DOCSLIB.ORG

Markets As Regulators: a Survey

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Markets As Regulators: a Survey MARKETS AS REGULATORS: A SURVEY STAVROS GAD1NIS* AND HOWELL E. JACKSONt ABSTRACT Stock exchanges around the world have recently discarded their traditionalmutual membership structure in favor of a for-profit corporate format. This development increasedfears of conflicts of interest, as for- profit exchanges are more sensitive to pressures from their constituents and more likely to abuse their regulatory powers. In this Article, we explore the allocation of regulatory responsibilities to market infrastructureinstitutions, administrativeagencies, and centralgovernment entities in the eight most influentialjurisdictions for securities regulation in the world. Examining how different jurisdictions answer this question is particularly pressing given the December 2006 transatlantic stock exchange merger activity. After discussing the role of self-regulatory organizations in the oversight of modern stock exchanges, we report the results of a survey of the allocation of regulatory powers in a sample of eight key jurisdictions. In that survey, we examine the allocation of such powers at three levels: rulemaking, monitoring of compliance with these rules, and enforcement of rules violations. Based on our findings, we categorize these jurisdictions in three distinct models of allocation of regulatory powers: a Government-led Model that preserves significant * Clark Byse and John M. Olin Fellow, Harvard Law School; S.J.D. Candidate, Harvard Law School. t John S. Reid, Jr. Professor of Law, Harvard Law School. This Article derives from a project the author prepared for the Governance of Infrastructure Institutions in the Financial Markets, undertaken by the Oxford Finance Group and led by Ruben Lee in 2006. The analytical framework presented in Part II of this Article and the collection and interpretation of surveys in Appendix A are primarily the work of Mr. Gadinis. The authors wish to express their thanks to the many respondents around the world who took time to complete our survey and respond to our follow up questions and also to the Leeds Research Fund and the Olin Center for Law, Economics and Business at Harvard Law School, which provided financial support. 1239 HeinOnline -- 80 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1239 2006-2007 1240 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LA W REVIEW [Vol. 80:1239 authority for central government control over securities markets regulation, albeit with a relatively limited enforcement apparatus(France, Germany, and Japan); a Flexibility Model that grants significant leeway to market participants in performing their regulatory obligations, but relies on government agencies to set general policies and maintain some enforcement capacity (United Kingdom, Hong Kong, and Australia); and a Cooperation Model that assigns a broad range of power to market participants in almost all aspects of securities regulation, but also maintains strong and overlapping oversight of market activity through well-endowed governmental agencies with more robust enforcement traditions (United States and Canada). TABLE OF CONTENTS I. IN TR O D U C T IO N ......................................................................................... 1241 II. SELF-REGULATION IN THE MODERN STOCK EXCHANGE ............. 1246 A. THE REGULATORY ROLE OF STOCK EXCHANGES .....................................1246 1. Organizing a M arket and Setting Its Rules ........................................... 1246 2. A Public Interest Role for Exchanges ................................................... 1248 B. SELF-REGULATION: ADVANTAGES AND CONCERNS .................................. 1250 1. Why Grant Regulatory Powers to Stock Exchanges? .............. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1250 2. What Are the Concerns Traditionally Associated with Self-regulation? .........................................1252 C. DEMUTUALIZATION AND ITS IMPACT ON ACADEMIC DEBATES OVER THE REGULATION OF EXCHANGES AND OTHER SELF-REGULATORY ORGANIZATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 12 5 7 1. How Does Demutualization Affect the Traditional Model of Self- regu lation? ...................................................... .. .. ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. 12 58 2. Academic Perspectives on the Regulatory Implications of Demutualization ........................................ 1261 III. SURVEY AND ANALYSIS: THREE MODELS FOR ALLOCATING REGULATORY PO W ER .................................................................................. 1266 A. OVERVIEW OF SURVEY DESIGN ................................................................ 1267 B. SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS ............................................................... 1269 C. GOVERNMENT-LED M ODEL ....................................................................... 1271 1. O v erv iew ............................................................................................... 12 7 1 2. How Do Agencies and Market Institutions Divide Areas of Regulatory R esponsibility ? .................................................. .. ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. 127 1 3. What Rules Define the Interaction Between Market Infrastructure Institutions and Administrative Agencies? ........................... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1277 4. What Is the Role of Central Government in the Securities Markets Regulatory Fram ew ork? .......................................... .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. 1278 5. How Vigorously Are Securities Laws Enforced in These Jurisdictions? .... ....................................... 1278 D . FLEXIBILITY M ODEL ................................................................................. 