Search results for

Unlike the legislation in most other European jurisdictions, the Swedish Companies Act or any other similar piece of Swedish legislation does not specifically address public offers and other forms of corporate takeovers. Even though the regulation on takeovers in Sweden underlies statutory law, the Swedish securities market is highly influenced by self-regulatory recommendations. The main source of information regarding takeovers is the Recommendation concerning Public Offers for the Acquisition of Shares issued by the Swedish Industry and Commerce Stock Exchange Committee (NBK). Stock market companies that are listed on the Stockholm Exchange are obliged to enter into a listing agreement with the Stockholm Exchange, of which a number of NBK-recommendations are made part. Consequently, non-listed companies are not contractually bound by the recommendations. Failure to comply with the requirements in the takeover regulation would result in bad feeling and criticism from the Swedish securities Council (Sw. Aktiemarknadsnämnden) and Swedish media and, in the case of a listed company, the Stockholm Exchange might decide to de-list the company's shares from the exchange.

In an exclusive interview with IFLR, Arthur M Mitchell, the Asian Development Bank's new general counsel, explains how the Bank's commitment to working with the private sector can spur legal reform across the region. Reducing the bad debt burden is top of his list. By Andrew Crooke

Private equity investors are increasingly seeking post-WTO investment opportunities in China, but risk management techniques are essential if the new directors do not want to fall foul of the law. By Michael J Moser and Seung Chong of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Hong Kong

As part of the reforms of the securities settlement system, a securities clearing institution (Shoken Torihiki Seisan Kikan) has been created under an amendment to the Securities and Exchange Law, which took effect on January 6 2003. A securities clearing institution means a central counterparty with respect to securities transactions, which enables securities transactions between the buyer(s) and seller(s) to be cleared in one block. A primary purpose of the securities clearing institution is to lessen the settlement risk with respect to securities transactions.

To cope with commercial crimes in Hong Kong, the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) recently published proposed revisions to the existing Guidance Note on Money Laundering for public consultation.

The Irish Finance Bill 2003 was published on February 6 2003 and contains the long-awaited beneficial changes to the existing Irish securitization legislation. The intention behind the changes (which come into force with immediate effect) is to make Ireland the jurisdiction of choice for the location of special purpose vehicles (SPVs) for structured finance transactions.

The State Development Commission (SDC) and the Ministry of Finance and State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE) have jointly promulgated Interim Measures on the Administration of Foreign Debts. The new Measures, which were enacted on January 8 will be effective from March 1 2003.

The Cayman Islands has always been responsive to the needs of the international financial community in introducing expedient legislation. Last year saw the creation of the segregated portfolio company (SPC) by way of amendment to the Companies Law of the Cayman Islands, and now revisions in 2003 will make it a more attractive corporate vehicle for mutual funds and multi-issuer structured finance vehicles. Provisions that have caused difficulties in obtaining a rating for structured finance deals will be removed and a mechanism introduced to enable any existing Cayman Islands company to convert into an SPC. The key points are described below.

An increasing number of Canadian issuers have steered away from fixed price bids recently and opted for an auction tender process, or so-called Dutch auction, when completing substantial issuer bids. The Dutch auction issuer bid model has been further modified by issuers and investment dealers as a technique to distribute public offerings of securities and, most recently, has also been used by investors seeking to acquire shares in public issuers.

Rules requiring companies to report Gaap equivalents to their non-Gaap numbers could bury useful information among confusing detail and discourage management from providing certain data in SEC filings. It may be investors who suffer, says David Bernstein, of Clifford Chance, New York