Disclosure obligations of a debtor under the Singapore scheme of arrangement: Lessons from England and the US

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alfino Zijian Eu
Keyword(s):  
The Us ◽  
Disclosure Obligations

Better ‘Best Execution’

2018 ◽  
pp. 165-196
Author(s):  
Christopher Nagy ◽  
Tyler Gellasch
Keyword(s):  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Client Expectations ◽  
The Us ◽  
Best Execution ◽  
Public Disclosures ◽  
Investment Advisers ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Disclosure Obligations

This chapter reviews best execution and new disclosure obligations in relation to investment advisers as well as brokers; it also provides an overview of the strategies they use to meet their rapidly changing obligations. Investment advisers and brokers are confronted with increasingly stringent regulatory and client expectations to fulfil their duty of best execution. Regulators in Europe have become active in developing formal best execution obligations, but the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is lagging behind in providing a clear framework for best execution. This chapter first outlines the analogous best execution obligation for broker-dealers and explores the contours of the SEC’s expectations for investment advisers. It then assesses the impact of new European best execution obligations and the role of public disclosures in aiding the fulfilment of best execution duties. It concludes by examining various strategies used by investment advisers to fulfil their evolving duties.

Securities and Exchange Commission announces enforcement initiative directed at reporting violations by public company insiders

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard J. Parrino ◽  
Peter Romeo ◽  
Alan Dye
Keyword(s):  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Timely Manner ◽  
Public Companies ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Past ◽  
Public Company ◽  
The Us ◽  
Securities Laws ◽  
Enforcement Activity ◽  
Disclosure Obligations

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to review the enforcement initiative announced by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in September 2014 directed at reporting violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) by public company officers, directors and significant stockholders. The paper considers the notable features of the first round of SEC enforcement actions pursuant to that initiative and proposes measures public companies and their insiders can adopt to enhance compliance with their reporting and related disclosure obligations under the Exchange Act. Design/methodology/approach – The paper examines the SEC’s enforcement initiative against the backdrop of the agency’s enforcement activity since 1990 for violations by public company insiders of the reporting provisions of Sections 13 and 16 of the Exchange Act. The paper summarizes the features of the reporting violations that attracted SEC enforcement interest in the recent proceedings and identifies the factors apparently weighed by the SEC in determining the amount of the penalties sought against those charged with the violations. Findings – The SEC’s latest enforcement actions are unprecedented for insider reporting violations. The new enforcement initiative represents an abandonment by the SEC of its largely passive approach of the past dozen years in which it charged insider reporting violations only when they related to fraud or other major violations of the securities laws. If reporting violations are flagrant, the SEC now promises to target the offenders for enforcement on a stand-alone basis without regard to other possible wrongdoing. The SEC also cautions that, as it did in some of the recent enforcement actions, it may charge companies that promise to assist their insiders in the preparation and filing of their reports, but do not to make the filings in a timely manner, with contributing to the filing failures. Originality/value – The paper provides expert guidance from experienced securities lawyers.

scholarly journals The disclosure of enterprise risk management (ERM) information: An overview of Canadian regulations for risk disclosure

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 13-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Maingot ◽  
Tony Quon ◽  
Daniel Zeghal
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Annual Report ◽  
Risk Disclosure ◽  
International Regulation ◽  
Financial Reporting Standards ◽  
Accounting Disclosures ◽  
Enterprise Risk ◽  
The Us ◽  
Risk Disclosures ◽  
Disclosure Obligations

This paper discusses the mandatory risk disclosures in Canada under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). U.S. mandatory accounting disclosures of risk are also briefly examined, since some Canadian companies are cross-listed in the US. Mandatory disclosures of risk under the Basel II and Basel III Accords for the international regulation of banks are discussed as well as the assessment of ERM by Standard & Poor’s. The risk disclosures in the Management Discussion & Analysis (MD&A) section of the annual report prescribed by the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) in National Instrument 51-102 Continuous Disclosure Obligations are examined. Since these risk disclosures are voluntary, the actual disclosures in the MD&A section of the annual report are entirely at the discretion of management subject to effective board oversight.