1279 HeinOnline -- 80 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1240 2006-2007 2007] MARKETS AS REGULATORS 1. O verv iew ............................................................................................... 12 79 2. How Do Agencies and Market Institutions Divide Areas of Regulatory R esponsib ility ? .................................................. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... 1280 3. What Rules Define the Interaction Between Market Infrastructure Institutions and Administrative Agencies? ........................... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1285 4. What Is the Role of Central Government in the Securities Markets R egulatory Fram ew ork? .......................................... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1287 5. How Vigorously Are Securities Laws Enforced in These Jurisdictions? ............................................1288 E. COOPERATION M ODEL .............................................................................. 1290 1. O verv iew ............................................................................................... 129 0 2. How Do Agencies and Market Institutions Divide Areas of Regulatory R esponsib ility? ........................................................................................... 1290 3. What Rules Define the Interaction Between Market Infrastructure Institutions and Administrative Agencies? ................................................. 1295 4. What Is the Role of Central Government in the Securities Markets R egulatory Fram ew ork? ............................................................................. 1296 5. How Vigorously Are Securities Laws Enforced in These Jurisdictions? .................................... ....... 1297 IV . C O N C LU SION ........................................................................................... 1298 V. APPENDIX A: INDIVIDUAL COUNTRY CASE STUDIES .................... 1301 A . F RA NC E..................................................................................................... 130 1 B . JA PA N ........................................................................................................13 0 6 C . G ERM AN Y ................................................................................................. 13 12 D . U NITED K ING DO M .................................................................................... 13 15 E . A USTRA LIA ............................................................................................... 1320 F . H O NG K O NG .............................................................................................. 1325 G . U N ITED STATES ........................................................................................ 1329 H . C A N A D A ................................................................................................... 1335 VI. APPENDIX B: SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE .......................................... 1339 A . INTRO D UCTION ......................................................................................... 1339 B. ALLOCATION OF POWERS AMONG MARKET INFRASTRUCTURE INSTITUTIONS .......................................................................................................................13 4 0 1. Overview of Institutional Framework in Your Jurisdiction .................. 1342 2. Authorizing and Supervising the Public Offer Process ......................... 1344 3. Issuer Regulation following Public Offer/Listing ................................. 1352 4. Regulation of the Trading Process ........................................................ 1360 5. Regulation of M arketplaces .................................................................. 1366 6. Supervision of the Financial Intermediation Process ............................ 1372 7. Supervision of Clearing and Settlement Functions ..............................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Markets As Regulators: a Survey
    MARKETS AS REGULATORS: A SURVEY STAVROS GADINIS∗ AND HOWELL E. JACKSON† ABSTRACT Stock exchanges around the world have recently discarded their traditional mutual membership structure in favor of a for-profit corporate format. This development increased fears of conflicts of interest, as for- profit exchanges are more sensitive to pressures from their constituents and more likely to abuse their regulatory powers. In this Article, we explore the allocation of regulatory responsibilities to market infrastructure institutions, administrative agencies, and central government entities in the eight most influential jurisdictions for securities regulation in the world. Examining how different jurisdictions answer this question is particularly pressing given the December 2006 transatlantic stock exchange merger activity. After discussing the role of self-regulatory organizations in the oversight of modern stock exchanges, we report the results of a survey of the allocation of regulatory powers in a sample of eight key jurisdictions. In that survey, we examine the allocation of such powers at three levels: rulemaking, monitoring of compliance with these rules, and enforcement of rules violations. Based on our findings, we categorize these jurisdictions in three distinct models of allocation of regulatory powers: a Government-led Model that preserves significant authority for central government control over securities markets ∗ Clark Byse and John M. Olin Fellow, Harvard Law School; S.J.D. Candidate, Harvard Law School. † John S. Reid, Jr. Professor of Law, Harvard Law School. This Article derives from a project the author prepared for the Governance of Infrastructure Institutions in the Financial Markets, undertaken by the Oxford Finance Group and led by Ruben Lee in 2006.
