um law seminar on the trial of charles taylor September 4, 2008
Posted by Bradley in : Uncategorized , comments closedTogether with the World Organization for Human Rights, UM Law is hosting a short seminar tomorrow Friday, September 5th from 2:00 — 5:00 p.m. in the Faculty Lounge to discuss the issues in the trial of the son of former Liberian President Charles Taylor taking place in Miami. Prof. Elizabeth Iglesias, Prof. Ricardo Bascuas, Prof. Stephen Schnably, Director Jessica Carvalho Morris and Deputy Director Therese Harris (World Organization for Human Rights USA) will be conducting the seminar.
consultation and retail investors September 4, 2008
Posted by Bradley in : Uncategorized , comments closedIn an apparent contrast to many official consultation exercises on issues of financial regulation, which seem mostly to be concerned with the views of financial firms, Canada’s Joint Standing Committee on Retail Investor Issues has just published a set of questions about product suitability directed to retail investors (with answers due by October 9):
1) What information about an investment does your adviser give you before and after you buy it? Is there any other information you would like?
2) Should specific investment products be prohibited from sale to the public, or should all products be available to investors and investors be allowed to make their own choice?
3) Should regulators focus on regulating specific products or on regulating how products are sold and distributed?
The Chair of the Committee, who is also Vice Chair of the Ontario Securities Commission, said:
This is part of our ongoing commitment to more effectively integrate the retail investor perspective into our regulatory efforts.
It will be interesting to see what sort of response the Committee gets to this consultation.
cras, the commission, and consultation September 3, 2008
Posted by Bradley in : Uncategorized , comments closedEACT, the European Associations of Corporate Treasurers, don’t like the Commission’s proposals for regulating credit rating agencies. EACT have produced a 23 page response to the Commission’s consultation, a consultation period which expires on Friday, and was truncated:
It was not possible for Commission services to start the consultation period earlier given the fact that the advice of the Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR) and the report of European Securities Markets Expert group (ESME) were delivered only in May and June this year respectively. These contributions had been prepared on the request of the Commission and offered the necessary basis for the Commission services’ work in this area. Moreover, a substantial amount of time in the preparatory phase has been devoted to eventually unsuccessful attempts to create a self-regulatory solution for the CRA industry.
Neither is it possible to extend the consultation period later in September: in view of the forthcoming elections, the European Parliament has agreed with the European Commission to accept the Commission proposals to be dealt in co-decision only by October 2008 at the latest. This implies that the Commission services will need to launch and finalise an Interservice Consultation in September 2008 in order to meet this deadline. Commission services will compensate the short consultation period by individually encouraging important stakeholders (including regulators, Member States and the CRAs) to participate in the public consultation.
I’m not convinced that making sure to encourage the important stakeholders to participate really does compensate for a shortened consultation period (especially one that has taken place while many people have been on vacation, as noted by EACT). And this is yet another consultation exercise which seems to be being carried out only in English. As to the substance, EACT suggests the proposed rules are too detailed (rules-based regulation, rather than principles-based regulation), will impede competition, and risk conflicting with rules being introduced in other jurisdictions.
basle committee and consultation September 1, 2008
Posted by Bradley in : Uncategorized , comments closedIncreased transparency at the Basle Commitee on Banking Supervision, which has published the full text of comments it has received on Principles for Sound Liquidity Risk Management and Supervision (published in June this year). In the past, when it did comment on responses to consultations, the BCBS tended to publicise the gist of comments rather than the full text (for example this overview of comments on sound credit risk assessment and valuation for loans). In publishing the comments on liquidity risk management, the committee stated:
Interested parties were invited to provide written comments by 29 July 2008, with such comments to be published on the Bank for International Settlements’ website unless confidential treatment was requested. As a result, the Committee received 30 comments for publication…
The Committee wishes to thank those who have taken the time and effort to express their views. These comments will no doubt assist the Committee in its efforts to finalise its liquidity guidance.
There are limits to transparency here, however: the BCBS does not state whether or not any respondents made comments which they asked to be kept confidential.
mutual recognition August 25, 2008
Posted by Bradley in : Uncategorized , comments closedThe Australian Government, ASIC and the SEC today announced the signing of a mutual recognition agreement under which each of the two regulators will consider providing exemptions to broker-dealers and exchanges regulated in the other jurisdiction. SIFMA gave the announcement a cautious welcome:
SIFMA will provide more detailed comments on the mutual recognition proposal once the new framework has been analyzed by the industry.
