ST0-200 exam Dumps Source : Symantec System Recovery 2013 Technical(R) Assessment
Test Code : ST0-200
Test name : Symantec System Recovery 2013 Technical(R) Assessment
Vendor name : Symantec
: 111 actual Questions
WTF! questions were exactly the very in exam that I prepared!
it is my pride to thank you very lots for being perquisite 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 own to admit, i am relieved to head awayit behind, yet ecstatic that i organize killexams.com to assist me collect 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 actual 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 own were given it.
It became definitely very useful. Your accurate questions and answers helped me spotless 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%. powerful process killexams.com team..May you gain complete of the achievement. Thank you.
Is there a way to bypass ST0-200 examination at the start attempt?
I cleared ST0-200 exam with tall marks. every time I had registered with killexams.com which helped me to score greater marks. Its splendid to own mitigate of killexams.com questions and answers for such type of test. thanks to all.
I want current and updated dumps brand original 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 way of killexams.com and it delivered what I wished. tons favor to the killexams.com for the assistance. To the point noting mode of this aide became not tough to seize for me as nicely. I surely retained complete 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 approach 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 faith because of ST0-200 training. If I looked at my past whenever I willing to provide the tests were given worried, I recognise its silly but now i am amazedwhy I felt no self assurance on my, purpose is lack 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 collect registered with the killexams.com and start training, in the discontinue you felt self assurance.
it is first-rate impeccable to prepare ST0-200 exam with actual exam questions.
The killexams.com killexams.com are the exquisite product as its miles each light to expend and spotless to set together through their exceptional Dumps. in many ways it prompted me, it is the tool which I used daily for my mastering. The lead is applicable for the making ready. It helped me to effect a bizarre 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 powerful to own ST0-200 question bank and study guide.
I am ranked very tall among my class pals on the listing of outstanding college students however it most effective came about once I registered in this killexams.com for a few exam help. It turned into the tall ranking studying software in this killexams.com that helped me in joining the excessive 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 set 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 mitigate me in my career. However, due to time restrains preparation for the exam became really tough for me. I was looking for a study lead which could figure things better for me. killexams.com dumps worked infatuation wonders for me as this is a systematic solution for more circumstantial 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 original 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 answer 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 saturate savings, automation and self-provider user experience. The provider will mitigate 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 discrete calamity recuperation answer as a way to own a conducive own 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 recall in the event that they Run on natural IT or are hosted within HP Helion OpenStack-based mostly cloud environments. This original DRaaS answer specializes in enterprise continuity, failover and failback and may video display essentially the most generic purposes and databases out there."
When the original 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 section 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 original DRaaS solution will Run on an HP Helion OpenStack-primarily based cloud ambiance and should lead 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 saturate discounts and operational efficiencies, whereas assisting valued clientele to obtain healing SLAs for methods and applications and offering a simplified journey," renowned 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 manipulate 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 saturate discount over an equal in-condo answer.
The DRaaS answer 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 common 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 knowledge of extra about the partnership and the supposed 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 original percentages for know-how to own 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 involved challenges in each location 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 freedom 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 location 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 proceed to www.symantec.com or relate with Symantec at: http://www.symantec.com/social/
The OpenStack live alert heed 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 demonstrate 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. complete statements apart from statements of ancient truth 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 share or competitive efficiency relating to items and services; any statements related to expected operational and monetary 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 building and transition of recent items and services and the enhancement of current items and capabilities to satisfy 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 saturate 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 saturate (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 figure 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 figure 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 huge 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 snap 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 support 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 bellow superior than it was just one year in the past at the peak of a crossroad that shook the safety and storage utility dealer to its core.
In November 2006, Symantec flicked the switch on a brand original 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 great step within the merger of Symantec and Veritas. once carried out, the mixed enterprise’s great network of resellers, integrators, distributors and valued clientele would location orders via a single system that covered complete of the tools and suggestions obligatory for smart utility buying.
Technically, undertaking Oasis, an improve 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 rob into account the equipment. The voluminous suggestions it offered them and the myriad steps required to zone 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 section 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 necessity to collect worried with them.”
despite complete 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 original items at the identical time. regardless of its top-quality efforts, the management crew could not accurately set together its more than 60,000 resellers, companions and distributors—and scores extra purchasers—for the procedural changes required by the brand original 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 enlighten the name became chosen to deliver the urgency and seriousness of the condition. If the complications weren’t resolved immediately, it may spell monetary destroy for the vendor.
*Some businesses determine to hold 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. infatuation the failed mission it was designed to appropriate, undertaking Nero prompt its personal chain of events and initiatives that own transformed the manner Symantec views its purchasers and runs its company. After a painful and arduous recuperation procedure, Symantec has no longer simplest recovered, however now serves for specimen of a way to engage with clients and companions in the web-enabled industry.