    [Show full text]
  • Roster of Winners in Single-Seat Constituencies No
    Tuesday, October 24, 2017 | The Japan Times | 3 lower house ele ion ⑳ NAGANO ㉘ OSAKA 38KOCHI No. 1 Takashi Shinohara (I) No. 1 Hiroyuki Onishi (L) No. 1 Gen Nakatani (L) Roster of winners in single-seat constituencies No. 2 Mitsu Shimojo (KI) No. 2 Akira Sato (L) No. 2 Hajime Hirota (I) No. 3 Yosei Ide (KI) No. 3 Shigeki Sato (K) No. 4 Shigeyuki Goto (L) No. 4 Yasuhide Nakayama (L) 39EHIME No. 4 Masaaki Taira (L) ⑮ NIIGATA No. 5 Ichiro Miyashita (L) No. 5 Toru Kunishige (K) No. 1 Yasuhisa Shiozaki (L) ( L ) Liberal Democratic Party; ( KI ) Kibo no To; ( K ) Komeito; No. 5 Kenji Wakamiya (L) No. 6 Shinichi Isa (K) No. 1 Chinami Nishimura (CD) No. 2 Seiichiro Murakami (L) ( JC ) Japanese Communist Party; ( CD ) Constitutional Democratic Party; No. 6 Takayuki Ochiai (CD) No. 7 Naomi Tokashiki (L) No. 2 Eiichiro Washio (I) ㉑ GIFU No. 3 Yoichi Shiraishi (KI) ( NI ) Nippon Ishin no Kai; ( SD ) Social Democratic Party; ( I ) Independent No. 7 Akira Nagatsuma (CD) No. 8 Takashi Otsuka (L) No. 3 Takahiro Kuroiwa (I) No. 1 Seiko Noda (L) No. 4 Koichi Yamamoto (L) No. 8 Nobuteru Ishihara (L) No. 9 Kenji Harada (L) No. 4 Makiko Kikuta (I) No. 2 Yasufumi Tanahashi (L) No. 9 Isshu Sugawara (L) No. 10 Kiyomi Tsujimoto (CD) No. 4 Hiroshi Kajiyama (L) No. 3 Yoji Muto (L) 40FUKUOKA ① HOKKAIDO No. 10 Hayato Suzuki (L) No. 11 Hirofumi Hirano (I) No. 5 Akimasa Ishikawa (L) No. 4 Shunpei Kaneko (L) No. 1 Daiki Michishita (CD) No. 11 Hakubun Shimomura (L) No.
