排序方式: 共有90条查询结果,搜索用时 15 毫秒
51.
52.
53.
54.
OlgaS. Burn 《Journal of criminal justice》1982,10(4):331-332
55.
OlgaS. Burn 《Journal of criminal justice》1983,11(2):190-191
56.
The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. Key points
1. Introduction
With a sly dig at the abusive market practices of his time,Oscar Wilde wrote that private information is practicallythe source of every large modern fortune.1 For some,it still is, despite the efforts of legislators and . . . [Full Text of this Article]
2. The pieces
3. Some analysis
Purpose Retrospective disclosure Disclosure of future events
4. Why does it matter?
Improving the quality of disclosure Avoidance of time-wasting Avoidance of vexatious litigation
5. Resolving the problem
Sensible liability regime Sensible interpretation
6. Remaining problems
Multi-jurisdiction liability Forward-looking disclosure—foresight, hindsight and second sight
7. Conclusion
相似文献
- This article looks at the various elements of thedisclosure regimes for issuers that are admitted to EEA-regulatedmarkets, including the initial requirement for the productionof a prospectus on admission and on-going requirements to discloseprice sensitive information as it arises and to make regularreports to the market.
- After a brief analysis of some of thesimilarities and differences between the various regimes, thearticle makes an attempt to reconcile the differences by lookingat each regime in the context of the others and viewing themas a continuum.
- Finally, remaining problems concerning multi-jurisdictionliability for disclosure in the EEA and potential liabilityfor forward-looking disclosure are discussed.
57.
The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. Key points
1. Introduction
2. Reports under the Transparency Obligations Directive
3. Liability for disclosure under English law
4. What went wrong?
5. Making the logical connections
6. Achieving the right threshold for liability
7. The importance of consistency in liability for market disclosures
- This article explains why the recent TransparencyDirective led to an unintended change in law in the United Kingdomrelating to liability for annual and other reports by listedcompanies. The change was the result of a misunderstanding ofthe fact that the expressed or implied purpose of disclosurecan act as a trigger for liability in negligence. The articleargues that new disclosure requirements should always be reviewedin the light of the liability that will be imposed on thoseresponsible for the disclosure, so that costs and benefits canbe correctly balanced and prompt, reliable and relevant disclosurewill be encouraged.
- The new liability regime for reports inthe United Kingdom is considered and it is argued that the regimeshould logically be extended beyond company reports to the fullrange of disclosures required of companies that are admittedto regulated markets.
- The article concludes by
. . . [Full Text of this Article]