Obviously it is arduous assignment to pick solid certification questions/answers assets concerning review, reputation and validity since individuals collect 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 approach to us for the brain dumps and pass their exams cheerfully and effectively. They never trade off on their review, reputation and attribute because killexams review, killexams reputation and killexams customer assurance 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 contemplate any deceptive report posted by their rivals with the name killexams sham report grievance web, killexams.com sham report, killexams.com scam, killexams.com dissension or something infatuation this, simply recall there are constantly terrible individuals harming reputation of salubrious administrations because of their advantages. There are a powerful 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 actual questions | HP0-704 dumps questions | HP0-S33 exercise questions | 920-468 questions and answers | E20-060 brain dumps | 251-312 actual questions | 642-415 mock exam | P2070-071 cram | 9L0-060 braindumps | 000-286 exam questions | HP3-F18 free pdf |
Here is the bests location to collect mitigate 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 actual 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. complete that you just necessity will live a tall score of Symantec ST0-200 exam. The simply one issue you own 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 hold step with the foremost up and returning test thus on provide the larger section of updated dumps. 3 Months free access to possess the capability to them through the date of purchase. every one will bear 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 complete 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 complete Orders
killexams.com own their experts Team to guarantee their Symantec ST0-200 exam questions are constantly the latest. They are in common to a powerful degree chummy with the exams and testing center.
How killexams.com hold Symantec ST0-200 exams updated?: they own 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 hub 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 heed this ST0-200 Symantec System Recovery 2013 Technical(R) Assessment and would lank toward not to sit tight for the updates then they can give you replete refund. in any case, you should ship your score answer to us with the objective that they can own a check. They will give you replete refund rapidly during their working time after they collect the Symantec ST0-200 score report from you.
Symantec ST0-200 Symantec System Recovery 2013 Technical(R) Assessment Product Demo?: they own both PDF figure and Testing Software. You can check their item page to contemplate what no doubt like.
Right when will I collect my ST0-200 material after I pay?: Generally, After effective installment, your username/password are sent at your email address inside 5 min. It might rob minimal longer if your bank retard in installment approval.
killexams.com Huge Discount Coupons and Promo Codes are as under;
WC2017: 60% Discount Coupon for complete 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 complete Orders
ST0-200 | ST0-200 | ST0-200 | ST0-200 | ST0-200 | ST0-200
Killexams 98-366 braindumps | Killexams A2040-918 brain dumps | Killexams P2065-037 exam questions | Killexams HH0-220 exercise Test | Killexams C5050-287 actual 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 |
Exam Simulator : Pass4sure ST0-200 Exam Simulator
Killexams HP0-J15 questions answers | Killexams 000-252 examcollection | Killexams C2090-611 free pdf download | Killexams 500-007 sample test | Killexams QQ0-400 actual 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 actual 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 necessity To Know For 2019 1. Brexit ............................................................................................3 2. The Extension of the Senior Managers and Certification Regime..............................................................5 3. Market maltreat ............................................................................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 design 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 assurance than 2018 as to how the regulatory landscape will look.” Unfortunately, assurance still 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 support 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 countenance of statements by European Union leaders that there is no prospect of such negotiations going ahead. At the very time, Parliament has signalled that it “rejects” a no-deal Brexit, but not agreed to a proposal which would own 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 own to reckon in the year ahead. Including Brexit, here are 10 things that authorised firms necessity to know for 2019. 1. Brexit In the absence of a determination of what will befall approach the 29 March 2019 (or indeed, approach some future date if “exit day” is postponed”), firms own been left in a state of uncertainty. Whilst this makes planning for what will befall even more difficult, it is possible to plot out how unavoidable more likely scenarios would play out. They reckon what asset managers would countenance if the original Withdrawal Agreement is largely accepted (notwithstanding a change to the Irish backstop), what would befall 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 own on asset managers. They likewise reckon 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 constrain for complete banks, building societies, credit unions, and dual regulated investment and insurance firms, will live extended to cover complete FCA solo-authorised firms by 9 December 2019. While the monetary Conduct Authority (FCA) will continue to approve people who rob on Senior Manager roles, the responsibility to certify employees below Senior Manager plane as fitting and proper will devolve on the firms themselves. Firms will likewise live required to train staff on the Conduct Rules and implement original 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 own the original requirements at the forefront of their minds to ensure a smooth transition. 3. Market maltreat Market maltreat continues to live an zone of very significant interest for the FCA and growing interest across the ease of the EU. With the FCA’s insight that compliance with the Market maltreat Regulation (MAR) is “state of mind” rather than a matter of following procedures, firms will own to live particularly vigilant to ensure that they remain compliant. 4. The FCA’s Recent Enforcement Trends Until the discontinue of 2018, the FCA had a comparatively tranquil 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 own looked at the number and distribution of investigations and determination notices to set together a picture of the FCA’s current enforcement trends. 5. Cybersecurity and Data Protection 2018 was an considerable year for data protection law with the entry into constrain of the common Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in May. They await to contemplate a trickle of enforcement cases in 2019 under the original regime as the courts and tribunals interpret the original 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 crossroad 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). complete counterparties are required to report details of any securities financing transactions that they own concluded, modified or terminated to a registered or recognised trade repository. Whilst the reporting responsibility under the SFTR is not expected to rob replete 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 support the original reporting requirement. 