Search results

The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), designed to establish and enforce food-safety standards for foods from domestic and foreign origins, focuses federal regulation on the prevention of food contamination. Many concerns have been expressed about how FSMA-compliance costs will affect the economic viability of very small and small farms, which have higher average compliance costs than do larger farms, thus marginalizing their ability to compete in the marketplace. The purpose of this study is to estimate how FSMA will affect differently sized US and international tomato producers in the fresh-tomato industry. A simulation approach is applied for changes of quantities demanded, revenues, and profits for differently sized farms based on elasticities estimated using a differential approach. Our findings indicate that both domestic and foreign tomato producers with both very small and small farms are expected to see significant losses in profit after the adoption of FSMA. The practical implications of these findings are that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should be aware of, be concerned about, and take into consideration the adverse consequences of their regulatory decisions on food prices, food-industry costs, the structure of the food industry, and product diversity. In essence, the FDA needs to strike a balance between food safety (the primary objective of FSMA) and market performance.

The purpose of this paper is to determine the impact of the passage and signing of P.L. 111-353, the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), on the market value of agribusiness firms.

The authors conduct an event study of the shareholder value effects of FSMA. The short-window analyses estimate the three-, five-, and seven-day market responses to three key event dates: passage by the House, passage by the Senate, and the signing of FSMA by President Obama. The long-window analyses examine a time period that encompasses the three informational events, as well as the 30 months after the signing of FSMA. To control for the effects of market-wide fluctuations, the authors use two alternative models of the returns generating process to calculate abnormal returns, the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) and the Fama-French three-factor model.

The short-window analyses show no evidence of a significant reaction to the passage of FSMA by the House or the Senate, but evidence of a significant negative reaction to the signing of FSMA by President Obama. The long window results which span the of passage by House, passage by the Senate and signing by the President indicate a decline in the average market value of agribusiness firms on the order of – 10 percent over the period. Additionally, the authors find some evidence that this effect is not evenly spread out across different types of agribusiness firms (wholesale, grocery, and processing).

The study is the first to examine the impact of P.L.111-353 on the market value of agribusiness firms.

To introduce and summarize the key features of market‐misconduct‐related offenses in the UK with a particular focus on insider dealing.

Provides a detailed overview of: the market abuse regime of the UK's financial regulator, the Financial Services Authority (FSA),which implements the EC Market Abuse Directive; other regulatory powers used by the FSA in cases of market misconduct; and relevant criminal law offenses.

The FSA is given a broad range of powers that enable it to bring criminal or regulatory proceedings in the UK for market misconduct. The FSA's powers have thus far been used primarily within the regulatory framework, but the FSA has said that it will be prepared to pursue certain cases through the criminal courts where behavior justifies criminal rather than regulatory action. Although the two regimes are similar, there are some differences and both regimes must therefore be considered when analyzing compliance requirements or whether market misconduct has occurred.

This paper is an important reference for publicly traded issuers, those who recommend investments or investment strategies, and their advisors where any investment activity is carried on with the UK or involves UK markets.

To provide a summary of the action against Top Bet Placement Services, involving a betting scheme that infringed FSMA 2000.

A detailed exposition of the factual background to this action, including an explanation of how it changed its structure and operations over time in order to attempt to allay concerns about infringements of FSMA 2000.

From the facts that have emerged in this case that sollcitors and counsel were involved throughout this scheme's existence and those concerned, including FSA, appear to have gone to considerable lengths to clarify where exactly this betting scheme fitted into the FSMA legislative framework and how.

Case law on the meaning of the terms used in scoping out the definition of “collective investment scheme” is thin on the ground.

Owing to the tremendously vast and unprecedented nature of the directly‐conferred statutory powers of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) (under the Financial Services and Markets Act (FSMA) 2000), there is need for ample accountability on its part. The paper aims to discuss the situation.

A critical analysis of the Combined Code on corporate governance. The paper argues in favour of obliging the FSA to adopt the Code as a way of making it accountable.

It is desirable that the FSA be accountable and that this can best be done via the imposition of corporate governance principles. The paper includes a suggestion of election of the FSA's governing board.

The wider re‐drafting (and construction), by Parliament, of section 7 is the most attractive mode of enforcing corporate governance as an accountability mechanism. This is so, as it will give it far greater force than at present by creating a mandatory regime to bind the FSA in this respect. What is required, therefore, is an amendment of s. 7 of the FSMA 2000 to establish a better accountability method to be imposed on the FSA.

The paper proposes, for the first time, the use of corporate governance (especially the Combined Code) to ensure the accountability of the FSA. The paper is valuable to academics, postgraduate research students and legal practitioners in the area of financial services regulation, corporate law and general public body accountability. It is also useful for those interested incorporate governance and the Combined Code on corporate governance.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the key requirements of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), recently passed by the US Congress to safeguard the nation's food supply, and to ascertain the role of quality professionals in the management of food safety and quality systems for food facilities.

