it fined Tesco Personal Finance plc £16.4 million, and, in December, it fined Santander UK plc £32.8 million – the £60.4 million total fines for 2018 remains the second lowest since the regulator’s inception by both volume and number of fines. Criminal Cases The FCA famous in its 2017/2018 Enforcement Annual Report that “[c]riminal cases can bewitch significantly longer to resolve than regulatory cases” and reports that the mediocre length of entire criminal cases is 58.2 months10. Whilst substantially longer than the “average” civil or regulatory case – that is, including investigations that are not pursued or that settle – they note that this is eminently comparable to the mediocre duration of cases involving an RDC or Upper Tribunal reference. One recent criminal case is of particular note. The FCA brought a prosecution against a former UBS compliance officer and a UBS trader over allegations of insider dealing.11 The two defendants had their first hearing before the City of London Magistrates in June 2017. Only in October 2018 did the eight-week tribulation start. Then, in December 2018, after five days of deliberations, a jury was unable to gain a verdict and was discharged. This was despite the arbiter permitting the jury to gain to only a majority verdict. The FCA has notified the court that it intends to seek a retrial against these defendants.12 10 https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/corporate/annual-report- 2017-18-enforcement-performance.pdf, page 9. 11 https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/two-charged- insider-dealing. 12 https://www.ft.com/content/9b00c710-fe17-11e8-ac00- 57a2a826423e. 12 © 2019 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld pecuniary regulation is now inexorably intertwined with data protection rules. It is likewise striking that these rules often Have very broad application beyond the EU. As explained below, recent enforcement cases betoken that the nexus does not Have to live extremely obvious or clearly direct. (i) The GDPR The data protection framework set out in the GDPR continues to become further entrenched in the pecuniary regulatory framework pertinent to pecuniary market participants, including asset managers. This is reflected, for example, in the FCA’s focus on cybersecurity in its 2018/2019 industry Plan, which sets out the FCA’s objectives for the period,13 joint FCA and UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) statements,14 and co-ordinated investigations and enforcement actions of the FCA acting with the ICO.15 It is worth looking back to two enforcement actions of 2018 to live reminded of the direction in which GDPR enforcement is going, which accords with the expectations of many of aggressive enforcement and (a concern for non-EU-based asset managers) the relatively narrow connection to the EU that is being considered adequate by the ICO to bring an enforcement action. 13 https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/business-plans/business- plan-2018-19.pdf. 14 https://www.fca.org.uk/news/statements/fca-and-ico-publish- joint-update-gdpr. 15 https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news-and-events/news-and- blogs/2018/09/credit-reference-agency-equifax-fined-for-security- breach/. (ii) AggregateIQ Data Services Ltd – Enforcement over an Entity with no Presence in the EU In October 2018, AggregateIQ Data Services Ltd (AIQ) was the first target of a formal enforcement notice by the ICO under the GDPR.16 AIQ, which is a Canadian business, was required to “cease processing any personal data of UK or EU citizens obtained from UK political organisations or otherwise.” AIQ breached the GDPR because it “processed personal data in a route that data subjects were not cognizant of, for purposes which they would not Have expected, and without a lawful basis for processing”. The case is significant for non-EU businesses in particular because the enforcement notice was served on an entity established outside of the UK that had no presence at entire in the EU. The ICO took the view that AIQ’s processing of personal data related to the monitoring of data subjects’ behaviour in the EU and that it was therefore within the scope of its enforcement powers. (iii) Equifax Ltd. – Non-EU Cyber-Attack Did Not Preclude Application of EU Rules; and Significant Fine In September 2018, the ICO issued Equifax Ltd, a UK-based credit reference agency, with a £500,000 fine for failing to protect the personal information of approximately 15 million UK citizens whose data was breached during a cyber-attack against Equifax that took situation in 2017.17 The fine was the maximum permitted to live levied under the pre-GDPR legislative framework. Since the failings occurred before the date of entry into obligate of the GDPR (25 May 2018), the investigation was carried out under the previous UK regime. The case is significant for non- EU businesses in particular because the location of the cyber-attack in the US did not preclude strict application of the UK’s data protection rules. Although the information systems of Equifax in the US were compromised, Equifax in the UK was identified as liable for the data of its UK customers: The ICO took the view that the UK arm of Equifax failed to bewitch usurp steps to ensure that its US parent, which was processing the data on its behalf, was protecting the information. Although too soon to tell, compliance challenges may arise post-Brexit if it is the case that, 16 https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/enforcement- notices/2260123/aggregate-iq-en-20181024.pdf. 17 https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/mpns/2259808/ equifax-ltd-mpn-20180919.pdf. 5. Cybersecurity and Data Protection 13In Principle over time, the substance of key requirements under the GDPR diverge from the form of the GDPR that is adopted by the UK as a legally part regime on “exit day”: There may eventually, in effect, live two fairly part versions of the GDPR. Regulatory guidance is expected to live forthcoming in 2019 concerning, among other aspects of the GDPR, its high-level principles, including lawfulness, fairness, transparency of data processing and storage requirements. The EU e-Privacy Regulation The e-Privacy Regulation (the EPR) impacting, among other matters, “direct marketing” in the EU, is in the process of being finalised, and it is expected to gain into sequel in late 2019 or early 2020 once the legislative process has concluded. Although the rules supersede and tighten existing “direct marketing” requirements under the existing e-Privacy Directive from 2002,18 direct marketing will, as explained below, now live theme to EU-wide rules that are uniform across the EU rather than, as currently, implemented differently by member state. Further, the stricter concept of “consent” from the GDPR will now live applied. Consent must therefore live freely given, obvious and evidenced by a positive action of the recipient: A pre-checked consent box, for example, is unlikely to suffice. The EPR presents the possibility of significant fines along the lines of the GDPR. The territorial scope of the EPR is wide-reaching: In addition to compliance being required by legal and natural persons within the EU, legal and natural persons located outside of the EU will likewise live required to comply with the EPR where they provide electronic services to users located in the EU. Whilst enforcement against non-EU persons may live difficult, for anyone with any connection to the EU, these rules will live distinguished to follow as well. Direct marketing is defined broadly as “any form of advertising, whether written or oral, sent to one or more identified or identifiable end-users of electronic communications services, including the placing of voice to voice calls, the use of automated calling and communication systems with or without human interaction, electronic message, etc.” Those engaging in direct marketing will requisite to pomp their phone 18 Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector. number or, alternatively, use a special identifiable pre- fixed number that makes transparent that the muster relates to marketing. One of the most significant rules that is expected to live contained in the EPR and so will live in obligate across the EU provides for a “soft opt-in” in particular circumstances. The soft opt-in provides that direct marketing will live permitted to live directed towards a person who has already received goods or services from the business, provided that (a) the direct marketing relates to similar goods or services, and (b) that, in each communication, the subscriber is given the break to “opt-out.” This rule is similar to the one already in obligate in the UK under the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulation 2003 (PECR);19 however, it will live necessary to wait and notice whether the concept is given the selfsame signification by the EU courts as it has been understood domestically. Cybersecurity In October 2018, the FCA fined Tesco Personal Finance plc £16.4 million for its systems and controls- related failings following a cyber-attack that the FCA considered “largely avoidable”.20 The FCA said in its final notice that Tesco Personal Finance plc failed to bewitch usurp action to prevent the foreseeable risk of fraud. In doing so, it breached Principle 2 of the FCA’s Principles for Businesses to conduct their industry with due care, skill and diligence. 