Search results

The purpose of this study is to examine the legal system that overrules these concerns within the body of the international investment laws. The question which remains is how can host countries and their ruling bodies maintain their national security without disregarding the legitimate expectations of foreign investments and their international responsibilities?

Balancing the relationship between the national security of the host country and the legitimate expectations of the foreign investments is one of the oldest challenges within the body of the international investment laws because the realization of the right to maintain the national security, without regulating the host countries, leaves room for corruption, and meeting the legitimate expectations of the foreign investments can lead to the disruption of the national sovereignty of the host country.

Studies show that the international investment laws do not take a clear stance when it comes to regulating the relationship between the national security of the host countries and the legitimate expectations of the foreign investments and that they are, in fact, in some cases, paradoxical and disorganized; there are instances of attempts to overprotect the national security of the host country, while the rights and the benefits of the foreign investments are disregarded,

At times there is an attempt to expand the realm of legitimate expectations of the foreign investments which would, in turn, disrupt the national security of the host country.

The strategic importance of distribution for financial services was reflected in and reinforced by the provisions of the Financial Services Act. Through requirements relating to polarization, best advice and commission disclosure, the Financial Services Act sought to create a regulatory framework which would provide the level of investor protection which was appropriate in a market characterized by a high level of information asymmetry and a heavy dependence on commission‐based selling. In practice the desired level of investor protection has failed to materialize, and this can be attributed not so much to a failure of the principles within the Financial Services Act as to a failure in the way in which those principles have been implemented.

The purpose of this paper is to answer a specific research question: How have EU and US regulators translated the idea of central clearing into law?

A meticulous legal research is carried out. First, the pre‐crisis regulatory regime for credit default swap (CDS) is reviewed, from a securities law angle as well as from a comparative Euro‐American perspective. Next, the regulatory processes leading to the adoption of the central clearing regulations are discussed. Thereafter, a material comparative analysis is made of the provisions related to central clearing in the EU and US regulatory initiatives. Finally, the paper is concluded with an evaluation of both legislations in the light of all previous analyses.

The research first shows that central clearing regulations rely on a series of presumptions, both concerning the gravity of counterparty risk threats and the necessity of central clearing. Additionally, the EU and US clearing regulations are similar with regard to the broad innovations they introduce, i.e. the mandatory central clearing of a variety of over‐the‐counter derivatives and counterparty risk management requirements for central clearing institutions and for non‐cleared swaps. However, the specific content of the provisions often differs. Furthermore, both legislations are limited to enouncing broad principles. This is also the case for the crucial provisions related to counterparty risk management. Therefore, these provisions in se do not guarantee the proper regulation of counterparty risk management practices. Consequently, much is to be expected from the implementing measures adopted by regulatory institutions.

The paper provides an overview of those provisions in the European and US regulations that specifically concern central clearing for CDS. It is one of the first papers which does this in a very well‐structured and clearly written manner. Also it is one of the first to provide a clear comparison between the provisions in the EU and the US regulations.

This paper aims to indicate that the foreign investment system in Jordan includes many provisions that create an appropriate environment for encouraging foreign investments and grant a distinctive treatment for the foreign investor that allows them the status equal to the national investor.

This study deals with the protection provided by the Jordan Government for foreign investments to attract foreign investment by studying the guarantees given by Jordan including many legal principles that encourage investment. The legal guarantees for the foreign investor enhance the confidence of the foreign investor in the host country.

The system provides a lot of guarantees with respect to non-commercial risks to which the foreign investor may be exposed.

The paper also clarifies that the role played by bilateral agreements in the field of investments, as these agreements give foreign investments a measure of protection through the guarantees and they are considered as incentives for the investor.

This paper aims to examine the implications of exemptions to facilitate small businesses’ access to crowdfunding (CF) schemes. The aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis and even now witnessed many small profits and non-profits encountering significant difficulties in accessing funding from the conventional sources and on many occasions have to turn to the newly emerging Internet-enabled donation or product compensation CF schemes. Access to securities-based CF schemes has, however, been seriously difficult due to securities laws obstacles. Regulatory authorities in the USA and the UK have responded with exemptions to facilitate small businesses’ access to CF.

The paper driven by the qualitative doctrinal approach would rely extensively on primary data from the applicable regulations and secondary data from industry sources and other publicly available commentaries.

Securities-based CF schemes hitherto heavily restricted in the USA and the UK are under current regulatory interventions-accorded exemption status, thereby enabling enhanced access for those small businesses seeking alternatives to conventional financing and enhanced investment opportunities for small investors. The paper’s preliminary analysis suggests that the proposed new regulatory rules in the USA and the UK are generally well-balanced with adequate small investors’ protection, while simultaneously not hampering the innovative growth of small businesses with excessive restrictions. Further, the preparedness of the regulators to fine-tune the proposed rules as the CF industry evolves would likely ensure its orderly growth, thereby helping to address various humanitarian and social challenges in these jurisdictions.

The added value of the analysis lies in its substantive evaluation of the proposed rules in both jurisdictions to ascertain the feasibility of securities-based CF schemes as alternatives for small businesses in relation to traditional financing and enhanced investment opportunities for small unsophisticated investors.

The law development, especially in the field of investment, is not only directed to achieve the vision of Indonesia 2030, but it is directed to make Indonesia a great nation, protect the potential and plurality of Indonesia and realize the welfare of the nation, both economically independent and having qualified human resources. Based on the description, the purpose of this paper is to examine and find forms of refinement in the investment law development of Indonesia in accordance with the global order.

