Suchergebnisse

In recent years there has been some debate and uncertainty about the legality of private briefings of some market participants with the management of listed companies in the UK. The Myners (2001) and Higgs (2003) Reports have suggested an increasingly active role for institutional shareholders. However, the message from the Financial Services Authority in its role as the United Kingdom Listing Authority has been that private briefings may be unlawful. This article explores the meaning and scope of the legal rules on insider dealing and market abuse under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, the Criminal Justice Act 1993 and those parts of the Listing Rules that govern such briefings. The extent to which such rules apply to various types of meeting between corporate managers and other market participants, such as institutional investors, and the information provided in those meetings, will also be examined. The paper concludes that the mismatch between the apparent legal position and the policy objective of the Government of increasing institutional shareholders' activism requires a resolution.

AbstractThis study delves into the intricacies of the multi‐tier dispute resolution clause in engineering contracts, particularly within the Jordanian legal system. The multi‐tier dispute resolution clause has evolved from a traditional arbitration clause into a more comprehensive approach, reflecting the complexities of modern contractual relationships. The study employs a doctrinal or library‐based methodology involving a comprehensive review of relevant legal texts, statutes, regulations, and case law. The multi‐tier dispute resolution clause is defined as a contractual clause that stipulates the existence of different stages, each involving separate procedures, to address disputes and seek to resolve them. The study also examines the mandatory nature of the multi‐tier dispute resolution clause and the procedural defense based on an arbitration clause. The study concludes that following the sequence outlined, the multi‐tier dispute resolution clause should be binding. This necessitates the Jordanian legislator's intervention to establish a legislative framework that empowers decisions made by the Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) or Dispute Avoidance/Adjudication Board (DAAB) to achieve the goals of multi‐tiered dispute resolution clause. It also calls for an amendment to Article (109) of the Civil Procedure Law, allowing procedural defense based on the Multi‐Tiered Dispute Resolution Clause, not limiting it to the arbitration clause, even if arbitration is not one of its tiers. This power should also extend to amicable settlements to ensure the proper implementation of the steps under the multi‐tiered dispute resolution clause.

This paper aims to investigate the effect of arbitrators' lack of impartiality or independence on the arbitration process in accordance with the Model Law. The reasons for choosing the latter is that it is the origin for most modern national arbitration laws and any amendments to it would likely to be followed by national laws. The research problem lies in the fact that the Model Law does not tackle in detail the issue of challenging arbitrators for lacking impartiality or independence. A challenge application would have an immediate effect on both the arbitration proceedings and the task of arbitrators. This study concludes that grounds for challenging arbitrators' impartiality or independence under the Model Law are broad and general. Hence, regulating the scope, grounds and limitations related to the lack of impartiality or independence on the part of arbitrators should be addressed in depth in the Model Law to safeguard the interests of arbitration parties and therefore justice at large.