Related provisions for SUP 3.5.2

1 - 14 of 14 items.

Search Term(s)

Filter by Modules

Filter by Documents

Filter by Keywords

Effective Period

Similar To

To access the FCA Handbook Archive choose a date between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2004 (From field only).

SUP 3.5.1GRP
If an auditor is to carry out his duties properly, he needs to be independent of the firm he is auditing, so that he is not subject to conflicts of interest. Many firms are also subject to requirements under the Companies Act 1989, or the Companies Act 2006,1 the Building Societies Act 1986 or the Friendly Societies Act 1992 on auditor's independence.
SUP 3.5.3RRP
If a firm becomes aware at any time that its auditor is not independent of the firm, it must take reasonable steps to ensure that it has an auditor independent of the firm. The firm must notify the FSA if independence is not achieved within a reasonable time.
SUP 3.5.4GRP
The FSA will regard an auditor as independent if his appointment or retention does not breach the ethical guidance in current issue from the auditor's recognised supervisory body on the appointment of an auditor in circumstances which could give rise to conflicts of interest.
SUP 3.8.5RRP
An auditor of a firm must be independent of the firm in performing his duties in respect of that firm.
SUP 3.8.7GRP
SUP 3.5.4 G explains that an auditor whose appointment does not breach the ethical guidance in current issue from the auditor's recognised supervisory body will be regarded as independent by the FSA.
COLL 7.7.10RRP
(1) The authorised fund manager of a UCITS scheme that is a merging UCITS or a receiving UCITS in a proposed UCITS merger must ensure that a document containing appropriate and accurate information on the merger is provided to the unitholders of that scheme so as to enable them to:(a) make an informed judgment about the impact of the proposal on their investment;(b) exercise their rights under regulation 12 (Right of redemption) of the UCITS Regulations 2011; and(c) where applicable,
COLL 7.7.13RRP
(1) Where the merging UCITS is a UCITS scheme, the information document that its authorised fund manager must provide to its unitholders under COLL 7.7.10 R (3)(b) must also include:(a) details of any differences in the rights of unitholders of the merging UCITS before and after the proposed UCITS merger takes effect;(b) if the key investor information of the merging UCITS and the receiving UCITS show synthetic risk and reward indicators in different categories, or identify different
SYSC 5.1.11GRP
Where a common platform firm outsources its internal audit function, it should take reasonable steps to ensure that every individual involved in the performance of this service is independent from the individuals who perform its external audit. This should not prevent services from being undertaken by a firm's external auditors provided that:(1) the work is carried out under the supervision and management of the firm's own internal staff; and(2) potential conflicts of interest
COLL 5.7.9RRP
(1) A non-UCITS retail scheme operating as a FAIF must not invest in units in schemes in COLL 5.7.7R (1) to (3) (‘second schemes’) unless the authorised fund manager has carried out appropriate due diligence on each of the second schemes and:(a) is satisfied, on reasonable grounds and after making all reasonable enquiries, that each of the second schemes complies with relevant legal and regulatory requirements;(b) has taken reasonable care to determine that:(i) the property of
SYSC 4.4.6GRP

Frequently asked questions about allocation of functions in SYSC 4.4.5 R

Question

Answer

1

Does an individual to whom a function is allocated under SYSC 4.4.5 R need to be an approved person?

An individual to whom a function is allocated under SYSC 4.4.5 R will be performing the apportionment and oversight function (CF 8, see SUP 10.7.1 R) and an application must be made to the FSA for approval of the individual before the function is performed under section 59 of the Act (Approval for particular arrangements). There are exceptions from this in SUP 10.1 (Approved persons - Application).

2

If the allocation is to more than one individual, can they perform the functions, or aspects of the functions, separately?

If the functions are allocated to joint chief executives under SYSC 4.4.5 R, column 2, they are expected to act jointly. If the functions are allocated to an individual under SYSC 4.4.5 R, column 2, in addition to individuals under SYSC 4.4.5 R, column 3, the former may normally be expected to perform a leading role in relation to the functions that reflects his position. Otherwise, yes.

3

What is meant by "appropriately allocate" in this context?

