Enforcing United States Securities Regulation against Canadians: Conflict of Laws Problems

1953 ◽  
Vol 66 (6) ◽  
pp. 1081
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Securities Regulation ◽  
Conflict Of Laws

Free Speech in the Balance: An Examination of Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme for its Bearing on Conflict of Laws, Global Free Speech, and the International Regulation of the Internet

Global Jurist ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Ziaja
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Internet ◽  
International Regulation ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
Circuit Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Transnational Communication ◽  
Communication Calls

The global proliferation of the Internet, given the ease with which it permits transnational communication, calls into question the applicability of traditional territorial legal systems in governing its use. Conflict-of-laws instruments and the regulation of speech are two thorny areas of concern in this vein that interrelate in a 2006 case before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the United States, Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L’Antisemitisme. Yahoo! offers an entry point, through its bearing on conflict-of-laws and freedom of speech jurisprudence, into examining the appropriateness of traditional legal schemes to the task of regulating Internet-enabled conduct. Focusing on the substantive issues in Yahoo!, this paper takes up the adequacy of traditional conflict-of-laws instruments as regards Internet-enabled conduct, possible alternatives to the use of conflict-of-laws instruments to regulate Internet-enabled conduct, the applicability and weight of the French law against the First Amendment in a United States court, and, finally, the possibility of developing a common core of global values regarding speech on the Internet.

Conflict of Laws, Mexico and the United States: A Bilateral Study

1969 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 449
Author(s):  
J. G. Castel ◽  
S. A. Bayitch ◽  
Jose Luis Siqueiros
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Conflict Of Laws

Hedge Fund Regulation

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wulf A. Kaal ◽  
Dale A. Oesterle
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Hedge Funds ◽  
Hedge Fund ◽  
Private Investment ◽  
The United States ◽  
Regulatory Framework ◽  
Securities Regulation ◽  
Investment Fund ◽  
Investment Funds ◽  
Fund Industry

The hedge fund industry in the United States has evolved from a niche market participant in the early 1950s to a major industry operating in international financial markets today. Hedge funds in the United States began as privately held and privately managed investment funds, unregistered and exempt from federal securities regulation. An increasing investor demand for hedge funds and substantial growth of the hedge fund industry resulted in a tectonic shift in the regulatory framework applicable to the industry via the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection (Dodd-Frank) Act. This chapter summarizes the evolution of the regulatory framework governing the hedge fund industry. It focuses on the registration and disclosure provisions added by the Dodd-Frank Act and several other regulatory innovations, including the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act and proposals for tax reform of the private investment fund industry.

Part II The Transatlantic Dialogue, 4 The Parallel System—The United States

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jordan Cally
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Parallel System ◽  
Securities Regulation ◽  
International Capital Markets ◽  
Playing Field ◽  
Market Participants ◽  
The Us ◽  
Integrated Or ◽  
International Aspects

This chapter evaluates securities regulation in the United States. For a variety of reasons, domestic US securities regulation has served as a model to the world, either directly or through its influence in international standard setting. The parallel system, however, has not been exported and so remains a somewhat unique aspect of US law, and based on the concept of the foreign private issuer (FPI), appears firmly entrenched. Going forward, it is possible that the domestic and international aspects of US markets may become more integrated, or at least coordinated. Calls for greater EU-style deference to home country regulation for non-US issuers and market participants would certainly simplify, and perhaps undermine, the US parallel system. There is no doubt as to the decline of US hegemony in regulation of international capital markets. Within the United States, level playing field arguments continue to surface, sometimes in surprising ways.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document