CUBE RegNews:
5^th September

MAS announces successor to Ravi Menon  

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has announced the appointment of Mr Chia Der Jiun as Managing Director (Designate) from 1^st November 2023, to 31^st December 31, 2023, and subsequently as Managing Director from 1^st January 2024, to 31^st May 2026. Mr. Chia will also join the MAS Board as a Director from 1^st January 2024. 

This transition follows the retirement of Ravi Menon, the current Managing Director, on December 31, 2023. Mr Chia brings extensive experience, having served for 18 years at MAS and played key roles in monetary policy, banking supervision, and financial stability. 

Menon’s tenure, spanning 29 years with MAS, has been marked by significant contributions to Singapore’s financial sector, including FinTech innovation, sustainable finance initiatives, and global financial stability efforts. 

Come hell or high water: climate and environment-related litigation in the banking sector 

In a speech at the ECB Legal Conference in Frankfurt on 4^th September 2023, Frank Elderson, Member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank (ECB) and Vice-Chair of the Supervisory Board of the ECB, addressed the growing risks of climate and environment-related litigation for the banking sector. 

Elderson’s speech highlighted the increasing importance of climate and environment-related litigation in the banking sector and urged banks and supervisors to address these risks proactively. 

Elderson began by emphasising the urgent need to address climate and environmental crises, citing recent extreme weather events and their global impact. He highlighted how litigation related to climate change has become a central tool for pushing governments and corporations to pursue more ambitious climate goals. This litigation trend, which initially targeted governments, has now expanded to include corporations. 

Key points from the speech include: 

• Climate-related litigation trends: Elderson discussed the rise in climate-related litigation globally, noting that 560 new cases have been filed since 2021. He noted too that litigation has been used to compel governments to take more ambitious climate actions. 
• Expanding from states to corporations: The speech highlighted that litigation has shifted from targeting governments to including corporations, such as fossil fuel and energy companies, car manufacturers, airlines, and food producers. Different legal arguments are used, including claims for damages, breaches of corporate due diligence laws, and greenwashing. 
• Strategic approach of litigants: Litigants adopt a strategic approach, building cases based on arguments and experiences from other jurisdictions. Successful legal strategies can be replicated in multiple countries. 
• Direct impact on banks: Banks are increasingly becoming the direct targets of climate-related litigation, as litigants aim to cut off funding to high-emission activities. Cases have been brought against financial institutions for greenwashing and other issues. 
• Addressing litigation risk: Elderson emphasised that banks need to take climate-related litigation risk seriously. He recommended that banks evaluate litigation risks, define responsibilities, conduct climate-related due diligence, and ensure adequate disclosures. Banks should also consider Paris-aligned transition plans to mitigate litigation risk. 
• Supervisors’ role: Supervisors, such as central banks, need to play a role in addressing climate-related litigation risk. The NGFS report on micro-prudential supervision of climate-related litigation risks suggests options for supervision, including a risk-based approach. 
• Broader environmental litigation: Elderson mentioned the potential rise in environment-related litigation, including cases related to deforestation and supply chain responsibility. 

The speech concluded by emphasising the urgency of addressing climate-related litigation risks and encouraged lawyers to play a crucial role in supporting a Paris-aligned path through the rule of law.  

ASIC takes legal action against Westpac for delayed responses to hardship notices  

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has filed a civil penalty case in the Federal Court against Westpac Banking Corporation. ASIC alleges that between 2015 and 2022, Westpac’s online hardship notice process failed to respond promptly to 229 customers’ hardship notices, violating the 21-day response requirement. 

These customers had informed Westpac of financial hardship, with some facing debt collection actions during the delay. ASIC argues that Westpac’s actions compounded their financial distress. 

ASIC claims that between September 2017 and March 2022, Westpac breached the National Credit Code and the National Credit Act by not responding efficiently and fairly to hardship notices. 

ASIC seeks declarations, penalties, and adverse publicity orders. The first case management hearing date is pending. 

This case highlights the regulatory focus on timely responses to hardship notices and the challenges many retail customers face and the consequences for non-compliance. 

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has filed a civil penalty case in the Federal Court against Westpac Banking Corporation. ASIC alleges that between 2015 and 2022, Westpac’s online hardship notice process failed to respond promptly to 229 customers’ hardship notices, violating the 21-day response requirement. 

These customers had informed Westpac of financial hardship, with some facing debt collection actions during the delay. ASIC argues that Westpac’s actions compounded their financial distress. 

ASIC claims that between September 2017 and March 2022, Westpac breached the National Credit Code and the National Credit Act by not responding efficiently and fairly to hardship notices. 

ASIC seeks declarations, penalties, and adverse publicity orders. The first case management hearing date is pending. 

This case highlights the regulatory focus on timely responses to hardship notices and the challenges many retail customers face and the consequences for non-compliance. 

Bafin provides August update  

German regulator Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BaFin) has published a helpful summary of key August activity, including detail of fines issued against The Healing Company; Grenke AG; Eurocity AG amongst others as well as regulatory information and summaries of speeches made during the month. 

The update is published on BaFin’s website following a denial of service attack earlier which had seriously reduced access to the regulator’s online presence since the beginning of the month.