Search results

This paper examines comparative aspects of Arab securities regulation. It provides a general introduction, overviews the aims of securities regulation and the UK regulatory framework, and outlines the obstacles facing equity financing under Shari'a and hindrances to effective Arab securities regulation. It accounts for the major macroeconomic reasons which have enhanced interest in Arab securities markets, examines lack of Arab rules on fraud, insider dealing and possible contractual remedies. It concludes with a case study shedding light on the term ‘securities’ as understood by Article 3 of the 1997 Jordanian Securities Act.

On January 3, 2005, Regulation SHO was implemented by the Securities and Exchange Commission, with the express purpose of updating short sale regulation by seeking to limit an abusive short selling practice known as naked short selling. The purpose of this paper is to examine the efficacy and impact of Regulation SHO in achieving this goal of reducing naked shorting.

Time series analysis using fixed effects regression, Fama‐French‐Carhart model, various parametric and non‐parametric tests. The paper tests a number of hypotheses regarding the effectiveness of Regulation SHO in controlling naked shorts/fails‐to‐deliver in the American stock markets.

Utilizing several models, the authors find strong evidence in the first 30 to 60 days after being identified by Regulation SHO as having excessive naked short positions, those securities on average experienced further significant negative abnormal returns, indicating the regulation was at best ineffective. This result is robust for a number of parametric and non‐parametric tests. Models also show a security identified by Regulation SHO as having an excessive short position may actually suggest a profitable trading strategy of continuing to short those stocks. The regulation was largely ineffective/insignificant in reducing naked shorting. In addition, results revealed that a profitable investment could be made by shorting stocks as they were identified by Regulation SHO as already having excessive outstanding failure positions.

This is the first paper, to the authors' knowledge, that considers whether SHO was effective and offers intuition as to reasons why it was not.

The purpose of this paper is to discover the weaknesses of initial public offering (IPO) regulation in Bangladesh in the light of the relevant law and practice in Australia.

A qualitative analysis of archival materials has been carried out to achieve the objective of the paper. Two different sets of legal provisions dealing with some selected issues relevant to the regulation primary share markets have been compared and contrasted. The level of market development, composition and performance of securities regulators and the level of investor sophistication have been critically in this paper in discussing aspects of regulation.

This paper finds that the IPO regulation in Bangladesh is weaker than that in Australia. The major weaknesses may be attributed to different factors such as the adoption of the disclosure philosophy prematurely by discarding the previous merit regulation in 1999 for a pre‐emerging securities market, lack of experienced and well‐trained people in the composition of securities regulators, lack of regulatory authority to sue for compensation on behalf of investors in the absence of shareholders class action, lack of authority to regulate auditors and lawyers who play significant roles in preparing defective prospectuses for public consumption. Findings also suggest that adequate investor protection cannot be ensured by regulatory measures alone, investors should be educated to protect themselves in the first place against the cupidity of issuers.

It provides an insight into an effective IPO regulatory regime. An immediate implementation of the recommendations made in this paper may contribute to improving the legal and regulatory regime for the primary share market in Bangladesh which may set a good example for others.

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.

For the sponsor or manager of a non‐US investment fund, the mantle of US laws and regulations surrounding the offering of fund shares to US investors can be mystifying. In an effort to simplify and clarify the legal miasma, the US Congress and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have in the past year taken action to facilitate the offering of interests to more sophisticated investors in both foreign and domestic private investment funds. This paper describes the recent legislation enacted by Congress, rules and interpretations issued by the SEC and its staff to implement and effectuate the legislation and strategies for privately offered investment companies to take advantage of the new, more liberal regulatory scheme.

The private placement is the principal alternative method of financing to an SEC registered offering. The private placement avoids registration under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) with its concomitant costs and delays. It also avoids periodic reporting under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) for foreign private issuers. Issuers frequently resell their private placement securities abroad or to other qualified institutional investors. The combination of statutory exemptions, Rule 144A, Regulation S, and other SEC initiatives enable issuers to take advantage of these benefits

Football supporters have safety and security guarantees, but protection rights abuses in the Kanjuruhan Indonesia stadium tragedy. This study aims to create a design regulation to protect the protection rights of football supporters in the world.

This is a socio-legal study. The law, cases and conceptual methods are the research methodologies. The process of collecting data uses a literature review. The gathered facts and information are next examined both qualitatively and descriptively.

The tragedy that occurred at the Kanjuruhan Stadium is the worst tragedy of Indonesian football. The key factor behind the tragedy was the mechanism for securing football matches regulated in the acts and regulations in Indonesia, which were out of sync and contrary to Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) regulations. The Indonesian National Police Regulation (Perkapolri) permits the use of firearms, tear gas and force, whereas this is actually prohibited by the FIFA Stadium Safety and Security Regulation (FSSSR). In this tragedy, protection rights abuses occurred. Then, the Indonesian Sport Act (ISA) 2022 does not yet regulate crucial matters, especially safety and security in sports competitions to protect players, referees, spectators/supporters and other match organizers.

This study examines various regulations relating to sports, especially football matches with a focus on studies in Indonesia.

The results of this research help realize protection rights for football supporters and create designs regulation to protect protection rights for football supporters worldwide.

The design regulation recommended in this study is useful for preventing disasters in football and protecting football supporters, players, referees and parties in matches from acts of violence.

Learning from the Kanjuruhan tragedy, to prevent this from happening again, the adoption of the FSSSR into Indonesian legislation, created the Safety of Sports Grounds Act and the establishment of the Indonesian Football Policing Unit are recommendations that need to be considered.