    [Show full text]
  • JCIE's Annual Report
    JAPAN CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE 2001–2003 Annual Report GLOBAL THINKNET CIVILNET POLITICAL EXCHANGE PROGRAM TABLE OF CONTENTS President’s Message 2 CivilNet 23 JCIE Activities 5 Promoting Civil Society and Philanthropy 25 The Role of Philanthropy in Postwar U.S.-Japan Global ThinkNet 7 Relations 25 Study and Dialogue Projects 9 GrantCraft—Japanese Video Project 25 APAP Forums and Seminars 9 International Survey Project—The Civil Society Global ThinkNet Conference, Tokyo 10 Sector and NGO Activities in Asia and Europe 26 Intellectual Dialogue on Building Survey on the Status of Exchange Programs Asia’s Tomorrow 10 between the U.S. and Japan 26 A Gender Agenda: Asia-Europe Dialogue 11 Seminar Series with Civil Society Leaders 26 Russia-Japan Policy Dialogue 12 Study Mission on American Philanthropy 27 Cooperation with the Asia Pacific Philanthropy Policy-Oriented Research 13 Consortium (APPC) 27 Vision of Asia Pacific in the 21st Century 13 Facilitating Philanthropic Programs of Asia Pacific and the Global Order Overseas Foundations and Corporations 29 After September 11 13 Levi Strauss Foundation Advised Fund of JCIE 29 The Rise of China and the Changing East Asian Order 14 “Positive Lives Asia” Photo Exhibition Tour 31 Asia Pacific Security Outlook 14 Goldman Sachs Global Leaders Program 31 Force, Intervention, and Sovereignty 15 Lucent Global Science Scholars Program 32 New Perspectives on U.S.-Japan Relations 15 Civil Society and Grassroots-Level Governance for a New Century: Japanese Exchanges 33 Challenges, American Experience 16 A50 Caravan 33 The Future of Governance and the Role Asia Pacific Leadership Program in Tokyo 33 of Politicians 17 Grassroots Network 34 The Transformation of Japanese Communities Miyazaki Prefecture Commemorative and the Emerging Local Agenda 18 Symposiums on Internationalization 34 The Intellectual Infrastructure for East Asian Community-Building 18 Political Exchange Program 35 Support and Cooperation for Research and U.S.-Japan Parliamentary Exchange Program 37 Dialogue 19 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Japan Revival Vision
    Japan Revival Vision Provisional Translation May 23, 2014 Liberal Democratic Party of Japan Japan Economic Revival Headquarters 1 2 Note: This is only a provisional translation. With regard to any parts that seem unclear, please refer to the original Japanese version. Introduction In December of 2012, the Liberal Democratic Party returned to power with Prime Minister Abe in the lead, based on the slogan “Take Back Japan”. After the bubble burst, Japan had experienced a “Lost Two Decades” of long-term economic slump and deflation. Furthermore, stagnation escalated following the “Lehman Shock”, partly due to the deficient economic policies of the new government established after the LDP lost power. However, after the launch of the second Abe Cabinet, as a result of releasing what is known as the “Three Arrows,” domestic and international perceptions of Japan’s economic prospects significantly improved. This was reflected in the rapid rise of stock prices last year. The first arrow was aggressive monetary easing; the second arrow, flexible fiscal policy; and the third arrow, released in June of last year, was the Japan Revitalization Strategy, “Japan is Back”. According to the Tankan (the Bank of Japan’s quarterly economic survey) published in December of last year, for the first time in 21 years and 10 months, the Business Sentiment Diffusion Index turned positive for small and medium-sized enterprises in the non-manufacturing sector, which had been suffering from a long-term slump. Moreover, real GDP for the first quarter of this year grew as much as 5.9% on an annual basis, although this was buoyed in part by rush-demand before the increase of the consumption tax rate.
    [Show full text]
  • Mansfield Fellows and Their Insights on U.S.-Japan Relations
    The Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation Unique Experiences, Unique Perspectives Mansfield Fellows and Their Insights on U.S.-Japan Relations he Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation honors Mike Mansfield (1903–2001), Ta remarkable public servant, statesman and diplomat who played a pivotal role in many key domestic and international issues of the 20th century as U.S. congressman from Montana, Senate majority leader, and finally as U.S. ambassador to Japan. The Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation was created in 1983 to advance Maureen and Mike Mansfield’s life-long efforts to promote understanding and cooperation among the nations and peoples of Asia and the United States. The Foundation sponsors exchanges, dialogues and publications that create networks among U.S. and Asian leaders, explore important policy issues, and increase awareness of Asia in the U.S. The Mansfield Foundation’s geographic focus is Northeast Asia and India as it relates to that region. The Foundation receives support from individuals, corporations and philanthropic organizations. It also provides support to The Maureen and Mike Mansfield Center at The University of Montana. The Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation 1401 New York Avenue, NW Suite 740 Washington, D.C. 20005-2102 Phone: 202 . 347. 1994 Fax: 202 . 347. 3941 E-mail: [email protected] www.mansfieldfdn.org The Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation, Washington, D.C. © 2013 by The Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation www.mansfieldfdn.org All rights reserved. Published in the United States of America Library of Congress Control Number: 2012954958 Unique Experiences, Unique Perspectives Mansfield Fellows and Their Insights on U.S.-Japan Relations www.mansfieldfdn.org 2 Contents Preface David Boling Deputy Executive Director, The Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation .
    [Show full text]
  • Guía País JAPÓN
    Guía País JAPÓN Elaborada por la Oficina Económica y Comercial de España en Tokio Actualizada a Julio, 2005 1. INTRODUCCIÓN 4 1.1. Situación, superficie y clima 4 1.2. Demografía y sociedad 4 1.3. Breve referencia histórica 5 2. ESTRUCTURA POLÍTICO-ADMINISTRATIVA 6 2.1. Sistema político 6 2.1.1. Gobierno 7 2.1.2. Partidos políticos y actividad parlamentaria 8 2.2. Sector Público 8 2.2.1. La organización administrativa del Estado 8 2.2.2. La Administración Económica y Comercial 9 2.2.3. El Banco Central 10 2.2.4. Empresas Públicas 10 3. ESTRUCTURA ECONÓMICA 11 3.1. Sector Primario 11 3.2. Sector Secundario 12 3.3. Sector Terciario 14 3.4. Estructura empresaria 15 3.5. Sistema Financiero 16 3.6. Sector Exterior 17 4. MARCO PARA LA ACTIVIDAD COMERCIAL 18 4.1. Régimen de comercio exterior. Importaciones y Exportaciones 18 4.2. Regulación de Cobros y Pagos con el exterior 18 4.3. Legislación sobre contratación pública. Criterios de Adjudicación de Contratos Públicos 19 4.4. La Distribución Comercial: Estructura y marco legal 19 5. MARCO PARA LA INVERSIÓN 19 5.1. Legislación sobre Inversiones Extranjeras 20 5.2. Legislación mercantil 20 5.3. Legislación fiscal 21 5.4. Legislación laboral 23 5.5. Legislación sobre propiedad intelectual 24 5.6. Costes de establecimiento: de personal, alquileres, suministros y otros 24 6. INFORMACIÓN DE CARÁCTER PRÁCTICO 25 6.1. Formalidades de entrada y salida 25 6.2. Horario local y días festivos 25 6.3. Condiciones climáticas 26 6.4.
    [Show full text]
  • Mike Mansfield Fellowships
    The Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation THE MIKE MANSFIELD FELLOWSHIPS Advancing Understanding and Cooperation in U.S.-Japan Relations Washington, DC • Tokyo, Japan • Missoula, Montana • www.mansfieldfellows.org “...knowledge is essential for acceptance and understanding. By examining the political heritage, the economic experience, and even the national myths that tie people together; by exploring the cultural, religious, and social forces that have molded a nation, we can begin to better understand each other and contribute to the knowledge and understanding that will strengthen our ties of friendship and lead to a better world.” —Mike Mansfield “…a vigorous program of exchanges is the surest way, over the long term, to build a true community of Asia Pacific nations.” —Mike Mansfield This program is sponsored by the U.S. Department of State with funding provided by the U.S. Government and administered by the Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation. 1 Celebrating 25 Years of The Mike Mansfield Fellowships “It has long been evident that the U.S.-Japan relationship has far-reaching consequences not only for the Pacific region but also for other parts of the world. In establishing the Mike Mansfield Fellowships, the U.S. Congress has taken an important step toward developing a new generation of government officials with a deeper understanding of Japan and close working relationships with Japanese officials. With the strong support of the government of Japan, the Mansfield Fellowship Program gives U.S. government officials a unique opportunity to learn about Japan and its government from the inside. We are pleased to see that U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Mike Mansfield Fellowships
    The Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation THE MIKE MANSFIELD FELLOWSHIPS ADVANCING UNDERSTANDING AND COOPERATION IN U.S.-JAPAN RELATIONS Washington, DC • Tokyo, Japan • Missoula, Montana • www.mansfieldfdn.org “...knowledge is essential for acceptance and understanding. By examining the political heritage, the economic experience and even the national myths that tie people together; by exploring the cultural, religious, and social forces that have molded a nation, we can begin to better understand each other and contribute to the knowledge and understanding that will strengthen our ties of friendship and lead to a better world.” —Mike Mansfield “…a vigorous program of exchanges is the surest way, over the long term, to build a true community of Asia Pacific nations.” —Mike Mansfield 1 The Mike Mansfield Fellowships “It has long been evident that the U.S.