Archive for October, 2020

Publication of the New CMIRs and Amendments to the SBRs by the CMA in Saudi Arabia – Lexology

In brief

Following a public consultation period which commenced in December 2019, on 25 August 2020, the Capital Markets Authority (CMA) of Saudi Arabia announced that it had issued amendments to the Securities Business Regulations (SBRs) and the Authorised Persons Regulations (APRs). The new APRs are now known as the Capital Market Institutions Regulations (CMIRs), following the terminology change from Authorised Persons (APs) to Capital Market Institutions (CMIs).

These amendments represent the first comprehensive revision to the APRs and SBRs for some time and the first amendment to the SBRs since its issuance in June 2005 (the last update to the APRs occurred in September 2017).

To allow sufficient time for CMIs to comply with the more significant amendments, the CMA has implemented a phased approach whereby the changes will come into effect in two stages, the first of which will be on 1 November 2020 (15/3/1442H) (as announced by the CMA), with the second phase coming into effect on 1 January 2022 (28/5/1443H). A summary of those changes which become effective on 1 January 2022 is also set out below.

As a result, unusually, both the current SBRs and current APRs as well as the new SBRs and the new APRs (i.e. the CMIRs) are published on the CMAs website. Accordingly, where a provision is subject to a phased approach, the current position will remain as per the current SBRs or APRs until 1 January 2022.

In summary, the key changes include the following:

Transition phases

As mentioned above, in order to enable existing CMIs to implement the required changes under the amendments, the CMA has introduced a two-phased approach. As such, the following amended provisions will be effective as of 1 January 2022:

All other amendments to the SBRs and the CMIRs will have effect as of 01 November 2022.

In detail

Changes to the scope of Securities Activities, types of authorisations and minimum capital requirements

A number of amendments to the scope of authorisations and minimum capital requirements for each of the five categories of Securities Activities have been made which will come into effect on 1 January 2022, as part of the phased approach.

Of the changes, perhaps the most significant is the expansion of the Advising activity to include financial planning or wealth management and the reduction in the minimum capital requirement for a Managing license where activities are limited to making investment decisions for non-real estate investment funds (but not operating these funds) or discretionary management of client portfolios.

Change to client classification and potential implications

One of the most significant changes reflected in the new CMIRs, with perhaps some of the most far reaching practical implications, is the change to the client classification which will take effect on 1 January 2022.

Under the CMIRs, from 1 January 2022, clients must be classified as either:

Under the changes, with a few exceptions, all requirements which were previously limited in application to clients classified as customers are now applicable, or will become applicable from 1 January 2022 to all clients regardless of classification.

The above changes to client classification and the consequential changes to other provisions will have far reaching consequences for CMIs. In particular, the re-classification of all clients in accordance with the new regime could be administratively burdensome for CMIs with large client bases. Moreover, CMIs whose client base has historically been limited to Counterparties will likely have to develop new processes, procedures and documentation to apply the requirements (previously only applicable to customers) to their clients.

However, as noted above, existing CMA licensees have until 1 January 2022 to implement these processes and become compliant with the amended provisions.

Narrowing the Securities Advertisement Exemptions

A significant development is the amendment to Article 20(4) of the SBRs, often referred to as the Securities Advertisement Exemption. Previously, this provision excluded Securities Advertisements from needing to either be made or approved by a CMI when directed only at other CMIs, Exempt Persons or Investment Institutions. The amendments have removed Investment Institutions from this exemption and, consequently, those relying on the previous provision to market to family offices, corporates and even large corporate subsidiaries of governmental entities on a cross-border basis, will potentially be affected.

Codifying corporate governance requirements applicable to CMIs

New provisions in Article 53 and Annex 6.1 of the CMIRs have been added (not previously included in the draft CMIRs circulated in December 2019) which codify the governance requirements set out in CMA Circular No. S/3/6/6970/18 dated 31 October 2018.

These include provisions addressing: (i) the inclusion of independent directors on the CMIs board; (ii) an obligation on the board to establish a corporate governance framework infrastructure; (iii) the issuance and content of an annual report; and (iv) controls in cases where the CMI is a subsidiary of a local bank.

Article 53 clarifies that the requirements above do not apply CMIs which are limited liability companies or whose authorisation type is limited to managing investments, arranging or advising.

These are just a sample of some of the recent amendments. We have put together a full client briefing note which analyzes the changes outlined in this client alert, as well as a wide range of other significant amendments, in greater detail.

Follow this link:
Publication of the New CMIRs and Amendments to the SBRs by the CMA in Saudi Arabia - Lexology

Nondiscrimination ordinance may draw further public input – Statesboro Herald

With social distancing requirements in effect at Statesboro City Hall, officials were working out how to accommodate more people for a Tuesday morning hearing on the proposed Nondiscrimination and Equity Ordinance.

This story was written Monday, when it remained to be seen whether there would be any actual crowd for City Councils 9 a.m. Tuesday meeting. The nondiscrimination package was the first of four proposed new ordinances on the agenda for their official first hearings and potential council votes. If a first reading is approved, a second hearing and council vote would be required at a later date for the new city law to take effect.

I really dont know, City Manager Charles Penny said when asked if a larger number of hearing speakers than usual would attend. There have been some social media posts out there, and some may have been specifically about the meeting. But we are trying to anticipate that there might be some folks to come and speak about the ordinance. Statesboro City Manager Charles Penny

With the six-foot spacing, usually only 16 chairs are set up in the public area inside the council chambers, and three of those are reserved for news media. Outside the chambers, another eight seats will be provided in two alcoves along the hallway on City Halls second floor. When those are full, anyone else will have to remain downstairs, Penny said.

