Search results

In recent enforcement actions by several capital market regulators in some common law jurisdictions, the issue of directors' reliance on legal advice in relation to compliance with their statutory duties has been raised. This paper aims to discuss the dilemma faced by directors and regulators in assessing the extent to which reliance on legal advice can provide sufficient protection against allegation of breach of directors' duties and the disclosure obligation.

This paper discusses recent case studies that highlight the often conflicting regulatory stance.

These cases indicate that the disclosure conundrum is a real challenge to regulators and directors alike. These enforcement activities have resulted in mixed views as to whether these decisions have rightly upheld the standard of care expected to be exercised by directors or are unduly burdensome and not pragmatic for honest and well‐meaning directors.

The legal position is still evolving in view of the numerous regulatory actions in various jurisdictions regarding financial reporting and disclosure obligation of directors and corporations.

Given the numerous disclosure and reporting obligations that a listed company must comply with and the regulatory enforcement actions that may be taken against the directors, it is important for directors to understand the implication of this case and similar enforcement activities on directors' oversight duty.

To explain regulatory developments and changes to compliance obligations for asset managers registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) as commodity pool operators of registered investment companies.

Provides a general overview of new CFTC rules (Harmonization Rules) that afford relief to commodity pool operators of commodity pools that are registered as investment companies under the Investment Company Act of 1940; describes the specific CFTC disclosure, reporting and recordkeeping requirements that remain applicable to commodity pool operators that are also subject to Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulation by virtue of operating commodity pools that are registered investment companies; discusses reliance on substituted compliance with applicable SEC requirements; outlines the method for claiming relief under the Harmonization Rules; provides guidance for CPOs of RICs that use controlled foreign corporations (CFCs).

CPOs of RICs benefit from “substituted compliance” under the CFTC Harmonization Rules.

Explains to investment advisers that have registered as CPOs of RICs the disclosure, reporting and recordkeeping obligations that apply to them, how to take advantage of compliance with SEC requirements in lieu of CFTC requirements, and how to claim relief with respect to certain CFTC compliance obligations.

Practical explanation by experienced derivatives and securities lawyers.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the amount of online information reported by Spanish municipal-owned enterprises (MOEs) according to the legal requirements indicated in the Spanish Law 19/2013 on Transparency and Good Governance. In addition, the authors analyze how different variables can affect the extent of online information reported by such enterprises.

To do this, we conducted a content analysis of the web pages of Spanish MOEs located in cities with more than 100.000 habitants, as well as those cities that are provincial capitals. To find information about these enterprises, the authors accessed the General Intervention Board of the State Administration (IGAE) webpage (www.igae.pap.minhafp.gob.es/sitios/igae/es-ES/Paginas/inicio.aspx). This sample was composed of 273 enterprises majority owned and controlled by local governments.

The findings reveal that the amount of information reported by Spanish MOEs, in accordance with the legal requirements, is quite reduced. The most influential variables for explaining Spanish MOEs’ commitment to information disclosure are population size, political positioning of the local government and reputation.

This study seeks to contribute to the scarce literature on mandatory transparency in the public sector as well as to reinforce the degree of compliance with requirements of information disclosure.

The purpose of this paper is to examine whether mandatory disclosure of information accompanying the sale of real estate achieves its aim of informed purchasers.

Using a case study approach focused on mandatory disclosure in South Australia data was collected from interviews and focus groups with key personnel in the property industry involved in the production of information required to fulfil vendors’ disclosure obligations.

The authors found that purchasers are ill-served by a long and complex form of mandatory disclosure with a short time frame that prevents the use of the information provided. Without good form design and increased digital affordances provided by the cadastral and conveyancing systems, mandatory disclosure is insufficient to ensure minimisation of information asymmetry between vendor and purchaser.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first Australian qualitative study that examines the utility of mandatory vendor disclosure in real estate sales and the first to consider the impact of the digitalisation of cadastral and conveyancing systems upon the efficacy of mandatory disclosure regimes.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of how the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) of 1974, as amended , applies to securities professionals such as registered investment advisers, registered broker‐dealers and individual registered representatives and financial planners who advise, manage, or trade for investment portfolios of private employee benefit plans and individual retirement accounts.

The paper is designed as a primer to familiarize securities professionals with the terminology, scope and subject‐matter of ERISA as it applies to benefit plan investment transactions. When appropriate, the regulatory framework of ERISA is compared and contrasted with the more familiar securities law regulatory scheme.

The various Federal laws loosely known as “ERISA” significantly impact securities professionals in connection with the marketing of financial products and services to employee benefit plans, including IRAs, and it is critical that securities professionals have a general overview of how they do so.

The research set out is only a broad summary, and covers an area of law that is rapidly developing. It should not be considered a definitive summary of the law but a starting‐point for further, in‐depth inquiry.

Any financial professional seeking to develop or market financial products and services to benefit plans can use the paper to become familiar with the framework and terminology of ERISA.

This is a reprint of a paper first published in 2004, with extensive revisions to reflect sweeping changes in the law and new developments in the financial marketplace, plus an overview of “hot topics”.

The paper examines the disclosure of information within public contract awards under EU law. EU Public Procurement rules have several objectives that may at some times be conflicting with each other. A certain level of transparency of public procurement procedure is necessary in order to fight corruption, enhance trade opportunities and ensure effective legal remedies. On the other hand, too much transparency may have certain anti-competitive effects. The national laws regarding disclosure of information vary in different EU member states. In Finland the EU law principle of effective remedies has been interpreted as requiring full transparency among the bidders. The transparency rules under EU law and certain Member States' national laws are analysed. As a conclusion, it is suggested that the rules on disclosure should not be left solely to the discretion of member states as the over-transparent approach taken by certain member states may negatively affect the markets both on a national and EU level.

The aim of this article is to provide solutions to protect the weaker party in management and distribution contracts, especially in the field of franchising.

The paper is based on a review of literature, legislation and practices concerning management and franchise contracts. The regulation of this field at a national level consists of laws that are both private and mandatory in nature. Certain questions are raised concerning the obligatory nature of regulations when applied to the management of international franchise contracts.

This article studies the question of whether the imperative application of laws to international contract management is appropriate. These contracts are concluded through the form of adhesion contracts, which have been prewritten by the dominant party and by which the adherent, the distributor, the franchisee or the agent, are placed in a weaker legal position. Considering the absence of international tuitive rules, this article suggests a way to guarantee the protection of parties in a weaker position.

This research provides entrepreneurs, managers and other members of the business community with legal tools and mechanisms for the protection of the franchisee's position.

This approach may well be helpful in finding solutions to legal issues that are of great importance in the negotiation of service contracts, as a way to overcome the difficulty of finding solid arguments to extend the rules that protect consumers and workers in service agreements.

This article provides an overview of the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) recent approval of a package of rulemakings and interpretations designed to enhance the quality and transparency of investors’ relationships with investment advisers and broker-dealers.

The article provides legal analysis for and historical context of the requirements of the SEC’s adopted rules, Regulation Best Interest and Form CRS in addition to the two separate interpretations under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the Standard of Conduct for Investment Advisers; and the Broker-Dealer Exclusion from the Definition of Investment Adviser.

The SEC’s adopted regulatory package does not adopt a uniform fiduciary standard for broker-dealers and investment advisers but instead promulgates legal requirements and mandated disclosures in order to conform to the SEC’s perceived expectations for reasonable investors.

Investment advisers and broker-dealers should consult with their legal counsel in assessing how and to what extent the new regulatory package is applicable to them.

This article provides practical guidance from lawyers who have extensive experience with the Investment Company Act, Investment Advisers Act, and the Securities Acts.