Information Dissemination and Settlement Procedures of Vietnamese Stock Market

Also in section 301 of The SOX Act, internal reporting of potential financial misappropriation of funds via anonymous whistleblowers is mandated. SOX 301 requires that audit committees of issuers listed on U.S. exchanges “establish procedures” for (i) receipt, retention, and treatment of complaints regarding accounting, internal accounting controls, or auditing matters; and (ii) confidential, anonymous submission by employees of concerns regarding questionable accounting or auditing matters.  SOX 301 was codified as

Any individual who goes against any kind of provision of the title or perhaps the established standards or laws by purchasing or selling a security during possession of materials, i.e. confidential or non-public facts will be accountable for those actions in a court law. The person will be liable to answer in any skilled jurisdiction structure to the individual who, contemporaneously used the purchase of securities which was the subject of aforementioned breach, has bought or sold securities of the same stature. In case the individual has bought the securities, the situation is such that the law suit or violation is dependent on the securities sales ratio and where the individual has sold these securities, the law suit or breach is dependent on a selection or purchase of the

The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 was passed by congress to strengthen the government’s control of the financial markets. It was preceded by the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 which was enacted during the Great Depression in hopes that the stock market crash of 1929 would not be repeated. The basic difference between the two acts was that the 1933 Act was to govern the original sales of securities by requiring that the issuers, the companies offering the securities, offer up sufficient information about themselves and the securities so that the potential buyers could make informed decisions. The 1934 Act was

Insider trading is the trading of a public company's stock or other securities (such as bonds or stock options) by individuals with access to nonpublic information about the company. In various countries, trading based on insider information is illegal. A great example for that is when “R. Foster Winans: The Corruptible Columnist Although not high-ranking in terms of dollars, the case of Wall Street Journal columnist R. Foster Winans is a landmark case for its curious outcome. Winans wrote the "Heard on the Street" column profiling a certain stock. The stocks featured in the column often went up or down according to Winans' opinion. Winans leaked the contents of his column to a group of stockbrokers, who used the tip to take up positions in

Insider trading – insider trading is the trading of a corporation’s stock or other securities by individuals with potential access to non-public information about the

The level of risk caused due to unauthorised trading is not restricted to proprietary books of investment banks-it extends to investment portfolios of insurance companies, discretionary accounts of private bankers and third party funds managed by funds managers.

The sales scheme used by Glen W. Turner Enterprises Inc. is a security that should have been registered with Securities and Exchange Commission. The Securities Act of 1993 defines security as a stock, agreement, investment contract or certificate that gives a right to purchase or subscribe to a product or service. In SEC v. Howey Co. (1946), the court defined securities as a contract, offering, or transaction involving an individual making an investment in a common enterprise and expecting proceeds from a third party’s efforts.

Every investment contract that gives the owner evidence of indebtedness or business participation is a security. The Securities Act of 1933 was the first federal law in the United States to regulate the sale of company shares, bonds, and other investment interests. Through meticulous research and reading, this essay will discuss the pertinent aspects of the 1933 Securities Act and specifically discuss the topics of exempt securities and transactions, while also examining the offerings of securities to which each exemption may apply.

In addition to the thorough explanation about the fundamental concepts of insider dealings, the law also provides detailed statements about some common scenarios of insider dealings which are not regarded as market misconduct, interest in securities, penalties and general defenses.

Insider trading is considered a white collar crime that is usually committed by people who are financially in a position to gain information that gives them an advantage of profiting from undisclosed shifts in a company, either it be profitable or not. Between 2007 and 2008, Emanuel Goffer gained nonpublic information from his brother, Zvi Goffer that mergers and acquisitions of a company, which he utilized that nonpublic information and made trades base on that. Several other defendants were party to the conspiracy of insider trading, two attorneys named Arthur Cutillo and Brien Santarlas were party to the information, who then shared it with Jason Goldfarb, another attorney that shared this information with Zvi Goffer. Zvi Goffer then disrupted

S.1043A “prohibits anyone in possession of non-public, price sensitive information from dealing in, or engaging others to deal in, the shares of a company” (text). After Patricia gained non-public, price sensitive information about SEPL’s intentions to buy a large amount of shares in FPPL, she immediately told her sister and engaged her in buying shares in

For example, Manna (1966) states that insider trading should be allowed because insider trading is the most effective way to compensate to insider to generate new economic information in firm. Hirshleifer() states that for insider, good information is as good as bad information to make profit but this profit may not be related to economic contribution of insiders in corporate. Proponents of insider trading suggest (Carlton and Fischel (1983) that insiders are the most informative member in the market, and by trading, they bring new information to the markets and causing prices to change toward their true value and, therefore, promoting the optimal allocation of resources. On the other hand, Scholars (Benabou and Laroqu, 1992) say that insider trading may provide incentive to corporate insiders either to delay the announcement of price-sensitive information to public or to prevent to release price sensitive information, which in turn makes stock prices less informative. However, Georgakopoulos (1993) argues that restriction on insider trading may have little adverse impact on market efficiency but it reduces the cost of transaction that burdens on uninformed traders

| * David should not disclose confidential information outside the firm. * If he seeks advice from his friend Peter, he will breach S140.1 & S140.5. * Peter can trade this information to benefit him – affecting MAL.

To offer and sell securities in the United States, an issuer must comply with the registration requirements of the amended Securities Act of 1933, or must offer and sell the securities pursuant to an exemption from the registration requirements. Rule 506 of Regulation D is commonly used as a private offering exemption. In 2013 the SEC lifted the ban on general solicitation or general advertising in specific private offerings of securities. Considered the “final rule”, it represents a compromise in many respects. Businesses who wish to raise funds will have greater opportunities for fulfilling their goal with the lifting of the ban. However, compliance requirements must also be satisfied in the process.

Insider trading refers to the trading of a listed company’s stock or other financial securities by individuals who has access to non-public material information about the company. This action often occurs within employees/ex-employees of the listen company. Information is considered to be non-public material information if making it public would affect the price of securities, and using such information in decisions to buy or sell financial securities would be unfair to non-insiders (Bainbridge, 2013). Insider trading is treated as a mischief in more than 90 countries, and defendants are imposed with penalties (Beny, 2012). Specific insider conduct regulations in New Zealand were first enacted in 1988, followed by amendments in 2002, 2006 and 2008. The insider conduct regimes between 1988 and 2008 are often considered as a failure due to weak enforcements. Thus in 2008, the regulator introduced a new regime, which was a close model to the Australian insider conduct legislation. Both regimes are expansive, meaning it could be applied to any person in possession of insider information. However, while the Australian laws were aggressively enforced (more than 26 prosecutions were brought since then), no prosecutions have been launched under the new legislation in New Zealand. In addition, New Zealand also had no convictions secured prior to 2008, illustrating a clear enforcement deficit in the New Zealand