Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-21T01:06:58.016Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

29 - The SEC embraces mutual recognition

from PART 2 - Perspectives in financial regulation, SECTION 2: Transatlantic perspectives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2010

Michel Tison
Affiliation:
Universiteit Gent, Belgium
Hans De Wulf
Affiliation:
Universiteit Gent, Belgium
Christoph Van der Elst
Affiliation:
Universiteit Gent, Belgium
Reinhard Steennot
Affiliation:
Universiteit Gent, Belgium
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The traditional approach of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) toward foreign (non-US) issuers, financial intermediaries and markets has been national treatment rather than mutual recognition. In the view of the SEC, mutual recognition was appropriate only when there was harmonized securities regulation between the US and a foreign jurisdiction. Accordingly, although the SEC made accommodations to foreign issuers, it rarely engaged in mutual recognition, the one important exception being the multi-jurisdictional disclosure (MJDS) regime with Canada. This exception actually proved the rule because the Canadians amended their securities laws to harmonize their securities regulations with US law, and to the extent that this was not the case, with regard to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), Canadian issuers were required to reconcile Canadian GAAP to US GAAP.

More recently, however, the SEC has been taking a new look at mutual recognition, and in the case of international financial reporting standards (IFRS) it now allows foreign issuers to use IFRS rather than US GAAP based on a theory of convergence rather than a requirement of harmonization. Furthermore, with regard to the prospect of foreign exchange and broker-dealer access to the US capital markets, the SEC is contemplating mutual recognition based on a theory of regulatory equivalence rather than a requirement of harmonization. On 1 February 2008, SEC Chairman Christopher Cox and European Union Commissioner for the Internal Market and Services Charlie McCreevy met in Washington, DC and agreed to a goal of an EU–US mutual recognition arrangement for securities regulation, declaring that ‘mutual recognition offers significant promise as a means of better protecting investors, fostering capital formation and maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient transatlantic securities markets’.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Campos, R.C, ‘Speech by SEC Commissioner: Embracing International Business in the Post-Enron Era’, speech at the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels (Belgium),www.sec.gov/news/speech/spch061103rcc.htm (last accessed 11 June 2003).Google Scholar
Warren, M.G., ‘Global Harmonization of Securities Laws: The Achievement of the European Communities’, Harvard International Law Journal, 31 (1990), 191.Google Scholar
Steinberg, M.I. and Michaels, L.E., ‘Disclosure in Global Securities Offerings: Analysis of Jurisdictional Approaches, Commonality and Reciprocity’, Michigan Journal of International Law, 20 (1999), 255–61.Google Scholar
Steinberg, M.I., International Securities Law: A Contemporary and Comparative Analysis (Kluwer Law International, 1999), 27–38.Google Scholar
Lehman, K.S., ‘Recent Development: Executive Compensation Following the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002’, North Carolina Law Review, 81 (2003), 2132–33.Google Scholar
Enriques, L., ‘Bad Apples, Bad Oranges: A Comment From Old Europe on Post-Enron Corporate Governance Reforms’, Wake Forest Law Review, 38 (2003), 911Google Scholar
Mossos, E., ‘Sarbanes-Oxley Goes to Europe: A Comparative Analysis of United States and European Union Corporate Reforms After Enron’, Currents: International Trade Law Journal, 13 (2004), 9Google Scholar
Storelli, C., ‘Corporate Governance Failures – Is Parmalat Europe's Enron?’, Columbia Business Law Review, 3 (2005), 765.Google Scholar
Campos, R.C., ‘Speech by SEC Commissioner: Embracing International Business in the Post-Enron Era’, speech at the Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels,www.sec.gov/news/speech/spch061103rcc.htm (last accessed 11 June 2003)Google Scholar
Karmel, R.S., ‘The Once and Future New York Stock Exchange, The Regulation of Global Exchanges’, Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial and Commercial Law, 1 (2007), 370–79.Google Scholar
Fidler, S., ‘How the Square Mile Defeated Prophets of Doom’, Financial Times (London), (10 December 2005), at 11.Google Scholar
Lucchetti, A., ‘NYSE, Via Euronext, Aims to Regain Its Appeal for International Listings’, Wall Street Journal, 30 June 2006, at C1.Google Scholar
Tweedie, D. and Seidenstein, T.R., ‘Setting a Global Standard: The Case for Accounting Convergence’, Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business, 25 (2005), 593.Google Scholar
Tafara, E. and Peterson, R.J., ‘A Blueprint for Cross-Border Access to US Investors: A New International Framework’, Harvard International Law Journal, 48 (2007), 31.Google Scholar
Greene, E.F., ‘Beyond Borders: Time to Tear Down the Barriers to Global Investing’, Harvard International Law Journal, 48 (2007), 85Google Scholar
Jackson, H. E., ‘A System of Selective Substitute Compliance’, Harvard International Law Journal, 48 (2007), 105Google Scholar
Madison, G.W. and Greene, S. P., ‘TIAA-Cref Response to A Blueprint for Cross-Border Access to US Investors: A New International Framework’, Harvard International Law Journal, 48 (2007), 99.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×