Search results

The applicable jurisdiction for insolvency proceedings, as provided by the Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings, is the court of the Member State where the debtor's center of main interest (COMI) is located (Article 3(1)). The Regulation, however, does not provide a comprehensive definition of the COMI. This paper seeks to explore the meaning and developments behind the meaning of COMI as influenced by judicial reasoning and conflicts across Member States.

The study centres around the emerging jurisprudence and analyses case law across Member States in order to draw conclusions on the meaning of COMI and the emerging concepts. Extensive consideration of statutory interpretation, case reports and judicial comment is present in order to inform and develop conclusions.

In the absence of a definition it appears that the only relevant European guidance emerges from recital 13 and Article 3 (1). With little guidance in the Regulation, it has therefore been left to national courts to decide how the notion of COMI should be interpreted. Determining the COMI has emerged as one of the most controversial aspect and the principle point of legal conflict, with some highly debated cases within member states’ courts. On the basis of the case law, it is suggested that the interpretation of COMI is more flexible in UK and Italian courts. The approach adopted in continental Europe is referred to as the “centre of operations approach”, i.e. the debtor's COMI has to be determined by the place where he is “ascertainable by third parties”. The Anglo Saxon approach, on the other hand, is known as the “mind of management approach”, i.e. the debtor's COMI must be situated where decisions are actually made. The latter seems to enjoy a more practical and accessible approach.

Not only will the findings assist those seeking to understand the process and COMI requirements across member states but it will also assist those researchers seeking to understanding the comparative and conflict of law barriers to pan‐European insolvency proceedings.

The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to amplify the imperativeness for a re-oriented regulatory approach that prioritizes constructive engagement with the regulated communities, harnessing the existing pool of savings and retention of market participation.

The paper adopts a doctrinal legal research design with data drawn from primary and secondary sources of law. The primary sources include case laws and statutes, and the secondary sources include book chapters, journal articles and other internet-sourced materials.

The paper finds that the status quo in Nigeria if left to continue would spell severe economic disaster for Nigeria’s securities administration, but a well-structured realignment of the regulations would boost the country’s securities market effectiveness.

The research’s conclusions and suggestions might only be applicable to Nigeria’s particular situation with regard to capital market development and securities regulation. Other nations or locations with distinct regulatory systems, market structures and economic situations may not be able to immediately adapt it. When extending the research results outside of the Nigerian environment, caution should be exercised. For regulatory agencies and policymakers, the research offers insightful suggestions. The analysis may pinpoint certain areas where policy changes are required to address reoccurring problems and improve the chances for a healthy capital market.

For Nigeria’s regulatory frameworks controlling securities to be strengthened, this paper would be crucial. To make sure they are in line with global best practices, this entails examining and revising current laws, rules and standards. A stronger regulatory environment may also result from the implementation of harsher enforcement procedures and consequences for noncompliance. It is also required for creating market infrastructure, fostering market integration and cooperation, facilitating access to capital, monitoring and evaluation. It would also benefit investor education and protection.

Addressing these persistent issues and potential remedies in Nigeria’s capital market development and securities regulation would have various advantageous social effects. These include improved market infrastructure, more financial inclusion, improved investment protection for investors and improved market openness and integrity. Such results will help Nigerian society as a whole by fostering economic expansion, job creation, wealth distribution and general social progress.

This paper is the original work of the authors and has not been published anywhere nor submitted to another journal for publication.

This study aims to investigate the coordinated impact of regulations on the predicted probability of a banking crisis in Africa.

The study used the dynamic panel instrumental variable probit regression model of 52 African economies over the period 2006 to 2018.

The authors observe that banking crisis is persistent for few years but dissipates in the long run. The results show that board mechanism and ownership control are important in reducing the likelihood of banking crisis. The authors found a negative impact of regulatory capital and monetary policy on the predicted probability of a banking crisis while regulatory quality was not strong in reducing the likelihood of banking crisis. There was also evidence to support that regulatory capital and monetary policy augment the negative impact of board mechanism and ownership control on the predicted probability of a banking crisis.

The limitation of the study is that it did not explore all measures of regulatory framework and how they impact banking crisis. However, it has an advantage of using alternative measures of regulations in a banking crisis probability model. Therefore, future studies should include other macro-prudential regulations, regulatory environments and supervision and observe how they are coordinated to reduce possible crisis in a robust methodological framework.