19 The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 SI 2003 No.2426. 20 They dispute this case further in the “Recent Case Law and Key Enforcement Cases” section below. 14 © 2019 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld EU Securities Financing Transaction Regulation21 2019 will notice the final legislative steps being taken to finalise core provisions of the EU SFTR relating to reporting of securities financing transactions (SFT) – essentially covering repos and buy-sellback transactions. Investment firms and credit institutions will not live required to comply with reporting provisions until 12 months from the date of the European Commission adopting the pertinent regulatory and implementing technical standards, and for UCITS and AIFs, until 18 months has elapsed from the date of their adoption. The SFT reporting rules Have not yet been finalised following extended disagreement between the 21 Regulation (EU) 2015/2365 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on transparency of securities financing transactions and of reuse and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012. Commission and ESMA.22 Although compliance will not live required until early/mid-2020, many pecuniary market participants will requisite this time to attach in situation pertinent IT and operational systems for collateral management and the reporting of SFTs. It is possible, however, that much of the travail required may already Have been done where systems Have been introduced for EMIR, given similarities with esteem to a number of the reporting provisions.23 Notwithstanding the final form or timing of Brexit, the UK is likely to adopt any rules that enter into obligate in the EU after “exit day” in substantively similar form to that in which they are published, given that the rules originate from globally agreed G20 standards. 22 The Commission announced its goal in July 2018 to endorse the RTS and the ITS, with some amendments compared to the draft submitted by ESMA to the Commission. ESMA has issued a statement that it does not disagree with one of the amendments relating to the Commission’s proposal to drop ESMA’s provision that makes it mandatory for reports to embrace Legal Entity Identifiers for branches and Unique Transaction Identifiers once these Have been developed and “endorsed by ESMA” – the Commission takes the view that this amounts to a delegation of power to ESMA to build changes to the reporting requirements that does not accord with the scope of their legal powers. 23 For example, if both entities that are theme to an SFT are located in the EU, they will both live required to report the trade to an authorised trade repository on a T+1 basis. 6. EU Securities Financing Transaction Regulation21 15In Principle 7. Amendments to the European Market Infrastructure Regulation EMIR has caused some difficulties since its promulgation in 2012, which a large EMIR reform project, expected to live finalised in a number of respects in 2019, is intended to address. As explained below, this so-called EMIR “refit” proposal will affect a large number of the requirements under EMIR, impacting entire types of participants theme to the rules. There are likewise requirements under the current EMIR package that are scheduled for phase-in during 2019 relating to clearing and margin, for which participants should live preparing to the extent applicable to them. Finally, an intragroup exemption from clearing is expected to live extended following its expiry at the quit of 2018. (i) The EMIR Refit Proposal Although the EMIR refit is quiet in the midst of the European legislative process and inescapable requirements may therefore find themselves altered by the time of its conclusion, the following sets out a number of key areas of the reform package as they currently stand in the process: • Proposal that entire AIFs become “financial counterparties”: One of the key changes in the EMIR refit is the proposal that the definition of FC live amended to capture entire AIFs, and not only AIFs that Have an authorised or registered Alternative Investment Fund Manager (AIFM).24 24 Original drafts of the legislation had suggested that non-EU AIFs with a non-EU AIFM would live reclassified as FCs, which would Have represented a significant expansion of the scope of EMIR to non-EU AIFMs. More recently, the definition of FC has been narrowed so that it captures EU AIFs (regardless of the location of the AIFM), as well as, per existing rules, AIFs (wherever located) with an authorised or registered AIFM. • Introduction of a “small pecuniary counterparty”: A definition of “small pecuniary counterparty” (SFC) is proposed to live introduced for entities that trade infrequently and sequel not pose a systemic risk; these entities would live exempt from the clearing responsibility under EMIR.25 • Amendment of the time reference for the clearing threshold determination: The proposal is for a once-yearly determination based on the aggregate month-end mediocre total notional amount for March, April and May, replacing the current 30- day rolling mediocre determination. • Proposal to remove the requirement that clearing for one asset triggers clearing requirement for entire asset classes: The EMIR refit is expected to remove the requirement that, where the clearing responsibility is triggered by an NFC for one asset class theme to the clearing obligation, it is then theme to the clearing responsibility for entire asset classes theme to the clearing obligation. Instead, it is proposed that the NFC would live in scope for only the clearing responsibility requirements for the class of derivative that has fallen over the pertinent clearing responsibility threshold; this change would significantly reduce the clearing burden for many entities that trade clearable products only relatively infrequently. • Proposed amendment of reporting requirement for NFC entities: It has been proposed that the reporting requirement live amended so that, where an FC has entered into a derivative transaction with an NFC falling below the clearing threshold, the FC would live liable for reporting on behalf of both parties. • Proposed extension of the clearing exemption for pension schemes, which expired on 16 August 2018. 25 The determination for whether an entity is an FC or an SFC would, in current proposals, live made by applying the selfsame clearing only once yearly, based on the aggregate month-end mediocre total notional amount for March, April and May. Risk mitigation rules would however continue to apply to the SFC. 16 © 2019 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld (ii) Phase-In of Requirements Relating to Clearing and Margin The clearing responsibility under EMIR will continue to live phased in during 2019 for Category 3 and Category 4 counterparties.26 Phase-in of the initial margin requirements under EMIR will likewise continue in 2019, with the threshold for mandatory initial margin falling to an aggregate mediocre notional amount of uncleared derivatives on a groupwide basis above EUR 750 billion from 1 September 2019. Entities theme to the clearing and margin rules will requisite to consider, among other matters, whether their clearing/CCP relationships are adequate and, for initial margin purposes, which custodian they will use, and the required steps to implement custodial relationships. (iii) Extension of the Intragroup Exemption from the Clearing responsibility On 27 September 2018, ESMA submitted proposed amendments to the European Commission relating to the secondary legislation under EMIR concerning intragroup transactions with a third-country entity.27 These changes, once passed (which they fully hope to happen), will extend the expiry date for the exemption from clearing for interest rate derivative classes denominated in the G4 currencies to 21 December 2020.28 26 For (i) Category 3 counterparties (i.e., FCs whose group’s aggregate month-end mediocre of outstanding notional amount of OTC derivatives is below 8 billion EUR, assessed over January/ February/March, and AIFs that are NFCs below the threshold) from 21 June 2019 for CDS; and (ii) for Category 4 counterparties (those that are NFCs not falling within any other category), from 9 May 2019. 