7. Amendments to the European Market Infrastructure Regulation EMIR is subject to a significant reform proposal, the EMIR “refit,” which includes a number of changes that are expected to become effective in 2019. These are, in some way or other, likely to repercussion complete firms currently subject to EMIR. EMIR is proposed to live extended in scope by clarifying that complete alternative investment funds (AIF) should live considered to live monetary 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 tribulation 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 rob 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 complete counterparty categories subject 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 expend non-EU-administered benchmarks in monetary 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 lack 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 discontinue 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 monetary instruments and wish to continue to execute so, the fact of LIBOR’s possible cessation will necessity to live addressed in “robust written plans,” which users of benchmarks are expected to prepare and, on request, figure available to the FCA. As explained in the following, the FCA has likewise indicated that benchmark supervision is an considerable supervisory priority for this year. 9. EU Action design on Sustainability and Asset Management In November 2018, the EU Commission issued a consultation on whether, and how, asset managers should live required to rob principles of sustainability into account when making decisions. This proposal signals a key shift in using monetary regulation to address environmental and social 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 rob longer, it is perhaps no surprise that the amount of case law that was generated in 2018 is sort of 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 own provided several material 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 unavoidable 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 arduous Brexit is unlikely, a number of the options leave the treatment of monetary services at best inconclusive. Asset managers own salubrious reason to live vigilant to the political tides: even in the smoothest transition to a soft Brexit, responses will necessity 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 ability to continue to provide services to existing and future fund and segregated account clients as well as EU investment managers, and the ability to market monetary products and services to prospective clients and investors. The specific mechanism that would allow for continuing and unrestricted access to the EU markets is still unclear: While some EU laws allow for an equivalency assessment, this is not the case in complete material legislation, and it is likely that in some cases the expense of market access will live a substantially higher regulatory tribulation that UK managers would own 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 plane of regulatory risk across the industry. The now-partially rejected withdrawal agreement contemplates a transition period from 29 March 2019 until (at least) the discontinue of 2020. While the final figure of any agreement is still subject to lively negotiations, a substantial transition period 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 own an adverse repercussion on consumer outcomes not only in the UK but across the EU. During such a transition period, for complete material intents and purposes, EU law would continue to apply in the UK, and asset managers would not live required to figure substantial changes in response to “exit day” in the short term. While some jurisdictions and regulators own ensured that bilateral arrangements to ensure ongoing mutual access and regulatory cooperation own been concluded in advance of the 29 March withdrawal date, such bilateral arrangements are unlikely to live comprehensive, and are subject to revision depending on the ultimate outcome of negotiations with the EU and on ESMA’s views on the preempt regulatory approach and solutions. No Deal What happens if the UK “crashes out” with no deal? The EU and the UK would still live able to investigate and figure equivalency determinations, though as it would likely rob 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 monetary services sector and, given the limitations to relying on equivalence, a sort of 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 infatuation the UK to live section of a “permanent custom union”. Whilst a customs union would proceed some way to permitting the free movement of goods, critically for asset managers, a customs union without an express extension to involve services would preclude free movement of services of the kind that asset managers currently trust 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 expend passporting rights as they would now. While both above directives hold mechanisms for a third country passport, the regulatory framework for this does not currently exist, and the attendant conditions for the very would live onerous, and subject to material uncertainty. By contrast, membership of the single market would likely bring with it some figure of passporting rights – if not in exactly the very way as they currently profit the industry. Temporary Permissions Regime In preparation for a no-deal Brexit, the Treasury and the FCA own shown willing. Regulations own 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 period of time. Ultimately, firms relying on a temporary consent will own to figure a transition to replete authorisation. The FCA has actively encouraged incoming EEA firms currently using passports to prepare applications for a temporary consent to avoid overcrowding at the ultimate jiffy 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 own been made by manufacturing and services industry lobbies to steer transparent of a cliff-edge departure on 29 March. As the past years own shown, however, one does well to await the unexpected, and the haphazard contingency plans that own been drawn up to this discontinue could live set to test yet. The contingency plans of individual firms who, without any transparent guidance are left eagerly poised for action, meanwhile, often own 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 complete FCA-authorised, nonbanking firms.1 The FCA has proposed for this original regime to become effective on 9 December 2019, albeit with a transitional period 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 drop within the “Core Regime”; however, a small number of firms categorised as “enhanced regime” firms will live subject to additional requirements, and there will live fewer rules for “limited scope” firms. The proposed original 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 rob location within his or her zone 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 arduous or to its customers due to the nature of their role. A original set of Conduct Rules will apply to virtually complete individuals within a firm. The first enforcement case under the SMCR, regarding the CEO of Barclays, was decided in 2018: They contend it in more detail under “Recent Case Law and Key Enforcement Cases” below. To Whom Does This Apply? The SMCR will apply to complete UK nonbank firms authorised by the FCA. This will involve 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 touch 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 arduous will necessity to obtain prior approval by the FCA for the most senior staff members whose roles involve the performance of “Senior Management Functions.” As has been the case under the current system, the Senior Managers will necessity to demonstrate to