Search results

The purpose of this paper is to provide a detailed description of Amendments to Rule 105 of Regulation M adopted by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on June 20, 2007

Presents a general overview of short sales and the purpose of Regulation M, a rule that prohibits purchases and sales of securities during specified periods close in time to public offerings of securities; and describes the Amendments, including an expansion of the prohibition under the Rule from a prohibition on “covering” to a prohibition on purchases generally and including three exceptions that pertain to “bona fide” purchases, “separate accounts,” and investment companies.

The Amendments are important because: they expand the scope of the Rule's basic prohibition; they were expanded in part because SEC perceived that circumvention of the Rule was persistent; they permit notable exceptions; and they were adopted close in time to other amendments to the regulation of short sales, including elimination of the price or “tick” tests.

Expert guidance on a recent SEC ruling by experienced securities lawyers.

The Equal Pay Act 1970 (which came into operation on 29 December 1975) provides for an “equality clause” to be written into all contracts of employment. S.1(2) (a) of the 1970 Act (which has been amended by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975) provides:

To highlight recent enforcement actions by the SEC demonstrating the agency's increased focus on violations of Rule 105 of Regulation M and to provide guidance on how to avoid becoming the target of such an SEC action.

Describes the SEC's 23 recent enforcement actions against firms for violations of Rule 105, explains the conduct prohibited by Rule 105 as well as the exceptions to the Rule, and provides advice on how firms can avoid a Rule 105 related SEC enforcement action.

In light of the SEC's recently announced zero-tolerance policy and the fact that Rule 105 does not require intent on the part of the short seller to engage in a prohibited transaction, firms should provide training to their employees regarding Rule 105, develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure compliance with Rule 105, and enforce those policies and procedures.

Practical explanation and guidance by experienced financial services lawyers.

Aim of the present monograph is the economic analysis of the role of MNEs regarding globalisation and digital economy and in parallel there is a reference and examination of some legal aspects concerning MNEs, cyberspace and e‐commerce as the means of expression of the digital economy. The whole effort of the author is focused on the examination of various aspects of MNEs and their impact upon globalisation and vice versa and how and if we are moving towards a global digital economy.

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.

Over the past few years, regulators, issuers, investors, and other market participants have expressed increasing concerns regarding the real or perceived effects of short selling. For example, thinly‐capitalized issuers whose shares trade on the over‐the‐counter market often blame short sellers for declines in the prices of their stocks. Recently, these issuers’ ire has focused on so‐called “naked short sellers,” i.e. short sellers who do not locate or borrow shares before selling. Likewise, other market participants have expressed apprehension about conduct involving short sales that may be viewed as disruptive or manipulative. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the self‐regulatory organizations (SROs) have addressed these concerns both by promulgating new regulations governing short sales and by pursing enforcement actions. This article summarizes the new short sales rules contained in Regulation SHO and the amendments to Regulation M, and discusses recent enforcement actions pertaining to short sales.

Knight's Industrial Law Reports goes into a new style and format as Managerial Law This issue of KILR is restyled Managerial Law and it now appears on a continuous updating basis rather than as a monthly routine affair.

This study investigates the impact of the enhanced continuous disclosure regime introduced in December 2002 on several measures of information risk in NZX‐listed stocks. We employ two microstructure models and an intraday data set to measure information risk in a sample of 71 stocks. Our empirical results show that the reforms enacted in December 2002 had no significant effect on either the level of information‐based trading or the adverse selection component of market spreads in our sample of NZX‐listed stocks.

In order to succeed in an action under the Equal Pay Act 1970, should the woman and the man be employed by the same employer on like work at the same time or would the woman still be covered by the Act if she were employed on like work in succession to the man? This is the question which had to be solved in Macarthys Ltd v. Smith. Unfortunately it was not. Their Lordships interpreted the relevant section in different ways and since Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome was also subject to different interpretations, the case has been referred to the European Court of Justice.

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).