SIFMA has some concern that this initiative might undermine the proposals for a more general relaxation of the conditions under which foreign broker-dealers interact with US persons.
upcoming events at um law August 23, 2008
Posted by Bradley in : Uncategorized , comments closedTuesday, August 26, 2008, 12:30-2:00 p.m.
Alma Jennings Foundation Student Lounge at the Law School
1311 Miller Drive, Coral Gables
Prof. Pedro J. Tenorio Sanchez
Professor on the Law Faculty of the Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Constitución, derechos fundamentals, seguridad y paz: panorama comparativo
(Constitution, fundamental rights, security and peace: a comparative panorama)
Thursday, September 4, 2008, 12:30-2:00 p.m.
Room E352 at the Law School
1311 Miller Drive, Coral Gables
Dr. Francisco Fontecilla
Asesor del Defensor del Pueblo de España (Advisor to the Ombudsman of Spain)
La Corte Penal Internacional
(The International Criminal Court)
litigation and disclosure August 22, 2008
Posted by Bradley in : Uncategorized , comments closedOn the face of it, it would seem that investors might reasonably want to have reliable information about the likelihood that securities issuers would incur significant litigation-related losses. But FASB’s Exposure Draft on Disclosure of Certain Loss Contingencies, which proposes some changes to the current approach to this issue, has been attracting a lot of flak. The big accounting firms don’t seem to like it much. SIFMA’s comment letter on the exposure draft raises some complex issues about the relationship between litigation and disclosure, and clearly shows the influence of the chief counsel and litigation counsel of financial firms (listed in the letter), members of SIFMA’s litigation committee, who were involved in the production of the comment letter. The letter claims to be particularly deserving of notice because the firms represented are both users and producers of financial statements. One concern is that disclosure would interfere with the ability of firms to defend themselves against law suits. Another is the claim that the new approach would weaken attorney-client privilege. But the claim I find most troubling is that litigation outcomes are so unpredictable that more detailed disclosures about litigation contingencies could only be misleading and might be worse than no disclosure at all. The letter makes the practice of law sound like some sort of mysterious and occult endeavor, rather than a professional activity.
reading ages August 19, 2008
Posted by Bradley in : Uncategorized , comments closedI was surprised to see that a large number of authors and others in the UK, led by Phillip Pullman, are campaigning against indications of age guidance on book covers. They have a number of reasons for doing so, one of which is that:
Everything about a book is already rich with clues about the sort of reader it hopes to find — jacket design, typography, cover copy, prose style, illustrations. These are genuine connections with potential readers, because they appeal to individual preference. An age-guidance figure is a false one, because it implies that all children of that age are the same.
I have no idea why they are so upset. The Publishers’ Association has been thinking for some time about this issue and thinks that age guidance will encourage people to buy books. US published books for young people are marked with suggested age ranges. They are often not very prominent – you can find them if you look, but they don’t jump out at you – but they can be useful. Do these authors really want children to learn to make purchasing decisions based on the manipulations of marketers who design the packaging for products rather than on data about what is inside?
tropical storm fay August 17, 2008
Posted by Bradley in : Uncategorized , comments closedWe’re beginning the new school year watching tropical storm Fay via the national hurricane center. She seems to be heading west of us right now. But, as always, we can feel guilty for avoiding the pain that falls on others.
regulatory budgets and collective action August 8, 2008
Posted by Bradley in : Uncategorized , comments closedIn the same week that the UK’s Department for Business published its consultation document on Regulatory Budgets – the latest chapter in the Better Regulation saga – the Civil Justice Council published this week a 483 page document on Improving Access to Justice through Collective Actions’ : A Series of Recommendations to the Lord Chancellor. Collective action is a hot topic in the EU right now. Key Finding 1 of the collective action report is that:
Existing procedure does not provide sufficient or effective access to justice for a wide range of citizens, particularly but not exclusively consumers, small businesses, employees wishing to bring collective or multi-party claims.
But the implications of the BERR consultation document would seem to include making improving access to justice more complex, as it includes discussion of:
how to identify and capture the specific costs arising from regulation (i.e. enforcement activities, self-funding regulations, contractual obligations and legal proceedings) within a system of regulatory budgets
On reading the consultation document I’m not clear whether the costs associated with litigation (as opposed to regulatory action) resulting from regulations would be included in the regulatory budgets. But if they were, any expansion of collective action rights that would make it easier for citizens to enforce their rights would increase the costs of new regulations granting rights to citizens, thus making such regulations less likely in a regulatory budgets environment.