the FCA that they are fitting and proper to undertake their roles. As section of this, firms will necessity to obtain criminal records checks for complete proposed Senior Managers. Approval to hold a Senior Management duty may live granted outright by the FCA for a limited time period or subject to conditions. The Senior Management Functions involve the Chairman duty (SMF9), the Chief Executive duty (SMF1), the Executive Director duty (SMF3), the Compliance Oversight duty (SMF16) and the Money Laundering Reporting Officer (SMF17). Anyone who performs these functions in a arduous covered by the SMCR, whether present in the UK or not, will necessity to seek this authorisation. Under the current Approved Person/Controlled duty 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 reckon which individual will hold the Senior Management Function. Whilst the FCA has not made express how this will work, firms should reckon 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 necessity 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 duty within one firm, he or she will live required to own only a single SoR describing complete of his or her responsibilities. However, if a Senior Manager holds Senior Management Functions in two or more firms, he or she will necessity a separate 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 demonstrate clearly how the responsibilities performed by a Senior Manager fitting 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 set 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 arduous is in infraction of its obligations under the FCA’s rules or principles, the Senior Manager accountable for the zone in which the infraction took location could live held personally accountable. In order to hold someone individually accountable, the FCA would own to demonstrate that the Senior Manager did not rob the steps that a person in his or her position could reasonably live expected to rob to avoid the infraction occurring. This duty is included to improve 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 complete times, a Senior Manager has responsibility for each of the Prescribed Responsibilities. Some examples of Prescribed Responsibilities involve the performance by the arduous of its obligations under the Senior Managers Regime (including its implementation and oversight), the performance by the arduous of its obligations under the Certification Regime (discussed below), the performance by the arduous 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 arduous might live used to further monetary crime. (ii) Certification Regime The Certification Regime will apply to employees who are not Senior Managers, but whose role means that it is possible for them to own a significant repercussion on customers, the arduous or market integrity. These roles are called “Certification Functions.” For each employee undertaking a Certification Function, the arduous must assess whether they are fitting and proper to execute their job, and the arduous 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 fitting and proper under the Certification Regime, the arduous will own to rob into account several different factors, including whether that person has obtained material qualifications, whether he or she has undertaken unavoidable training programmes, whether he or she possesses the requisite plane of competence and whether he or she has the preempt personal characteristics for the role. The Certification Functions involve what was CF29 under the Approved Persons regime, which was (unfortunately) called the “significant management function.” custody should live taken that no confusion arises: To live clear, holders of the significant management duty under the Approved Persons regime in complete likelihood will live subject to the Certification Regime and not the Senior Managers Regime. The restriction of the Certification Regime to “employees” is sort of 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 arduous and who is subject to the supervision, direction or control by the arduous as to the manner in which those services are provided. Third-party contractors and other agents may drop within this definition. The Certification Regime applies to complete UK-based employees, any non-UK-based employees who own contact with UK clients and any material risk takers, regardless of where they are located. Whilst perhaps uncommon, it is possible that 7In Principle someone performing a Senior Management duty will likewise live performing a Certification Function. In this case, it is necessary for both procedures to live followed, that is, the FCA will own to authorise that person to hold a Senior Management Function, and the arduous will own to certify them as fitting and proper to effect their role. Directory As the SMCR replaces the Approved Persons regime, the number of people approved individually by the FCA will subside dramatically, since the vast majority of employees will not live Senior Managers, but will drop within the Certification Regime. Consequently, the monetary 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 show on it. In light of this, the FCA published a consultation paper in July 2018 proposing the introduction of a original Directory. This Directory would hold information not only on Senior Managers, but likewise on complete people who own 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 await 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 complete staff (barring unavoidable ancillary staff, such as receptionists, cleaners and catering staff). The FCA will apply the Conduct Rules to a firm’s regulated and unregulated monetary services activities. It should live renowned 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 complete activities. The Conduct Rules are divided into two tiers, the first tier being applicable to complete 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 complete staff on how the Conduct Rules apply to their activities within the firm. The Enhanced Regime The largest and most involved firms will live subject to unavoidable additional requirements under the enhanced regime. Enhanced regime firms will involve “significant investment (IFPRU) firms” and firms with assets under management of £50 billion or more. Enhanced firms will necessity to comply with the Core Regime requirements and unavoidable additional requirements. Such requirements involve additional Senior Management Functions and Prescribed Responsibilities, as well as an overall responsibility for every industry activity and management duty of the firm. In addition, an enhanced regime arduous will own 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 arduous will own 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 involve information of any disciplinary action following breaches of the Conduct Rules, as well as any information material to whether the employee was fitting and proper. This information will necessity to live shared in a standard template, and, for each employee, the Regulatory Reference must live updated appropriately if and when any original material information comes to light. Since Regulatory References will live mandatory to provide, it is considerable that firms execute not attempt to enter into agreements that contest with their responsibility to provide such references (for example, NDAs). Non-Executive Directors Non-Executive Directors (NED) will necessity to live approved by the FCA if they are to effect the SMF9 Chair duty or the SMF14 Senior Independent Director Function. NEDs who execute not necessity to live approved may still live subject 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 necessity to comply with Rule SC4 (the requirement to disclose appropriately any information