27 https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/esma70- 151-1768_final_report_no.6_on_the_clearing_obligation_intragroup. pdf. 28 The exemption expired on 21 December 2018, for interest rate derivative classes denominated in G4 currencies theme to the clearing responsibility and will expire on later dates for CDS and inescapable other interest rate derivatives. Many industry participants Have not prepared for expiry of the exemption, partly because it was expected that the exemption would live extended until third-country equivalence decisions are in place. These are currently absent. ESMA therefore issued a statement29 on 31 October 2018 in which it emphasised that national regulators should apply a “risk-based approach” to enforcement of noncompliance with the clearing responsibility by entities utilising the intragroup exemption from clearing. 29 https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/esma70- 151-1773_public_statement_on_co_and_to_for_intragroup_as_well_ as_cat_4.pdf. 17In Principle 8. EU Benchmarks Regulation and LIBOR Cessation The BMR30 entered into obligate on 1 January 2018, regulating the “use,” “contribution to” and “administration” of benchmarks. The BMR continues to raise issues into 2019, in particular, for “users” of benchmarks, which will embrace asset managers. (i) Challenges for Users of Benchmarks In 2019, users of benchmarks are finding themselves with the difficult question of whether they are able to continue to use non-EU administered benchmarks from the quit of the year. The “use” restrictions in the BMR prevent EU-based entities from referencing a non-EU administered and non-ESMA authorised “index” used as a benchmark in pecuniary instruments from 1 January 2020, unless, in broad terms: i. The jurisdiction of the administrator of the index has been declared “equivalent” to the EU for the purposes of the BMR by the European Commission. ii. An administrator located outside of the EU has been recognised by an EU member situation under the BMR. or iii. An EU located administrator endorses a non- EU benchmark and takes responsibility for its supervision. 30 Regulation (EU) 2016/1011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016, on indices used as benchmarks in pecuniary instruments and pecuniary contracts or to measure the performance of investment funds and amending Directives 2008/48/ EC and 2014/17/EU and Regulation (EU) No 596/2014. Although they are currently in the middle of a “transitional period” under the BMR (which permits entities located in the EU to use existing indices/ benchmarks until 1 January 2020, even where no one of these circumstances are met, provided that they “used” the benchmark when the BMR entered into force), there is the problem that, to date, no jurisdiction has yet been declared “equivalent” to the EU for the purposes of the BMR. Recognition and endorsement of benchmarks Have likewise not proved popular. It is not transparent therefore how non-EU benchmarks may live used after the transitional period. Given this concern, a number of pecuniary industry groups collaborated in November 2018 to formally request by letter to ESMA and the Commission that the transition epoch live extended.31 They hope that it is very likely that regulatory guidance will live published during the course of 2019 to assist with these issues. (ii) Users’ Updates to “Robust Written Plans” and the repercussion of the Future Cessation of LIBOR In 2019, updates to benchmark plans may live needed in light of LIBOR ceasing to exist. Under the BMR, users of benchmarks are required to Have in situation a “robust written plan” to address fallbacks for any benchmarks used in case they cease to live available or if they change such that they can no longer live used.32 These plans are required to live made available to the FCA at their request. Written plans for benchmarks should live looked at carefully in 2019, particularly where any plans reference LIBOR. As is now well known, the LIBOR benchmark rate is expected to cease to exist from the quit of 2021 following the FCA’s statement in July 2017 that panel bank contributors to LIBOR will no longer live encouraged by the FCA to provide quotes to set LIBOR. Monitoring preparations for LIBOR’s cessation likewise appears to live an FCA supervisory priority for 2019.33 31 https://www.isda.org/2018/11/21/briefing-on-the-need-to-extend- the-transition-period-of-the-benchmark-regulation/. 32 Article 28(2). 33 In September last year, the FCA sent a “Dear CEO” to large UK banks and insurance companies in which the FCA asked for details of recipients’ preparations and the actions being taken to manage transition from LIBOR to alternative interest rate benchmarks. Although the audience consisted of large banking and insurance institutions, it is difficult to preclude the FCA looking at these issues more generally for entities under their supervision, including asset managers. 18 © 2019 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld (iii) Brexit and the BMR On 23 November 2018, the UK government published an explanatory stating how the BMR will live “on-shored” in the event of a “no-deal” Brexit.34 According to the memo, the UK plans to interpolate a “UK version” of the BMR that would effectively live a copyout of the EU version of the BMR as in obligate on exit day. Benchmarks on the ESMA register are proposed to live grandfathered for use in the UK for 34 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-benchmarks- amendment-and-transitional-provision-eu-exit-regulations-2019/ the-benchmarks-amendment-eu-exit-regulations-2018-explanatory- information. 24 months from the date of the UK’s exit from the EU. The extent to which the “UK BMR” would reflect updates to the “EU BMR” post-Brexit is not clearly addressed; however, it is not inconceivable that the two regimes could diverge over time in significant respects. 19In Principle 9. EU Action plot on Sustainability and Asset Management In November 2018, the European Commission published a consultation35 for input from stakeholders regarding the extent to which institutional investors and asset managers should live theme to duties of “sustainability,” and reflect these in their decision- making relating to investments. The consultation follows publication of an interim report by the EU lofty smooth Expert Group on sustainable finance in July 2017, which recommended that the Commission clarify the fiduciary duties of institutional investors and asset managers concerning environmental, sociable and governance factors, and long-term sustainability. The striking aspect of the consultation is the planned shift to using pecuniary regulation as a instrument to animate the sustainability of investments. No laws or regulations Have been proposed at this stage. Although respondents who Have published their replies publically Have generally agreed that sustainability should live more directly addressed in the legal framework applicable to investment decision- making, some Have resisted the assumptions that asset managers Have hitherto ignored sustainability as an integral Part of their investment process. 