S. Chevtchenko, Ryokichi Chigira, Lea Nehmeh, Alix Simnock
In an economy, heavily dependent on revenues derived from the export of hydrocarbons, it is highly unlikely that Venezuela and PDVSA would be able to continue servicing their financial obligations without plunging the country into an unprecedented economic and social crisis. Amid the growing social unrest in Venezuela due to its current financial turmoil, it appears that a restructuring of both Venezuela’s sovereign and PDVSA’s corporate external debt is inevitable. In setting up a restructuring plan, we strived to align Venezuela’s and PDVSA’s interests with their noteholders’ concerns. On the one hand, it is imperative for Venezuela to procure a high noteholders participation to the restructuring deal in order to obtain a debt relief in an amount sufficient to regain access to the capital markets. On the other hand, two main factors contributing to the fears of the noteholders have to be addressed: (1) the high volatility and unpredictability of the price of hydrocarbons, which amount for more than half of Venezuela’s revenues and (2) the governmental use of the revenues generated by PDVSA for various social purposes. Our restructuring plan suggests a voluntary exchange offer in conjunction with legal mechanisms that would both encourage a high noteholders participation and mitigate the detrimental effect of the actions by potential holdout creditors. At the same time, we propose to alleviate noteholders’ concerns by introducing contractual mechanisms which will ensure a proper management of Venezuela’s and PDVSA’s resources and the honoring of the terms of the exchanged notes.
{"title":"Restructuring Proposal for Venezuelan and PDVSA External Debt","authors":"S. Chevtchenko, Ryokichi Chigira, Lea Nehmeh, Alix Simnock","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2978863","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2978863","url":null,"abstract":"In an economy, heavily dependent on revenues derived from the export of hydrocarbons, it is highly unlikely that Venezuela and PDVSA would be able to continue servicing their financial obligations without plunging the country into an unprecedented economic and social crisis. Amid the growing social unrest in Venezuela due to its current financial turmoil, it appears that a restructuring of both Venezuela’s sovereign and PDVSA’s corporate external debt is inevitable. \u0000In setting up a restructuring plan, we strived to align Venezuela’s and PDVSA’s interests with their noteholders’ concerns. On the one hand, it is imperative for Venezuela to procure a high noteholders participation to the restructuring deal in order to obtain a debt relief in an amount sufficient to regain access to the capital markets. On the other hand, two main factors contributing to the fears of the noteholders have to be addressed: (1) the high volatility and unpredictability of the price of hydrocarbons, which amount for more than half of Venezuela’s revenues and (2) the governmental use of the revenues generated by PDVSA for various social purposes. \u0000Our restructuring plan suggests a voluntary exchange offer in conjunction with legal mechanisms that would both encourage a high noteholders participation and mitigate the detrimental effect of the actions by potential holdout creditors. At the same time, we propose to alleviate noteholders’ concerns by introducing contractual mechanisms which will ensure a proper management of Venezuela’s and PDVSA’s resources and the honoring of the terms of the exchanged notes.","PeriodicalId":137765,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Private Law - Financial Law eJournal","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134048723","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Russian Abstract: Данная работа посвящена исследованию правового регулирования совершения сделок по экономической концентрации и формированию основных подходов к реформированию правового режима их антимонопольного регулирования. English Abstract: This work is devoted to the study of the legal regulation of transactions in economic concentration and the formation of basic approaches to reforming the legal regime for the antimonopoly regulation of the transactions.
{"title":"Проблемы Правового Регулирования Рыночных Форм Экономической Концентрации В Российской Федерации и За Рубежом (Problems of Legal Regulation of Market Forms of Economic Concentration in the Russian Federation and Abroad)","authors":"M. A. Egorova, T. V. Uvakina","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2968482","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2968482","url":null,"abstract":"Russian Abstract: Данная работа посвящена исследованию правового регулирования совершения сделок по экономической концентрации и формированию основных подходов к реформированию правового режима их антимонопольного регулирования. \u0000English Abstract: This work is devoted to the study of the legal regulation of transactions in economic concentration and the formation of basic approaches to reforming the legal regime for the antimonopoly regulation of the transactions.","PeriodicalId":137765,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Private Law - Financial Law eJournal","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129856015","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article deals with the Hungarian implementation of Directive 2014/17/EU on mortgage credit agreements, focusing in particular on the extent to which it raises the level of consumer protection.