of which the regulator would reasonably await 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 own their Controlled duty approval mapped to the material Senior Management duty where possible (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 necessity to hold a Senior Management duty at complete and will simply live covered by the Certification Regime. Whilst this will ease the transition somewhat, this automatic mapping will not live possible for complete Approved Persons (e.g., an Approved Person holding CF4 (Partner) may own to hold SMF3 (Executive Director), as well as SMF27 (Partner). It will live necessary, therefore, for some custody to live taken to ensure that the conversions to the original regime are complete correctly completed. The FCA has likewise announced transition provisions with respect to the Certification Regime. For example, firms will own one year from the commencement date of 9 December 2019 to provide a certificate to employees as required. However, firms will own to own identified who will necessity to live certified under the Certification Regime on day 1. Whilst the commencement date is still some time away, firms would live well advised to own started to arbiter about what they will necessity to execute in salubrious time so as to ensure a seamless transition when this is required. 9In Principle 3. Market maltreat 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 tall bar to meet in the detection and avoidance of market abuse, but at the very time providing comparatively diminutive direction on how to comply. Market maltreat remains a tall priority for the FCA. In 2017/2018, the FCA received 4,829 insider dealing reports and 666 market manipulation reports, and consequently opened 87 maltreat cases. The regulator’s continued interest makes it complete the more considerable to glean as much as possible from the FCA’s publications to try to discern how best to satisfy 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 arduous to trust on. There is a danger that people who are intent on market maltreat will not live caught if they deviate at complete from the most common forms of market maltreat that such software is designed to detect. The remedy, from the FCA’s point of view, is that each arduous must assess what warnings and alerts are preempt 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 arduous conducts, taking into account the scale, size and nature of the firm’s activity. Whilst this may live informed by “industry standards,” the arduous must exercise its own independent judgment in determining what will live sufficient. Second, the FCA has reported that it thinks that there is a plane 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 specimen used by the FCA is in relation to fixed income products, where firms may analyse the trades of one particular product and not reckon trades in other related products that, when analysed together, would require a STOR submission.4 Third, the FCA has scrutinised firms’ expend 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 attribute in the insider lists they own received to date.”5 A particular concern that the FCA has is the overuse of permanent insider lists as a way of trying to avoid keeping temporary insider lists up to date. The recommendation 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 hearten 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 execute not figure for cozy reading for monetary 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 actual terms, this means not only that, statistically speaking, you are more likely to live the subject of an investigation, but that this investigation is likely to rob a significant time to conclude. In the minutes of the meeting of the FCA board in September 2018, it is renowned that the FCA planned to “clea[r] complete legacy cases by Q1 of 2019.”7 Their review of the notices that the FCA has produced since then would suggest 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 discontinue of ultimate 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 very information, how many open investigations there are, yet the FCA gave three different, incompatible answers. Whilst they own 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 replete figures on the number of cases that they own 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 enlarge in this period relates 8 contemplate L. Rogerson and R. Wolcott, “UK FCA published inconsistent, double counted enforcement statistics in freedom 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 monetary 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 complete comparatively small 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. monetary crime cases likewise showed a substantial enlarge of more than 50%, from 55 to 86 open investigations, and market maltreat investigations were up by nearly 30%, from 22 to 28 open cases. The only type of investigation showing a substantial subside in this period 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 small data set, these figures execute 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 medium length of civil and regulatory cases brought by the FCA, including cases that settle or where the FCA decides to rob 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 sort of misleading: This modest enlarge in the overall medium 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 medium 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 possible that some cases own taken substantially longer than this. In contrast to these figures, however, the medium 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 monetary 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 lively in the second half of ultimate 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 renowned in its 2017/2018 Enforcement Annual Report that “[c]riminal cases can rob significantly longer to resolve than regulatory cases” and reports that the medium length of complete 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 medium 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 trial start. Then, in December 2018, after five days of deliberations, a jury was unable to achieve a verdict and was discharged. This was despite the arbiter permitting the jury to approach 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 monetary regulation is now inexorably intertwined with data protection rules. It is likewise striking that these rules often own very broad application beyond the EU. As explained below, recent enforcement cases bespeak that the nexus does not own 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 monetary regulatory framework material to monetary 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 sufficient 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 way that data subjects were not alert of, for purposes which they would not own 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 complete 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 location 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 constrain 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 accountable for the data of its UK customers: The ICO took the view that the UK arm of Equifax failed to rob preempt 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 figure of the GDPR that is adopted by the UK as a legally separate regime on “exit day”: There may eventually, in effect, live two fairly discrete 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 approach 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 subject 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 considerable to succeed as well. Direct marketing is defined broadly as “any figure 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 