The purpose of this paper is to review the principal provisions of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act, which was enacted in April 2012 and represents significant legislative reform of securities regulation in the USA.

The paper examines the modified US securities regulatory regime introduced for initial public offerings and SEC reporting by a newly designated class of smaller securities issuers referred to as “emerging growth companies” and summarizes reforms to the regulation of capital‐raising transactions by small issuers and other companies that are intended to facilitate the creation of new jobs by easing regulatory burdens.

The JOBS Act should meet its objective of providing emerging growth companies, at reduced cost, with an orderly transition from a private existence with relatively few securities‐law concerns to a public one with numerous compliance obligations. Companies also will have greater opportunities to access capital through the availability of additional exemptions from Securities Act registration and the elimination of some restrictions on offering‐related communications with investors. The relaxation or elimination of long‐accepted methods for minimizing fraud and abuse in securities offerings, however, could result in a significant increase in investment scams and other wrongdoing.

The paper provides expert guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.

This study aims to determine experimentally factors affecting the satisfaction of retail stock investors with various investor protection regulatory measures implemented by the Government of India and Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). Also, an effort has been made to gauge the level of satisfaction of retail equities investors with the laws and guidelines developed by the Indian Government and SEBI for their invested funds.

To accomplish the study’s goals, a well-structured questionnaire was created with the help of a literature review, and copies of it were filled by Punjabi retail equities investors with the aid of stockbrokers, i.e. intermediaries. Amritsar, Jalandhar, Ludhiana and Mohali-area intermediaries were chosen using a random selection procedure. Xerox copies of the questionnaire were given to the intermediaries, who were then asked to collect responses from their clients. Some intermediaries requested the researcher to sit in their offices to collect responses from their clients. Only 373 questionnaires out of 1,000 questionnaires that were provided had been received back. Only 328 copies were correctly filled by the equity investors. To conduct the analysis, 328 copies, which were fully completed, were used as data. The appropriate approaches, such as descriptives, factor analysis and ordinal regression analysis, were used to study the data.

With the aid of factor analysis, four factors have been identified that influence investors’ satisfaction with various investor protection regulatory measures implemented by government and SEBI regulations, including regulations addressing primary and secondary market dealings, rules for investor awareness and protection, rules to prevent company malpractices and laws for corporate governance and investor protection. The impact of these four components on investor satisfaction has been investigated using ordinal regression analysis. The pseudo-R-square statistics for the ordinal regression model demonstrated the model’s capacity for the explanation. The findings suggested that a significant amount of the overall satisfaction score about the various investor protection measures implemented by the government/SEBI has been explained by the regression model.

A study could be conducted to analyse the perspective of various stakeholders towards the disclosures made and norms followed by corporate houses. The current study may be expanded to cover the entire nation because it is only at the state level currently. It might be conceivable to examine how investments made in the retail capital market affect investors in rural areas. The influence of reforms on the functioning of stock markets could potentially be examined through another study. It could be possible to undertake a study on female investors’ knowledge about retail investment trends. The effect of digital stock trading could be examined in India. The effect of technological innovations on capital markets can be studied.

This research would be extremely useful to regulators in developing policies to protect retail equities investors. Investors are required to be safeguarded and protected to deal freely in the securities market, so they should be given more freedom in terms of investor protection measures. Stock exchanges should have the potential to bring about technological advancements in trading to protect investors from any kind of financial loss. Since the government has the power to create rules and regulations to strengthen investor protection. So, this research will be extremely useful to the government.

This work has societal ramifications. Because when adequate rules and regulations are in place to safeguard investors, they will be able to invest freely. Companies will use capital wisely and profitably. Companies should undertake tasks towards corporate social responsibility out of profits because corporate houses are part and parcel of society only.

Many investors may lack the necessary expertise to make sound financial judgments. They might not be aware of the entire risk-reward profile of various investment options. However, they must know various investor protection measures taken by the Government of India & Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to safeguard their interests. Investors must be well-informed on the precautions to take while dealing with market intermediaries, as well as in the stock market.

The purpose of this paper is to describe regulatory activities since the initial regulatory actions between 2001 and 2003 in response to securities firm research analyst conflicts of interest that were identified after the “internet bubble.”

The paper describes a number of important regulatory activities, including: interpretive activities, such as the 2004 Second Joint Research Memorandum; establishment of a new licensing requirement for research analysts; additional rulemaking, in the form of 2005 changes to the SRO Rules that are meant to tighten those rules; the December 2005 report of the NASD and NYSE studying the operation and effectiveness of prior regulatory actions, including the SRO Rules; enforcement actions against both firms' and research analysts' behavior; industry sweeps gathering information regarding industry practices in respect of debt research; and rulemaking for purposes of implementing interpretive guidance and Joint Report.

Following extraordinary and sweeping regulatory actions between 2001 and 2003, securities regulators have continued a high level of activity with respect to securities research. Research regulation stands as a hallmark for the current era of securities regulation for at least three reasons: it has displayed a wide range of regulatory tools including rulemaking, publication of interpretive guidance, “sweep” examinations, licensing, and enforcement, and has been largely “principles‐based” rather than prescriptive in nature; it is marked by complexity: a web of SEC, SRO, and informal or “best practices” regulation now exists covering every aspect of securities research; and it is a cornerstone of an emerging regulatory theme of heightened and more detailed compliance for investment banking operations.

This is a valuable summary and analysis of seven years of regulatory activity on a complex issue by experienced securities lawyers