Search results

To discuss general legal considerations for non-US private equity sponsors who seek to market their funds to US institutional investors.

Explains relevant aspects of US securities laws, commodity exchange laws, pension and employee benefit plan laws, federal income tax laws, and the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).

The evolving US regulatory regime necessitates careful planning and thorough knowledge of relevant laws and regulations to effect a successful US marketing effort.

Practical guidance from experienced investment funds and tax lawyers.

One of the principal goals of derivatives regulation is to prevent market manipulation. Manipulation destroys investor confidence, leads to reduction of trading activity, and reduces the overall prosperity and revenue generated by market activity. To avoid these dire consequences, those societies committed to a market economy generally impose regulation to prevent interference with and distortion of natural market forces of supply and demand.

The alert endeavors to clarify the current state of play regarding the registration requirements for commodity pool operators (CPOs) and to discuss certain exemptions from registration and no‐action relief that may be applicable to sponsors of private funds.

The authors' approach is focused on the practical steps a fund sponsor may need to take to claim an exemption from the CPO registration requirements. The authors obtained the research from publicly available CFTC sources.

Although many private equity funds may be exempt from the CPO registration requirements, many of the CFTC's exemptions are not self‐executing and necessitate ongoing action by the fund sponsor.

Before entering into any swaps, a sponsor of a private fund should consider whether the swap transaction will impact any exemptive relief currently claimed by the sponsor and whether any further CFTC action is required as a result of such transaction.

The article should provide a roadmap of the possible exemptions from CPO registration for sponsors of private funds.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the consequences of the “safe harbor” provisions of the US Bankruptcy Code that were enacted from 1984 through 2005 and that protect certain financial contracts from standard bankruptcy procedures.

Qualitative methods are used to evaluate whether these provisions of the Bankruptcy Code were successful in their stated goal of reducing systemic risk in the financial system. A model of systemic risk is presented verbally in order to frame the discussion.

Recent evidence indicates that the “safe harbor” provisions, in fact, destabilized the financial system by encouraging collateralized interbank lending, discouraging careful analysis of the credit risk of counterparties and increasing the risk that creditors will run on a financial firm.

This paper indicates that the rewriting of the Bankruptcy Code to favor financial firms has had a profoundly destabilizing effect on the financial system. To put the financial system on more secure foundations, the author proposes that large complex financial institutions be prohibited from posting collateral on over the counter derivative transactions and that the repo‐related bankruptcy amendments passed in 2005 be repealed.

This paper proposes an original framework for understanding systemic risk which drives the results in the paper.

This paper first generally describes the requirements under US federal law to register as a commodity pool operator (CPO), and the disclosure, reporting and record keeping obligations which normally apply to registered CPOs. It then discusses in detail two particular sources of relief from certain of these disclosure, reporting and record keeping obligations — an Advisory issued by the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) on 11th April, 1996, and CFTC Rule 4.7 — and compares the requirements to qualify for, and relief available under, the Advisory and CFTC Rule 4.7.

The equation of unified knowledge says that S = f (A,P) which means that the practical solution to a given problem is a function of the existing, empirical, actual realities and the future, potential, best possible conditions of general stable equilibrium which both pure and practical reason, exhaustive in the Kantian sense, show as being within the realm of potential realities beyond any doubt. The first classical revolution in economic thinking, included in factor “P” of the equation, conceived the economic and financial problems in terms of a model of ideal conditions of stable equilibrium but neglected the full consideration of the existing, actual conditions. That is the main reason why, in the end, it failed. The second modern revolution, included in factor “A” of the equation, conceived the economic and financial problems in terms of the existing, actual conditions, usually in disequilibrium or unstable equilibrium (in case of stagnation) and neglected the sense of right direction expressed in factor “P” or the realization of general, stable equilibrium. That is the main reason why the modern revolution failed in the past and is failing in front of our eyes in the present. The equation of unified knowledge, perceived as a sui generis synthesis between classical and modern thinking has been applied rigorously and systematically in writing the enclosed American‐British economic, monetary, financial and social stabilization plans. In the final analysis, a new economic philosophy, based on a synthesis between classical and modern thinking, called here the new economics of unified knowledge, is applied to solve the malaise of the twentieth century which resulted from a confusion between thinking in terms of stable equilibrium on the one hand and disequilibrium or unstable equilibrium on the other.

1.1. Logical Necessity of the Three Dimensions as a Unit of Thought The mathematician does not look kindly on the simple question of why natural space should consist of precisely three dimensions. Instead of giving an answer he assumes a silent smile and shows us a version of space with an infinity of dimensions, as if space were some kind of toy for him to fiddle with to his heart's content.

Allyn Young′s lectures, as recorded by the young Nicholas Kaldor, survey the historical roots of the subject from Aristotle through to the modern neo‐classical writers. The focus throughout is on the conditions making for economic progress, with stress on the institutional developments that extend and are extended by the size of the market. Organisational changes that promote the division of labour and specialisation within and between firms and industries, and which promote competition and mobility, are seen as the vital factors in growth. In the absence of new markets, inventions as such play only a minor role. The economic system is an inter‐related whole, or a living “organon”. It is from this perspective that micro‐economic relations are analysed, and this helps expose certain fallacies of composition associated with the marginal productivity theory of production and distribution. Factors are paid not because they are productive but because they are scarce. Likewise he shows why Marshallian supply and demand schedules, based on the “one thing at a time” approach, cannot adequately describe the dynamic growth properties of the system. Supply and demand cannot be simply integrated to arrive at a picture of the whole economy. These notes are complemented by eleven articles in the Encyclopaedia Britannica which were published shortly after Young′s sudden death in 1929.

The purpose of this second part of this special issue is to contribute to a better understanding of the nature of Soviet society. It is not possible to analyse such a society in all its complexities within the space of one study. There are, however, some economic relations which determine society's major features. We believe that commodity‐production relations in the Soviet Union are of this type.

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.