Suggestions
Tim Dolan
Financial Services Regulatory Partner / Shareholder
Tim Dolan is a Shareholder/Partner at Greenberg Traurig, LLP, specializing in UK and European financial services regulation.12 Here are some key details about Tim Dolan:
Professional Background
- Joined Greenberg Traurig, LLP as a Shareholder in January 202312
- Previously worked as a Partner at Reed Smith LLP from 2017 to 20232
- Has over 20 years of experience in financial regulation law2
Areas of Expertise
Tim Dolan focuses on:
- UK and European financial regulatory matters1
- Compliance and regulatory issues related to fund formation1
- Advising clients on engaging with financial regulators1
- Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) standards and regulations1
Notable Skills
- Known for combining technical regulatory guidance with pragmatic advice2
- Praised for being client-oriented, responsive, and knowledgeable2
- Experienced in navigating complex FCA regulations2
Professional Experience
Tim has worked with various types of clients, including:
- Fund managers
- Investment firms
- Corporate finance firms
- Payment services firms
- Fintech companies
- Insurers and pension scheme operators2
Regulatory Experience
He has previously worked for:
- UK Financial Services Authority (2003-2005)
- New Zealand Takeovers Panel (2002-2003)
- New Zealand Securities Commission (1999-2003)23
Education
- LL.B. and B.A. from the University of Canterbury, New Zealand3
Tim Dolan is recognized in The Legal 500 UK for his expertise in financial services regulation and real estate funds.3
Highlights
Great to see yesterday's (18 June) joint opinion from the European regulators (ESMA / EBA / EIOPA) on the European Commission's consultation on SFDR: https://lnkd.in/eqD2cv9A
Yes - there should be a product classification system based on categories and sustainability indicators which are actually understandable by consumers and not just by professional advisers;
Yes - those categories should be simple using clear criteria and thresholds;
Yes - those categories should be tested with investors prior to being adopted.
Yes - the EU Taxonomy should be completed as a matter of urgency.
While (as we have seen in the UK with the SDR) there will still be a lot of underlying detail to consider with a classification system which moves away from the current art. 6/8/9 regime especially with complex (from an ESG perspective) asset classes it must be good news that the European regulators are supportive of revising SFDR and creating a regime which is more relevant for fund managers (and other product manufacturers) and investors.
An excellent letter from the House of Lords’ Financial Services Regulation Committee to the FCA was published last night. The letter is in response to the FCA’s (now infamous) consultation on its proposals to publicise FCA Enforcement investigations at their outset rather than only if the Enforcement process has been concluded with an adverse finding against the firm or individual under investigation.
In the letter the FCA are asked the pertinent question by the Lords’ Committee:
“What led the FCA to make these proposals? Were they based on any particular representations? If so, from whom?” As many commentators have noted: the FCA’s proposals do not consider impact of negative publicity of FCA Enforcement actions. As FCA investigations are able to be opened simply when there are “circumstances suggesting” there may have been a breach of a rule or a requirement and with approximately two thirds of Enforcement investigations ultimately (and often very correctly in my experience) resulting in no action, it is wholly unfair to subject firms and individuals to negative publicity for no reason. Negative publicity may effectively kill the prospects of a business where lenders cease to provide liquidity or claims management companies bring actions, even where a company has in fact not breached any relevant rule or regulation. Making it clear that the investigation has not (yet) reached an adverse conclusion simply does not mitigate the negative impact of the world at large being told that a firm is under investigation.
For reasons that I do not understand, the FCA’s consultation paper takes a highly limited account of international experience. The normal position with most of the financial services regulators which our teams deal with is (except with occasional cases involving listed companies) not to publicise investigations if and until an adverse finding is reached.
The justification given by the FCA for its proposals includes: “that firms we regulate would benefit from a greater understanding of the types of suspected misconduct and other failings we consider should be investigated.” There is no doubt that many firms would appreciate this guidance, but that can easily (and indeed should be) provided by the FCA on an ongoing real time anonymised basis.
The FCA's consultation has been extended until the end of April. It will be interesting to hear how the FCA react to the response from firms; politicians and advisers. I hope that they will do the right thing and back down.