The allocation of functions should be compatible with delivering compliance with Principle 3, SYSC 4.4.3 R and SYSC 4.1.1 R. The FSA considers that allocation to one or two individuals is likely to be appropriate for most firms.

4

If a committee of management governs a firm or group, can the functions be allocated to every member of that committee?

Yes, as long as the allocation remains appropriate (see Question 3). If the firm also has an individual as chief executive, then the functions must be allocated to that individual as well under SYSC 4.4.5 R, column 2 (see Question 7).

5

Does the definition of chief executive include the possessor of equivalent responsibilities with another title, such as a managing director or managing partner?

Yes.

6

Is it possible for a firm to have more than one individual as its chief executive?

Although unusual, some firms may wish the responsibility of a chief executive to be held jointly by more than one individual. In that case, each of them will be a chief executive and the functions must be allocated to all of them under SYSC 4.4.5 R, column 2 (see also Questions 2 and 7).

7

If a firm has an individual as chief executive, must the functions be allocated to that individual?

Normally, yes, under SYSC 4.4.5 R, column 2.

But if the firm is a body corporate and a member of a group, the functions may, instead of being allocated to the firm'schief executive, be allocated to a director or senior manager from the group responsible for the overall management of the group or of a relevant group division, so long as this is appropriate (see Question 3). Such individuals will nevertheless require approval by the FSA (see Question 1).

If the firm chooses to allocate the functions to a director or senior manager responsible for the overall management of a relevant group division, the

FSA would expect that individual to be of a seniority equivalent to or greater than a chief executive of the firm for the allocation to be appropriate.

See also Question 14.

8

If a firm has a chief executive, can the functions be allocated to other individuals in addition to the chief executive?

Yes. SYSC 4.4.5 R, column 3, permits a firm to allocate the functions, additionally, to the firm's (or where applicable the group's) directors and senior managers as long as this is appropriate (see Question 3).

9

What if a firm does not have a chief executive?

Normally, the functions must be allocated to one or more individuals selected from the firm's (or where applicable the group's) directors and senior managers under SYSC 4.4.5 R, column 3.

But if the firm:

(1) is a body corporate and a member of a group; and

(2) the group has a director or senior manager responsible for the overall management of the group or of a relevant group division;

then the functions must be allocated to that individual (together, optionally, with individuals from column 3 if appropriate) under SYSC 4.4.5 R, column 2.

10

What do you mean by "group division within which some or all of the firm's regulated activities fall"?

A "division" in this context should be interpreted by reference to geographical operations, product lines or any other method by which the group's business is divided.

If the firm's regulated activities fall within more than one division and the firm does not wish to allocate the functions to its chief executive, the allocation must, under SYSC 4.4.5 R, be to:

(1) a director or senior manager responsible for the overall management of the group; or (2) a director or senior manager responsible for the overall management of one of those divisions;

together, optionally, with individuals from column 3 if appropriate. (See also Questions 7 and 9.)

11

How does the requirement to allocate the functions in SYSC 4.4.5 R apply to an overseas firm which is not an incoming EEA firm, incoming Treaty firm or UCITS qualifier?

The firm must appropriately allocate those functions to one or more individuals, in accordance with SYSC 4.4.5 R, but:

(1) The responsibilities that must be apportioned and the systems and controls that must be overseen are those relating to activities carried on from a UK establishment with certain exceptions (see

SYSC 1 Annex 1.1.8R). Note that SYSC 1 Annex 1.1.10R does not extend the territorial scope of SYSC 4.4 for an overseas firm.

(2) The chief executive of an overseas firm is the person responsible for the conduct of the firm's business within the United Kingdom (see the definition of "chief executive"). This might, for example, be the manager of the firm'sUK establishment, or it might be the chief executive of the firm as a whole, if he has that responsibility.

The apportionment and oversight function applies to such a firm, unless it falls within a particular exception from the approved persons regime (see Question 1).

12

How does the requirement to allocate the functions in SYSC 4.4.5 R apply to an incoming EEA firm or incoming Treaty firm?

SYSC 1 Annex 1.1.1R(2) and SYSC 1 Annex 1.1.8R restrict the application of SYSC 4.4.5 R for such a firm. Accordingly:

(1) Such a firm is not required to allocate the function of dealing with apportionment in SYSC 4.4.5R (1).

