Due to the growing globalisation of financial markets, non-EU market operators which act outside ... more Due to the growing globalisation of financial markets, non-EU market operators which act outside the EU are increasingly causing direct harm to European investors. This issue, and its relevant impact on investor protection, has already been considered by the European legislature at the substantive level. This article seeks to demonstrate that, at the private international law level, the Europeanisation of third state cases would increase both the degree of investor protection and investors’ equal access to justice. Focusing exclusively on financial torts, the advantages arising from the application of Brussels I bis heads of jurisdiction to non-EU defendants are assessed with regard to insider trading and Credit Rating Agency liability cases. The paper also examines the main critical elements related to such an extension of the Brussels I bis regime, especially from a systematic perspective, and suggests possible future approaches to this issue.
The development of EU financial regulation after the financial crisis has been characterised by a... more The development of EU financial regulation after the financial crisis has been characterised by a growing attention on supervision and enforcement rules, in order to guarantee both the stability of the markets and the protection of investors. In this context, the regulation of Credit Rating Agencies (CRAs) has a unique feature, in that it includes a specific private enforcement measure aimed at providing an adequate right of redress for investors. After a brief analysis of the rationale for the EU regime concerning the civil liability of CRAs, and mainly from two different perspectives, this article focuses on the effectiveness of this new approach in guaranteeing a high and uniform level of investor protection. The first perspective involves an investigation into the substantive rules set out at EU level with a view to understanding how they may affect future litigation between investors and CRAs. The second perspective examines the negative effects of the minimum harmonisation approach – at both the substantive and private international law level – on the objective of achieving consistency when it comes to investor protection across the EU. By comparing earlier perspectives with the findings herein, the article concludes that a higher degree of harmonisation is required. Drawing on other fields of EU legislation, it also suggests certain reforms.
Due to the growing globalisation of financial markets, non-EU market operators which act outside ... more Due to the growing globalisation of financial markets, non-EU market operators which act outside the EU are increasingly causing direct harm to European investors. This issue, and its relevant impact on investor protection, has already been considered by the European legislature at the substantive level. This article seeks to demonstrate that, at the private international law level, the Europeanisation of third state cases would increase both the degree of investor protection and investors’ equal access to justice. Focusing exclusively on financial torts, the advantages arising from the application of Brussels I bis heads of jurisdiction to non-EU defendants are assessed with regard to insider trading and Credit Rating Agency liability cases. The paper also examines the main critical elements related to such an extension of the Brussels I bis regime, especially from a systematic perspective, and suggests possible future approaches to this issue.
The development of EU financial regulation after the financial crisis has been characterised by a... more The development of EU financial regulation after the financial crisis has been characterised by a growing attention on supervision and enforcement rules, in order to guarantee both the stability of the markets and the protection of investors. In this context, the regulation of Credit Rating Agencies (CRAs) has a unique feature, in that it includes a specific private enforcement measure aimed at providing an adequate right of redress for investors. After a brief analysis of the rationale for the EU regime concerning the civil liability of CRAs, and mainly from two different perspectives, this article focuses on the effectiveness of this new approach in guaranteeing a high and uniform level of investor protection. The first perspective involves an investigation into the substantive rules set out at EU level with a view to understanding how they may affect future litigation between investors and CRAs. The second perspective examines the negative effects of the minimum harmonisation approach – at both the substantive and private international law level – on the objective of achieving consistency when it comes to investor protection across the EU. By comparing earlier perspectives with the findings herein, the article concludes that a higher degree of harmonisation is required. Drawing on other fields of EU legislation, it also suggests certain reforms.
Uploads
Papers by Giorgio Risso