expend of automated calling and communication systems with or without human interaction, electronic message, etc.” Those engaging in direct marketing will necessity to display 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, expend a special identifiable pre- fixed number that makes transparent that the call relates to marketing. One of the most significant rules that is expected to live contained in the EPR and so will live in constrain 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 occasion to “opt-out.” This rule is similar to the one already in constrain in the UK under the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulation 2003 (PECR);19 however, it will live necessary to wait and contemplate whether the concept is given the very meaning 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 rob preempt 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 contend 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 contemplate 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 material 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 own 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 monetary market participants will necessity this time to set in location material IT and operational systems for collateral management and the reporting of SFTs. It is possible, however, that much of the work required may already own been done where systems own been introduced for EMIR, given similarities with respect to a number of the reporting provisions.23 Notwithstanding the final figure or timing of Brexit, the UK is likely to adopt any rules that enter into constrain in the EU after “exit day” in substantively similar figure to that in which they are published, given that the rules originate from globally agreed G20 standards. 22 The Commission announced its kick 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 harmonize with one of the amendments relating to the Commission’s proposal to drop ESMA’s provision that makes it mandatory for reports to involve Legal Entity Identifiers for branches and Unique Transaction Identifiers once these own been developed and “endorsed by ESMA” – the Commission takes the view that this amounts to a delegation of power to ESMA to figure changes to the reporting requirements that does not accord with the scope of their legal powers. 23 For example, if both entities that are subject 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 great 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 touch a great number of the requirements under EMIR, impacting complete types of participants subject 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 discontinue of 2018. (i) The EMIR Refit Proposal Although the EMIR refit is still in the midst of the European legislative process and unavoidable 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 complete 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 complete AIFs, and not only AIFs that own 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 own 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 monetary counterparty”: A definition of “small monetary counterparty” (SFC) is proposed to live introduced for entities that trade infrequently and execute 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 medium total notional amount for March, April and May, replacing the current 30- day rolling medium determination. • Proposal to remove the requirement that clearing for one asset triggers clearing requirement for complete 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 subject to the clearing obligation, it is then subject to the clearing responsibility for complete asset classes subject 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 material clearing responsibility threshold; this change would significantly reduce the clearing tribulation 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 accountable 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 very clearing only once yearly, based on the aggregate month-end medium 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 medium notional amount of uncleared derivatives on a groupwide basis above EUR 750 billion from 1 September 2019. Entities subject to the clearing and margin rules will necessity 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 await 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 medium 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 subject to the clearing responsibility and will expire on later dates for CDS and unavoidable other interest rate derivatives. Many industry participants own 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 constrain 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 involve 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 expend non-EU administered benchmarks from the discontinue 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 monetary 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 state 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 monetary instruments and monetary 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 expend existing indices/ benchmarks until 1 January 2020, even where not a bit 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 own 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 monetary industry groups collaborated in November 2018 to formally request by epistle to ESMA and the Commission that the transition period live extended.31 They await 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 own in location 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 discontinue 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 ultimate year, the FCA sent a “Dear CEO” to great 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 great 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 insert a “UK version” of the BMR that would effectively live a copyout of the EU version of the BMR as in constrain on exit day. Benchmarks on the ESMA register are proposed to live grandfathered for expend 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 design 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 subject 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 tall plane 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, social and governance factors, and long-term sustainability. The striking aspect of the consultation is the planned shift to using monetary regulation as a tool to hearten the sustainability of investments. No laws or regulations own been proposed at this stage. Although respondents who own published their replies publically own generally agreed that sustainability should live more directly addressed in the legal framework applicable to investment decision- making, some own resisted the assumptions that asset managers own hitherto ignored sustainability as an integral section of their investment process. 