{"title":"Mortgage Credit in Hungary","authors":"A. Fejős","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3303510","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3303510","url":null,"abstract":"This article deals with the Hungarian implementation of Directive 2014/17/EU on mortgage credit agreements, focusing in particular on the extent to which it raises the level of consumer protection.","PeriodicalId":137765,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Private Law - Financial Law eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131459489","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In his review of Fed history, Allan Meltzer points to two types of deficiencies that have been primarily responsible for the Fed’s falling short of its objectives: adherence to bad ideas (especially its susceptibility to intellectual fads); and politicization, which has led it to purposely stray from proper objectives. The continuing susceptibility of the Fed to bad thinking and politicization reflects deeper structural problems that need to be addressed. Reforms are needed in the Fed’s internal governance, in its process for formulating and communicating its policies, and in delineating the range of activities in which it is involved. This article focuses on three types of reforms that address those problems: (1) internal governance reforms that focus on the structure and operation of the Fed (which would decentralize power within the Fed and promote diversity of thinking), (2) policy process reforms that narrow the Fed’s primary mandate to price stability and that require the Fed to adopt and to disclose a systematic approach to monetary policy (which would promote transparency and accountability of the Fed, thereby making its actions wiser, clearer, and more independent), and (3) other reforms that would constrain Fed asset holdings and activities to avoid Fed involvement in actions that conflict with its monetary policy mission (which would improve monetary policy and preserve Fed independence).
{"title":"Reforming the Rules that Govern the Fed","authors":"Charles W. Calomiris","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2946931","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2946931","url":null,"abstract":"In his review of Fed history, Allan Meltzer points to two types of deficiencies that have been primarily responsible for the Fed’s falling short of its objectives: adherence to bad ideas (especially its susceptibility to intellectual fads); and politicization, which has led it to purposely stray from proper objectives. The continuing susceptibility of the Fed to bad thinking and politicization reflects deeper structural problems that need to be addressed. Reforms are needed in the Fed’s internal governance, in its process for formulating and communicating its policies, and in delineating the range of activities in which it is involved. \u0000This article focuses on three types of reforms that address those problems: \u0000(1) internal governance reforms that focus on the structure and operation of the Fed (which would decentralize power within the Fed and promote diversity of thinking), \u0000(2) policy process reforms that narrow the Fed’s primary mandate to price stability and that require the Fed to adopt and to disclose a systematic approach to monetary policy (which would promote transparency and accountability of the Fed, thereby making its actions wiser, clearer, and more independent), and \u0000(3) other reforms that would constrain Fed asset holdings and activities to avoid Fed involvement in actions that conflict with its monetary policy mission (which would improve monetary policy and preserve Fed independence).","PeriodicalId":137765,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Private Law - Financial Law eJournal","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131396791","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Blockchain or distributed ledger technology is the key innovation inside Bitcoin, the virtual currency, or distributed database commodity. Regulators in different states and nations have viewed and now regulate Bitcoin variously. For example, Bitcoin is property (IRS), a virtual currency (New York State Department of Financial Services and its BitLicense), and an unregulated technology (California, Texas). This regulatory divergence has not prevented the emergence of an $18 billion Bitcoin global market. It has however led some of its early enthusiasts to prison for crossing the line from trusted blockchain anonymity to money laundering. Distributed ledger applications are presently in experimental and early commercial use in applications and for industry sectors now extending far beyond Bitcoin, and far beyond fintech (financial technology.) This paper evaluates blockchain technology and the role of regulators and policymakers in shaping the evolution and commercialization of this disruptive innovation particularly for the Internet of Things. As blockchain is increasingly used to establish a secure trust relationship and permanent record in a wide array of networked markets, will the diverse regulatory treatments of –essentially the same – innovation create new policy barriers to its wide application? Are there information policy measures, which can help industry and users, avoid the inevitable pitfalls of a novel technology? If so, is there a new alignment of distribution of authority among regulators, which these innovations will spark? Presently for example, the Securities and Exchange Commission and IRS. This original research will be among the first to deconstruct blockchain for a wide array of industrial sectors and Internet of Things markets. Most prior work has focused on blockchain applications for financial markets, and specifically the cybercurrency Bitcoin, and in particular its cryptographically driven consensus process to establish and maintain trust. While it is important to understand how blockchain technology utilization can increase technical efficiency and reduce transaction costs with an immutable, auditable record of all transactions, that only explains why this technology innovation has sparked such interest. Most important is the ability of blockchain to combine trust and privacy with transparency in new way. The research methods for evaluation of blockchaining the Internet of Things include socio-technical field tests and multi-method pilot studies currently being planned. Preliminary results and insights from industry and policymaker interviews and will be shared in this paper. Suggestions for further blockchain Internet of Things policy research will conclude the paper.