35 https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/2017-investors-duties- sustainability-consultation-document_en.pdf. Questions that Have been asked embrace the following: • “Do you esteem pertinent investment entities should esteem sustainability factors in their investment decision-making?” • “What are the sustainability factors that the pertinent investment entities should consider?” (Choices embrace climate factors, sociable factors, governance factors and other environmental factors.) • “Which of the following entities should esteem sustainability factors in their investment decision- making?” (Choices embrace collective investment funds (AIFs, UCITS, etc.), insurance providers, and individual portfolio managers.) • “Within the portfolio’s asset allocation, should pertinent investment entities esteem sustainability factors even if the consideration of these factors would lead to lower returns to beneficiaries/clients in the medium/short term?” 20 © 2019 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld 10. Individuals on the Enforcement Agenda: 2018 Key Cases and Enforcement Round-Up As discussed more fully in the previous section, there were comparatively few enforcement cases in 2018, and correspondingly few final notices or decisions from the Upper Tribunal. Of the few cases that were decided, however, they note the following: Jes Staley36 On 11 May 2018, the FCA and the PRA fined Barclays’ CEO, Jes Staley, a total of £642,430 for allegedly failing to act with due skill, reliance and diligence in the route that he conducted himself in response to an anonymous letter received by Barclays in June 2016. Barclays is likewise now theme to special requirements by which it must report annually to the regulators detailing how it handles whistleblowing, with personal attestations required from Senior Managers liable for the pertinent systems and controls. According to the regulatory notices, in June 2016, a member of Barclays’ board received an anonymous letter from an individual outside the bank, purportedly a shareholder, citing concerns about a senior employee, Barclays’ process for hiring him and Mr. Staley’s role in dealing with those concerns at a previous employer. Later that month, Barclays received a second anonymous letter expressed as being from a Barclays employee. Mr. Staley became concerned that the letters were Part of a crusade against the employee and targeted at undermining Mr. Staley’s hiring strategy. Mr. Staley instructed the firm’s security team to identify the author of the first letter. Mr. Staley was informed that the letter was being treated as a whistleblower, and so he should not attempt to uncover the author. Although Mr. 36 https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/final-notices/mr-james- edward-staley-2018.pdf. Staley initially accepted this advice, he later resumed his search to identify the author after he mistakenly interpreted an update from compliance that the correspondence was no longer being treated as a whistleblower. The final notices addressed to Mr. Staley from the FCA and the PRA organize that the Barclays CEO was in violation of the requirement to act with due skill, reliance and diligence (individual conduct rule 2) because he should Have identified that: • He had a affray of interest in relation to the letter and needed to bewitch particular reliance to maintain an usurp distance from Barclays’ internal investigation. • There was a risk that he would not live able to exercise impartial judgment in relation to how Barclays should respond. • Once the complaint was in the hands of the Compliance team, it was distinguished that Compliance retained control over its investigation process. While the regulators said that Mr. Staley made sedate errors of judgment, they did not find him to Have acted with a requisite of integrity. They did, however, point out that the measure of conduct expected from a CEO under individual conduct rule 2 was more exacting than for other employees and that CEOs must ensure that usurp standards of governance are maintained. The final notices build no allegations regarding the Senior Manager Conduct Rules. Although the regulators acknowledged that Mr. Staley made no personal gain from the events, they viewed his misconduct as sufficiently sedate for each to impose a penalty of 10% of his annual income (with a 30% reduction in the overall fine for agreeing to settle at an early stage in proceedings). Barclays has likewise announced that it reduced Mr. Staley’s compensation for 2016 by £500,000. In addition to the penalty imposed on Mr. Staley, Barclays agreed to enhanced reporting requirements under which it must inform the regulators on an annual basis how it handles whistleblowing, with personal attestations required from those Senior Managers liable for the pertinent systems and controls. In related proceedings, recent York State’s pecuniary 21In Principle regulator fined Barclays Bank Plc and its recent York offshoot US$15 million based on the selfsame conduct that underlies the enforcement in the UK.37 The recent York agency accused the bank of governance shortfalls and suggested that it had taken a “step back” after prior enforcement for other violations. Alistair Rae Burns38 Mr. Burns’ case was factually complicated. The Upper Tribunal’s judgment is informative on some distinguished questions of principle, however: To what extent is an approved person liable to ensure that a particular investment is suitable for a particular customer when it is known that that customer is receiving independent advice from a third party? Mr. Burns was an approved person holding the CF1 (director) position at TailorMade Independent Limited (TMI). TMI itself was authorised by the FCA and acted as an independent pecuniary advisor, particularly advising customers on the benefits of transferring their pensions into Self-Invested Personal Pension Schemes (SIPP). Mr. Burns likewise had interests in other companies that functioned under the “TailorMade” brand (e.g., TailorMade Alternative Investments Limited (TMAI)). TMAI was not authorised by the FCA, although its industry was the promotion of comparatively illiquid and esoteric investments to customers. Many of these investments were inappropriate, and, eventually, TMI and TMAI had to discontinue trading, and TMI’s authorisation was removed. Amongst other allegations, the FCA alleged against Mr. Burns that he had failed to bewitch reasonable steps to ensure that TMI, as a regulated entity, gave advice that was suitable for its customers. Further, the FCA alleged that TMI failed to obtain the necessary information from its clients to ensure that it had enough information so that it had a reasonable basis to believe that such investment advice given was suitable (e.g., information on the customer’s pecuniary situation, investment objectives, and learning and smack in relation to the pertinent types of investment). These rules are laid out in the FCA handbook at COBS 9.2. In defence, Mr. Burns pointed out that the investments in question were not “specified investments”; that is, they were not investments theme to regulation in entire contexts. Second, Mr. Burns argued that entire TMI did was organize to set up a SIPP for a customer and that it did not give advice on the investments that went into 37 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/business/barclays- whistle-blower-fine.html. 38 https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/TCC/2018/246.pdf. the SIPP, and that it was TMAI that did this. The Tribunal organize that, in any circumstance where a difficult gives advice to a customer on the merits of establishing a SIPP, any advice given on the merits of the underlying assets to live held within the SIPP must descend within the scope of the regulator’s rules, whether or not they would, in another context, live considered specified investments. Mr. Burns’ first argument was therefore unsuccessful: The investments in a SIPP are theme to regulation in this context. Second, whilst the Tribunal accepted that, where a customer has “genuinely made a determination without advice from the IFA difficult which arranges for the establishment of the SIPP to acquire investments to live held within the SIPP, then the obligations of the IFA difficult … may live more limited.”39 The Tribunal accepted that a SIPP exists for the customer to build some of his or her own decisions about investments and that merely setting up a SIPP for a customer did not necessarily live of value that TMI would Have to scrutinise the investments as if it had offered to advise on them alone. The Tribunal thought, however, that any “limitation” on the COBS 9.2 principles on which TMI might try to avail itself was narrow. It was open to TMI to bewitch into account the fact that the customer had already decided (possibly with advice) the kind of investments that he or she wanted to hold in a SIPP when assessing the client’s learning of the sector. It did not, however, live of value that TMI or Mr. Burns was excused from advising on the underlying investments at all; it was quiet necessary for them to congregate enough information about the customer to rule whether the proposed investments were suitable. The Tribunal approved a lower-than-requested pecuniary penalty against Mr. Burns of £60,000 and upheld the FCA’s determination to impose a prohibition on Mr. Burns. Investment advisers should live cognizant that the COBS 9.2 rules (to congregate enough information about a customer to determine whether a particular investment is suitable) may apply to investments that might otherwise not live regulated if the client is being advised in relation to another, related action that is regulated. Further, advisers should beware that instructions from a customer cannot live followed without thought. If the customer has received advice from another firm, the adviser may bewitch this into account, but quiet must rule whether the advice that the customer has received is suitable. 