scholarly journals An overview analysis of selected challenges in the enforcement of the prohibition of insider trading and market manipulation in the European Union and South African regulatory frameworks

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 94
Author(s):  
H Chitimira
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
South African ◽  
Insider Trading ◽  
Market Manipulation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Regulatory Frameworks ◽  
Overview Analysis

scholarly journals A Historical Overview of the Regulation of Market Abuse in South Africa

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 971
Author(s):  
Howard Chitimira
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Financial Markets ◽  
South African ◽  
Insider Trading ◽  
Stock Exchanges ◽  
Market Manipulation ◽  
Historical Overview ◽  
The South ◽  
Market Abuse ◽  
Overview Analysis

In an early attempt to combat market abuse in the South African financial markets, legislation such as the Companies Act, the Financial Markets Control Act and the Stock Exchanges Control Act were enacted. However, these Acts failed to effectively curb market abuse activities that were allegedly rife in the financial markets. Consequently, the Insider Trading Act was enacted and came into effect on 17 January 1999. While the introduction of the Insider Trading Act brought some confidence in the financial markets, market abuse activities were still not extinguished. The provisions of the Insider Trading Act were to some extent inadequate and ineffectively implemented. Eventually, the Securities Services Act was enacted to repeal all the flawed provisions of the Insider Trading Act. Notwithstanding these efforts on the part of the legislature, more may still need to be done to increase the number of convictions and settlements in cases involving market abuse in South Africa. It is against this background that a historical overview analysis of the regulation of market abuse is carried out in this article to expose the flaws that were previously embedded in the South African market abuse laws prior to 2004. This is done to raise awareness of the situation on the part of the relevant stakeholders, as they consider whether such flaws were adequately resolved or subsequently re-introduced under the Securities Services Act and the Financial Markets Act. To this end, the article firstly discusses the historical development and regulation of market manipulation prior to 2004. Secondly, the regulation and enforcement of insider trading legislation prior to 2004 are examined. Moreover, where possible, certain flaws of the previous market abuse laws that were re-incorporated into the current South African market abuse legislation are isolated and recommendations are made in that regard.

Selected Aspects of the Regulation of Insider Trading and Market Manipulation in the European Union and South Africa

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 183-208
Author(s):  
Howard Chitimira
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
European Union ◽  
Insider Trading ◽  
Global Market ◽  
Market Manipulation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Market Abuse ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Insider Dealing ◽  
European Union Member States

The increasingly global market has given rise to increased interaction and interdependence among national regulators as well as investors in different jurisdictions. However, this has brought several regulatory problems to the enforcement authorities particularly with regard to the detection, investigation and prosecution of cross-border market abuse activities in many jurisdictions, such as the European Union and South Africa. Consequently, the European Union became the first body to establish multinational market abuse laws in order to enhance the detection and combating of cross-border market abuse practices. The European Union Insider Dealing Directive was subsequently adopted in 1989 and was the first law that harmonised the insider trading ban among the European Union member states. Thereafter, the European Union Directive on Insider Dealing and Market Manipulation was adopted in a bid to increase the combating of all the forms of market abuse in the European Union’s securities and financial markets. Similar anti-market abuse regulatory efforts were also made in South Africa. In light of this, selected regulatory aspects of market abuse in the European Union and South Africa will be briefly and comparatively discussed in tandem. Thereafter, some concluding remarks will be provided.

scholarly journals Analysis of Legal and Regulatory Frameworks in Digital Health: A Comparison of Guidelines and Approaches in the European Union and United States

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fara Aninha Fernandes ◽  
Georgi V Chaltikyan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Digital Health ◽  
Clinical Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Regulatory Pathways ◽  
Regulatory Frameworks ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Regulatory Landscape

The advent of digital technology in healthcare presents opportunities for the improvement of healthcare systems around the world and the move towards value-based treatment. However, this move must be accompanied by strong legal and regulatory frameworks that will not only facilitate but encourage the good use of technology. The goal of the study was to assess the amenability and furtherance of regulatory frameworks in digital health by evaluating and comparing the processes, effectiveness and outcomes of these frameworks in the European Union and United States. Methods: This study incorporated two research methodologies. The first was a research of current legal and regulatory frameworks in digital health in the European Union and United States. A comprehensive online search for publications was carried out which included laws, regulations, policies, green papers, guidelines and recommendations. This research was complemented with interviews of five purposively sampled key informants in the legal and regulatory landscape. Results: Mind-maps revealed key features and challenges of the digital health field in the topics of the current state of regulation of digital health in the EU, Germany and US, regulatory pathways for digital health devices, protection and privacy of health data, mobile health validation, risk-based classification of medical devices, regulation of clinical decision support systems, telemedicine, artificial intelligence and emerging technologies, reimbursement for digital health services and liability for digital health products. The experts expressed and explained key points where current regulation is deficient. The review of the legal frameworks revealed deficiencies which provide opportunities and recommendations to further develop and strengthen the regulatory landscape. Conclusions: A key element to a robust regulatory framework is the ability to ensure trust and confidence in using digital health technology. Technology must measure the impact on quality of life and burden of disease and not merely involve the collection of data.