{"title":"Commodifying Trust: Trusted Commerce Policy Intersecting Blockchain and Internet of Things","authors":"L. McKnight, Richie Etwaru, Yihan Yu","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2944466","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2944466","url":null,"abstract":"Blockchain or distributed ledger technology is the key innovation inside Bitcoin, the virtual currency, or distributed database commodity. Regulators in different states and nations have viewed and now regulate Bitcoin variously. For example, Bitcoin is property (IRS), a virtual currency (New York State Department of Financial Services and its BitLicense), and an unregulated technology (California, Texas). This regulatory divergence has not prevented the emergence of an $18 billion Bitcoin global market. It has however led some of its early enthusiasts to prison for crossing the line from trusted blockchain anonymity to money laundering. Distributed ledger applications are presently in experimental and early commercial use in applications and for industry sectors now extending far beyond Bitcoin, and far beyond fintech (financial technology.) \u0000This paper evaluates blockchain technology and the role of regulators and policymakers in shaping the evolution and commercialization of this disruptive innovation particularly for the Internet of Things. As blockchain is increasingly used to establish a secure trust relationship and permanent record in a wide array of networked markets, will the diverse regulatory treatments of –essentially the same – innovation create new policy barriers to its wide application? Are there information policy measures, which can help industry and users, avoid the inevitable pitfalls of a novel technology? If so, is there a new alignment of distribution of authority among regulators, which these innovations will spark? Presently for example, the Securities and Exchange Commission and IRS. \u0000This original research will be among the first to deconstruct blockchain for a wide array of industrial sectors and Internet of Things markets. Most prior work has focused on blockchain applications for financial markets, and specifically the cybercurrency Bitcoin, and in particular its cryptographically driven consensus process to establish and maintain trust. While it is important to understand how blockchain technology utilization can increase technical efficiency and reduce transaction costs with an immutable, auditable record of all transactions, that only explains why this technology innovation has sparked such interest. Most important is the ability of blockchain to combine trust and privacy with transparency in new way. \u0000The research methods for evaluation of blockchaining the Internet of Things include socio-technical field tests and multi-method pilot studies currently being planned. Preliminary results and insights from industry and policymaker interviews and will be shared in this paper. Suggestions for further blockchain Internet of Things policy research will conclude the paper.","PeriodicalId":137765,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Private Law - Financial Law eJournal","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131074515","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper discusses reforms to regulation of financial advice, including advice for retirement, made in Australia since 2012 – the FoFA changes, the introduction of the ASIC adviser register, and the recent enactment of new competency and professionalism requirements for individual advisers. It suggests that the ‘best interests’ reforms may be more consistent with a requirement of fairness, than a true fiduciary standard. It argues that the competency requirements to be phased in over the next seven years need to emphasise the skills that advisers require to utilise advances in technology for retirement planning.