The Rights of the Accused under the Rome Statute and the US Bill of Rights: Has 20 Years of ICC Jurisprudence Brought Those Together?

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 318-366
Author(s):  
Kacper Zajac
Keyword(s):  
Rome Statute ◽  
Institutional Design ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Judicial Interpretation ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
Procedural Rights ◽  
Disclosure Obligations ◽  
Made In

Abstract The alleged lower standard of the rights of the accused under the Rome Statute compared to those guaranteed by the US Constitution was one of the most important areas of criticism of the Rome Statute by American scholars. This criticism was made in the early 2000s and was based on the text of the Rome Statute alone, before any ICC jurisprudence existed. This article draws on the 20 years of operation of the ICC to ascertain whether the judicial interpretation and application of the procedural rights of the defendant, guaranteed under the Rome Statute, have made them more compatible with their counterparts under the US Constitution. The premise of this article is that the 20 years of interpretation and application of those rights may have strengthened them to the point where the gap between the procedural guarantees under the Rome Statute and the US Constitution has become negligible. This, in turn, would make the early criticism of the ICC system obsolete, at least insofar as the legal argument is concerned. Accordingly, this paper examines existing jurisprudence of the ICC in the areas of prosecutorial disclosure obligations, admission of evidence and the examination of witnesses. This is for several reasons: firstly, the selected three rights were among those criticised by American scholars in the early 2000s as falling short of what was required under the US Constitution; secondly, unlike some other criticised rights, which reflect the ICC’s institutional design and, therefore, are unlikely to change in scope, the selected three are relatively vaguely phrased, thus making it possible to transform their meaning through judicial interpretation; thirdly, the selected rights have been sufficiently elaborated on by the ICC through case law so as to carry a meaning exceeding what the Rome Statute alone provides. The findings of the study indicate that inasmuch as the ICC’s jurisprudence has moved some aspects of the three areas under examination towards their counterparts under the US Constitution, the procedural rights of the defendant before American courts generally remain more robust.

The Eleventh Circuit Holds that Agreements in which Pharmaceutical Companies Pay Generic Companies Not to Compete May be Valid

2004 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 181-184
Author(s):  
Amy Garrigues
Keyword(s):  
Pharmaceutical Companies ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Patent Holder ◽  
Trial Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The Us ◽  
Antitrust Laws ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Appeals Court ◽  
Two Sides

On September 15, 2003, the US. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that agreements between pharmaceutical and generic companies not to compete are not per se unlawful if these agreements do not expand the existing exclusionary right of a patent. The Valley DrugCo.v.Geneva Pharmaceuticals decision emphasizes that the nature of a patent gives the patent holder exclusive rights, and if an agreement merely confirms that exclusivity, then it is not per se unlawful. With this holding, the appeals court reversed the decision of the trial court, which held that agreements under which competitors are paid to stay out of the market are per se violations of the antitrust laws. An examination of the Valley Drugtrial and appeals court decisions sheds light on the two sides of an emerging legal debate concerning the validity of pay-not-to-compete agreements, and more broadly, on the appropriate balance between the seemingly competing interests of patent and antitrust laws.

Fighting the US Youth Sex Trade

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carrie N. Baker
Keyword(s):  
Sex Trade ◽  
The Us

Putting Trust in the US Budget

2000 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric M. Patashnik
Keyword(s):  
The Us

Relation of Statistically Significant, Abnormal, and Typical WAIS-R VIQ-PIQ Discrepancies to Full Scale IQs

2000 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 107-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louis M. Hsu ◽  
Judy Hayman ◽  
Judith Koch ◽  
Debbie Mandell
Keyword(s):  
Graphical Method ◽  
The United States ◽  
Full Scale ◽  
True Score ◽  
Absolute Value ◽  
Normative Population ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Mean ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Quadratic Models

