Search results

The purpose of this article is to inform the various securities market participants about new Exchange Act Rule 13h‐1, its specifics and the requirements it may impose.

The paper outlines the various requirements of the Rule and additional background information and some clarifications based on the SEC adopting release.

The Rule requires “large traders”, as defined in the Rule, to self‐identify to the SEC and to obtain from the SEC a large trader identification number (“LTID”) and provide the LTID to each US‐registered broker‐dealer through which it effects transactions in NMS securities. The Rule also requires US‐registered broker‐dealers to provide to the SEC, on request, data on large traders' transactions in NMS securities by the morning after the transactions are effected; and it requires US‐registered broker‐dealers to maintain books and records, and perform certain monitoring functions, with respect to these transactions. The SEC has also adopted Form 13H under Exchange Act Section 13(h). A large trader must submit to the SEC Form 13H as an “Initial Filing” to receive its LTID and file various periodic amendments thereafter.

The paper provides practical guidance from experienced securities lawyers. The authors hope the discussion in the paper will enable affected market participants, which include US‐ registered broker‐dealers as well as other persons within the Rule's definition of large trader, to be informed about and to prepare for compliance with the Rule.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze a recent US Securities and Exchange Commission order dismissing an administrative proceeding against the former general counsel of a broker‐dealer relating to his purported failure to supervise a registered representative.

The paper explains the story of the general counsel of a broker‐dealer who recommended that a registered representative be fired for misconduct, the effective over‐ruling of that recommendation by the vice chairman of the firm who supervised the registered representative, the SEC's order instituting administrative proceedings (OIP) alleging that the general counsel was the registered representative's supervisor and failed in his supervisory responsibilities, an administrative law judge's finding that the general counsel was the registered representative's supervisor but was not negligent under the circumstances, the SEC Division of Enforcement's appeal of that decision, and the SEC Commissioners’ dismissal of the appeal after a split 1‐1 vote.

The paper finds that the SEC's “non‐decision” decision leaves compliance and legal personnel with no clear guidance as to when they may have supervisory responsibilities with respect to broker‐dealer personnel and the SEC has not explained whether compliance personnel have different and/or additional compliance responsibilities as compared to legal personnel.

The SEC and its Division of Enforcement are likely to pursue and penalize compliance and legal officers notwithstanding their efforts to alert senior management to wrongdoing by employees they do not actually supervise.

The paper provides expert guidance by experienced securities lawyers.

A distinction must be drawn between a dismissal on the one hand, and on the other a repudiation of a contract of employment as a result of a breach of a fundamental term of that contract. When such a repudiation has been accepted by the innocent party then a termination of employment takes place. Such termination does not constitute dismissal (see London v. James Laidlaw & Sons Ltd (1974) IRLR 136 and Gannon v. J. C. Firth (1976) IRLR 415 EAT).

Recently, the public and academic discussion on elite education and the selection of top performers in Germany has led to a renewed controversy about social exclusion and inequality. Consequently, the use of terms such as ‘elite’, ‘excellence’ and ‘intellectual giftedness’ have provoked a debate about the necessity, opportunities, and rejection of educational distinctions. This chapter takes a comparative perspective to examine a private boarding school with a rich tradition, and a relatively new state-run public boarding school, examining their status as exclusive educational institutions, including their selection processes, elite aspirations and educational philosophies. The analysis focusses on how the schools construe themselves as elite and how exclusive membership is created and negotiated within the boarding school context. Using a multilevel qualitative approach and empirical data, this chapter offers findings on mechanisms of elite formation in boarding schools between two poles: the reproduction of an existing elite status and the production of elites from scratch. The analyses show the establishment of a distinct composition of students – either selected by milieu affiliation or by cognitive abilities – resulting in specific processes of coherence and distinction within the school communities. Thus, this chapter makes a contribution to a differentiated observation of new educational hierarchies in Germany.

Communications regarding this column should be addressed to Mrs. Cheney, Peabody Library School, Nashville, Tenn. 37203. Mrs. Cheney does not sell the books listed here. They are available through normal trade sources. Mrs. Cheney, being a member of the editorial board of Pierian Press, will not review Pierian Press reference books in this column. Descriptions of Pierian Press reference books will be included elsewhere in this publication.

The Bureau of Economics in the Federal Trade Commission has a three-part role in the Agency and the strength of its functions changed over time depending on the preferences and ideology of the FTC’s leaders, developments in the field of economics, and the tenor of the times. The over-riding current role is to provide well considered, unbiased economic advice regarding antitrust and consumer protection law enforcement cases to the legal staff and the Commission. The second role, which long ago was primary, is to provide reports on investigations of various industries to the public and public officials. This role was more recently called research or “policy R&D”. A third role is to advocate for competition and markets both domestically and internationally. As a practical matter, the provision of economic advice to the FTC and to the legal staff has required that the economists wear “two hats,” helping the legal staff investigate cases and provide evidence to support law enforcement cases while also providing advice to the legal bureaus and to the Commission on which cases to pursue (thus providing “a second set of eyes” to evaluate cases). There is sometimes a tension in those functions because building a case is not the same as evaluating a case. Economists and the Bureau of Economics have provided such services to the FTC for over 100 years proving that a sub-organization can survive while playing roles that sometimes conflict. Such a life is not, however, always easy or fun.

This paper aims to outline principal implications for institutions, particularly universities, in supporting the increasingly complex tools which are used in the data lifecycle.

The discussion paper draws upon the experience of authors in this domain at the institutional, national and international levels.

Support for research tools by universities has high-level implications, ranging from financial, strategic and compliance through to capacity, capability and connectivity. The large number of existing tools highlights the need to evaluate them against standardised checklists to determine suitability and levels of resources required for support. Librarians and other information professionals need to expand their current support for research tools beyond the discovery phase to the entire data lifecycle.

Universities can use this paper to assess their maturity in supporting tools in the data lifecycle. Librarians, in particular, can broaden their knowledge of the various categories of tools which support specific aspects of that lifecycle.

While much attention is currently being focused on supporting researchers with their data management requirements, there is a general lack of literature on how to support tools as a critical element in enhancing research outcomes.

This chapter reviews conceptualizations of parent involvement and family engagement as they aim to support children’s learning and development and introduces the reader to relational family engagement, a new approach to engaging families in their children’s early learning. Relational family engagement is discussed as central to effectively engaging culturally and linguistically diverse families as active contributors to their children’s lifelong success as learners. The authors delineate three principles fundamental to relational family engagement, supported by an interdisciplinary review of research. Reflective practice is explored as a pathway to relational family engagement. The authors assert that the integration of reflective practice holds promise as a way to facilitate and deepen relationships among staff in early childhood programs, between the early childhood education program staff and families, and between families and children, such that children’s early learning experiences are enhanced across both home and preschool contexts while drawing upon their families’ cultural and linguistic assets.