39  UKUT 246 (TCC), . 22 © 2019 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld Angela Burns40 On 24 May 2013, the FCA published a determination notice against Angela Burns fining her £154,800 and issuing a prohibition order. Five and a half years later, after references to the Upper Tribunal and the Court of Appeal, and an attempted appeal to the Supreme Court, the FCA issued its final notice against Ms. Burns in December 2018. Ms. Burns had been an NED at two mutual societies and acted as chair for their investment committees. Ms. Burns was engaged by the societies to provide investment advice, and she suggested a registered investment advisor. Unbeknownst to the mutual societies, however, Ms. Burns, at the selfsame time, was trying to elicit consultancy travail for herself with the investment advisor. In her approach to the investment advisor, Ms. Burns explicitly referred to her NED positions in the mutual societies to build herself more attractive. In falsely holding herself out as a neutral investment advisor for the mutual societies, and aggravating this by relying on her position in those societies for her own gain with the investment advisor, the FCA – and the Upper Tribunal and the Court of Appeal agreed – decided that Ms. Burns was in violation of Principle 1, to act with integrity in carrying out her accountable functions. The FCA determined that she should Have declared her conflicts of interest. Consequently, the FCA issued a prohibition order against Ms. Burns. The one success that Ms. Burns had before the Upper Tribunal, which was not disturbed on appeal to the Court of Appeal, was to Have the proposed fine of £154,800 reduced to £20,000. ENRC v. SFO41 Firms often bring in external law firms to conduct investigations and to provide reports on what has happened. Firms select to instruct outside counsel for these investigations for a number of reasons, but one distinguished reason is the hope that the final report will live protected by legal professional privilege and so will not Have to live disclosed to a court or the regulator. last year, they drew attention to two cases where 40 https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/final-notices/angela- burns-2018.pdf. 41 https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/2006.html. the court had taken a narrow view of privilege, and compelled the firms involved to disclose various notes and papers produced by external law firms during the investigation. One of those cases, Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Limited v. sedate Fraud Office, has now been successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal. The judgment given is helpful for firms, but it quiet does not live of value that everything produced by a law difficult during an investigation will live covered by privilege. In particular, timing will matter. In December 2010, ENRC received an email from a whistleblower alleging criminal conduct in Kazakhstan and Africa. ENRC appointed external lawyers to investigate this. By March 2011, ENRC was cognizant that the SFO was interested in the situation, and ENRC’s general counsel arranged for the firm’s dawn-raid procedures to live reviewed and upgraded in response. ENRC’s head of compliance predicted a dawn-raid before the quit of summer 2011. In August, the SFO wrote to ENRC advising it to esteem carefully the SFO’s Self-Reporting Guidelines, and requested a meeting with its general counsel. The pertinent question in this case was whether documents created by the external law firm, including notes of interviews with employees, after this letter was received would live protected by privilege. There are two branches of legal professional privilege, namely legal advice privilege and litigation privilege. ENRC argued that the documents in dispute should generally live protected under litigation privilege, and further that the notes of interviews with employees should likewise live protected under legal advice privilege. In broad terms, legal advice privilege protects professional communications between a counselor and a client whenever these communications are made. Litigation privilege, on the other hand, protects communications that are made when legal proceedings are “reasonably contemplated” and when the communications are made for the “sole or paramount purpose” of those proceedings. At first instance last year, Mrs. Justice Andrews decided that the notes of interviews with employees could not live protected by legal advice privilege.42 There is Court of Appeal authority that legal advice privilege can arise between only lawyers and employees who Have been specially authorised to seek and receive legal advice. These employees had 42 https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2017/1017.html. 23In Principle not been specially designated, and so she decided that legal advice privilege would not apply. Mrs. Justice Andrews further decided that, in the pertinent epoch after the SFO’s letter in August 2011, ENRC did not reasonably contemplate that proceedings would live brought. Consequently, she organize that litigation privilege could likewise not apply to these documents. The Court of Appeal rarely overrules its own precedents. Whilst it was overtly critical of the authority restricting legal advice privilege to communications between a counselor and only some employees, the Court left it to the Supreme Court to rule the question. The SFO has said that it does not plot to appeal this decision; they may Have to wait some time for another case to gain the Supreme Court. In any event, overruling this determination would not Have made a dissimilarity to the outcome of this case, since the Court of Appeal thought that litigation privilege should apply to the documents in this case, including notes made of interviews with employees. It held that, in entire the circumstances of this case, and especially where (a) the SFO had gone beyond merely stating general principles from its guidelines and (b) lawyers had been appointed to conduct an investigation, there was “clear ground” to order that proceedings were reasonably in contemplation. Indeed, much of what ENRC was attempting to sequel was avoid the proceedings that it thought would live coming its way. The message from this case is generally positive. Even though legal advice privilege remains rather unhelpful in terms of protecting investigation material, the courts should now examine more favourably on litigation privilege claims. Santander43 On 19 December 2018, the FCA fined Santander £32.8 million for failing to effectively process the accounts and investments of deceased customers. The FCA organize that, between 1 January 2013 and 11 July 2016, the bank breached: • Principle 3 of its Principles for Businesses (management and control) by failing to bewitch reasonable reliance to organise and control its probate and bereavement process responsibly and effectively with adequate risk management systems. 43 https://fca.org.uk/publication/final-notices/santander-uk-plc-2018. pdf. • Principle 6 (customers’ interests) by failing to ensure that its probate and bereavement process paid due esteem to the interests of its customers and their representatives and treated them fairly. The FCA said that the bank’s probate and bereavement process contained weaknesses that reduced its competence to effectively identify entire the funds that it held that formed Part of a deceased customer’s estate. This resulted in it being unable to effectively follow up with representatives of the deceased customer. Such weaknesses meant that the process would start, but would stall and remain incomplete, signification that funds would not live transferred to those who were entitled to receive them. Since 2015, Santander has carried out remediation exercises to transfer funds from affected accounts to the rightful beneficiaries. These exercises are almost complete, which means that most of the 40,000 affected customers Have now received the funds, together with interest and compensation for any consequential loss. The bank was likewise organize to Have breached Principle 11 (relations with regulators) for failing to promptly disclose information relating to the above-detailed issues to the FCA. stamp Steward, the FCA’s head of enforcement, cautioned that the FCA remains “on the lookout for firms with penniless systems and controls and will bewitch action to deter such failings to ensure customers are properly protected.”44 Arif Hussein45 The FCA issued a determination notice prohibiting Arif Hussein from performing any office in relation to any regulated activity on the grounds that Mr. Hussein had knowingly or recklessly engaged in conduct that he believed was improper; that Mr. Hussein was knowingly or recklessly complicit in his employer, UBS’s, manipulation of LIBOR; and that Mr. Hussein lacked homage and integrity. In particular, the FCA alleged that Mr. Hussein had engaged in unseemly internal chats with a trader- submitter at UBS for the purpose of influencing UBS’s LIBOR submissions. Mr. Hussein referred this notice to the Upper Tribunal. 