{"title":"Regulating Financial Advice for Retirement – The Recent Australian Reforms","authors":"Pamela Hanrahan","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2933946","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2933946","url":null,"abstract":"This paper discusses reforms to regulation of financial advice, including advice for retirement, made in Australia since 2012 – the FoFA changes, the introduction of the ASIC adviser register, and the recent enactment of new competency and professionalism requirements for individual advisers. It suggests that the ‘best interests’ reforms may be more consistent with a requirement of fairness, than a true fiduciary standard. It argues that the competency requirements to be phased in over the next seven years need to emphasise the skills that advisers require to utilise advances in technology for retirement planning.","PeriodicalId":137765,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Private Law - Financial Law eJournal","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122421642","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
INTRODUCTIONStarting in 2007, the United States experienced a sharp decline in home mortgage originations, leading to a serious overcorrection of credit. The situation is slowly improving, with mortgage originations on the upswing since first quarter 2014 in total dollar volume. (US Mortgage Originations). Nevertheless, lenders are still too risk averse and millions of lower-income and minority households who would normally qualify are unable to get mortgages.Why should we care that the mortgage pendulum swung too far? Obviously, the homeownership proposition has become more freighted since the financial crisis of 2008. The collapse in home values and the ensuing wave of foreclosures were a shocking reminder of the financial risks that come with homeownership and the mortgage debt that most people incur to acquire a home. Yet despite those risks, the evidence shows that purchasing a home remains a powerful path-many would say the most powerful path-to building wealth for families of modest means. (Herbert, McCue & Sanchez-Moyano 2016, 6-7).This symposium issue asserts that society needs to redouble its commitment to access to mortgage credit while doing it smarter. The challenge going forward is to expand mortgage financing to underserved, creditworthy borrowers while boosting the success rate of mortgages for borrowers, lenders, and communities.In this issue, a talented array of housing finance experts diagnose the obstacles to affordable lending today and propose innovative solutions for making mortgage credit more sustainable. Although progress has been made to date (particularly in the area of consumer protection), much more needs to be done. Fortunately, there is a wealth of new data from pilot projects around the country on better ways to underwrite and deliver mortgages and to prepare new homeowners for the financial demands of owning homes. Our symposium authors report on a number of those findings and propose new policies to expand the opportunities for successful homeownership. Their recommendations span the entire lending process, from loan products, counseling, and underwriting to servicing, the business model of lending, and broader macroeconomic and environmental factors. In this foreword, I preview and comment on the contributions to this issue by the symposium authors.This symposium issue grows out of a conference titled Has the Mortgage Pendulum Swung Too Far?, held by the Rappaport Center for Law and Public Policy at Boston College Law School on September 30, 2016. I am especially grateful to the Rappaport Center's founders, Jerry and Phyllis Rappaport, for their heartwarming encouragement and generous support. Many others generously gave of their time and effort to make the conference and this symposium issue possible. Above all, we thank Elisabeth Medvedow, the Executive Director of the Rappaport Center, Professor Michael Cassidy, the Center's faculty adviser, Vincent Rougeau, the Dean of Boston College Law School, Hillary Byl