Summary: In the United States' normative population for the WAIS-R, differences (Ds) between persons' verbal and performance IQs (VIQs and PIQs) tend to increase with an increase in full scale IQs (FSIQs). This suggests that norm-referenced interpretations of Ds should take FSIQs into account. Two new graphs are presented to facilitate this type of interpretation. One of these graphs estimates the mean of absolute values of D (called typical D) at each FSIQ level of the US normative population. The other graph estimates the absolute value of D that is exceeded only 5% of the time (called abnormal D) at each FSIQ level of this population. A graph for the identification of conventional “statistically significant Ds” (also called “reliable Ds”) is also presented. A reliable D is defined in the context of classical true score theory as an absolute D that is unlikely (p < .05) to be exceeded by a person whose true VIQ and PIQ are equal. As conventionally defined reliable Ds do not depend on the FSIQ. The graphs of typical and abnormal Ds are based on quadratic models of the relation of sizes of Ds to FSIQs. These models are generalizations of models described in Hsu (1996) . The new graphical method of identifying Abnormal Ds is compared to the conventional Payne-Jones method of identifying these Ds. Implications of the three juxtaposed graphs for the interpretation of VIQ-PIQ differences are discussed.

Factorial Structure of the Therapist Adherence Measure-Revised (TAM-R) Within Multisystemic Therapy

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 427-431
Author(s):  
Aurelie M. C. Lange ◽  
Marc J. M. H. Delsing ◽  
Ron H. J. Scholte ◽  
Rachel E. A. van der Rijken
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Factor Structure ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Multisystemic Therapy ◽  
Model Fit ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Adherence Measure ◽  
Therapist Adherence ◽  
Confirmatory Factor ◽  
The Us

Abstract. The Therapist Adherence Measure (TAM-R) is a central assessment within the quality-assurance system of Multisystemic Therapy (MST). Studies into the validity and reliability of the TAM in the US have found varying numbers of latent factors. The current study aimed to reexamine its factor structure using two independent samples of families participating in MST in the Netherlands. The factor structure was explored using an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) in Sample 1 ( N = 580). This resulted in a two-factor solution. The factors were labeled “therapist adherence” and “client–therapist alliance.” Four cross-loading items were dropped. Reliability of the resulting factors was good. This two-factor model showed good model fit in a subsequent Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) in Sample 2 ( N = 723). The current finding of an alliance component corroborates previous studies and fits with the focus of the MST treatment model on creating engagement.

Measurement Invariance of a Universal Behavioral Screener Across Samples From the USA and Germany

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 87-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gino Casale ◽  
Robert J. Volpe ◽  
Brian Daniels ◽  
Thomas Hennemann ◽  
Amy M. Briesch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Measurement Invariance ◽  
Student Behavior ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Cross Cultural Comparison ◽  
School Based ◽  
Cultural Research ◽  
Universal Screener ◽  
Confirmatory Factor ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Usa

Abstract. The current study examines the item and scalar equivalence of an abbreviated school-based universal screener that was cross-culturally translated and adapted from English into German. The instrument was designed to assess student behavior problems that impact classroom learning. Participants were 1,346 K-6 grade students from the US (n = 390, Mage = 9.23, 38.5% female) and Germany (n = 956, Mage = 8.04, 40.1% female). Measurement invariance was tested by multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across students from the US and Germany. Results support full scalar invariance between students from the US and Germany (df = 266, χ2 = 790.141, Δχ2 = 6.9, p < .001, CFI = 0.976, ΔCFI = 0.000, RMSEA = 0.052, ΔRMSEA = −0.003) indicating that the factor structure, the factor loadings, and the item thresholds are comparable across samples. This finding implies that a full cross-cultural comparison including latent factor means and structural coefficients between the US and the German version of the abbreviated screener is possible. Therefore, the tool can be used in German schools as well as for cross-cultural research purposes between the US and Germany.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document