scholarly journals Regulatory Frameworks for Aquaponics in the European Union

2019 ◽  
pp. 501-522 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tilman Reinhardt ◽  
Kyra Hoevenaars ◽  
Alyssa Joyce
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Technological Innovation ◽  
Innovation System ◽  
Regulatory Framework ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Institutional Conditions ◽  
Eu Policy ◽  
Regulatory Frameworks ◽  
Eu Policies

AbstractThis chapter provides an overview of the regulatory framework for aquaponics and the perspectives for European Union (EU) policy. Using Germany as an example, we analyze the specific regulations concerning construction and operation of aquaponic facilities and the commercialization of aquaponic products. We then show how aquaponics fits in with different EU policies and how it might contribute to EU sustainability goals. In the end, we provide some recommendations on how institutional conditions could be improved for aquaponics as an emerging technological innovation system.

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.

Development of BRICS Bilateral Trade Relations: A South African Perspective

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrino MAZENDA
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Central Asia ◽  
South African ◽  
Bilateral Trade ◽  
Trade Diversion ◽  
World Trade Organisation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Trade Relations ◽  
African Perspective

<p>This study examines the structure, value, intensity and complementarity of South Africa’s trade with its Brazil–Russia-India-China (BRIC) partners. It highlights the increasing dynamism of intra- BRICS trade, which started on accession to the World Trade Organisation in 2010. Key determinants to this dynamism include the rapid growth of Chinese and Indian economies accompanied by a steep rise in demand for South Africa’s primary commodities. The rising intensity with China is demand-oriented, while the intensity with India is supply-oriented, mostly in semi-finished and finished commodities.</p><p>South Africa’s addition to BRIC coincided with three key developments; its trade balance with most BRIC economies narrowed; the quality of its exports to the BRIC improved; and the value of its exports to BRIC exceeded the value of exports to the European Union and Central Asia. The latter development is attributable to trade diversion from the European Union and Central Asia to the BRIC.</p><p>Inclusive growth is probable if South Africa could leverage trade with the BRIC. More, so while employment is at peak in labour- intensive primary industry, intra-industry trade with the BRIC would resuscitate the manufacturing and services sectors so that the complementary effects of trade would be feasible.</p>

A historical overview of the general implementation of the European Union Market Abuse Directive in the United Kingdom before Brexit and its future implications

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-244
Author(s):  
Howard Chitimira
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Insider Trading ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Market Abuse ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Insider Dealing ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Market Abuse Directive

The European Union (EU) was arguably the first body to establish multinational anti-market abuse laws aimed at enhancing the detection and curbing of cross-border market abuse activities in its Member States. Put differently, the EU Insider Dealing Directive was adopted in 1989 and was the first law that harmonized the insider trading ban among the EU Member States. Thereafter, the European Union Directive on Insider Dealing and Market Manipulation (EU Market Abuse Directive) was adopted in a bid to improve and effectively discourage all forms of market abuse in the EU’s securities and financial markets. However, the EU Market Abuse Directive had its own gaps and flaws. In light of this, the Market Abuse Regulation and the Criminal Sanctions for Market Abuse Directive were enacted to repeal and replace the EU Market Abuse Directive in 2016. The article examines the adequacy of the EU Market Abuse Directive and its implementation in the United Kingdom (UK) prior to the UK’s vote to leave the European Union (Brexit). This is done to investigate the possible implications of the Brexit referendum outcome of 23 June 2016 on the future regulation of market abuse in the UK.

PONZI FINANCE AND THE HEDGE FUND INDUSTRY

2012 ◽  
Vol 15 (supp02) ◽  
pp. 1250037
Author(s):  
WILLI SEMMLER ◽  
RAPHAELE CHAPPE
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Dynamic Model ◽  
Asset Management ◽  
Hedge Funds ◽  
Hedge Fund ◽  
Stochastic Dynamic ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Obama Administration ◽  
Regulatory Frameworks ◽  
Fund Industry

This paper presents a stochastic dynamic model that can be used to describe situations in asset management where hedge funds may inadvertently find themselves running a Ponzi financing scheme. Greater transparency is necessary to reduce such opportunities, such as audited financials, and disclosure of valuation methodologies. In that respect, new regulatory frameworks enacted by the Obama administration and the European Union are welcome developments.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document