共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
《Capital Markets Law Journal》2007,2(1):110
2.
Future Developments 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
《Capital Markets Law Journal》2006,1(1):132
July 2006 UK FSA Consultation Paper ‘Implementing MiFID for firmsand markets’ to be published. Consultation period to closein October 2006. 6 July: Deadline for responses to Committee of European BankingSupervisors’ (CEBS) consultation CP02 on its standardsfor outsourcing of 相似文献
3.
《Capital Markets Law Journal》2008,3(1):104
4.
The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. Key points
1. Introduction
2. MiFID's best execution. Why a flexible definition?
3. Is MiFID's definition really flexible?
4. Political and economic implications
5. When is a dealer an ‘agent’?
6. Conclusions
相似文献
- Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament andof the Council on markets in financial instruments (‘MiFID’)enhances investor protection in Europe by harmonizing the rulesof conduct applicable to investment services providers, includingbest execution requirements.
- Under MiFID, Member States mustallow internalization of orders and, therefore, eliminate the‘concentration’ provisions requiring transactionsin equity securities to be executed by intermediaries on a regulatedmarket. This article argues that MiFID's best execution provisionsmay represent a compromise between those Member States that,on one hand, having concentration rules in place, intended toprotect the incumbent exchanges from the consequences of theirrepeal and those, on the other, that intended to fully exploitthe opportunities of financial liberalization in Europe.
- Afterexamining MiFID's broad definition of best execution, the articleconsiders several provisions that limit the Directive's flexibility.These provisions tend to favour incumbent exchanges, which offerthe best
. . . [Full Text of this Article]
5.
《Trusts & Trustees》2009,15(1):1
6.
《Capital Markets Law Journal》2009,4(1):128
7.
《Trusts & Trustees》2008,14(4):199
8.
《Trusts & Trustees》2008,14(3):151
9.
《Capital Markets Law Journal》2007,2(2):240
10.
The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. Key points
1. Introduction
Approximately two years have lapsed since the implementationof the Prospectus Directive in most EU Member States, whichwas required by 1 July 2005. In spite of the Prospectus Regulationand CESR's Recommendations (on level 2, respectively level 3of the Lamfalussy process) . . . [Full Text of this Article]
2. The role of CESR
3. CESR's common positions based on frequently asked questions (FAQs) with respect to disclosure practices
Use of supplemental prospectus for new offerings (FAQ no. 25) Supplemental prospectus and interim financial information (FAQ no. 16) Supplemental prospectus and profit forecast (FAQ no. 17) Conversion exemption (FAQ no. 22) Use of annual report as registration document (FAQ no. 8) Financial information of start-up entities (FAQ no. 14)
4. Disclosure practices (presently) beyond CESR's guidance
10 per cent-exemption for units in a limited partnership Disclosure issues for investment entities Risk factor disclosure
5. Conclusion
相似文献
- In February 2005, CESR issued its Recommendationsfor the consistent implementation of the Prospectus Regulation.
- SinceJuly 2006, CESR has begun to develop a line of clarificationson disclosure practices under the Prospectus Directive and theProspectus Regulation in the form of common positions basedon Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs).
- This article first analysesthe question to which extent CESR's Recommendations and commonpositions have binding effect, in the sense that individualnational securities regulators are under some form of obligationto apply these.
- Subsequently, the article discusses a selectionof CESR's common positions on FAQs which are of material importancefor day-to-day disclosure practice.
11.
Lessig Blog By Lawrence Lessig United States of America Archivedback to August 2002 http://www.lessig.org/blog/ Techno Llama ByAndres Guadamuz Scotland Archived back to October 2004 http://technollama.blogspot.com/ Patently-O:Patent Law Blog By Dennis Crouch United States of America Archivedback to April 2005 http://patentlaw.typepad.com/
Lessig Blog
Lawrence Lessig is the author of such revered titles as Codeand Other Laws of Cyberspace and The Future of Ideas. As maybe expected, his eponymous blog site follows themes 相似文献
12.
《Capital Markets Law Journal》2008,3(2):241
13.
《Jnl of Intellectual Property Law & Pract》2008,3(4):206-208
14.
《Capital Markets Law Journal》2007,2(3):325
15.
《Jnl of Intellectual Property Law & Pract》2008,3(1):2-4
16.
《Jnl of Intellectual Property Law & Pract》2008,3(3):148-150
17.
18.
The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. Key points
1. Introduction
2. Back where it started
- Shareholder rights have been the centre of the debatein Corporate Governance since recently. At the same time, modernsecurities markets have evolved and changed profoundly in recentdecades, both in the way in which the securities are representedand transferred—through electronic book entries held byintermediaries—and in the geographical reach of such transfers:every corner of the world.
- Recent research has thoroughly analysedthe effects of the indirect holding system in those countriesthat have chosen to give legal status to indirect holding systems(where the paradigm is the USA), leading to the conclusion thatin these countries the issuer–investor relationship encountersfar more difficulties than in those that facilitate direct holding.Some scholars have even proposed that countries such as theUSA should move into a direct holding similar to the Spanishone.
- This article analyses whether direct holdings facilitatethe said issuer–investor relationship by reviewing
. . . [Full Text of this Article]