Search results

A difference is noted by comparing the net loans to the non-financial sector in the two sets of institutions. The post-global financial crisis (GFC), literature agrees on a reduced lending pace by financial institutions (FIs) as a result of stricter capital regulations. At the same time, an increasing volume of outstanding loans, directed even to advanced countries, characterize the balance sheet of several multilateral development banks (MDBs).

This paper observes how a different degree of banking regulation might have shaped the economic response to the GFC by FIs and MDBs.

The authors indicate that MDBs’ financing, with a coherent objective of countercyclical support to the economies hit by the GFC, seems to have filled a market gap caused by the FIs’ pro-cyclical lending reduction.

While a controversial issue is whether Basel standards should be imposed on MDBs, a harmonization amongst MDBs of their transparency and reporting standards might be beneficial: some preliminary consideration has been portrayed.

To provide a practical look at the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive 2011/61/EU (AIFMD) and other regulatory requirements as they pertain to marketing funds in Europe.

A series of questions and answers exploring some of the principal issues to be aware of when raising a fund in Europe. AIFMD is the key focus, but we also examine other financial regulation that may apply alongside AIFMD, as well as cross-border implications of any marketing initiative.

One of the original aims of AIFMD was to harmonise the management and marketing of alternative investment funds in Europe so that a uniform set of rules will eventually apply. However, in the meantime, the law and regulations relating to marketing are particularly complicated, with a wide range of different requirements that may apply depending on who you are and where you are marketing.

Practical guidance from experienced investment management and financial regulatory lawyers.

Markets for public contracting are in the process of transition. Various public/private partnership arrangements replace conventional purchasing, especially within the local and regional government area. Municipal entities may not be in a position to define their needs up-front because they would not have the overview of what the market may have to offer. So one should ask: Is the traditional ban-on-negotiations in mandatory tender procedures (sealed bidding) - such as it is in EU public procurement law - counter-effective to genuine best value for public money? The article displays significant differences between European Union (EU) law, U.S. law and other regimes such as United Nations Model law, The World Trade Organisation’s Government Procurement Agreement (WTO/GPA), The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), and the NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement). New avenues for public/private demand a new agenda and the recent EU 2004 directive scheme attempts to respond to the market challenges. The author accepts that the new directive on public contracting facilitates a more smooth approach than in current EU law with regard to high-tech complicated contract awards, but questions whether the ’competitive dialogue’ really can afford tailor-made solutions to cope with long-term public/private partnership arrangements of the kind now spreading all over Europe

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.

The UK authority published its first regulatory guidance on crypto-assets in July 2019. This paper aims to critically evaluate the effectiveness of the crypto-asset regulation in the UK and the consistency of the existing regulatory scheme.

This paper adopts comparative methods to carry out the analysis. The paper begins by elaborating the development of crypto-assets alongside the financial innovation in the world and pinpointing the core Acts and Regulations applied to crypto-assets in the UK. The paper also discusses a court case in the EU to highlight an argument among legal professions concerning crypto-assets classification.

Through carefully analysing relevant primary and secondary legislation of the UK and EU, this paper identifies some unclarified issues in the regulatory framework and discovers three flaws in the regulatory system. The paper concludes that the effectiveness of the current regulatory scheme is poor and room for improvement exists.

The paper provides the first review and a thorough analysis of the Laws and Acts applied to the crypto-asset regulation in the UK. It also calls on a simpler and clearer regulatory scheme from the perspectives of market participants and consumers. The discovered issues in the crypto-asset regulation in the UK may urge authorities to improve the existing regulatory frameworks and legal provisions.

The purpose of this paper is to report and review the legislative and regulatory responses to the global financial crisis (GFC) from within the United Kingdom (UK).

The paper observes aspects of the effect of the GFC within the UK, using economic statistics and institutional case studies. It summarises the laws that the European Union (EU) and the UK have produced in the wake of the crisis and recommends approaches to be taken from this point.

The regulators are putting in place a comprehensive, integrated framework, much of which is sensible in its content. However, this structure will be insufficient to re-establish the effective operation of the financial sector, unless firms comply with the rules and a “relationship culture” is developed.

It is not yet clear how the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) will perform and coordinate.

The paper presents a comprehensive review of relevant EU and UK legislation, thereby bringing readers up to date with the situation in the UK.