44 https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/santander-uk-plc- fined-serious-failings-its-probate-and-bereavement-process. 45 https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/TCC/2018/186.pdf. 24 © 2019 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld Before the FCA’s RDC, Mr. Hussein had contended that he had been involved in internal chats with trader-submitters to explore internal opportunities to hedge or “net” his trading positions (in short, he had engaged with trader-submitters in their capacities as short-end derivatives traders, rather than as LIBOR submitters). Before the Upper Tribunal, Mr. Hussein repeated this defence, but he likewise stated that he believed at that time that it was acceptable for trader- submitters to bewitch into account trading positions when determining what a LIBOR submission would be. The FCA contended that Mr. Hussein had changed his defence between the interviews he had had at the FCA and the RDC hearing, and then at the Upper Tribunal hearing, and that this change indicated a requisite of integrity. The Upper Tribunal agreed with Mr. Hussein’s position that he had thought his chats with the trader- submitters to live appropriate. The Upper Tribunal famous that, at the pertinent time, there were no formal procedures within UBS regulating the LIBOR submission process, and Mr. Hussein did believe that his trading positions could live taken into account by the submitters. The Tribunal organize that Mr. Hussein did not act dishonestly or recklessly and that his participation in the chats was not ornery to the standards required of him. The Tribunal accepted, however, that Mr. Hussein had misled the FCA through his answers at interview and that he should Have appreciated during the proceedings before the RDC that the chats had had a dual purpose: The chats had not simply been exploration into his hedging or netting options. The Tribunal organize that Mr. Hussein should Have told the RDC that he thought it permissible for his trading positions to live taken into account in the LIBOR submissions. The Tribunal therefore agreed with the FCA that Mr. Hussein had changed his position and that this meant that he must Have misled the regulator and failed in his duty to live candid with the FCA. rather reluctantly it appears, the FCA agreed that this failing by Mr. Hussein was sufficiently sedate that it was reasonable for the FCA to impose a prohibition order on him. Notwithstanding that the Tribunal disagreed with the RDC and the FCA’s submissions on many issues, therefore, the Tribunal dismissed Mr. Hussein’s reference. Interestingly, the Upper Tribunal expressed some concern that a comparatively junior trader should Have received a prohibition order from the FCA whilst more senior managers had apparently escaped sanction. Whilst the Upper Tribunal has no power to sequel anything more than express its tenacious concerns about this to the FCA, this statement is rather unusual. The most distinguished message from this case is the responsibility to reflect and live truthful about what happened from as early in the investigation as possible. Had Mr. Hussein’s position remained consistent throughout the proceedings, it seems likely that the Tribunal would Have organize for him; as the Tribunal said, “we sequel not believe him to live a thoroughly heinous person. He made a sedate error of judgment.” Unlike in court litigation, where parties are expected to develop their cases as the proceedings progress, the duty of candour to the FCA means that this approach is not open in these regulatory proceedings. Everything that an authorised or approved person does, whether before the investigation or during the investigation, is open to scrutiny, and litigation conduct must reconcile accordingly. Tesco Personal Finance plc46 In November 2016, Tesco Personal Finance plc (Tesco Bank) reported that it had suffered a sedate cyber violation during which £2.26 million was stolen from 9,000 consumers’ accounts. Tesco Bank quickly refunded any customers who had lost money in the attack. In October 2018, the FCA announced that it would fine Tesco Bank £16.4 million for failing to exercise due skill, reliance and diligence in protecting its customers. The FCA famous that this sort of cyber-attack was a “foreseeable risk” from which Tesco Bank had failed to protect its customers. Further, the FCA determined that, once it became cognizant of the cyber breach, Tesco Bank had failed to act with “sufficient rigour, skill and urgency.” Even if the cyber violation had been too sophisticated for Tesco Bank reasonably to live expected to Have been able to prevent – which was not the case here – the FCA was critical that Tesco Bank did not Have in situation a response plot that would permit a swift recovery. The FCA requires firms to Have an efficacious plot in situation setting out what to sequel if a damaging event occurs, whether that event should Have been foreseen or not. 46 https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/final-notices/tesco-personal- finance-plc-2018.pdf. 25In Principle Contact Information If you Have any questions regarding this update, tickle contact: Helen Marshall Partner, London firstname.lastname@example.org +44 20.7661.5378 Ezra Zahabi Partner, London email@example.com +44 20.7661.5367 Joe Hewton Associate, London firstname.lastname@example.org +44 20.7012.9624 James Campbell Associate, London email@example.com +44 20.7012.9852 EU/UK pecuniary Services Regulatory exercise Akin Gump’s EU/UK pecuniary Regulatory exercise – which forms Part of the Firm’s wider Global pecuniary Regulatory Group – advises its clients (which embrace institutional and alternative investment managers, retail and investment banks, brokerages and senior individuals) on entire aspects of the UK and EU pecuniary services regulatory framework. The exercise has taken a leading role in advising the global pecuniary services industry on regulatory actions, the repercussion of EU legislation and on commercial and securities issues that affect it. The exercise is particularly well known for its travail acting for pecuniary institutions and senior individuals who find themselves theme to investigation by regulators and exchanges. © 2019 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. entire rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not live used as such. Prior results sequel not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld is the practising title of Akin Gump LLP. Akin Gump LLP is a recent York limited liability partnership and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, tickle notice their Legal Notices page Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld is a leading global law difficult providing innovative legal services and industry solutions to individuals and institutions. Founded in 1945 by Richard Gump and Robert Strauss with the guiding vision that commitment, excellence and integrity would drive its success, the difficult focuses on pile lasting and mutually beneficial relationships with its clients. Their firm’s clients orbit from individuals to corporations and nations. They tender clients a broad- spectrum approach, with over 85 practices that orbit from traditional strengths such as appellate, corporate and public policy to 21st century concentrations such as climate change, intellectual property litigation and national security. akingump.com
By Daniel J. Weiss and Jackie Weidman
The United States was subjected to many severe climate-related extreme weather over the past two years. In 2011 there were 14 extreme weather events — floods, drought, storms, and wildfires — that each caused at least $1 billion in damage. There were another 11 such disasters in 2012. Most of these extreme weather events reflect Part of the unpaid bill from climate change — a tab that will only grow over time.