-Japan relationship has far-reaching consequences not only for the Pacific region but also for other parts of the world. In establishing the Mike Mansfield Fellowships, the U.S. Congress has taken an important step toward developing a new generation of government officials with a deeper understanding of Japan and close working relationships with Japanese officials. With the strong support of the government of Japan, the Mansfield Fellowship Program gives U.S. government officials a unique opportunity to learn about Japan and its government from the inside. We are pleased to see that U.S. agencies are making significant use of the Fellows who have completed the program, assigning them responsibility for Japan issues and cooperative programs and relying on their expertise and advice on how to work with Japan and foster close coordination on a wide range of issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Property Strategic Program 2005
    Intellectual Property Strategic Program 2005 June 10, 2005 Intellectual Property Policy Headquarters Intellectual Property Strategic Program 2005 Table of Contents General 1 1. Philosophy of Intellectual Property Policy 1 2. Policy for Making Japan an Intellectual Property-based Nation 6 3. Progress in Intellectual Property Policy 10 4. Development and Implementation of Intellectual Property Strategic Program 2005 15 Chapter 1 Creation of Intellectual Property 17 1. Promoting the Creation of Intellectual Property at Universities and Other Institutes 17 (1) Promoting the Establishment of Consolidated Management 17 1) Encouraging the development of rules according to the principle of consolidated 17 2) Giving due consideration to the mobility of researchers in developing 19 (2) Strengthening Comprehensive Systems for Intellectual Property 19 1) Strengthening University Intellectual Property Headquarters 20 2) Strengthening TLOs 21 3) Enhancing information on human resources related to intellectual property 21 4) Supporting the development of dispute settlement systems 21 5) Clearly indicating liaisons 22 6) Evaluating University Intellectual Property Headquarters and TLOs 22 7) Encouraging universities to disclose information on intellectual property-related 23 activities 8) Strengthening cooperation among University Intellectual Property Headquarters and 23 TLOs (3) Increasing Funds for Intellectual Property-Related Activities 24 (4) Giving Due Consideration to Intellectual Property-related Activities in Evaluating 25 Universities and
    [Show full text]
  • Oktober 2005
    Ausgabe 98 / Oktober 2005 JAPAN auf einen BLICK Das monatliche Informationsblatt des Japanischen Generalkonsulats in Hamburg Prof. Shunji Yanai neuer Richter am Internationalen Seegerichtshof Seit Oktober 1996 hat der Internationale Seegerichtshof in Kaleidoskop Nienstedten, im Westen Hamburgs, seinen Sitz; im November 2000 zog er dort in ein neues, hoch modern ausgestattetes Gebäude. Der Seegerichtshof wurde auf der Grundlage des Der Tag des Sports – taiku no hi Was fällt Ihnen zum Oktober ein? Seerechtsübereinkommens der Vereinten Nationen geschaffen und ist „Goldener Oktober“ vielleicht. Die Tage für seerechtliche Streitigkeiten zuständig. Bisher kamen insgesamt 13 Fälle vor das Seegericht. Dazu zählt auch ein Rechtstreit zwischen werden kürzer, die Witterung kälter, warme Japan und Australien/Neuseeland im Zusammenhang mit Bluefin Pullover werden unverzichtbar und man freut Tuna, der 1999 verhandelt wurde. sich auf lauschige Abende mit einer heißen Zurzeit haben 149 Staaten die Seerechtskonvention unterzeichnet; Tasse Tee. Just in diesem Monat, der für uns einen ruhigeren Japan hat am 20. Juni 1996 das Übereinkommen ratifiziert. Seitdem Lebensrhythmus einläutet, feiert man in Japan den „Tag des ist es der größte Beitragszahler für den Seegerichtshof und kommt für Sports“. knapp 20% des Gesamtbudgets auf. Seinen Ursprung hat dieser Feiertag in den Olympischen Spielen in Beim Gericht sind insgesamt 21 Richter tätig, die auf der Tokyo, die am 10. Oktober 1964 eröffnet wurden. Es heißt, dass Versammlung der Vertragsstaaten in den Vereinten Nationen in New dieser Tag als Eröffnungstag gewählt wurde, da er York gewählt werden. Für die Qualifikation der Richter am meteorologischen Beobachtungen der Wetterwarte zufolge eine Seegerichtshof sind nicht nur seerechtliche Kenntnisse sehr wichtig, hohe Wahrscheinlichkeit auf gutes Wetter hatte.