{"title":"Has the Mortgage Pendulum Swung Too Far? Reviving Access to Mortgage Credit","authors":"P. McCoy","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2927723","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2927723","url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTIONStarting in 2007, the United States experienced a sharp decline in home mortgage originations, leading to a serious overcorrection of credit. The situation is slowly improving, with mortgage originations on the upswing since first quarter 2014 in total dollar volume. (US Mortgage Originations). Nevertheless, lenders are still too risk averse and millions of lower-income and minority households who would normally qualify are unable to get mortgages.Why should we care that the mortgage pendulum swung too far? Obviously, the homeownership proposition has become more freighted since the financial crisis of 2008. The collapse in home values and the ensuing wave of foreclosures were a shocking reminder of the financial risks that come with homeownership and the mortgage debt that most people incur to acquire a home. Yet despite those risks, the evidence shows that purchasing a home remains a powerful path-many would say the most powerful path-to building wealth for families of modest means. (Herbert, McCue & Sanchez-Moyano 2016, 6-7).This symposium issue asserts that society needs to redouble its commitment to access to mortgage credit while doing it smarter. The challenge going forward is to expand mortgage financing to underserved, creditworthy borrowers while boosting the success rate of mortgages for borrowers, lenders, and communities.In this issue, a talented array of housing finance experts diagnose the obstacles to affordable lending today and propose innovative solutions for making mortgage credit more sustainable. Although progress has been made to date (particularly in the area of consumer protection), much more needs to be done. Fortunately, there is a wealth of new data from pilot projects around the country on better ways to underwrite and deliver mortgages and to prepare new homeowners for the financial demands of owning homes. Our symposium authors report on a number of those findings and propose new policies to expand the opportunities for successful homeownership. Their recommendations span the entire lending process, from loan products, counseling, and underwriting to servicing, the business model of lending, and broader macroeconomic and environmental factors. In this foreword, I preview and comment on the contributions to this issue by the symposium authors.This symposium issue grows out of a conference titled Has the Mortgage Pendulum Swung Too Far?, held by the Rappaport Center for Law and Public Policy at Boston College Law School on September 30, 2016. I am especially grateful to the Rappaport Center's founders, Jerry and Phyllis Rappaport, for their heartwarming encouragement and generous support. Many others generously gave of their time and effort to make the conference and this symposium issue possible. Above all, we thank Elisabeth Medvedow, the Executive Director of the Rappaport Center, Professor Michael Cassidy, the Center's faculty adviser, Vincent Rougeau, the Dean of Boston College Law School, Hillary Byl","PeriodicalId":137765,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Private Law - Financial Law eJournal","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116245651","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As part of the Eurozone-project ‘Banking Union’, the European Central Bank (ECB) was vested with a large pouvoir in the field of banking supervision. Such an empowerment of the ECB is principally provided for in Article 127 (6) TFEU, on which basis the SSM Regulation was therefore adopted. However, this provision allows for the delegation upon the ECB of ‘specific [supervisory] tasks’ only. In order to avoid a conflict with the ECB’s monetary policy function, a new (internal) body of the ECB, the Supervisory Board, was established, which is essentially dealing with the ECB’s supervisory tasks. Its supervisory draft decisions come into effect if the Governing Council of the ECB does not object to them (reverse majority voting). Within the broader framework of the SSM, the supervisory branch of the ECB and, under the latter’s guidance, the national supervisory authorities together perform banking supervision in the Eurozone. The means the ECB has at its hand in order to determine national supervision are without precedent in the long history of the European Verwaltungsverbund, of European Union-Member States administrative cooperation that is. This paper addresses the functioning and the limits of the SSM with a view to answering the following three questions: How does administrative cooperation work within and with the supervisory authorities outside the SSM, for example the European Banking Authority (EBA)? Is the delegation of banking supervisory powers upon the ECB, as effected by the SSM Regulation, in accordance with Article 127 (6) TFEU and the Meroni-criteria, which were recently re-considered by the Court? Is the reverse majority voting to be applied in the Governing Council of the ECB when deciding upon a draft of the Supervisory Board in compliance with the ECB’s decision-making rules as laid down in the Statute of the ESCB/ECB, for example primary law?