CAP recently documented the human and economic toll from these devastating events in their November 2012 report “Heavy Weather: How Climate Destruction Harms Middle- and Lower- Income Americans.” Since the release of that report, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, has updated its list of “billion-dollar”-damage weather events for 2012, bringing the two-year total to 25 incidents.
From 2011 to 2012 these 25 “billion-dollar damage” weather events in the United States are estimated to Have caused up to $188 billion in total damage.  The two costliest events were the September 2012 drought — the worst drought in half a century, which baked nearly two-thirds of the continental United States — and superstorm Sandy, which battered the northeast coast in late October 2012. The four recently added disastrous weather events were severe tornadoes and thunderstorms.
Here is an update of vital extreme weather event data after the addition of these four events:
Below are descriptions of each of the four weather events in 2012 that were not included in their previous report.
April 12: Tornadoes
Nearly 100 tornadoes touched down across Kansas and other midwest states over a two-day epoch in mid-April 2012, resulting in six deaths. Extensive damage to schools, hospitals, businesses, and homes was estimated to cost $1.8 billion. Many towns were without power for extended periods of time. Fourteen counties in Kansas were declared calamity areas because of the storms. Households in these disaster-declared counties earn, on average, an annual income of $47,027–9 percent below the U.S. median household income.
April 28: severe Storms
Severe weather in Oklahoma and surrounding states caused at least $4 billion in damage and one confirmed fatality in late April 2012. Storm damage throughout the district was primarily caused by 38 confirmed tornadoes and severe hail. Oklahoma was most heavily impacted — six Oklahoma counties were declared calamity areas in the wake of the storm. Households in the counties that were calamity areas earn, on average, an annual income of $39,638 — a staggering 24 percent below the U.S. median household income.
May 25: severe Storms
Twenty-seven confirmed tornadoes touched down over a broad swath of the United States, including from Oklahoma to recent Hampshire. The tornadoes and outburst of severe hail, straight-line winds, and thunderstorms caused one fatality and approximately $2.5 billion in damage. Most of the damage occurred in Oklahoma and the entire situation was declared a calamity area. recent Hampshire and Vermont likewise had some disaster-declared counties. Households in these disaster-declared counties earn, on average, an annual income of $45,431–12 percent below the U.S. median household income.
June 29: Derecho
A derecho is a “widespread, long-lived wind storm that is associated with a corps of rapidly pitiful showers or thunderstorms,” according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Such a storm ravaged eastern and northeastern states in June 2012. It caused 28 fatalities and ripped through a 700-sqaure-mile swath of the mid-Atlantic region, leaving 3.4 million homes there without power. The storm caused at least $3.8 billion in damage in 215 counties in Maryland, recent Jersey, Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. entire were declared calamity areas.
These events, along with the seven other “billion-dollar” weather events in 2012, made it the second-most-extreme weather year on record, according to the U.S. Climate Extremes Index.
NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt says that when it comes to higher temperatures and extreme weather, “what matters is this decade is warmer than the last decade, and that decade was warmer than the decade before. The planet is warming. The reason is because they are pumping increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”
The U.S. National Climate Assessment draft released in January 2013 indicates that the effects of climate change will continue to threaten the health and vitality of their communities as extreme weather becomes more frequent and/or severe. One of the report’s key findings is that U.S. coastal communities are particularly vulnerable to sea-level rise, storms, floods, and subsequent erosion. And scientists foretell that precipitation events across the United States are likely to live heavier. These risks pose sedate threats to their electricity grid, infrastructure, cleanly water, and sewage treatment system in the most affected places.
The climate-related extreme weather events of the past several years Have become the recent normal. They must act now to reduce the industrial carbon pollution liable for climate change and help communities become more resilient to the coming storms, floods, droughts, heat waves, and wildfires.
Disaster relief has suddenly become a partisan issue. This became overwhelmingly transparent during recent debates in the Senate and the House of Representatives over the calamity Relief Appropriations Act (H.R. 152), which provided $50.7 billion in emergency aid for superstorm Sandy victims.  The measure was passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama on January 29, 2013 — an unacceptable 91 days after the storm devastated the northeast corridor.
Despite passing with uphold from entire but one voting Democrat in the House and Senate, the vast majority of Republicans in each chamber opposed essential aid to hurricane victims. These conservative lawmakers attempted to negate pecuniary assistance to those in need, even after some of them previously requested calamity funding for their own states. entire 36 Republican senators who voted against the Sandy aid bill are from states that experienced at least one “billion-dollar damage” extreme weather event in the past two years. In fact, 98 percent of lawmakers in either chamber who voted against the bill — 211 of the 216 Republicans — represent states that experienced at least one “billion-dollar damage” extreme weather event in the past two years.
The debate over congressional passage of calamity recovery assistance raises sedate concerns about whether Congress can both aid calamity victims in a timely style and travail to help communities minimize damages from future storms and other extreme weather. In order to help these communities reduce their vulnerability to extreme weather, Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) and 37 of her colleagues urged President Obama to title a blue ribbon panel to develop a a “community resilience fund” dedicated solely to providing the pecuniary and technical assistance to vulnerable communities hit by extreme weather events. Dedicated funding for predisaster mitigation will protect lives, shield middle- and lower-income households from the worst impacts of extreme weather, and rescue taxpayers money over time.
For more information on this proposal, tickle notice CAP’s December 2012 column “An Ounce of Prevention: Increasing Resiliency to Climate-Related Extreme Weather.”Methodology
This seat for American Progress analysis compiled data from multiple sources. Extreme weather events data were from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center, or NCDC. Counties affected by each event were compiled from the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Declared Disasters database.
In order to assess income levels for the most affected counties, they used median household income (2006–2010) data and number of households (2006–2010) data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s situation and County QuickFacts. The 2006–2010 values are an mediocre over the five-year period. They compared the percent dissimilarity between the mediocre annual median household incomes for the affected counties in each weather event to the U.S. median — $51,914. They accounted for the population of each county when calculating these values. The cost per household was calculated by taking the cost of the event divided by the total number of households for each event.
