Part IV Financial Market Conduct and Misconduct, 11 Market Integrity

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arner Douglas W ◽  
Hsu Berry FC ◽  
Goo Say H ◽  
Johnstone Syren ◽  
Lejot Paul ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Hong Kong ◽  
The United States ◽  
Financial Fraud ◽  
Market Manipulation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Regulatory Structure ◽  
Market Conduct ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Insider Dealing

The chapter evaluates Hong Kong’s regulation of market misconduct. The chapter argues that much of Hong Kong’s regulatory structure addressing market misconduct is derived from overseas jurisdictions (Australia and the United States, and reflecting the European Union and the United Kingdom). In relation to insider dealing, market misconduct, and disclosure Hong Kong’s approach largely follows the legislative, regulatory, and common law development in the United States. The chapter concludes that following the enactment of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (SFO), Hong Kong has implemented a comprehensive system addressing market misconduct, through both disclosure regulation and market conduct regulation. This is especially the case in relation to insider dealing, market manipulation, and financial fraud and deception. Regulation addressing such issues in Hong Kong is generally of an international standard.

teaching and using english in hong kong, china, and the world

English Today ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 61-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
tom mcarthur
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Hong Kong ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Los Angeles ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The World

there are, as it were, three levels in the title of the discussion, each going further ‘out’ from hong kong, although the direction and perspective could as easily have been reversed, moving ‘inwards’ from the world to china to hong kong, one of history's most successful social, cultural, political, and economic anomalies. there could equally easily have been four levels: hong kong, china, asia, and the world, a framework that would even then have been simpler than, say, ‘london, england, the united kingdom, the european union, europe at large, and the world’, but much the same as ‘lagos, nigeria, africa, and the world’ or ‘los angeles, california, the united states, and the world’.

scholarly journals Cooperation and Coopetition as a Tools Which Could Improve Leading Startups all over the World

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 228
Author(s):  
Aneta Ejsmont
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Good News ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The World ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Leading Position ◽  
Foreign Sale ◽  
The Moment

Building own business is a long-term and laborious process. A person who leads a startup tries to start with building own business by taking first steps toward financial independence. Analyzing conditions in Poland, on average every second startup sells its services abroad, admittedly it is good news, although half of them do not export at all. Half of the startups which export their services and goods generates more than 50% of their revenues outside Poland. Very interesting is the fact that 60% of exporters have conducted their foreign sale since the moment of establishing their business. On which markets do they sell their services? It turns out that the most popular are markets in the European Union (54%), including the United Kingdom 14% and Germany 9%. Only about 25% of Polish startups exports their products and services to the United States. Taking the United States into consideration, in 2008 the USA lost their leading position in the number of startups which are newly created and achieving success in business. Currently in terms of the number of new startups the USA is on a quite distant place after Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Hungary, New Zealand, Israel or Italy. In short, more companies were closed than created, so it was, as a matter of fact, like in Poland. Therefore, the condition to improve the development of startups both from Poland and other countries all the world is to increase cooperation and coopetition.

scholarly journals Two Grand Old Ladies Face to Face: The United Kingdom and the United States of America Constitutions Compared

2015 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 989 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario Patrono ◽  
Justin O Frosini
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Parliamentary Sovereignty

This article discusses the Constitution of the United Kingdom and then draws some comparisons between it and the Constitution of the United States of America. It touches on issues such as how the United Kingdom's commitment to parliamentary sovereignty has been affected by the country's relationship with the European Union.

A Comparative Analysis of Accountability Mechanisms for Ecosystem Services Markets in the United States and the European Union

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 259-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert L. Glicksman ◽  
Thoko Kaime
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Performance Standards ◽  
The United States ◽  
Environmental Benefits ◽  
Market Manipulation ◽  
The European Union

AbstractMarkets in ecosystem services have the potential to provide financial incentives to protect the environment either in lieu of or in addition to more traditional regulatory programmes. If these markets function properly, they can provide enhanced levels of environmental quality or more efficient mechanisms for protecting natural resources that provide vital services to humans. The theoretical benefits of ecosystem services markets may be undercut, however, if care is not taken in creating the legal infrastructure that supports trading to ensure that trades actually provide the promised environmental benefits. This article identifies five essential pillars of an ecosystem services market regime that are necessary to provide operational accountability safeguards. These include financial safeguards, verifiable performance standards, transparency and public participation standards, regulatory oversight mechanisms, and rule of law safeguards. The article assesses whether the laws of the United States (US) and European Union (EU) are well designed to provide such accountability. It concludes that despite recognition of the risk of market manipulation and outright fraud, regulators in the US and the EU to date have responded to these risks largely in an ad hoc and incomplete fashion, rather than embedding the mechanisms for operational accountability discussed in this article into the regulatory framework that governs ecosystem services trading markets.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document