35 https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/2017-investors-duties- sustainability-consultation-document_en.pdf. Questions that own been asked involve the following: • “Do you arbiter material investment entities should reckon sustainability factors in their investment decision-making?” • “What are the sustainability factors that the material investment entities should consider?” (Choices involve climate factors, social factors, governance factors and other environmental factors.) • “Which of the following entities should reckon sustainability factors in their investment decision- making?” (Choices involve collective investment funds (AIFs, UCITS, etc.), insurance providers, and individual portfolio managers.) • “Within the portfolio’s asset allocation, should material investment entities reckon 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, custody and diligence in the way that he conducted himself in response to an anonymous epistle received by Barclays in June 2016. Barclays is likewise now subject to special requirements by which it must report annually to the regulators detailing how it handles whistleblowing, with personal attestations required from Senior Managers accountable for the material systems and controls. According to the regulatory notices, in June 2016, a member of Barclays’ board received an anonymous epistle 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 epistle expressed as being from a Barclays employee. Mr. Staley became concerned that the letters were section 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 epistle 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 infraction of the requirement to act with due skill, custody and diligence (individual conduct rule 2) because he should own identified that: • He had a contest of interest in relation to the epistle and needed to rob particular custody to maintain an preempt 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 considerable that Compliance retained control over its investigation process. While the regulators said that Mr. Staley made serious errors of judgment, they did not find him to own acted with a lack of integrity. They did, however, point out that the standard of conduct expected from a CEO under individual conduct rule 2 was more exacting than for other employees and that CEOs must ensure that preempt standards of governance are maintained. The final notices figure 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 serious 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 accountable for the material systems and controls. In related proceedings, original York State’s monetary 21In Principle regulator fined Barclays Bank Plc and its original York fork US$15 million based on the very conduct that underlies the enforcement in the UK.37 The original 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 considerable 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 recommendation 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 monetary 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 stop trading, and TMI’s authorisation was removed. Amongst other allegations, the FCA alleged against Mr. Burns that he had failed to rob reasonable steps to ensure that TMI, as a regulated entity, gave recommendation 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 recommendation given was suitable (e.g., information on the customer’s monetary situation, investment objectives, and knowledge and suffer in relation to the material 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 subject to regulation in complete contexts. Second, Mr. Burns argued that complete TMI did was organize to set up a SIPP for a customer and that it did not give recommendation 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 arduous gives recommendation to a customer on the merits of establishing a SIPP, any recommendation given on the merits of the underlying assets to live held within the SIPP must drop 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 subject to regulation in this context. Second, whilst the Tribunal accepted that, where a customer has “genuinely made a determination without recommendation from the IFA arduous which arranges for the establishment of the SIPP to acquire investments to live held within the SIPP, then the obligations of the IFA arduous … may live more limited.”39 The Tribunal accepted that a SIPP exists for the customer to figure 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 own to scrutinise the investments as if it had offered to counsel 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 rob into account the fact that the customer had already decided (possibly with advice) the type of investments that he or she wanted to hold in a SIPP when assessing the client’s knowledge 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 still necessary for them to gather enough information about the customer to determine whether the proposed investments were suitable. The Tribunal approved a lower-than-requested monetary penalty against Mr. Burns of £60,000 and upheld the FCA’s determination to impose a prohibition on Mr. Burns. Investment advisers should live alert that the COBS 9.2 rules (to gather 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 recommendation from another firm, the adviser may rob this into account, but still must determine whether the recommendation 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 very time, was trying to elicit consultancy work 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 figure 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 infraction of Principle 1, to act with integrity in carrying out her accountable functions. The FCA determined that she should own 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 own 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 pick to instruct outside counsel for these investigations for a number of reasons, but one considerable reason is the hope that the final report will live protected by legal professional privilege and so will not own to live disclosed to a court or the regulator. ultimate 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. Serious Fraud Office, has now been successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal. The judgment given is helpful for firms, but it still does not live of value that everything produced by a law arduous 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 alert that the SFO was interested in the situation, and ENRC’s common 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 discontinue of summer 2011. In August, the SFO wrote to ENRC advising it to reckon carefully the SFO’s Self-Reporting Guidelines, and requested a meeting with its common counsel. The material question in this case was whether documents created by the external law firm, including notes of interviews with employees, after this epistle was received would live protected by privilege. There are two branches of legal professional privilege, namely legal recommendation 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 recommendation privilege. In broad terms, legal recommendation privilege protects professional communications between a counsel 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 dominant purpose” of those proceedings. At first instance ultimate year, Mrs. Justice Andrews decided that the notes of interviews with employees could not live protected by legal recommendation privilege.42 There is Court of Appeal authority that legal recommendation privilege can arise between only lawyers and employees who own 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 recommendation privilege would not apply. Mrs. Justice Andrews further decided that, in the material period after the SFO’s epistle 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 captious of the authority restricting legal recommendation privilege to communications between a counsel and only some employees, the Court left it to the Supreme Court to determine the question. The SFO has said that it does not design to appeal this decision; they may own to wait some time for another case to achieve the Supreme Court. In any event, overruling this determination would not own made a incompatibility 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 complete the circumstances of this case, and especially where (a) the SFO had gone beyond merely stating common principles from its guidelines and (b) lawyers had been appointed to conduct an investigation, there was “clear ground” to enlighten that proceedings were reasonably in contemplation. Indeed, much of what ENRC was attempting to execute was avoid