Annuities are not securities: the regulatory Island in Illinois

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 72-74
Author(s):  
Michele L. Schaff ◽  
Jeffery E. Schaff
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Standards Of Care ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Supreme Court Ruling ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Securities Law ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Investment Advisor ◽  
Securities Laws ◽  
Or History

Purpose Discusses the significance of the Illinois Supreme Court ruling in Van Dyke v. White, which clarified that annuities are not securities in the state of Illinois, with a particular focus on the ramifications to insurance, brokerage and investment advisory standards of care as well as causes of action for breaches thereof. Design/methodology/approach Describes the Court’s ruling as it relates to the industry going forward. Does not discuss the specifics of the plaintiff’s case or history. Findings The statutory language of Illinois’ securities laws specifically excludes annuities from the definition of securities. For this reason, the Illinois Department of Insurance has sole authority over regulating annuities, giving the Illinois Department of Securities no authority, except to the extent there is an investment advisor breach pursuant to §12(J) of the Illinois Securities Law of 1953. The industry has yet to react or adjust to the Court’s ruling, so there may be a future wave of reactions. Originality/value Assists the reader in understanding the unique regulatory environment of annuities in Illinois, the relevant standards of care related to annuity advice and transactions, and remedies for grievances after the Illinois Supreme Court ruling in Van Dyke v. White.

Amnesty law ruling may not reopen cases in El Salvador

2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
El Salvador ◽  
Political Stability ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Supreme Court Ruling ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Tit For Tat

Subject Amnesty law implications. Significance On July 13, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a civil-war amnesty law, which has been in force since 1993. This has led to fears of investigations against current politicians, and warnings that political stability could be undermined. Impacts The fall-out from the Supreme Court ruling will place a renewed focus on the independence of El Salvador's judiciary. The fact that both main parties are involved may discourage politicians from engaging in tit-for-tat allegations. There will be considerable military pressure on ARENA to oppose reopening civil-war cases.

Election risks will weigh on Kenyan economy

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Capital Markets ◽  
The Political ◽  
International Governance ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Supreme Court Ruling ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Public Investments ◽  
Regional Investment ◽  
The Supreme Court

Significance With all eyes on the political and security implications of the Supreme Court’s landmark annulment of the August 8 polls, elevated political risk is also impacting the economy, which could now see subdued conditions extend well into 2018. Given President Uhuru Kenyatta’s apparently comfortable victory and widespread approval by international observers, investors were stunned by the Supreme Court ruling, and are now likely to be cautious about fully re-entering local capital markets until the political clouds lift. Impacts Public investments under Odinga would likely focus on lower-profile but critical sectors such as agriculture and health. The government’s 1.5-billion-dollar precautionary IMF facility will buttress the currency if offshore investors accelerate their retreat. Kenya’s rankings on international governance indices could improve, increasing its appeal as a regional investment gateway.

Brazil's Rio de Janeiro faces an uncertain future

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Economic Growth ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Business Environment ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Research Institutions ◽  
Supreme Court Ruling ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Uncertain Future ◽  
The City ◽  
Science And Research

Significance The situation epitomises the chronically dysfunctional politics of the city and Rio state, of which it is the capital. In recent decades, Rio has plunged into profound economic, fiscal and security crises that no government has been able to address. Impacts Rio's strong science and research institutions could offer an avenue for quality economic growth. A poor business environment and perception of overall decline will undermine investment in the state. Rio was one of the states most affected by the COVID-induced recession and could face a longer road to recovery than others. A forthcoming Supreme Court ruling on oil royalties and possible failure to renew a federal 'rescue' deal threaten fiscal chaos.

SEC whistleblower retaliation – and the federal securities laws – after Digital Realty

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 22-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aegis Frumento ◽  
Stephanie Korenman
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Securities Law ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
History Of ◽  
Securities Laws

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Digital Realty Trust, Inc v. Somers and its significance for whistleblower retaliation remedies and securities law interpretation generally. Design methodology approach The authors review the statutory, regulatory and decisional history of the anti-whistleblower retaliation remedies of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act and the Dodd–Frank Act; how they were seen by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and most courts to be in conflict, and how they were ultimately harmonized by the Supreme Court in Digital Realty. Findings In Digital Realty, the Supreme Court ruled against the SEC and the leading Courts of Appeal and established that only one who reports securities law violations to the SEC can sue in federal court under the Dodd–Frank Act; all others are limited to the lesser remedies provided by the Sarbanes–Oxley Act. This simple conclusion raises a number of unresolved questions, which the authors identify and discuss. Also, the Supreme Court unanimously continued the pattern of federal securities laws decisions marked by a close reading of the text and a desire to limit private litigants’ access to the federal courts. Originality value This paper provides valuable information and insights about the legal protections for SEC whistleblowers from experienced securities lawyers and more generally on the principles that appear to guide securities law decisions in the Supreme Court.

