Search results

This paper aims to analyze and discuss the implications of the August 2010 decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacating and remanding to the SEC its December 2008 order approving a proposed fee filed by NYSE Arca, LLC for its depth‐of‐book product ArcaBook. It also seeks to consider the effect on the court's decision of the Dodd‐Frank Act amendments to Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act.

The paper analyzes the evolution of the SEC's policy regarding SRO market data fees including the 1999 Concept Release on Market Information, the Advisory Committee on Market Information, the effects of decimalization and the 2005 adoption of Regulation NMS. It focuses on market data fee policy in connection with the Commission's decade‐long project to increase the role of competition in the US securities markets, culminating in the 2006 NYSE Arca fee filing, the SEC's 2008 order approving those fees and the NetCoalition decision.

The court's decision that a cost analysis is not irrelevant to the SEC's review of proposed SRO fee filings brings clarity and finality to a long‐standing dispute within the Commission and the securities industry and identifies a procedure for reaching an economically sound determination of “fair and reasonable” fees for SRO market data.

A cost‐based analysis of SRO market data fee filings is likely to result in a significant decline in market data revenues for those exchanges that charge fees for their data. For the Commission, cost‐based analysis is likely to require a significant reallocation of its regulatory staff and resources.

The paper presents a useful analysis for securities regulatory lawyers and financial analysts and investors following the stock exchange and financial information industries.

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.

In a high‐profile case that first drew big media headlines last February, a New York brokerage firm and a ring of eight brokers on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange were charged with perpetrating a scheme in which they made over $11.1m in illegal profits and at the same time covered their tracks with an elaborate fraud.

This paper explains how recent statements by the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) leadership – including the new Chief of the SEC’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) Unit – signal the American regulator’s intent to “level the playing field” by stepping up its investigations and enforcement of companies worldwide and what non-US issuers can do to prepare.

Uses information included in the announcement naming Charles E. Cain as Chief of the SEC’s specialized FCPA Unit to lay out an argument that the Unit’s priorities may focus more on non-US companies than US companies.

Based on past statements and written accounts made by Mr Cain, and with the tacit support of other senior SEC officials, it can be assumed that non-US companies will experience additional scrutiny from the SEC, in the name of leveling the playing field. Furthermore, it can be assumed that the SEC will place additional pressure on anti-corruption regimes in other international jurisdictions to do their part in combatting corruption.

This paper is of value to personnel within non-US issuers who are responsible for creating and enforcing their organization’s anti-bribery or anti-corruption policies and internal controls. It is also of value to legal counsel interested in developing an understanding of the current priorities of the SEC as far as the FCPA is concerned.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) of 1977 and its amendment – the Trade and Competitive Act of 1988 – are unique not only in the history of the accounting and auditing profession, but also in international law. The Acts raised awareness of the need for efficient and adequate internal control systems to prevent illegal acts such as the bribery of foreign officials, political parties and governments to secure or maintain contracts overseas. Its uniqueness is also due to the fact that the USA is the first country to pioneer such a legislation that impacted foreign trade, international law and codes of ethics. The research traces the history of the FCPA before and after its enactment, the role played by the various branches of the United States Government – Congress, Department of Justice, Securities Exchange commission (SEC), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); the contributions made by professional associations such as the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICFA), the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), the American Bar Association (ABA); and, finally, the role played by various international organizations such as the United Nations (UN), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). A cultural, ethical and legalistic background will give a better understanding of the FCPA as wll as the rationale for its controversy.

The purpose of this article is to inform the various securities market participants about new Exchange Act Rule 13h‐1, its specifics and the requirements it may impose.

The paper outlines the various requirements of the Rule and additional background information and some clarifications based on the SEC adopting release.

The Rule requires “large traders”, as defined in the Rule, to self‐identify to the SEC and to obtain from the SEC a large trader identification number (“LTID”) and provide the LTID to each US‐registered broker‐dealer through which it effects transactions in NMS securities. The Rule also requires US‐registered broker‐dealers to provide to the SEC, on request, data on large traders' transactions in NMS securities by the morning after the transactions are effected; and it requires US‐registered broker‐dealers to maintain books and records, and perform certain monitoring functions, with respect to these transactions. The SEC has also adopted Form 13H under Exchange Act Section 13(h). A large trader must submit to the SEC Form 13H as an “Initial Filing” to receive its LTID and file various periodic amendments thereafter.

The paper provides practical guidance from experienced securities lawyers. The authors hope the discussion in the paper will enable affected market participants, which include US‐ registered broker‐dealers as well as other persons within the Rule's definition of large trader, to be informed about and to prepare for compliance with the Rule.

This paper aims to highlight certain comments made by US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) officials, which may provide insight into compliance and enforcement issues that may be important for market participants, including broker-dealers, investment advisors and reporting companies, in the future.

This paper explains comments made by SEC officials and highlights potential regulatory issues based on past experiences of attorneys within the firm, past comments made by the SEC and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and past regulatory exam results.

This paper summarizes remarks from the recent SEC Speaks 2018 Conference conducted by SEC officials related to the Commission’s regulatory and enforcement priorities. Issuers, brokers, advisors and other financial organizations should familiarize themselves with the themes and guidance discussed at the Conference to prepare for regulatory compliance challenges in the upcoming year.

Practical guidance from experienced securities and financial services lawyers.

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze how “New Deal” regulatory initiatives, primarily the Securities Acts and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), changed US auditors’ professional knowledge conception, culminating in the 1938 expansion of the Committee on Accounting Procedure (CAP), the first US body to set accounting principles.

The paper combines Halliday’s (1985) knowledge mandates with Hancher and Moran’s (1989) regulatory space to attain a theory-based understanding of auditors’ changing knowledge conceptions amid regulatory pressure. It draws on a range of primary and secondary sources to examine the period from 1929 to 1938.

Following the stock market crash, the newly created SEC aimed to engage auditors as a means to regulate companies’ accounting practices based on a set of codified principles. While entailing increased status, this new role conflicted with the auditors’ knowledge conception, which was based on professional judgment and personal integrity. Pressure from the SEC and academics eventually made auditors agree to a codification of their professional knowledge and create the CAP as a cooperative regulatory solution.

The paper explores the role of auditors’ knowledge conceptions in the emergence of today’s standard setting. It is suggested that auditors’ incomplete control of their professional knowledge made standard setting a form of co-regulation, located between the actors occupying the regulatory space of accounting.

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 banks 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 second part of this paper will be published in the next issue of Journal of Financial Regulation & Compliance.