(2) Such a firm is required to allocate the function of oversight in SYSC 4.4.5R (2). However, the systems and controls that must be overseen are those relating to matters which the FSA, as Host State regulator, is entitled to regulate (there is guidance on this in SUP 13A Annex 2). Those are primarily, but not exclusively, the systems and controls relating to the conduct of the firm's activities carried on from its UK branch.

(3) Such a firm need not allocate the function of oversight to its chief executive; it must allocate it to one or more directors and senior managers of the firm or the firm'sgroup under SYSC 4.4.5 R, row (2).

(4)

An incoming EEA firm which has provision only for cross border services is not required to allocate either function if it does not carry on regulated activities in the United Kingdom; for example if they fall within the overseas persons exclusions in article 72 of the Regulated Activities Order.

See also Questions 1 and 15.

13

What about a firm that is a partnership or a limited liability partnership?

The FSA envisages that most if not all partners or members will be either directors or senior managers, but this will depend on the constitution of the partnership (particularly in the case of a limited partnership) or limited liability partnership. A partnership or limited liability partnership may also have a chief executive (see Question 5). A limited liability partnership is a body corporate and, if a member of a group, will fall within SYSC 4.4.5 R, row (1) or (2).

14

What if generally accepted principles of good corporate governance recommend that the chief executive should not be involved in an aspect of corporate governance?

The Note to SYSC 4.4.5 R provides that the chief executive or other executive director or senior manager need not be involved in such circumstances. For example, the UK Corporate Governance Code5 recommends that the board of a listed company should establish an audit committee of non-executive directors to be responsible for oversight of the audit. That aspect of the oversight function may therefore be allocated to the members of such a committee without involving the chief executive. Such individuals may require approval by the FSA in relation to that function (see Question 1).

5

15

What about incoming electronic commerce activities carried on from an establishment in another EEA State with or for a person in the United Kingdom?

SYSC does not apply to an incoming ECA provider acting as such.

LR 18.4.3ARRP
(1) 2An issuer within LR 18.4.3 R must publish its annual report and annual accounts as soon as possible after they have been approved. (2) An issuer within LR 18.4.3 R must approve and publish its annual report and accounts within six months of the end of the financial period to which they relate.(3) The annual report and accounts must:(a) have been prepared in accordance with the issuer's national law and, in all material respects, with national accounting standards or IAS;
BIPRU 5.6.19RRP
(1) A firm must be able to satisfy the FSA that the firm's risk management system for managing the risks arising on the transactions covered by the master netting agreement is conceptually sound and implemented with integrity and that, in particular, the minimum qualitative standards in (2) - (11) are met.(2) The internal risk-measurement model used for calculation of potential price volatility for the transactions is closely integrated into the daily risk-management process of
COLL 8.4.5RRP
(1) 7A qualified investor scheme may invest in units in a scheme (a ‘second scheme’) only if the second scheme is:7(a) a regulated collective investment scheme; or7(b) a scheme not within (a) where the authorised fund manager has taken reasonable care to determine that:7(i) it is the subject of an independent annual audit conducted in accordance with international standards on auditing;7(ii) the calculation of the net asset value of each of the second schemes and the maintenance
LR 17.3.4RRP
(1) An issuer must publish its annual report and annual accounts as soon as possible after they have been approved.1(2) An issuer must approve and publish its annual report and accounts within six months of the end of the financial period to which they relate.(3) The annual report and accounts must:1(a) have been prepared in accordance with the issuer's national law and, in all material respects, with national accounting standards or IAS; and1(b) have been independently audited
BIPRU 4.10.51RRP
GA as calculated under BIPRU 5.8.11 R is then taken as the value of the protection for the purposes of calculating the effects of unfunded credit protection under the IRB approach.[Note: BCD Annex VIII Part 4 point 8 (part)]
GENPRU 2.2.187RRP
A BIPRU firm which adopts the standardised approach to credit risk may include general/collective provisions in its tier two capital resources only if:(1) they are freely available to the firm;(2) their existence is disclosed in internal accounting records; and(3) their amount is determined by the management of the firm, verified by independent auditors and notified to the FSA.