Search results

This paper is a preliminary case study that examines a connected supply chain. The chain studied consists of the North American Appliance Division of the Whirlpool Corporation, the Stanley Engineered Components (SEC) division of Stanley Works, Inc. and SEC’s suppliers. Specifically the paper examines the two related questions: first, are there differences in quality definitions between levels of a supply chain? Second, does the higher level entity in the supply chain understand the quality requirements imposed on their suppliers? Examined and written from the point of view of SEC (the middle of the chain), the paper concludes that the definitions and implementation of these definitions differ markedly at each level. Lack of understanding about the effects of quality requirements between levels also prevails. The case also examines why these results occurred.

This article examines rule amendments issued by the US Securities and Exchange Commission in November 2020, as part of the SEC’s ongoing “disclosure effectiveness initiative”, that revise in significant respects the requirements for financial disclosures presented in SEC filings as Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

This article provides an in-depth analysis of the rule amendments in the context of contrasting perspectives expressed by the SEC, individual SEC Commissioners who dissented from adoption of the amendments, and market participants regarding the merits of the SEC’s movement away from prescriptive disclosure requirements towards a more principles-based approach to disclosure.

Although the SEC’s rules have long reflected a mix of principles-based and prescriptive disclosure elements, the principles-based emphasis in this latest stage of the SEC’s disclosure modernization project accords the managements of filing companies greater latitude to determine whether financial information is material to investors and how such information should be presented.

This article provides expert guidance on a major new SEC disclosure development from an experienced securities lawyer.

As financial markets across the world become more integrated, the potential for financial shocks to be transmitted both from one jurisdiction to another and from one financial sector to another increases. At the same time differences in national regulatory arrangements can be the source of important competitive distortions between financial institutions. Against this background national authorities have been seeking to coordinate the regulation of securities firms and of batiks undertaking securities business. This paper, which is published in two parts, aims to clarify some of the policy issues arising from recent convergence initiatives by examining the US capital adequacy rules for US investment firms and contrasting the US approach with European securities regulation as formulated in the Capital Adequacy Directive. The first part of this paper was published in the previous issue of Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance.

This article examines the first action by the US Securities and Exchange Commission to enforce the “equal-or-greater-prominence” requirement of its rules governing the presentation by SEC-reporting companies, in their SEC filings and earnings releases, of financial measures not prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).

This article provides an in-depth analysis of the equal-or-greater-prominence rule and the SEC’s enforcement posture in the context of the SEC’s concern that some companies present non-GAAP financial measures in a manner that inappropriately gives the non-GAAP measures greater authority than the comparable GAAP financial measures.

Although the appropriate use of non-GAAP financial measures can enhance investor understanding of a company’s business and operating results, investors could be misled about the company’s GAAP results by disclosures that unduly highlight non-GAAP measures. The SEC’s enforcement action signals a focus on the manner in which companies present non-GAAP financial measures as well as on how they calculate the measures.

This article provides expert guidance on a major SEC disclosure requirement from an experienced securities lawyer.

To analyze the differences between the SEC’s newly adopted final business conduct rules for security-based swap dealers and major security-based swap participants under Section 15F(h) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the parallel rules promulgated under the Commodity Exchange Act by the CFTC with respect to swap dealers and major swap participants.

This article discusses select rules under each regulatory regime and highlights the major differences and potential effects of each.

This article concludes that while the SEC’s intent was to harmonize its final rules with the parallel CFTC rules, there are substantive differences between the two sets of rules that firms should consider when deciding how to structure their security-based swap dealer activities.

This article contains insightful analysis of the newly adopted SEC Business Conduct Rules and highlights some of the ways firms will likely be affected moving forward.

To analyze the SEC’s newly adopted Rule 498 A, the variable contract summary prospectus rule, and concurrently adopted prospectus disclosure requirements in order to propose to insurance companies issuing variable contracts a project implementation plan for companies seeking SEC approval for summary prospectuses compliant with the new rules.

Discusses the history, requirements, effects, and expected implementation timeline of the new rules, then offers a detailed project plan and timeline for compliance.

The Rule does not require insurers to use summary prospectuses, but there are several compelling reasons for doing so. The Rule allows insurers to use a new concise and brief selling document, and by so doing to begin generating very significant cost savings as soon as May 1, 2021. The article provides a detailed implementation plan for insurance companies that want to comply with the new prospectus disclosure requirements and implement policies and procedures to begin using summary prospectuses.

A coordinated project implementation plan like that outlined in the article might assist insurance companies to make the requisite statutory prospectus revisions and prepare and obtain SEC approval of summary prospectuses by May 1, 2021.

Analysis from experienced attorneys who frequently advise insurance companies issuing fixed and variable annuities, and assist clients in navigating the complex regulatory requirements governing insurance and securities products.

To discuss factors that a private fund advisor should consider in its decision to remain registered with Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or to deregister in light of the D.C. Court of Appeals June 2006 decision in Goldstein v. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Analyzes and compares the advantages and disadvantages of staying registered and deregistering; discusses the requirements of state registration for advisers that are note registered with the SEC; and analyzes the consequences to private fund advisors if the SEC does not repropose certain rule amendments adopted along with Rule 203(b)(3)‐2 concerning bookkeeping, performance fees, and custody.

Advisers should carefully consider their facts and circumstances and their business plans when analyzing the consequences of deregistration with the SEC – most importantly, the possibility of multiple state registration – before filing to deregister. Especially if the SEC restores the rule amendments the Goldstein decision struck down, staying with the SEC – the regulator you know – may be better than registering with a state.

Provides an up‐to‐date analysis of factors that private funds should consider concerning SEC registration in light of the recent Goldstein decision.

A basic primer on dealing with the SEC Order handling rules. There are several compliance deadlines that rapidly approach for these disclosure requirements.

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.