Since genesis of the Act emanates mainly from the recent upsurge in food disease outbreaks in North America, key lessons learnt from the 2008 Listeriosis outbreak in Canada were reviewed. Thereafter, a case study of developing a food safety and quality management system for a “very low risk facility” – i.e. a third party warehouse – was considered. Finally, potential connections between the sections of the FSMA and roles of various quality practitioners were discussed.

Recent study at the third party logistics warehouse revealed developing and implementing pre‐requisite programs (PRPs), i.e. mainly operational and physical controls, had a positive impact on the food safety and quality management system (FSQMS). Hence, quality practitioners may focus on PRPs to enhance compliance to FSMA requirements.

Food production, processing, packaging and/or distribution companies that export their products to the USA, as well as enterprises requiring preventive controls to ensure food safety and quality, can greatly benefit from the services of quality practitioners. Other key inputs the practitioners provide to the FSQMS include costs reduction, value addition, defects prevention, process control, maintenance and improvement.

The paper closely studies quality practitioners’ perspectives towards meeting or even exceeding the new food safety regulatory expectations in food‐related institutions.

The purpose of this paper is to explain the FSA's new disclosure regime for short selling during rights issues, which it introduced by amending the Code of Market Conduct (MAR 1) under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA).

The paper outlines the new provisions; explains the legal basis for the new regime; details the specific additions to the Code of Market Conduct; discusses the use of the UK super‐equivalent positions; explains the lack of FSA consultation based on urgent need for action; discusses practical issues for market participants, including compliance systems and controls; provides answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) relating to the scope of the regime in terms of issuers and transactions covered, the applicability of the disclosure requirement to pre‐existing positions, the timing of intra‐day positions, netting of short and long positions for the purpose of calculating whether a short position reaches the threshold, including short positions in a rights issue in the calculation of the overall net short position, the exclusion of positions an entity holds in its capacity as a market maker, the requirement for the legal entity that holds the short position to make the required disclosures but not to aggregate positions held by its affiliates, the means of disclosure, disclosure deadlines, the content of disclosures, and disclosure of changes in position; and indicates likely further FSA action.

The new measures require market disclosure of short positions of 0.25 per cent or more in companies undertaking rights issues. The deadline for required disclosures is 3.30 pm on the business day following the day the short position threshold is reached. The new rules apply to shares in UK‐listed companies from 20 June 2008. The measures have been implemented as changes to the Code of Market Conduct rather than FSA rules as such. Rather than carrying out a consultation and cost‐benefit analysis as normally required by the FSMA, the FSA apparently relied on the FSMA's provisions that allow immediate amendments in cases of urgent need. The FSA is undertaking a wider review of the capital‐raising process and considering other measures, such as restrictions on stock lending.

On an ongoing basis firms need to have in place systems and controls that identify announcements by companies that they are undertaking rights issues subject to the regime and provide the means to calculate the level of positions held by the firm that might require disclosure.

The paper offers practical guidance by experienced securities lawyers.

This paper summarises the FSA's enforcement action taken to date under the market abuse regime and considers how the implementation of the Market Abuse Directive (‘MAD’) will affect the work of city compliance officers. In particular, this paper focuses on the new requirement for the regulated sector to make suspicious transaction reports in respect of market abusive behaviour as well as considering how the newly revamped market abuse regime will sit alongside the criminal offence of insider dealing.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the jurisdictional expansion of audit into the area of UK financial regulation. The paper draws on the analytical framework of new audit spaces (Andon et al., 2014, 2015), which built on the concept of regulatory space (Hancher and Moran, 1989), and characterises this new audit space as regulatory work.

Through an intensive reading of a variety of publicly available documentary sources, the paper investigates the role of auditors and accountants in the reporting accountants’ and skilled persons’ regimes in the UK under the Banking Act 1987 and the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

The paper identifies a new audit space characterised as regulatory work, which is made up of three distinct phases (and suggests the recent emergence of a fourth phase), and considers the extent to which these phases of regulatory work share common themes across new audit spaces identified by Andon et al. (2015) as independence, reporting, accreditation and mediating.

The paper identifies a further jurisdictional expansion of audit into a new audit space, characterised as regulatory work.

The Financial Services and Markets Act (FSMA) will have a significant impact on the UK financial services industry, but it is suggested that it will make relatively few changes in relation to retail financial services. The new regime will regulate some additional retail investments, and it is possible that the design of polarisation will be altered. The greatest impact, however, is likely to result from the FSA's emphasis on senior management responsibility, whereby firms' senior management will be held personally liable if the firm fails to discharge the key retail duties such as know your customer and giving suitable advice.