Libya talks will go on regardless of Congress decision

2015 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Central Bank ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
The Other ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Supreme Court Ruling ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Direct Support ◽  
First Time

Significance The first condition is to move the location of the talks from Geneva to Ghat. The second is that the other attendees recognise the Supreme Court ruling of November 2014, which held that the process that led to the election in June 2014 of the Tobruk-based parliament, the House of Representatives (HoR), was unconstitutional. Initial talks took place on January 14-16 and dialogue is due to restart this week. Both main factions, the Dignity-backed HoR and the Dawn-supported GNC, have called for ceasefires, but not all factions within those blocs have accepted them. Still, this is the first time ceasefires have been called since fighting between the two main competing blocs escalated following the Supreme Court ruling. Impacts Despite the talks, regional states will still be inclined to provide direct support for a proxy that serves their geopolitical interests. Fighting for control of oil installations will severely restrict the flow of revenues. This could prompt the factions to apply more pressure on the National Oil Corporation and the Central Bank. If dialogue fails it will intensify the humanitarian consequences of the conflict.

Mexico marijuana ruling will not herald legalisation

2015 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Health Authority ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Supreme Court Ruling ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Drug Policies ◽  
General Production ◽  
Recreational Marijuana ◽  
Recreational Use

Subject A Supreme Court ruling permitting recreational marijuana use has reignited Mexico's drug-legalisation debate. Significance The Supreme Court on November 4 issued a ruling in favour of four individuals who submitted a judicial appeal after the national health authority -- the Federal Commission for Protection Against Sanitary Risks (COFEPRIS) -- rejected their request to consume, grow, own and transport cannabis for personal, recreational use. The ruling applies exclusively to the petitioners. President Enrique Pena Nieto's spokesman, Eduardo Sanchez, immediately clarified that it does not legalise marijuana, and that general production, commercialisation and supply remain banned, including for the four claimants. Impacts Although comparable appeals will undoubtedly flow to the Supreme Court, identical outcomes are not guaranteed. The ruling will re-ignite discussions on drug policies, despite the government's reluctance to introduce any major changes. Pena Nieto may struggle to reconcile his domestic and international stances on drugs as the 2016 UNGASS approaches.

US 2018 midterms are likely to weaken Democrats' clout

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
State Level ◽  
The State ◽  
The Political ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Supreme Court Ruling ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Federal Level ◽  
Presidential Primaries

Significance The Democrats are seeking to revive their party’s fortunes in legislative and electoral battles from the nadir following the political upsets of 2016. As the party seeks to orientate itself towards the administration of President Donald Trump at the federal level, its congressional leaders must balance the centrist considerations of legislative strategy under Republican rule with the expectations of frustrated progressive voters and activists in the party base. The Democrats also face electoral tests in the 2018 midterms and -- more importantly -- when Trump seeks re-election in 2020. Impacts House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is likely to face a post-midterms leadership challenge. More extreme Republican primary challengers backed by Steve Bannon could cost the Republicans otherwise winnable Senate seats. A sizeable contingent of Democratic senators are likely to vote with the 2020 presidential primaries in mind. A conservative Supreme Court ruling allowing partisan gerrymandering in key states will hinder Democratic House gains. Democratic weakness at the state level will have negative electoral and policymaking consequences at federal level.

Rent review: dark art or rainy sky?

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-190
Author(s):  
Malcolm John Dowden
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Supreme Court Ruling ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Service Charge ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to consider the impact on rent review clauses of a recent UK Supreme Court ruling on the interpretation and application of contractual provisions. Although the ruling in Arnold v. Britton (2015) UKSC 36 concerned service charge provisions, the court’s approach has significant implications for rent reviews where a fixed or indexed increase is intended. Design/methodology/approach – Review of the Supreme Court’s approach and findings in a case concerning clauses that provided for fixed percentage increases in long leases. Findings – It is no part of the court’s function, through the process of contractual interpretation, to rescue a party from a bad bargain. Research limitations/implications – Supreme Court ruling in Arnold v. Britton was considered in the context of recent rulings on rent review clauses. Practical implications – When drafting for a fixed or stepped increase at rent review, parties must ensure that any formulae or other provisions governing calculation produce results that are fair and in line with the parties’ actual intentions. The court will not use the process of contractual interpretation to rescue a party from a bad bargain, and will not intervene to override clear wording. Although the court has power to decide in favour of commercial common sense where a clause is ambiguous or unclear, there is a limit to the “red ink” that the court can apply, and no room for remedial interpretation where a clause is clear. Social implications – Where contract provisions are clear it is not open to the court to intervene, by means of contractual interpretation, to protect or to rescue a party who has been disadvantaged, however seriously, if the clause is clear. Where such cases arise in a contract covered by English law, or in similar common law jurisdictions, any protection must be found in statute. Originality/value – Practitioner’s review and comments on recent Supreme Court authority.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document