{"title":"The European Central Bank (ECB) Under the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM): Its Functioning and Its Limits","authors":"Paul Weismann","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2925814","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2925814","url":null,"abstract":"As part of the Eurozone-project ‘Banking Union’, the European Central Bank (ECB) was vested with a large pouvoir in the field of banking supervision. Such an empowerment of the ECB is principally provided for in Article 127 (6) TFEU, on which basis the SSM Regulation was therefore adopted. However, this provision allows for the delegation upon the ECB of ‘specific [supervisory] tasks’ only. In order to avoid a conflict with the ECB’s monetary policy function, a new (internal) body of the ECB, the Supervisory Board, was established, which is essentially dealing with the ECB’s supervisory tasks. Its supervisory draft decisions come into effect if the Governing Council of the ECB does not object to them (reverse majority voting). Within the broader framework of the SSM, the supervisory branch of the ECB and, under the latter’s guidance, the national supervisory authorities together perform banking supervision in the Eurozone. The means the ECB has at its hand in order to determine national supervision are without precedent in the long history of the European Verwaltungsverbund, of European Union-Member States administrative cooperation that is. \u0000This paper addresses the functioning and the limits of the SSM with a view to answering the following three questions: How does administrative cooperation work within and with the supervisory authorities outside the SSM, for example the European Banking Authority (EBA)? Is the delegation of banking supervisory powers upon the ECB, as effected by the SSM Regulation, in accordance with Article 127 (6) TFEU and the Meroni-criteria, which were recently re-considered by the Court? Is the reverse majority voting to be applied in the Governing Council of the ECB when deciding upon a draft of the Supervisory Board in compliance with the ECB’s decision-making rules as laid down in the Statute of the ESCB/ECB, for example primary law?","PeriodicalId":137765,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Private Law - Financial Law eJournal","volume":"8 7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116948710","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Singapore’s statutory provisions on scheme of arrangement are very similar to that found in most Commonwealth countries. Over the last two decades the scheme has become a popular tool to restructure the debts, both financial and trading, of insolvent companies. The courts have taken a leading role in this development and in the process have laid down principles and rules to augment the bare statutory provisions. The scheme has become a de facto debtor in possession regime in Singapore. This success story has an unexpected twist recently. As part of its strategy to develop Singapore into an international centre for debt restructuring, the Government has accepted the recommendations of a law review committee to bring in significant elements of the US Chapter 11. A draft Bill published for consultation included an automatic, wide-ranging moratorium, cross-class cram down, super priority lien and pre-packaged schemes. It will be argued that due to the significant differences between the insolvency laws of Singapore and US and the different conceptual framework of the scheme and Chapter 11, there will be a period of uncertainty or even instability while the courts work out ways to harmonise the two different bodies of law. This bold experiment has relevance beyond Singapore. The developments have close parallels in UK’s recent consultation on reforming her insolvency law framework and, to a lesser extent, the European draft directive on restructuring. The Singapore story of injecting US Chapter 11 into the Commonwealth scheme is thus deserving of close attention while it unfolds.
{"title":"Whither the Scheme of Arrangement in Singapore: More Chapter 11, Less Scheme?","authors":"Meng Seng Wee","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2922956","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2922956","url":null,"abstract":"Singapore’s statutory provisions on scheme of arrangement are very similar to that found in most Commonwealth countries. Over the last two decades the scheme has become a popular tool to restructure the debts, both financial and trading, of insolvent companies. The courts have taken a leading role in this development and in the process have laid down principles and rules to augment the bare statutory provisions. The scheme has become a de facto debtor in possession regime in Singapore. This success story has an unexpected twist recently. As part of its strategy to develop Singapore into an international centre for debt restructuring, the Government has accepted the recommendations of a law review committee to bring in significant elements of the US Chapter 11. A draft Bill published for consultation included an automatic, wide-ranging moratorium, cross-class cram down, super priority lien and pre-packaged schemes. It will be argued that due to the significant differences between the insolvency laws of Singapore and US and the different conceptual framework of the scheme and Chapter 11, there will be a period of uncertainty or even instability while the courts work out ways to harmonise the two different bodies of law. This bold experiment has relevance beyond Singapore. The developments have close parallels in UK’s recent consultation on reforming her insolvency law framework and, to a lesser extent, the European draft directive on restructuring. The Singapore story of injecting US Chapter 11 into the Commonwealth scheme is thus deserving of close attention while it unfolds.","PeriodicalId":137765,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Private Law - Financial Law eJournal","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132129630","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Sweden transfers its real property recording system to the blockchain, a software protocol that enables public, cryptographically secure transaction verification without reliance upon a trusted third party. Dubai plans to issue blockchain-based government documents. The United States Department of Health and Human Services investigates blockchain-based systems for managing health data. Illinois explores blockchain-based applications for use in the Illinois government. News of governments and public-private partnerships developing blockchain-based legal applications increasingly splash across the headlines; however the law-makers using blockchain and other Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) systems to implement legal processes do not systematically consider the broader implications of their actions on the law. This is particularly problematic because the law itself will undergo a significant transformation after transferring such legal processes to blockchain and other DLT systems. Using comparative legal methodology, this Article reveals how moving legal and government process to DLT-based systems will change legal discourse about the fundamental elements of legal systems, including substantive law, legal structures, and legal culture.
