WEBINAR: Brexit and the search for consensus

Author: IFLR Correspondent | Published: 29 Nov 2016
Email a friend

Please enter a maximum of 5 recipients. Use ; to separate more than one email address.

Join the leading financial services lawyers on December 20 for a crucial roundtable discussion on the best approach to Brexit

Following the UK's Brexit vote on June 23, London’s financial services industry has been preparing for the worst outcome while campaigning for the best. 

IFLR has been in dialogue with heads of financial services regulation over the past few months. It became apparent to us that these figures, so crucial to the direction that UK banks and corporates will take, were often working alone, in silos. And while they all have clear ideas on the best approach for the industry, there is divergence over what that should look like. 

With this in mind, at 11am GMT on December 20, we will be hosting the market’s leading lawyers to discuss these issues together. The aim of this live event will be to establish a common view on the following:
  • Equivalence: how likely, and how appealing? 
  • Passporting: simple solution or practically problematic?
  • Financial centre model and the changing role of the FCA
  • Dynamic state equivalence and the prospect of fragmented capital markets
  • London as a euro clearing centre
Speakers include:
  • Peter Bevan, global practice head, financial regulation – Linklaters
  • Jonathan Herbst, global head of financial services – Norton Rose Fulbright
  • Rachel Kent, global head of financial institutions – Hogan Lovells 
  • Caroline Meinertz, partner – Clifford Chance
  • Barney Reynolds, head of global financial institutions advisory – Shearman & Sterling
We are broadcasting the event live and you are invited to participate in what will be a fascinating discussion between industry leaders on the future for UK corporates and financial institutions in a post-Brexit world. Simply sign up to Bright Talk here and then join the webcast here.

See also 

German MEP: EC equivalence plans are political but necessary

Viability of Norway model for UK debated