Search results

European securities exchanges including futures and options markets as well as cash equity exchanges are liquid, efficient and competitive, while making the most of technology’s vast possibilities. On the road to the integrated European securities market, they face different legislative and non‐legislative barriers. The EU legislative framework must be designed in such a way as to be able to catch up with competitive and technological developments. Strong and modernised EU financial legislation should be beneficial not only for the securities markets but more importantly for the EU economy as a whole. An efficient and integrated securities market is vital in the process of raising the level of competitiveness, the efficient allocation of capital, mobilising savings and disciplining management. Many European countries need to overhaul their pensions systems, since ageing populations become a rising burden on state finances. Thus, most EU member states are likely to stimulate the creation of partially equity‐based private pension provision. This paper tries to position the current role of the securities exchanges. It also touches upon the legislative environment and technological developments they employ that help them continue to remain competitive on the global scene. In conclusion the author states that the EU legislators as well as the securities exchanges themselves have to make great efforts in order to achieve the best possible level of service for their clients.

The purpose of this article is to analyze and draw conclusions from recent SEC staff proposals and commissioners' comments and a recent roundtable discussion concerning access to foreign exchanges and broker‐dealers by US investors.

The paper summarizes a proposal by Erik Sirri, Director of the SEC Division of Market Regulation; a proposal by Ethiopis Tafara and Robert J. Peterson, respectively, the Director of the SEC Office of International Affairs and its Senior Counsel; and comments in speeches by Commissioners Roel Campos, Paul Atkins, and Annette Nazareth; and draws conclusions regarding the SEC's current efforts to develop and articulate a strategic approach to mutual recognition.

As the securities market becomes globalized, there is a growing interest among US investors for foreign securities and for more direct access to foreign broker‐dealers and exchanges. The SEC is determined to remain in the forefront among US government agencies on securities exchange mutual recognition issues, and therefore is pursuing an accelerated agenda to address these issues. The SEC sees its role as not only to function as a bulwark for the protection of US investors but also to take constructive, affirmative steps that serve to strengthen the US capital markets. While the SEC has historically been an advocate for the global convergence of national regulatory standards, it is now considering proposals for a country‐by‐country bilateral approach based upon cooperation among regulators with substantively comparable regulatory regimes.

This paper presents a useful analysis of the direction the SEC is likely to take on the mutual recognition issue by an experienced securities lawyer.

This article is an exploration of the history of the regulation of stock futures leading up to the recent regulatory resolution in which the regulators (SEC and CFTC) share responsibilities, thus leading to the trading of single stock futures.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the evolution of China's securities market regulation from 1980 to 2007 and the dual role of the government in this process.

When the government is simultaneously the owner and regulator of the securities market, the evolution of securities market regulation follows a path of compulsory institutional change. China's Government authorities have played a dual role in this process by acting both as the securities market regulator and the controlling owner of the stock exchanges. The paper uses the evolution of China's securities market regulation from 1980 to 2007 to illustrate this theoretical framework.

Using the case of China, this paper provides unique evidence of how securities regulation evolves in response to government direction and supervision if the government is both the owner and the regulator of the securities market.

The paper offers insight into issues of securities market regulation in China and other emerging markets.

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.

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.

This report aims to present the state of play of semantic interoperability problems in social security data exchanges.

The subject is presented as an open issue and taking into account the circumstances of the exchanges. Electronic exchanges in European Union social security are used as a case study.

Semantic level of these exchanges seems to be the weakness and the use of controlled vocabularies is proposed as possible solution. The creation and maintenance of metadata sets are finally considered as a compromise solution.

The article proposes a solution for the current semantic problems in electronic exchanges of social security information. The solution could be useful for social security institutions all over the world.

This paper aims to help auditors manage the risk of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) violations of the companies that they audit, particularly those with operations in Latin America.

First, the paper describes the relevant provisions of the FCPA. Second, it identifies the common schemes and transactions associated with heightened risk of FCPA liability in Latin America and provides recommendations to minimize this risk. Third, it discusses the responsibilities of auditors under U.S. securities laws and regulations with respect to the FCPA violations of their clients. Finally, it describes the sanctions that auditors could face if they fail to fulfill their responsibilities regarding these FCPA violations. The paper is based on data collected from various documents including laws, cases, accounting and auditing standards, litigation releases, press releases, deferred prosecution agreements, and enforcement actions.

Auditors have a responsibility under Section 10A(a) of the Exchange Act to design procedures that provide reasonable assurances of detecting the FCPA violations of their clients, which are illegal acts with direct and material effects on the financial statements. In addition, auditors have a responsibility under Section 10A(b) of the Exchange Act to report the violations of the FCPA that they detect during the audit to the appropriate level of management. If management does not take the necessary remedial steps, auditors must report FCPA violations to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In order to reduce their FCPA-related liability and fulfill their responsibilities under U.S. securities laws and accounting standards, auditors should closely scrutinize transactions with a high risk of FCPA liability. An analysis of FCPA cases occurring in Latin America reveals six categories of transactions with heightened FCPA risk.

While there is much literature regarding a company’s compliance with the FCPA, there has not been much literature about the auditor’s responsibilities with respect to the FCPA violations of their clients. This paper attempts to start bridging this gap by providing guidance to auditors regarding their responsibilities to detect and report FCPA violations.

This chapter examines the current state of crypto exchange-traded funds (ETFs). It focuses on issues preventing wider implementation and specific products. ETFs have become a popular investment vehicle that investors use to help achieve their long-term goals. A recurring theme is that regulators protect individual investors from direct exposure to cryptocurrency, which many view as highly speculative investments. Pressure from institutions and investors for a bitcoin-based ETF made progress in 2021 when Proshares, an ETF specialized investment company, debuted the first-ever bitcoin futures ETF in the United States. This event is the first-time investors could buy a fund on the New York Stock Exchange that tracks derivative futures contracts of bitcoin. This occurrence pushed this digital asset’s spot price to all-time highs, serving as a breakthrough in cryptocurrency history.