Imagine, for example, if states shifted the Uniform Commercial Code’s Article 9 filing system to the blockchain. State filing systems, including the filing office, would be unnecessary. Similarly, substantive rules relating to defective filings, failed searches, and lapsed filings would be rendered moot because the technology would ward against such failings. Information relating to transactions could more easily travel across state lines, following debtors as they move or change names. Such changes would significantly affect the current secured transactions legal landscape by simplifying substantive law, eliminating or significantly changing enforcement and adjudicatory structures, and shifting the locus of legal culture from lawyers in the field to the technologists building the system.
Current literature examining the impact of advances in technology on the law focuses on predictive technology and big data, arguing that such technology enables more efficient and more precise approaches to creating and implementing law. Some of the existing literature considers the impact of these changes on the way law is created, suggesting that gains from technology in precision and clarity may come at the cost of transparency and discriminatory effects. However, none of this literature considers the impact of DLT-based legal processes on the foundational elements of the law, even though governments are currently moving legal processes to DLT. This Article fills this important gap in the literature by uncovering the powerful ways crypto-legal structures will disrupt our understanding, experience, and adjudication of law. Furthermore, this Article turns the current academic literature relating to DLT and cryptocu
{"title":"Conceptualizing Cryptolaw","authors":"Carla L. Reyes","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2914103","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2914103","url":null,"abstract":"Sweden transfers its real property recording system to the blockchain, a software protocol that enables public, cryptographically secure transaction verification without reliance upon a trusted third party. Dubai plans to issue blockchain-based government documents. The United States Department of Health and Human Services investigates blockchain-based systems for managing health data. Illinois explores blockchain-based applications for use in the Illinois government. News of governments and public-private partnerships developing blockchain-based legal applications increasingly splash across the headlines; however the law-makers using blockchain and other Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) systems to implement legal processes do not systematically consider the broader implications of their actions on the law. This is particularly problematic because the law itself will undergo a significant transformation after transferring such legal processes to blockchain and other DLT systems. Using comparative legal methodology, this Article reveals how moving legal and government process to DLT-based systems will change legal discourse about the fundamental elements of legal systems, including substantive law, legal structures, and legal culture.<br><br>Imagine, for example, if states shifted the Uniform Commercial Code’s Article 9 filing system to the blockchain. State filing systems, including the filing office, would be unnecessary. Similarly, substantive rules relating to defective filings, failed searches, and lapsed filings would be rendered moot because the technology would ward against such failings. Information relating to transactions could more easily travel across state lines, following debtors as they move or change names. Such changes would significantly affect the current secured transactions legal landscape by simplifying substantive law, eliminating or significantly changing enforcement and adjudicatory structures, and shifting the locus of legal culture from lawyers in the field to the technologists building the system.<br><br>Current literature examining the impact of advances in technology on the law focuses on predictive technology and big data, arguing that such technology enables more efficient and more precise approaches to creating and implementing law. Some of the existing literature considers the impact of these changes on the way law is created, suggesting that gains from technology in precision and clarity may come at the cost of transparency and discriminatory effects. However, none of this literature considers the impact of DLT-based legal processes on the foundational elements of the law, even though governments are currently moving legal processes to DLT. This Article fills this important gap in the literature by uncovering the powerful ways crypto-legal structures will disrupt our understanding, experience, and adjudication of law. Furthermore, this Article turns the current academic literature relating to DLT and cryptocu","PeriodicalId":137765,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Private Law - Financial Law eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115191154","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：