The research has policy implications for monetary authorities and policymakers to set coordinated regulations through internal banking mechanisms that are relevant in sustaining banking system stability goals. Countries in Africa should strengthen their quality of regulation in such a way that it can play a strong and complementary role to a robust internal control mechanisms, so as to maintain stability in the banking system. In general, regulators and policymakers should design greater coordination of external and internal regulations through a single regulatory framework and a common resolution mechanism that make the banking system more robust in curbing possible crisis.

The policy implication of the study is to build banking confidence in the society.

This study analyses the interactions of different components of internal and external regulatory framework in helping to reduce the probability of a banking crisis in Africa.

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the ways in which contemporary organisations are imposing their own private sanctions on fraudsters.

The research draws on primary data from interviews with counter fraud practitioners in the UK, secondary sources and case examples.

Such developments have been stimulated, at least in part, by the broader limitations of the criminal justice system and in particular a “fraud bottleneck”. Alongside criminal sanctions, many examples are provided of organisations employing private prosecutions innovative forms of civil sanction and “pseudo state” sanctions, most commonly civil penalties comparable to fines.

Such changes could mark the beginning of the “rebirth of private prosecution” and the further expansion of private punishment. Growing private involvement in state sanctions and the development of private sanctions represents a risk to traditional guarantees of justice. There are differences in which comparable frauds are dealt with by corporate bodies and thus considerable inconsistency in sanctions imposed. In contrast with criminal justice measures, there is no rehabilitative element to private sanctions. More research is needed to assess the extent of such measures, and establish what is happening, the wider social implications, and whether greater state regulation is needed.

Private sanctions for fraud are likely to continue to grow, as organisations pursue their own measures rather than relying on increasingly over-stretched criminal justice systems. Their emergence, extent and implications are not fully understood by researchers and therefore need much more research, consideration and debate. These private measures need to be more actively recognised by criminal justice policy-makers and analysts alongside the already substantial formal involvement of the private sector in punishment through prisons, electronic tagging and probation, for example. Such measures lack the checks and balances, and greater degree of consistency as laid out in sentencing guidelines, of the criminal justice system. In light of this, consideration needs to be given to greater state regulation of private sanctions for fraud. More also needs to be done to help fraudsters suffering problems such as debt or addiction to rebuild their lives. There is a strong case for measures beyond the criminal justice system to support such fraudsters to be created and publicly promoted.

The findings are of relevance to criminal justice policy-makers, academics and counter fraud practitioners in the public and private sectors.

This paper aims to examine whether directors duties, as they are typically presented in Anglo‐American corporations law, remain appropriate and relevant given recent corporate governance developments and trends in global product and capital markets.

The paper employs a comparative approach, examining aspects of corporate governance developments in the UK, the US and Australia.

The paper finds that product and capital markets are increasingly placing a premium on good corporate social responsibility and hence, Anglo‐American corporations law should be reformed to clarify directors' capacity to address broader stakeholder concerns.

The paper provides a comprehensive summary of important currents in contemporary corporate governance and provides a market‐driven justification for changing corporations law.

The success enjoyed by some of the alternative agrifood movements has led to a dual process: on the one hand, their mainstreaming and cooptation; while on the other hand, their institutionalization into public regulation and law. This dual process is the result of the influence these movements have had on consumers and politicians and serves to demonstrate the constant exchange between the spheres of public and private regulation, a feature that characterizes the neoliberal model of governance. In turn, this has led to the appearance of new alternative initiatives which may converge with or diverge from founding initiatives when these are the result of divisions within a movement. The question that arises here is obvious: despite these evident achievements, by working within the market and using the tools of neoliberal regulation, have these movements managed to generate the social change they intended from the outset? This chapter will attempt to answer the question by offering a reflection on two of the most widely discussed aspects of this strategy: first, the private and/or public space where these movements develop and the citizen-consumer duality of the actors to whom they appeal; and second, their ability to generate standards, norms, and certification systems, that is, their ability to establish the rules of the game.

To compare the profitability and technical efficiency of firms in a monopoly industry, airports, operating with different degrees of market power and under differing regulatory regimes, minimalist in New Zealand and interventionist in Australia.