This paper is qualitative research. This paper examines and finds forms of refinement in the investment law development of Indonesia in accordance with the global order.

The refinement form of investment law development in Indonesia in accordance with the global order begins with Law Number 1 of 1967 on Foreign Investment (PMA) and Law Number 6 of 1968 concerning Domestic Investment (PMDN), which is then followed by the issuance of Presidential Decree Number 29 of 2004 concerning the Implementation of Investment in Foreign Capital Investment (PMA) and Domestic Investment (PMDN) through One Stop Service System. The reconstruction form of the capital investment law is by the issuance of Law Number 25 of 2007 regarding Investment which regulates the domestic investment and foreign investment. The authorized official to coordinate the implementation of investment in Indonesia is the Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM). The consideration of BKPM appointment as the only government agency that handles investment activities of PMA and PMDN is to increase the effectiveness in attracting investors to invest in Indonesia. Therefore, by one stop service, it is expected that the service to the investors will be faster than the previous implementation. One Stop Service System means that the implementation of investment consists of policies and planning of investment development, promotion and investment cooperation, approval services, licensing and investment facilities, control of investment implementation and management of investment information system. Approval services, licensing and investment facilities on PMA and PMDN shall be implemented by BKPM, based on the delegation of authority from the Minister/Head of Non-Department Institution which handle the relevant investment business fields through one stop service system.

This paper only focuses on the investment law development in Indonesia that has never been done before (originality).

To discuss general legal considerations for non-US private equity sponsors who seek to market their funds to US institutional investors.

Explains relevant aspects of US securities laws, commodity exchange laws, pension and employee benefit plan laws, federal income tax laws, and the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).

The evolving US regulatory regime necessitates careful planning and thorough knowledge of relevant laws and regulations to effect a successful US marketing effort.

Practical guidance from experienced investment funds and tax lawyers.

The purpose of this paper is to explain the proposed Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) regulations released on February 8, 2012 by the US Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

The paper provides an overview of the changes to prior FATCA guidance in the proposed regulations, including the definition of a foreign financial institution (FFI), due diligence requirements to identify US accounts, procedures to verify compliance, phase‐in information required to be reported, verification procedures, definitions of FFIs that are “deemed” to meet the FATCA requirements, definition of “passthru” payments, explanation of exemptions from withholding related to certain “grandfathered obligations,” temporary relief for FFIs with non‐compliant affiliates, and a proposed intergovernmental approach to FATCA implementation through domestic reporting and reciprocal automatic exchange of information.

The paper reveals that the FATCA grew out of Congressional concern that US taxpayers were evading taxes by failing to report US‐source income on assets held abroad. The FATCA legislation left many of the details on implementation to the US Treasury and IRS. The intergovernmental framework is not a done deal. The proposed reciprocal, automatic exchange of information would be a sea change from existing US information reporting practices and is sure to be controversial.

The paper provides expert guidance from experienced financial institutions lawyers.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate how real estate returns behaved over the last two decades in relation to the other two asset types. This allows a direct evaluation of how investors make allocation choices and perceive risks and rewards offered by properties in the context of changing market conditions.

A de-smoothed MSCI index is used to reflect direct property returns and control for both income and capital returns within it. Indirect property returns are approximated by the RX Real Estate index. By supplementing this data with an analysis of trends in both space and capital markets it is possible to relate investor behavior to events affecting other assets.

It is possible to identify three distinctive periods characterized by different correlation of returns and behavior of investors: before the crisis of 2008, the crisis period between 2008 and 2012 and recovery afterwards. These appear to have corresponded to different stages of the economic cycle. Interestingly, performance of asset classes has also differed over that period suggesting that at different points in the cycle asset allocation decisions may have been made differently.

It appears that as investments over the last 15 years real assets in Germany behaved similarly to bonds. It is possible that this phenomenon was driven by an aversion to the stock market and its associated risk which became a concern after the financial crisis of 2008. Over the downturn that followed the market shock investors appear to have turned to assets with simpler risk profiles like direct real estate and government debt. On the other hand, the correlation between direct property investment index and stock returns has been found to be small but negative. This shows not only that the two asset classes were often driven by different factors but also suggests that diversification was, at least theoretically, possible.

Direct real estate investment returns have repeatedly been found to exhibit characteristics similar to those found in bond as well as equity markets (Eichholtz and Hartzell, 1996; Clayton and MacKinnon, 2003) but little research examines the correlation between returns offered by those asset classes in a mature financial and property market. In addition, the recent financial crisis provided a dynamically changing investment which is ideal for investigating structural relationships between assets.

This paper aims to explain the current stage of blockchain and virtual currency regulation in the EU.

The paper explains the current state of blockchain and virtual currency regulation in the EU, presenting the EU institutions’ main policy and regulatory initiatives on, and approaches to, blockchain and virtual currency.

Though the EU is looking seriously at the potential of blockchain and distributed ledger technologies, many European institutions are of the opinion that it is still too early to regulate in this field. As far as virtual currencies are concerned, Member States’ central banks do not consider them to be equivalent to money or legal tender. However, with the current high profile of and interest in virtual currencies, one can expect the European Commission to at least consider what regulation might be called for.

This study provides practical guidance on and introduction to the current regulatory and policy landscape of blockchain and virtual currency in the EU.