Search results

Examines trend rules in conjunction with other well‐known supplementary runs rules to assess their impact when used in control charting. Focuses on a set of 613 trend rules deemed as potential candidates to increase the sensitivity of the control chart. The examined rules are viewed in the light of a stable environment, which determines the false alarm rate, and then in an environment in which the process mean is subjected to drift. Results indicate that there are subsets of trend rules that aid in the detection of out‐of‐control conditions depending on the severity of the drift and the number of zonal‐based supplementary runs rules used.

The paper aims to analyze amendments proposed by the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission to its disclosure, recordkeeping and reporting rules that are designed to resolve or minimize certain conflicts between CFTC rules and US Securities and Exchange Commission rules applicable to registered investment companies (Futures RICs) whose futures and swaps trading will subject their advisers to regulation as commodity pool operators as a result of the amendments to CFTC Rule 4.5.

The paper explains certain significant differences between the CFTC's rules applicable to commodity pool operators (CPOs) and the SEC's rules applicable to Futures RICs and their advisers in the areas of disclosure, reporting and recordkeeping and describes how the CFTC's proposed rules for Futures RICs are intended to resolve or minimize conflicts with SEC rules.

CFTC and SEC rules differ in several significant areas, including the required contents of the disclosure document by which the pool is offered; when the disclosure document has to be delivered; how disclosure documents are updated and reviewed; when periodic reports are required to be made and what they are required to contain; and whether required books and records may be maintained at a location other than the main business office. The proposed harmonization rules attempt to resolve these conflicts by exempting the CPOs of Futures RICs from certain CFTC requirements regarding delivery of disclosure documents and recordkeeping, permitting CFTC‐required disclosures to appear in the prospectuses of Futures RICs after the SEC‐required disclosures and requiring monthly account statements to be posted to the CPO's website rather than distributed to shareholders of Futures RICs. Other conflicts between CFTC and SEC rules applicable to Futures RICs were not addressed by the proposed harmonization rules.

The proposed harmonization rules attempt to adapt CFTC requirements to Futures RICs that have not been subject to CFTC regulation since 2003. Other conflicts between CFTC and SEC rules were not addressed. The CFTC has not adopted the final rules in this area.

The paper provides expert guidance by lawyers experienced in regulation of CPOs and RICs.

This paper aims to explain the SEC's new Rule 201 and amended Rule 200(g), which are designed to improve the regulations that address harmful shortselling practices.

The paper summarizes Rule 201, discusses the reasoning behind the “alternative uptick rule”, defines “covered securities” to which Rule 201 applies, explains why the commission chose the national best bid as the basis of the execution of short sales during the circuit breaker period, discusses the SEC's policies and procedures approach, explains conditions under which a broker‐dealer submitting a short‐sale order after the circuit breaker is triggered submitting a short sale order after the circuit breaker is triggered may mark the order “short exempt,” explains the reason an exception for market making activities is not included in the rule, and discusses the implementation period and the need for broker‐dealers to develop new policies and procedures.

Broker‐dealers and other market centers will need to dedicate significant compliance and systems resources to develop the policies and procedures and systems enhancements necessary to comply with the rule.

The paper provides practical guidance from experienced securities lawyers.

Most account opening agreements used by US brokerage firms contain a standard predispute arbitration clause requiring customers to submit all disputes relating to the account to arbitration conducted according to the rules of a self‐regulatory organisation. Brokerage firms also routinely place a clause in their customer agreements designating the law which will govern the agreement. Under a rule of the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD or Association) — IM 3110(f)(4) (Rule 3110(f)(4)) — brokerage firms may not place in a customer agreement ‘any condition which … limits the ability of a party to file any claim in arbitration or limits the ability of the arbitrators to make any award’. This rule places important limitations on the way firms utilise choice‐of‐law clauses. In light of recent legal developments, it is increasingly important for firms to be aware of the issues raised by the rule.

The purpose of this paper is to review the phenomenon of moral principles as they have been adopted over time. The paper specifically reviews the Golden Rule, and the subsequently formulated Platinum Rule. While the value of both these rules is underscored, the paper also reviews their weaknesses in light of our new millennium awareness of increased globality and ensuing interconnectedness. The paper makes a statement that even moral principles that have been around for centuries, may have to be reevaluated in light of changed circumstances, and conclusively presents “The Spiritual Rule,” a principle that eliminates the risk of excessive arbitrariness, and calls for consideration of all life on earth in every decision we make.

This paper is a conceptual paper, reflecting on two existing principles that influence the way human beings, and therefore managers as well, make their decisions in general. The author first briefly reviews both principles (or “rules”), subsequently analyzes their weaknesses in light of contemporary developments, and ultimately introduces a new principle, the spiritual rule, thereby drawing on supporting statements various researchers and authors with in‐depth consideration of modern days' developments in human interaction.

When one wants to engage in “good business” in these and future days, one can no longer merely focus on a one‐on‐one perspective, or limit ourselves to the stakes of only two parties. There are greater interests at stake and there are larger groups of people involved in our decisions. Individualism has proven its merit, but so has collectivism. The awareness that is dawning upon us these days is that no extreme is of lasting benefit to all of us. A well‐considered blend of various strategies, resulting from openness to other ways of thinking, is the enlightened behavioral paradigm in and outside of the workplace.

