The purpose of this paper is to summarize the Joint Report on Regulatory Harmonization issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to summarize the Joint Report on Regulatory Harmonization issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) on October 16, 2009.
Design/methodology/approach
The paper explains the background and purpose of the report and lists its recommendations concerning the regulation of markets and financial intermediaries, enforcement, and operations coordination.
Findings
The paper finds that Congress is not currently considering any bills that would combine the SEC and CFTC. SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro said the agencies want to “fill regulatory gaps, eliminate inconsistent oversight, and promote greater collaboration.”
Originality/value
The paper summarizes the Joint Report on Regulatory Harmonization issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission on October 16, 2009.
Details
Keywords
Harry Frischer, Charles E. Dropkin, Jennifer R. Scullion and Richard L. Spinogatti
The purpose of this paper is to explain the June 24, 2010 decision of the US Supreme Court in Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd concerning the territorial scope of the…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to explain the June 24, 2010 decision of the US Supreme Court in Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd concerning the territorial scope of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”).
Design/methodology/approach
The paper describes the complaint, the reasoning of the earlier lower court decision, the reasoning of the Supreme Court decision, and the practical effects of the Supreme Court decision.
Findings
Addressing the territorial scope of the Exchange Act for the first time, the Court rejected the widely applied “conduct” and “effects” tests and instead prescribed a new “transactional” test. Finding no affirmative indication that §10(b) of the Act applies extraterritorially; the Court found that its application depends on whether the purchases and sales of securities were made specifically in the USA, and not upon the place where a deception may have originated.
Originality/value
The paper provides expert guidance from financial services lawyers.