Search results

The purpose of the paper is to describe the temporary and permanent exemptions issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to the large trader identification requirements under Rule 13h‐1.

Specifically, the paper provides: an explanation of the definition of a “large trader” as defined under Rule 13h‐1; an overview of the recordkeeping, reporting, and monitoring requirements under Rule 13h‐1; an explanation of the two‐tiered temporary exemption issued by the SEC; and an overview of the permanent exemption adopted by the SEC for certain capital market transactions in connection with determining whether a person is a large trader.

The SEC extended the April 30, 2012 compliance date under Rule 13h‐1 for registered broker‐dealers by 12 months to May 1, 2013; however, broker‐dealers that are either large traders, or have large trader customers that are either broker‐dealers or trade through a “sponsored access” arrangement, must be in compliance by November 30, 2012. The extension affords broker‐dealers additional time to develop, test, and implement recordkeeping and reporting systems required for compliance. Additionally, the SEC issued a permanent exemption for “dribble out” programs or offerings “crossed” on a national securities exchange, which were not originally exempted under the rule. The SEC determined that these transactions should not be counted for the purpose of determining whether a person meets the identifying activity level for a large trader given that the vast majority of primary offerings are excluded under the rule.

The paper provides practical guidance from experienced regulatory lawyers regarding an important proposed change.

The purpose of this paper is to describe the Securities and Exchange Commission's recently proposed new rules to establish a large trading reporting system.

The paper provides an overview of the new Rule 13h‐1, which, if adopted, would require large traders to identify themselves to the SEC and to be issued a “Large Trader Identification Number”. It outlines the proposed definition of a large trader and describes how a large trader would report itself to the SEC and the broker‐dealers it uses to effect trades using a new Form 13H. The paper also provides detailed guidance to broker‐dealers regarding their books and records obligations under the proposed rule.

The proposed new rule and form are intended to provide the SEC with data to facilitate its ability to assess the impact of the trading activity, to reconstruct trading activity following periods of unusual market volatility, and to analyze significant market events for regulatory purposes. Registered broker‐dealers would also be under an obligation to maintain records of transactions effected in accounts identified to it as large trader accounts; electronically report large trader transaction information to the SEC upon request; and monitor compliance with the new rule.

The paper provides practical guidance from experienced securities lawyers regarding an important proposed change.

The purpose of this paper is to provide frequently asked questions and answers in connection with the large trader reporting system.

The paper explains the large trader rule and filing requirements, including the application of the rule to non‐US entities; definitions, including Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC's) definition of a “large trader”, a “NMS security”, and “person” for purposes of the rule; filing requirements; and the likely impact of broker‐dealers.

Certain broker‐dealers and entities that meet a trading threshold of aggregate transactions in NMS securities that equal or exceed two million shares or $20m during any calendar day, or 20 million shares or $200m during any calendar month, must file a Form 13H with the SEC.

The rule requires attention to an entity's trading levels, and requires making a filing with the SEC upon meeting certain activity levels.

The paper presents practical guidance from experienced financial services lawyers and compliance officers.

The purpose of the paper is to explain Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) Regulatory Notice 11 11, which requests comment on a concept proposal to further regulate fixed income research reports, including through both substantive regulation and additional disclosure requirements.

The paper explains the background, including the application of FINRA's current research rules to only equity securities; definitions, including FINRA's proposed definition of a “debt security” as other than an “equity security,” a “treasury security”, of a municipal security; proposed standard and requirements, including most of the provisions of NASD Rule 2711; the institutional investor exemption, including an opt‐out provision; both permitted and prohibited communication between fixed‐income research analysts and fixed‐income sales and trading personnel; and the likely impact of the concept proposal on firms and investors.

The proposed rule extends regulatory requirements to fixed‐income research that are similar to those applicable to equity research, while subjecting research distributed solely to institutional investors to a more general “health warning”.

The proposed rule will likely precipitate cultural and business shifts at firms that both provide debt research services and may encourage a shift towards research disseminated solely to institutional investors.

The paper presents practical guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.

This chapter describes five disciplinary domains of research or lenses that contribute to the design of a team tutor. We focus on four significant challenges in developing Intelligent Team Tutoring Systems (ITTSs), and explore how the five lenses can offer guidance for these challenges. The four challenges arise in the design of team member interactions, performance metrics and skill development, feedback, and tutor authoring. The five lenses or research domains that we apply to these four challenges are Tutor Engineering, Learning Sciences, Science of Teams, Data Analyst, and Human–Computer Interaction. This matrix of applications from each perspective offers a framework to guide designers in creating ITTSs.

As we approach the millennium, we find ourselves in a world that places ever greater weight and significance on the outcome of polls, surveys, and market research. The advent of modern polling began with the use of scientific sampling in the mid‐1930s and has progressed vastly beyond the initial techniques and purposes of the early practitioners such as George Gallup, Elmo Roper, and Archibald Crossley. In today's environment, the computer is an integral part of most commercial survey work, as are the efforts by academic and nonprofit enterprises. It should be noted that the distinction between the use of the words “poll” and “survey” is somewhat arbitrary, with the mass media seeming to prefer “polling,” and with academia selecting “survey research.” However, searching online systems will yield differing results, hence this author's inclusion of both terms in the title of this article.

The lived experience of HIV+ Black MSM (men who have sex with men) in the South exposes persistent racialized inequality. With the highest rates of HIV diagnosis in the country, Black MSM are made to feel unequal within the US LGBTQ community, thereby perpetuating long-standing inequalities between the groups. We argue that Whites' and Blacks' differing conceptions of racial equality serve to limit the extent to which comprehensive LGBTQ equality is possible as whiteness frames the LGBTQ experience in the United States. Examining how the country's racist story of nonaccess, representation, and exclusion has stymied coalition building to eliminate inequalities, findings reveal the structural impediments toward racial parity. Utilizing the case study of HIV+ Black MSM in the South, we examine the persistence of inequality amid the thrice interwoven intramarginalization of feeling excluded from sociopolitical spaces, having limited political representation, and engaging with racist body politics.

Examining paths into and out of sex work followed by three women in Bangalore, India, this essay argues that the struggles of sex workers to secure a livelihood highlight the interlocking relationships of caste, class, and gender, as well as forms of autonomy and agency within these systems. Interview narratives reveal how gendered marginalization leads to precarious work; and precarious work leads to sexual stigma. They show how intersectionality theory can be placed in conversation with Marxist feminisms and Indian feminist scholarship on caste, class, and gender to illuminate patterns of gendered economic marginalization in urban India. Such an analysis offers a way to articulate the relationships of caste, class, and gender in the lives of sex workers and to illustrate how intersectionality theory can be extended when engaged transnationally.