Related provisions for PERG 9.6.2
1 - 20 of 26 items.
As indicated in PERG 9.3.5 G (The definition), the potential for variation in the form and operation of a body corporate is considerable. So, it is only possible in general guidance to give examples of the factors that the FSA considers may affect any particular judgment. These should be read bearing in mind any specific points considered elsewhere in the guidance. Such factors include:(1) the terms of the body corporate's constitution;(2) the applicable law;(3) any public representations
(1) Regulation 15(9) of the OEIC Regulations and section 243(8) of the Act require that an authorised fund's name must not be undesirable or misleading. This section contains guidance on some specific matters the FSA will consider in determining whether the name of an authorised fund is undesirable or misleading. It is in addition to the requirements of regulation 19 of the OEIC Regulations (Prohibition on certain names).(2) The FSA will take into account whether the name of the
In the FSA's view, it is the very existence of the body corporate that is the collective investment scheme. There are a number of statutory references that support this view. For example, it is clear that paragraph 21 of the Schedule to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Collective Investment Schemes) Order 2001 (SI 2001/1062) (Arrangements not amounting to a collective investment scheme) is drafted on the basis that it is the body corporate itself that is (or would
An EEA UCITS management company that manages a UCITS scheme must comply with the rules of the Handbook which relate to the constitution and functioning of the UCITS scheme (the fund application rules), as follows:(1) the setting up and authorisation of the UCITS scheme (COLL 1 (Introduction), COLL 2 (Authorised fund applications), COLL 3 (Constitution), COLL 6.5 (Appointment and replacement of the authorised fund manager and the depositary), COLL 6.6 (Powers and duties of the