    [Show full text]
  • 2008Conferenceprogram.Pdf
    Platinum Sponsors: ･Tokyo Commodity Exchange / Tokyo Grain Exchange / Japan Commodity Futures Industry Association ･Mizuho Securities Co., Ltd. ･Goldman Sachs Asset Management Co., Ltd. Gold Sponsors: ･Osaka Securities Exchange Co., Ltd.･Tokyo Financial Exchange Inc.･Tokyo Stock Exchange Group, Inc.･Nikko Asset Management Co., Ltd.･Nomura Securities Co., Ltd. ･Securities Analysts Association of Japan･Mitsubishi UFJ Trust & Banking Co. / Mitsubishi UFJ Trust Investment Technology Institute Co., Ltd. Supporting Sponsors: ･Nomura Research Institute, Ltd･Kinzai Institute for Financial Affairs, Inc.･Sumitomo Mitsui Asset Management Co., Ltd.･Sumitomo Trust & Banking Co., Ltd. ･PIMCO Japan Ltd. ･Japan Securities Investment Advisors Association･Barclays Global Investment Japan Ltd.･Ibbotson Associate Japan, Inc.･Mizuho-DL Financial Technology Co., Ltd. Sponsors: ･ORIX Corporation･Association for Real Estate Securitization Asian FA-NFA 2008 International Conference The Mission of Financial Studies in Globalized Economy Program Book TABLE OF CONTENTS Greetings ..............................................................................................................2 Program at a Glance ...........................................................................................4 Asian FA/NFA 2008 International Conference Committees ...........................6 International Blind Review Panel (AsianFA-NFA Nominations) ...................8 Special Session / Parallel Session .......................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • 90Th Anniversary Meeting 2012 the Society for Biotechnology, Japan
    90th Anniversary Meeting 2012 The Society for Biotechnology, Japan (SBJ) October 23rd – 26th, 2012 Kobe International Conference Center Kobe, Japan 64th SBJ Annual Meeting Program Supported by Japan Science Technology Agency (JST) Institute for Fermentation, Osaka (IFO) Kobe Covention & Visitors Association Nakauchi Tsutomu Convention Shinko Zaidan Foundation Suntory Institute for Bioorganic Research 1 2 3 October 23, 2012 October 23, 2012 Author (Affiliation) Time Abst No. Title ○ = Indicates the presenter Room M Morning (9:30~12:30) The 90th Anniversary Ceremony Award Ceremony (11:00~11:55) Award Lectures 11:55 1Ma01 Meritorious Service Award Speech Acknowledgement of a prize ..............................................................................................○Masato Hirotsune (Gen. Res. Lab., Ozeki Co.) 12:00 1Ma02 Society Award Lecture Chairperson: Satoshi Harashima Comprehensive research on bacterial cell wall degradation and modification enzymes ................................................................................○Junichi Sekiguchi (Fac. Tex. Sci. Tech., Shinshu Univ.) Room M Afternoon (14:00~17:10) 14:00 1Mp01 Achievement Award Lecture Chairperson: Satoshi Harashima Fundamental studies on the enhancement of central metabolism in bacteria producing useful metabolites ...............................................○Atsushi Yokota (Lab. Microb. Physiol., Grad. Sch. Agric., Hokkaido Univ.) 14:30 1Mp02 Technical Award Lecture Chairperson: Takeshi Harima Development of a novel submerged culture of koji mold and its
    [Show full text]