 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will release final 2013 calamity cost estimates in mid-2013.
 U.S. median income figures are based on the 2005–2010 Census Bureau average.
 This was the second installment of Sandy aid. The first installment of $9.7 billion was passed on January 1, 2013.
Daniel J. Weiss is a Senior Fellow and Director of Climate Strategy at the seat for American Progress. Jackie Weidman is a Special second at the Center.
3COM [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
AccessData [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ACFE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ACI [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Acme-Packet [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ACSM [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
ACT [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Admission-Tests [13 Certification Exam(s) ]
ADOBE [93 Certification Exam(s) ]
AFP [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
AICPA [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
AIIM [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Alcatel-Lucent [13 Certification Exam(s) ]
Alfresco [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Altiris [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Amazon [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
American-College [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Android [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
APA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
APC [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
APICS [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Apple [69 Certification Exam(s) ]
AppSense [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
APTUSC [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Arizona-Education [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ARM [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Aruba [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
ASIS [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
ASQ [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
ASTQB [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
Autodesk [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Avaya [96 Certification Exam(s) ]
AXELOS [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Axis [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Banking [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
BEA [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
BICSI [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
BlackBerry [17 Certification Exam(s) ]
BlueCoat [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Brocade [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
Business-Objects [11 Certification Exam(s) ]
Business-Tests [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
CA-Technologies [21 Certification Exam(s) ]
Certification-Board [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
Certiport [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
CheckPoint [41 Certification Exam(s) ]
CIDQ [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
CIPS [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
Cisco [318 Certification Exam(s) ]
Citrix [48 Certification Exam(s) ]
CIW [18 Certification Exam(s) ]
Cloudera [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
Cognos [19 Certification Exam(s) ]
College-Board [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
CompTIA [76 Certification Exam(s) ]
ComputerAssociates [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
Consultant [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Counselor [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
CPP-Institue [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
CPP-Institute [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
CSP [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
CWNA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
CWNP [13 Certification Exam(s) ]
Dassault [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
DELL [9 Certification Exam(s) ]
DMI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
DRI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ECCouncil [21 Certification Exam(s) ]
ECDL [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
EMC [129 Certification Exam(s) ]
Enterasys [13 Certification Exam(s) ]
Ericsson [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
ESPA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Esri [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
ExamExpress [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
Exin [40 Certification Exam(s) ]
ExtremeNetworks [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
F5-Networks [20 Certification Exam(s) ]
FCTC [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Filemaker [9 Certification Exam(s) ]
Financial [36 Certification Exam(s) ]
Food [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
Fortinet [13 Certification Exam(s) ]
Foundry [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
FSMTB [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Fujitsu [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
GAQM [9 Certification Exam(s) ]
Genesys [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
GIAC [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
Google [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
GuidanceSoftware [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
H3C [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
HDI [9 Certification Exam(s) ]
Healthcare [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
HIPAA [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Hitachi [30 Certification Exam(s) ]
Hortonworks [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
Hospitality [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
HP [750 Certification Exam(s) ]
HR [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
HRCI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Huawei [21 Certification Exam(s) ]
Hyperion [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
IAAP [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
IAHCSMM [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
IBM [1532 Certification Exam(s) ]
IBQH [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ICAI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ICDL [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
IEEE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
IELTS [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
IFPUG [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
IIA [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
IIBA [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
IISFA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Intel [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
IQN [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
IRS [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ISA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ISACA [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
ISC2 [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
ISEB [24 Certification Exam(s) ]
Isilon [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
ISM [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
iSQI [7 Certification Exam(s) ]
ITEC [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Juniper [64 Certification Exam(s) ]
LEED [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Legato [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
Liferay [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Logical-Operations [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Lotus [66 Certification Exam(s) ]
LPI [24 Certification Exam(s) ]
LSI [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Magento [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Maintenance [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
McAfee [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
McData [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Medical [69 Certification Exam(s) ]
Microsoft [374 Certification Exam(s) ]
Mile2 [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Military [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Misc [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Motorola [7 Certification Exam(s) ]
mySQL [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
NBSTSA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
NCEES [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
NCIDQ [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
NCLEX [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Network-General [12 Certification Exam(s) ]
NetworkAppliance [39 Certification Exam(s) ]
NI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
NIELIT [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Nokia [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
Nortel [130 Certification Exam(s) ]
Novell [37 Certification Exam(s) ]
OMG [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
Oracle [279 Certification Exam(s) ]
P&C [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Palo-Alto [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
PARCC [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
PayPal [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Pegasystems [12 Certification Exam(s) ]
PEOPLECERT [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
PMI [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
Polycom [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
PostgreSQL-CE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Prince2 [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
PRMIA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
PsychCorp [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
PTCB [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
QAI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
QlikView [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Quality-Assurance [7 Certification Exam(s) ]
RACC [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Real-Estate [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
RedHat [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
RES [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
Riverbed [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
RSA [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
Sair [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
Salesforce [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
SANS [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
SAP [98 Certification Exam(s) ]
SASInstitute [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
SAT [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
SCO [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
SCP [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
SDI [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
See-Beyond [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Siemens [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Snia [7 Certification Exam(s) ]
SOA [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
Social-Work-Board [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
SpringSource [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
SUN [63 Certification Exam(s) ]
SUSE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Sybase [17 Certification Exam(s) ]
Symantec [134 Certification Exam(s) ]
Teacher-Certification [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
The-Open-Group [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
TIA [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Tibco [18 Certification Exam(s) ]
Trainers [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Trend [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
TruSecure [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
USMLE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
VCE [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
Veeam [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Veritas [33 Certification Exam(s) ]
Vmware [58 Certification Exam(s) ]
Wonderlic [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Worldatwork [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
XML-Master [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Zend [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
Dropmark : http://killexams.dropmark.com/367904/11723122
Wordpress : http://wp.me/p7SJ6L-1j9
Issu : https://issuu.com/trutrainers/docs/st0-200
Dropmark-Text : http://killexams.dropmark.com/367904/12293746
Blogspot : http://killexamsbraindump.blogspot.com/2017/11/look-at-these-st0-200-real-question-and.html
RSS Feed : http://feeds.feedburner.com/ReviewSt0-200RealQuestionAndAnswersBeforeYouTakeTest
Box.net : https://app.box.com/s/lsy5boq08qm7sznsf69kyom5yujhes5m
publitas.com : https://view.publitas.com/trutrainers-inc/dont-miss-these-symantec-st0-200-dumps
zoho.com : https://docs.zoho.com/file/5xjzyf69388d3212c477a8fb988fe71564f35
is specialized in Architectural visualization , Industrial visualization , 3D Modeling ,3D Animation , Entertainment and Visual Effects .