-
Views
-
Cite
Cite
M J Giltjes, A C W Pijls, The subtle relationship between paragraphs 1, 4, 7 and 8 of Article 17 of the Market Abuse Regulation, Capital Markets Law Journal, Volume 15, Issue 4, October 2020, Pages 474–488, https://doi.org/10.1093/cmlj/kmaa020
- Share Icon Share
Extract
...
1. Introduction
In this article, we discuss several facets of the disclosure of inside information. In particular, we attempt to find an answer to the question which duty/duties of the disclosure regime has/have been violated in two situations: (i) the situation in which inside information is selectively disclosed to third parties and (ii) in case the disclosure of inside information has been delayed, the situation in which the confidential nature of that information is no longer ensured. The requirements of the public disclosure of inside information are stipulated by Article 17 of the Market Abuse Regulation (MAR).1 The issuer's primary duty to disclose inside information follows from Article 17(1) MAR. Separate disclosure duties have been included in Articles 17(8) and 17(7) MAR for, respectively, the two situations referred to above. Commentators have raised doubts over the necessity and function of Article 17(8) MAR.2 Similar doubts could be raised over Article 17(7) MAR. In this article, we defend the independent status of paragraphs 8 and 7 of Article 17 MAR, mainly by focusing on their function of serving legal certainty.