Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1197486
2 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 5 JANUARY 2020 NEWS THANK YOU for the Christmas greetings. I wish you a year full of health and prosperity. MATTHEW AGIUS THE Financial Services Tribu- nal has dismissed a preliminary plea made by the MFSA in an appeal lodged by Signia Hold- ing Ltd and Satabank, saying the authority had failed to pro- vide full details of a directive against them. The bank's assets had been frozen by the MFSA in October 2018 due to anti-money laun- dering concerns. In Novem- ber 2018, the bank's European licence was withdrawn by the ECB. The dispute before the Tribu- nal stemmed from a directive aimed at increasing the pow- ers of the so-called "Compe- tent Person" – a legally estab- lished position that acts as a sort of caretaker appointed by the MFSA to safeguard credi- tors and investors when such companies are in financial dif- ficulty. In 2018, Auditors Ernst & Young were appointed as the Competent Person to ensure good governance and control of Satabank as well as being able to implement the neces- sary measures for the belea- guered bank to be brought back into line with the MFSA requirements. The MFSA-appointed team from Ernst & Young was to monitor the bank in the prop- er conduct of its business, but less than a week after being in- stalled, it told Satabank to cease from taking new deposits or af- fecting withdrawals, thus freez- ing the bank's operations. Before the Financial Services Tribunal, composed of Chair- man Pierre Lofaro and mem- bers Joseph Azzopardi and Ivan Sammut, Signia and Sata- bank had argued that a direc- tive appointing auditors Ernst & Young as Competent Person and fixing remuneration for that person at €689 per hour, as well as directing the bank to cease and desist from accepting new business or allowing any withdrawals from the bank's assets, was unjustified. On its part, the MFSA had argued that an amendment to the appeal was filed late, after the lapse of a 30-day period al- lowed for its submission. The authority argued that this peri- od started to run from the date when its decision was notified to the bank. Both parties agreed that an aggrieved person may lodge an appeal to the Tribunal from a decision taken by the Author- ity under the Banking Act and that in this case the sharehold- er is an "aggrieved person" un- der the law. But the argument that the authority's prelimi- nary plea should be rejected on the ground that the Authority did not object to their request to amend their demands was ruled as unfounded. It was not objecting to the request but was also not relinquishing its right to defend itself in such a manner as it would deem fit, said the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal also said that the Authority was "manifestly unfair" with the shareholder, who had begged the Authority to provide it with a copy of the full text of the di- rective. Despite knowing the shareholder to be an aggrieved person with a right to lodge an appeal, the authority had failed to deliver the required docu- ment to the shareholder when asked for it. "As a result of this manifestly unfair treatment, the Authority cannot now complain that the appellants' request to amend their original demands was filed after the 30- day period had elapsed." It therefore dismissed the MFSA's preliminary plea with costs. Tribunal criticises MFSA's 'manifestly unfair' treatment of Satabank shareholders