Unlike previous privatisation studies, this study measures efficiency and profitability separately. Using data envelopment analysis (DEA), the technical efficiency of privatised airports is assessed, and this independent measure is used in regression analyses to determine whether efficiency, regulation or privatisation is related to airport profitability.

For firms with monopolistic characteristics operating under minimalist regulation, profitability is related to market power, not efficiency improvements. For firms operating in a regulated environment, profitability is related to regulation, which constrains market power but does not impede efficiency.

This study is limited by its small sample size and its generalisability due to its single industry and regional focus. However, the findings support assertions that the impact of privatisation cannot be assessed independently of industry structure and regulation.

Policy makers considering SOE privatisation in non‐competitive markets should introduce either competition or regulation if firm efficiency is a desired outcome.

Academics and policy makers should be aware that privatisation and competition are not only complementary, as per the extant literature, but they are essential bedfellows. In the absence of competition, regulation is required to control for market power.

As China is transforming from a planned economy a market‐oriented economy, private enterprise plays a prominent role in China's economy today. This paper introduces the status of private enterprise and focuses on its records management. By explaining the changes in China's policy towards the private sector, it deals mainly with practice in both archive administration and the records management of private companies. Government archives administration changed along with national policy from serving only the public sector to serving both public and private sectors evenly. For the private sector, archival consciousness is the key element in its fledging stage of records management. The paper also analyzes the characteristics of private companies that are different from state‐owned ones and the advantages and disadvantages of records management, and predicts some aspects of its development.

The aim of this article is to formulate and represent some common characteristics about conflict of interest as a global legal occurrence. All the conclusions made here are based upon 11 European countries legislations. As do similarities so do differences in every separate legislation give us the reasoning that there is a common European model on conflict of interest. The aim of the article is to provoke a discussion on this topic which is to help creating a new and better European legislation in the field of conflict of interest.

The basic methods used for writing the article are comparison and analysis on the judicial system concerning conflict of interest in the treated European countries.

Conflict of interest is extremely important governmental instrument in the fight against corruption and spending funds or using public properties for private purposes. Besides some of the analyzed countries, i.e. Germany, where such an act is treated as a crime according to the criminal code, the conflict of interest is an administrative offence. Finding conflict of interest is a matter in the field of administrative control, so when there is a conflict of interest, it follows that administrative punishment should be enforced. There exists a conjunction between the substantive staff dealing with conflict of interest in much of the mentioned countries. Two main types of finding were described – by a specialized governmental body or by the appointment authority or by some other internal for the departmental system body.

The article claims that conflict of interest aims for higher public trust towards institutions and to consolidate democracy. As far as conflict of interest is often applied when the concern is spending a considerable funds, including supranational, there comes the question for the need of a new supranational legislation. A review was made on the conflict of interest in European countries. Free movement of people, goods and capital in EU boundaries demands a broadening of the existing legislative system.

This case study follows the history of the personal and experiences, viewpoints, and attitudes of the key actors from both parties over the period of setting up and implementing a primary authority partnership. It is one of a series research papers and case studies that study approaches to improve compliance with public and private regulations through cooperative and collaborative approaches. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

It is a grounded qualitative study of what a number of individuals said in the course of a number of interviews. The aim and objectives being to obtain, from the key actors, their personal viewpoints, attitudes to and experiences of the partnership. Unlike some grounded approaches the research was based on the priori themes of cooperation and collaboration using semi structured interviews. At one stage, because of difficulty of access to the key actors caused by major re-development of the company, questionnaires replaced interviews.

The authors found that barriers to achieving a successful partnership included an initial reluctance, by all parties concerned, to cede some of their management autonomy to others and experiences of uncooperative behaviour between the public and private sectors in the past. They were largely overcome as the implementation of the project progressed resulting in improved food safety compliance management based on mutual trust. Other benefits for Preston City Council were immediate cost savings for Preston City Council in their use of human resources. For E.H. Booths, Ltd no initial cost saving was made, but there is potential longer term savings to be made through better risk based targeting of resources. These benefits only being made possible by the collaborative effort and support from all parties and individuals involved.

On its own this case study research is limited by its size and scope but the emerging topics and findings highlight the difficulties and barriers faced in setting up partnerships between public regulators and businesses. Therefore, the results can be of value to similar studies and other areas where cooperation, collaboration, partnership, and co-regulation are significant contributory factors to successful compliance strategies.