Search results

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.

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 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 Equal Pay Act 1970 (which came into operation on 29 December 1975) provides for an “equality clause” to be written into all contracts of employment. S.1(2) (a) of the 1970 Act (which has been amended by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975) provides:

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 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.

This paper examines the role of professional associations, governmental agencies, and international accounting and auditing bodies in promulgating standards to deter and detect fraud, domestically and abroad. Specifically, it focuses on the role played by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA), the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE), the US Government Accounting Office (GAO), and other national and foreign professional associations, in promulgating auditing standards and procedures to prevent fraud in financial statements and other white‐collar crimes. It also examines several fraud cases and the impact of management and employee fraud on the various business sectors such as insurance, banking, health care, and manufacturing, as well as the role of management, the boards of directors, the audit committees, auditors, and fraud examiners and their liability in the fraud prevention and investigation.

This study investigates the impact of the enhanced continuous disclosure regime introduced in December 2002 on several measures of information risk in NZX‐listed stocks. We employ two microstructure models and an intraday data set to measure information risk in a sample of 71 stocks. Our empirical results show that the reforms enacted in December 2002 had no significant effect on either the level of information‐based trading or the adverse selection component of market spreads in our sample of NZX‐listed stocks.

Knight's Industrial Law Reports goes into a new style and format as Managerial Law This issue of KILR is restyled Managerial Law and it now appears on a continuous updating basis rather than as a monthly routine affair.

A distinction must be drawn between a dismissal on the one hand, and on the other a repudiation of a contract of employment as a result of a breach of a fundamental term of that contract. When such a repudiation has been accepted by the innocent party then a termination of employment takes place. Such termination does not constitute dismissal (see London v. James Laidlaw & Sons Ltd (1974) IRLR 136 and Gannon v. J. C. Firth (1976) IRLR 415 EAT).