Search results

To explain reporting requirements under Section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) that must be followed by advisers and brokers who exercise investment discretion over accounts that hold exchange‐traded equity securities, and to describe reporting requirements under Section 16 of the Exchange Act on certain persons considered “insiders” of a company that has a class of equity securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act.

Describes the required reporting of significant acquisition and ownership positions on Schedules 13G and 13D, including the obligations of exempt investors, passive investors, and firms and their control persons; describes the required reporting of equity positions in managed portfolios of more than $100 million on Form 13F; and describes the reporting obligations of “insiders” (directors, officers, and principal stockholders) under Section 16 of the Exchange Act, including the content of Form 3 – Initial Statement of Beneficial Ownership of Securities, Form 4 – Statement of Changes of Beneficial Ownership of Securities, and Form 5 – Annual Statement of Beneficial Ownership of Securities.

Firms and their control persons managing discretionary accounts that hold more than 5 percent of an SEC‐reporting company's equity securities or manage discretionary accounts with market values of $100 million or more; institutional investment managers who exercise investment discretion over accounts with a fair market value of at least $100 million, and corporate insiders have significant reporting obligations under the Exchange Act.

Provides a clear, detailed reference concerning Section 13 and Section 16 Reporting Requirements.

Public universities began reporting the costs for nonpension retiree benefit obligations known as other postemployment benefits (OPEB) in their fiscal 2008 financial statements. The reported OPEB obligation is the projected benefits to be paid after an employee retires. This descriptive study examines the status of OPEB funding at land grant universities, composition of the benefits provided, and whether modifications are under consideration. Results indicate land grant institutions cover their costs on a pay-as-you-go basis, OPEB liabilities are significantly underfunded, and universities provide comparable types of benefits in their OPEB plan. Revenue shortfalls and current fiscal pressures raise concerns about how they can support the OPEB liabilities. Thus many institutions are evaluating the OPEB cost and the benefits currently provided.

The purpose of this paper is to provide investment advisers, broker dealers, individual investors and other securities firms with a current and detailed summary of the reporting regime under Sections 13 and 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and guidance on how to comply with the disclosure requirements of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on Schedule 13D, Schedule 13G, Form 13F, Form 13H and Forms 3, 4 and 5.

The approach of this paper discusses the transactions or beneficial ownership interests in securities that trigger a reporting requirement under Section 13 and/or Section 16 of the Exchange Act, identifies the person or persons that have the obligation to file reports with the SEC, details the information required to be disclosed in the publicly available reports, and explains certain trading restrictions imposed on reporting persons as well as the potential adverse consequences of filing late or failing to make the requisite disclosures to the SEC.

The SEC continues to provide updated guidance on the disclosure requirements under Sections 13 and 16 of the Exchange Act, which individual investors and securities firms – largely insiders – must take into account when filing any new or amended reports on Schedule 13D, Schedule 13G, Form 13F, Form 13H and Forms 3, 4 and 5.

This article provides expert analysis and guidance from experienced securities lawyers.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the balance between anti-money laundering reporting obligations and the doctrine of advocate–client confidentiality for legal practitioners.

The methodology adopted for this research is secondary research and analysis.

The doctrine of confidentiality between advocates and clients and reporting obligations under the anti-money laundering regime are relevant issues today more than ever. The equitable doctrine of confidentiality seeks to protect confidential information provided by one party to another in circumstances that import an obligation not to disclose that information or to use it for unauthorised purposes. The Constitution guarantees fair trial. Money laundering is a menace that should be fought from all fronts. Self-regulation is the best bet to address money laundering for legal practitioners.

This paper is the work of the author and has not been submitted for publication elsewhere.

While in the past companies have voluntarily disclosed information beyond the financial bottom line, there is now a trend toward mandatory reporting in many countries. With the adoption of Directive 2014/95/EU, the European Union has taken a decisive step in this direction. However, research on the effects of these obligations is still at an early stage, particularly regarding Directive 2014/95/EU. Therefore, this paper aims to pursue the question of whether the directive has led to an improvement in reporting.

The authors analyzed the reporting of the EURO STOXX 50 companies before and after the directive entered into force. To evaluate the improvement, the authors assigned the individual Global Reporting Initiative indicators to the different information requirements of the directive.

Overall, the authors’ study revealed an improvement in reporting. However, this does not apply to all information categories. A significant improvement can be seen regarding the information on policies and due diligence, principal risk and non-financial key performance indicators. Institutional theory suggests that the observed improvements among these reporting-experienced companies can be understood as the result of coercive pressure triggered by the directive’s requirements.

The authors’ study contributes to the debate on the impact of non-financial reporting obligations by providing empirical insights into the effects of Directive 2014/95/EU. These insights can inform political and managerial decision-making, particularly in view of increasing reporting obligations.

This paper aims to analyse the anti-money laundering (AML) obligations imposed on bankers as the main reporting entities under the AML regime in Malaysia. Apart from discussing the relevant provisions, several court cases were also examined to identify the problems which arise in the implementation of the law and the risk of dismissal that bankers may face.

