SEC: Efforts to question SEC are unsubstantiated
The respectable decision of the Supreme Court dated July 19, 2007 to the appeal of Marfin Popular Bank on the public offer for the acquisition of Bank of Cyprus and Piraeus Bank is related to serious weaknesses for the role and competencies of the Securities and Exchange Commission in relation to the Cyprus Stock Exchange that the relevant legislation had during the issue of the decision. It is noted that the SEC acted in accordance with the previous decisions of the Supreme Court, which recognized SEC’s competency to deal with issues regulated by the CSE Law and Regulations.
The weaknesses were pointed out by the state and have been eliminated with the promotion of new laws. Being fully in line with the EU directives, the SEC is now the competent authority to supervise the capital market.
The Supreme Court’s decision does not vindicate anyone since it does not refer to the substance of SEC’s decision for the public offers of Marfin Popular Bank. The SEC notes that its decision was the same as the decision of the CSE Council, which was competent to take the decision on the issue.
We, therefore, believe that the effort to use the Supreme Court’s decision to question the integrity and independence of the SEC is groundless, unsubstantiated and risky. Also, the fact that the effort to question the SEC comes from anonymous sources ensures the groundless criticisms.
The weaknesses were pointed out by the state and have been eliminated with the promotion of new laws. Being fully in line with the EU directives, the SEC is now the competent authority to supervise the capital market.
The Supreme Court’s decision does not vindicate anyone since it does not refer to the substance of SEC’s decision for the public offers of Marfin Popular Bank. The SEC notes that its decision was the same as the decision of the CSE Council, which was competent to take the decision on the issue.
We, therefore, believe that the effort to use the Supreme Court’s decision to question the integrity and independence of the SEC is groundless, unsubstantiated and risky. Also, the fact that the effort to question the SEC comes from anonymous sources ensures the groundless criticisms.
