Search results

The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) Consultation Paper on Proposals to Enhance Protection for the Investing Public, issued on September 23, 2009, and some of the key issues that financial services providers operating in or dealing with the Hong Kong market will need to consider.

The paper explains the purpose of the Consultation Paper and summarizes its proposals in three subject categories: retail products offered to the public in Hong Kong, intermediares’ conduct, and post‐sale arrangements and cooling‐off periods.

The paper finds that the SFC's overall intention is to enhance Hong Kong's existing regulatory regime for the sale of retail investment products.

The Consultation Paper addresses a significant number of wide ranging proposals that could have a material effect on those issuing and distributing retail investment products to the Hong Kong public, whether from inside or outside Hong Kong.

The paper provides practical guidance from experienced securities and financial institution lawyers.

The paper aims to examine disputed interpretations of “key meanings” between the audit regulator and Big 4 firms during a highly contentious regulatory debate, showcasing their use of “strategies of resistance” to achieve their intended outcomes.

A qualitative analysis is performed of the discourse in a South African audit regulatory debate, set within the country's unique political and historical context. The analysis is informed by the theoretical construct of a “regulatory space” and an established typology of strategic responses to institutional pressures.

The study’s findings show how resistance to regulatory intentions from influential actors, notably the Big 4 firms, was dispelled. This was achieved by the regulator securing oversight independence, co-opting political support, shortening the debate timeline and unilaterally revising the interpretation of its statutory mandate. The regulator successfully incorporated race equality into its interpretation of how the public interest is advanced (in addition to audit quality). The social legitimacy of the Big 4 was then further undermined. The debate was highly contentious and unproductive and likely contributed to overall societal concerns regarding the legitimacy of, and the value ascribed to, the audit function.

A deeper appreciation of vested interests and differing interpretations of key concepts and regulatory logic could help to promote a less combative regulatory environment, in the interest of enhanced audit quality and the sustainability and legitimacy of the audit profession.

The context provides an example, contrary to that observed in many jurisdictions, where the Big 4 fail to actively resist or even dilute significant regulatory reform. Furthermore, the findings indicate that traditional conceptions of what it means to serve “the public interest” may be evolving in favour of a more liberal social democratic interpretation.

The purpose of this paper is to set out the Law Commission's final recommendations for the reform of adult social care, with a particular emphasis on the recommendations for a new legal framework for adult safeguarding in England and Wales.

The paper discusses each of the Law Commission's recommendations for adult safeguarding and contrasts them with the proposals put forward at the consultation phase of the review.

The paper argues that a single legal framework for adult social care, including adult safeguarding, with have substantial benefits in terms of legal clarity, consistency and efficiency.

A clear and single legal framework is important for older and disabled people, and their carers, in order to understand fully their entitlements, and for local authorities and partnership agencies (such as the NHS and the police) in order to understand fully their responsibilities.

The paper provides a clear summary of the Law Commission's final report – in particular the recommendations for adult safeguarding.

The law and guidance concerning the social care of adults are a mess. More than 30 statutes and guidance documents deal with this area, many of which overlap or contradict each other, some dating back five decades. Because of this, the Law Commission has been asked to review the law and propose changes, which is, as the Law Society Gazette has put it, ‘the most radical shake‐up of adult social care in 60 years’ (Rayner, 2010). It is estimated that such legislation would affect 1.8 million people and six million carers (Brindle, 2010). The consultation document was published in February 2010 following a scoping exercise, and the closure date for responses was the 1st July 2010. The hope is that the consultation exercise will result in a response next year and a Bill drafted by the summer of 2012. In this article, we review the background to the consultation, and explore the Law Commission's proposals for reform. We examine the issues with particular reference to the readership of this journal, and make suggestions for change. We have also submited this article to the Law Commission as a response to the consultation document.

The purpose of this paper is to set out the Law Commission's proposals for the reform of the law relating to UK health professional regulation and, in England only, social workers.

The paper summarises the main provisional proposals from the consultation paper.

The consultation paper argued for the reform of the law in this area.

There are suggestions for reforming the law which could form the basis of a new legal framework introduced in 2014.

The paper sets out the proposed new legal framework.

The European Commission adopted its green paper on mental health on 14 October 2005, taking forward the Mental Health Declaration and Action Plan for Europe endorsed by the 52 member states of the WHO European region at the WHO Ministerial Conference on Mental Health in Helsinki in January 2005. Monika Kosinska interviews Jürgen Scheftlein, project and policy officer at the European Commission Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection, who drafted the paper, about its implications for member states.

This paper seeks to set out the Law Commission's final recommendations for the reform of adult social care, including the community care assessment process, service provision, and the recommendations for a new legal framework for adult safeguarding in England and Wales.

The paper discusses each of the Law Commission's recommendations for adult social care and contrasts them with the proposals put forward at the consultation phase of the review.

The paper argues that a single legal framework for adult social care, including adult safeguarding, will have substantial benefits in terms of legal clarity, consistency, and efficiency. A clear and single legal framework is important for older and disabled people, and their carers, in order to understand fully their entitlements, and for local authorities and partnership agencies (such as the NHS and the police) in order to fully understand their responsibilities.

The paper provides a clear summary of the Law Commission's final report – in particular the recommendations for community care assessments and service provision and adult safeguarding.

This paper aims at offering a contribution which addresses one particular issue – heritage assets – as an exemplar of the challenges facing accounting practices in achieving transparency in government and public services.

After having identified three levels of transparency, a documentary analysis is used as the primary research method.

The investigation carried out reveals that the first level, or minimal level, of transparency is unlikely to be achieved for public organizations with heritage assets, mainly due to deep seated, pernicious problems of asset recognition and valuation.

This paper contributes to the debate on what constitutes “good public governance” by examining whether accounting can foster or enhance “good governance” through the lens of transparency.

The publication of the Coalition Government's NHS White Paper seems to be proposing a revitalised relationship between adult social care and the NHS. This article explores these proposals and concludes that, although they hold promise, they may be insufficiently robust to overcome the priority the White Paper gives to competition rather than collaboration. It is suggested that social care is in danger of becoming a handmaiden to health care in an increasingly privatised market that could move towards an insurance‐based model of funding.