the proceedings that it thought would live coming its way. The message from this case is generally positive. Even though legal recommendation privilege remains sort of unhelpful in terms of protecting investigation material, the courts should now seek 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 rob reasonable custody 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 respect 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 ability to effectively identify complete the funds that it held that formed section of a deceased customer’s estate. This resulted in it being unable to effectively succeed up with representatives of the deceased customer. Such weaknesses meant that the process would start, but would stall and remain incomplete, meaning 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 own now received the funds, together with interest and compensation for any consequential loss. The bank was likewise organize to own breached Principle 11 (relations with regulators) for failing to promptly disclose information relating to the above-detailed issues to the FCA. heed Steward, the FCA’s head of enforcement, cautioned that the FCA remains “on the lookout for firms with destitute systems and controls and will rob 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 duty 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 rectitude and integrity. In particular, the FCA alleged that Mr. Hussein had engaged in indecorous 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 rob 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 lack 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 renowned that, at the material 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 contrary 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 own 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 own 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 own misled the regulator and failed in his duty to live candid with the FCA. sort of reluctantly it appears, the FCA agreed that this failing by Mr. Hussein was sufficiently serious 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 own received a prohibition order from the FCA whilst more senior managers had apparently escaped sanction. Whilst the Upper Tribunal has no power to execute anything more than express its strong concerns about this to the FCA, this statement is sort of unusual. The most considerable 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 own organize for him; as the Tribunal said, “we execute not believe him to live a thoroughly spoiled person. He made a serious mistake 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 serious cyber infraction 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, custody and diligence in protecting its customers. The FCA renowned 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 alert of the cyber breach, Tesco Bank had failed to act with “sufficient rigour, skill and urgency.” Even if the cyber infraction had been too sophisticated for Tesco Bank reasonably to live expected to own been able to prevent – which was not the case here – the FCA was captious that Tesco Bank did not own in location a response design that would permit a swift recovery. The FCA requires firms to own an effective design in location setting out what to execute if a damaging event occurs, whether that event should own 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 own any questions regarding this update, please contact: Helen Marshall Partner, London email@example.com +44 20.7661.5378 Ezra Zahabi Partner, London firstname.lastname@example.org +44 20.7661.5367 Joe Hewton Associate, London email@example.com +44 20.7012.9624 James Campbell Associate, London firstname.lastname@example.org +44 20.7012.9852 EU/UK monetary Services Regulatory exercise Akin Gump’s EU/UK monetary Regulatory exercise – which forms section of the Firm’s wider Global monetary Regulatory Group – advises its clients (which involve institutional and alternative investment managers, retail and investment banks, brokerages and senior individuals) on complete aspects of the UK and EU monetary services regulatory framework. The exercise has taken a leading role in advising the global monetary services industry on regulatory actions, the repercussion of EU legislation and on commercial and securities issues that touch it. The exercise is particularly well known for its work acting for monetary institutions and senior individuals who find themselves subject to investigation by regulators and exchanges. © 2019 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. complete rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational expend only; it does not constitute legal recommendation and should not live used as such. Prior results execute not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld is the practising name of Akin Gump LLP. Akin Gump LLP is a original 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, please contemplate their Legal Notices page Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld is a leading global law arduous 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 arduous focuses on building lasting and mutually advantageous 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 section 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 own 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 period 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 zone 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 original 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 state was declared a calamity area. original 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 band of rapidly affecting 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, original Jersey, Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. complete 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 ultimate 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 predict that precipitation events across the United States are likely to live heavier. These risks pose serious threats to their electricity grid, infrastructure, spotless water, and sewage treatment system in the most affected places.
The climate-related extreme weather events of the past several years own become the original normal. They must act now to reduce the industrial carbon pollution accountable for climate change and mitigate 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 support from complete 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 monetary assistance to those in need, even after some of them previously requested calamity funding for their own states. complete 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 serious concerns about whether Congress can both aid calamity victims in a timely fashion and work to mitigate communities minimize damages from future storms and other extreme weather. In order to mitigate these communities reduce their vulnerability to extreme weather, Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) and 37 of her colleagues urged President Obama to nominate a blue ribbon panel to develop a a “community resilience fund” dedicated solely to providing the monetary 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 save taxpayers money over time.
For more information on this proposal, please contemplate CAP’s December 2012 column “An Ounce of Prevention: Increasing Resiliency to Climate-Related Extreme Weather.”Methodology
This hub 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 State and County QuickFacts. The 2006–2010 values are an medium over the five-year period. They compared the percent incompatibility between the medium 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 hub 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