This paper mainly relies on statutes and court cases as its primary sources of information. It is supported by secondary data to justify the analysis. This paper also uses an analytical descriptive approach to analyse relevant provisions from statutes and to examine current court cases regarding the implementation of the AML obligations on bankers.

It is submitted that the AML legislation imposes a significant burden of reporting requirements on the bankers, failure of which may justify the dismissal or termination of their services. In other words, the law has not only altered the way bankers deal with their customers but also poses substantial legal risks to their security of tenure. Indeed, getting the right balance between the need to combat money laundering and the interests of bankers is a difficult exercise.

This paper provides an analysis of the liability of bankers under Malaysian AML laws. It is hoped that the content of this paper can provide some insight into this particular area for bankers, enforcement authorities, practitioners, academics, policymakers and legal advisers, not only in Malaysia but also elsewhere. The findings of this paper also highlight the risks that bankers may face for non-compliance with the reporting obligations under the AML laws.

We examine and compare funding status, actuarial assumptions and asset investment allocations of defined benefit pension plans in the public and private sectors across time, using information as reported under GASB and FASB. We find that pension plans in both sectors are underfunded and that inferences about pension funding in the public sector would be different if pension assets' fair values were required in the computation of funding status. Actuarial assumptions of public employee plans appear to be both more optimistic and less variable than those of private sector plans. Finally, we document that public sector plans allocate invested assets somewhat differently than in the private sector, although our findings do not confirm anecdotal reports of riskier pension investment strategies relative to the private sector.

The Financial Action Task Force (the chief international agency against money laundering) blacklisted Israel (June 2000) as one of the 15 countries that fail to cooperate in the international efforts to combat money laundering. Soon after, the Israeli Parliament enacted the Prohibition on Money Laundering Law, 5760–2000 (the ‘Law’). The Law has far‐reaching legal, economic and policy implications. This paper attempts to sketch the global backdrop against which the Law was adopted, analyse its provisions, expose its implications and draw attention to its pros and cons. It is structured along the following lines: the first section sets out the international campaign against money laundering. The second section describes the pressures exerted by the international community to persuade Israel to join the club of countries that counteract money‐laundering operations. The third and fourth sections analyse the ratio legis of the Law and its provisions, respectively. In the fifth section an account is provided of the problematic aspects of the Law. The last section provides some conclusions that may be drawn at this early stage.

This paper aims to examine the money laundering vulnerability of private legal practitioners in Tanzania, the involvement of these practitioners in money laundering activities and their role in preventing, detecting and thwarting money laundering and its predicate crimes.

The paper applies the “black-letter” law research approach to describe, examine and analyze the anti-money laundering law in Tanzania. It also uses the “law-in-context” research approach to interrogate the anti-money laundering law and to provide an understanding of factors impacting on the efficacy and readiness of private legal practitioners in Tanzania to tackle money laundering. The review of literature and analysis of statutory instruments and case law, reports of the anti-money laundering authorities and agencies and media reports-generated data are used in this paper. This information was complemented by data from interviews of purposively selected private legal practitioners.

Private legal practitioners in Tanzania are vulnerable to money laundering. There is an emerging evidence that indicates the involvement of some private legal practitioners in the commission of money laundering and/or its predicate crimes. The law designates the legal practitioners as reporting persons and imposes on the obligation to fight against money laundering. Law-related factors and practical challenges undermine the capacity of the legal practitioners to curb money laundering. Additionally, certain hostile perceptions contribute to the legal practitioners’ unwillingness, indifference or opposition against the fight against money laundering.

The paper underscores the need for Tanzania to reform its policy and legal frameworks to create enabling environment for anti-money laundering gatekeepers, including private legal practitioners to partake efficiently in the fight against money laundering. It also underlines the importance of incorporating the principles that govern the private legal practise to enable the practitioners to partake effectively in tackling money laundering.

This paper generates useful information to private legal practitioners, policy makers and academicians on issues relating to money laundering and its control in Tanzania and presents recommendations on possible policy and legal reforms that can be adopted and applied to augment the role of the legal practitioners in Tanzania to combat money laundering.

The purpose of this article is to analyse financial intelligence units' (FIUs') approaches in enforcing compliance and how these units can ensure the application of the most effective enforcement mechanism to secure the best outcome of such regulatory action.

Sources of information consisted of scholarly books, papers and published articles through the web.

FIUs should not concentrate on adopting a purely cooperative style (in terms of soft sanctions) or take the opposite approach and be a tough regulator (applying harsh sanctions on non‐compliant reporting entities). Rather, a more qualitative approach should be adopted, individually tailoring the approach on the basis of an examination of the FIUs' findings on entity non‐compliance, and how it can best operate its mechanism so as to ensure those entities comply effectively with their AML/CTF obligations.

This article serves as a fruitful analysis to educate FIUs' personnel, AML/CTF professionals, and reporting entities in terms of achieving the highest level of compliance with AML/CTF laws and regulation. Some studies have discussed FIU enforcement mechanisms generally but, to the best of the author's knowledge, the analytical study of different FIUs' enforcement mechanisms and how to achieve the most effective results to secure compliance is yet to be externally or independently researched and evaluated.