There are many complicated theories out there about how leaders should make their decisions. However, what works best is a simple guideline that can be used in all situations and environments and that is based on the realization that human beings are first and foremost interconnected spiritual entities. This paper addresses this need and identifies the important practical considerations that leaders will need to include in their decisions.

The paper's unique contribution is to offer a moral principle that incorporates the spiritual dimension in every area of decision‐making. The three considerations presented in this paper, reduction of selfish reflections, reduction of unjust assessments of other's wishes, and reduction of harm to the welfare of our planet, are on target with the trends toward global interconnectedness and encourage leaders to consider the value of implementing and maintaining the spiritual rule.

To analyze the changes to the FINRA equity research rules and evaluate concerns that may be important to and have an impact on equity research activities following the effective date.

This article provides an overview of the changes reflected in FINRA Rule 2241 pertaining to equity research analysts and research reports, as well as changes to licensing requirements for equity research analysts. It highlights potential issues for firms and provides some commentary on how these issues should be considered in light of FINRA’s articulated position and assurances FINRA has given to the SEC.

This article concludes that firms should anticipate these changes and begin a comprehensive review of research policies and procedures, the personnel who prepare research reports and the scope of their research products so as to be compliant with Rule 2241 from its effective date. Firms should also begin an investigation of technologies used to gather, produce and disseminate research and required disclosures to ensure they meet the new requirements when they are effective.

This article provides insight into the new FINRA Rule 2241 and practical guidance from experienced securities lawyers.

The purpose of this paper is to emphasize that East Asia and South East Asia, despite enormous economic advances, have a deficit on rule of law, analysed as either judicial autonomy and legal integrity (rule of law I) or as voice and accountability (rule of law II).

First, a distinction is made between two key aspects of rule of law; second, these two aspects are measured by data from the World Bank Governance project, relating them to various measures on socio‐economic development and economic growth.

It is not generally true that development leads to or entails freedom, as several countries in the ASEAN +3 region display low scores on either one of the dimensions of rule of law or both.

In both research and in practice, one needs to devote more effort into understanding how rapid economic development may be possible without strong rule of law, either as legal integrity and judicial autonomy, or as voice and political accountability. In the process of globalisation, demands for more of rule of law in this region appear justifiable.

This paper provides useful information on economic development and political development, which is highly relevant for understanding the implication of economic growth in the countries in ASEAN +3.

To explain recent amendments by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) to Sections 312.03(b) relating to issuances of securities to substantial stockholders (the Substantial Stockholder Issuance Rule) and 312.03(c) (the 20 Per cent Rule) of the New York Stock Exchange’s (the NYSE) Listed Company Manual to change the definition of “market value” for purposes of the 20 Per cent Rule and eliminate the requirement for shareholder approval of certain private issuances at a price less than book value but greater than market value.

This article provides background on the purpose and policy behind the Substantial Stockholder Issuance Rule and the 20 Per cent Rule and summarizes the provisions of each rule, both before and after the recent SEC amendments thereto. This article then highlights the most important changes to the Substantial Stockholder Issuance Rule and the 20 Per cent Rule and explains the implications thereof for NYSE-listed issuers.

The amended Substantial Stockholder Issuance Rule and the 20 Per cent Rule provide NYSE-listed issuers greater flexibility in structuring transactions involving private placements of equity and will likely reduce the number of such transactions requiring a shareholder vote.

Practical guidance from experienced corporate finance and capital markets lawyers.

To explain and evaluate amendments to the rules of practice governing the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) Administrative Proceedings that were adopted by the Commission on July 13, 2016.

Describes SEC’s increased pursuit of enforcement actions in APs, criticisms of the AP process, and corrective legislation. Describes the July 2016 amendments covering expansion of the prehearing period, allowance of depositions, timing for completion of document production in discovery phase, required disclosure of affirmative defenses, permitted dispositive motions, and admissibility of hearsay evidence. Assesses the practical impact of the amendments. Makes recommendations concerning advanced preparation for APs, depositions and witness-interview strategies, particular care concerning statements in Wells submission, availability of investigative record to defense counsel, admissibility of hearsay evidence, and defenses based on reliance on counsel.

The amended rules are a step in the right direction but do not fully correct the numerous and severe imbalances that exist in the Commission’s administrative enforcement process with respect to the availability of various discovery mechanisms, the timeline for trying a case, and more.

Every entity or individual that is involved in an SEC enforcement investigation, or that may become a respondent in an SEC Administrative Proceeding, should take certain practical steps such as those recommended in this article to minimize the structural disadvantages it will face and to maximize the benefits conferred by these latest amendments to the rules of practice.

Practical background and guidance from experienced enforcement, litigation, securities and financial services lawyers.

June 6, 1967 Trade union — Expulsion — Right of action — Member charged with breach of rules — Acquitted by management committee — Committee member purporting to appeal to executive council — Rules not precluding council from hearing member — Member not heard — Council excluding member from union — Whether contrary to natural justice — “Member aggrieved” — Whether rules providing for appeal by other than member charged — Rules providing for forfeiture of membership by member seeking redress of grievance in any manner other than provided for by rules before following their full procedure — Application to court — Whether membership forfeited by application to court on ground of exclusion against natural justice.