But its a public hearing, so anyone that wants to speak has to be given the opportunity to speak, he said.

So if others are waiting outside to do so, speakers would have to leave the room after their turn to let someone else come in, Penny said.

As of midday Monday he had received one call, his administrative assistant another call and the city clerk two calls from people interested in the Nondiscrimination and Equity Ordinance hearing, Penny said. These were from people on both sides of the issue, and council members may have received additional calls, he noted.

The nondiscrimination ordinance would prohibit businesses, landlords and to some extent nonprofit organizations in Statesboro from discriminating on the basis of race, religion, color, sex, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, gender identity, age or military status. These protections would apply in hiring and employment, in housing and the sale or rental of real estate in general and in public accommodations.

As proposed, the ordinance states that complaints will be referred first to a mediator for non-binding mediation and, if not settled there, to a hearing officer. The hearing officer could apply a civil penalty of up to $500 for a first violation or a fine of up to $1,000 or suspension or loss of a business occupational tax certificate, informally known as a business license, for subsequent violations.

License revocations could be appealed to the mayor and council.

The proposal includes some exemptions for religious organizations and private clubs.

But on two previous appearances before the mayor and council, Reid Derr, a retired East Georgia State College history professor speaking as a member of Trinity Presbyterian Church, voiced an objection that the exemption for religious organizations, as proposed, does not go far enough.

Conscientious objection has a long and venerated history in the United States, and thats really in a sense what Im addressing today, Derr said during the Sept. 15 work session.

Although usually associated with refusals of wartime military service, conscientious objection really means the objection of people to cooperating with, encouraging or advancing social and political and religious doctrines or positions that they in good conscience oppose, he said.

As you expand nondiscrimination legislation, you tend then to press or disadvantage other aspects of the rights of people, Derr said. For example, in particular Im concerned with the First Amendment freedom of speech and the right to freely practice ones religion.

He presented council two requested changes to the proposed ordinance.

The first would add that nothing in it shall prevent a religious believer or person with other conscientious objection from refusing based on religious faith or personal conscience to cooperate in, encourage, propagate or advance social, political and religious doctrines, positions or actions or statements that the person in good conscience objects to, Derr said.

U.S. courts have shown a tendency to expand the interpretation of laws, leading to too much opportunity to use law aggressively against people that we disagree with, he said.

Derr cited the case of Kelvin Cochran, the otherwise distinguished former Atlanta fire chief fired by the city of Atlanta in 2015 after he published a book through his church describing homosexuality as a sin. Cochran sued, and after a complex ruling by a U.S. District Court judge in 2017, the city of Atlanta agreed to pay him and his attorneys $1.2 million to settle the suit.

In other words, City Council would want to avoid people using this ordinance to attack people they dont like and attack their views, and thats why I proposed that one, Derr said of his amendment proposal.

Among other lawsuits he noted were the Masterpiece Cakeshop case from Colorado and the Arlenes Flowers case in Washington state. Both involved business owners who refused to provide services for same-sex weddings.

There are these cases where the aggressive use of statute has really hurt especially small business that doesnt have a bevy of lawyers on staff to be able to defend itself, Derr said.

He said he would not want to see anyone who disagreed with (him) persecuted or disadvantaged in any way but also does not want individuals who take what he understands as the biblical view of marriage to face lawsuits that could force them into bankruptcy.

The other suggested amendment he presented was actually from the Rev. Roland Barnes, Trinity Presbyterians senior pastor, Derr said.

As currently drafted, a subsection of the proposed city law states in part, Nothing in this ordinance shall prohibit a religious organization to employ an individual of a particular religion to perform work connected with the performance of religious activities by the religious organization.

Barnes, through Derr, proposed more specific language to allow a religious organization to restrict hiring to people who are in agreement and complying with the founding principles and beliefs of the organization, as expressed in doctrinal statements and confessions of faith.

Noting the limitation on fines and the absence of restrictions on speech, Statesboro City Attorney Cain Smith suggested that the kind of legal battles Derr talked about were unlikely to result from Statesboros ordinance.

Other jurisdictions in the state that have adopted antidiscrimination ordinances have had the exact same language that we have set out in (the religious exemption clause), and that is in line with what the federal law has said so far, Smith said. Mayor Jonathan McCollar

Mayor Jonathan McCollar said city officials appreciated Derrs input and were willing to listen further. But McCollar asserted that the citys proposal reflects established federal law and that a more detailed religious exemption could invite legal challenges instead of preventing them.

Were not going beyond anything at the federal level, he told Derr. So I think what youre asking us to do would get us into trouble.

The nondiscrimination and equity package, drafted by Smith and the One Boro Commission with input from council members, contains other provisions that have been previously reported.

Go here to read the rest:
Nondiscrimination ordinance may draw further public input - Statesboro Herald

Trump now needs to balance science with his libertarian instincts he should look to Japan for inspiration – The Independent

Among the millions of words being poured out about the political ramifications of The Donalds brush with coronavirus, I have seen little on how it affects his war with science. If he bounces back quickly, like his ally Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, he may well double down on the theory that Covid-19 is a minor inconvenience just like flu and attribute his recovery to one of the unproven remedies, which someone has encouraged him to rely on, or even his own toughness.

For those of us who instinctively put our faith in science, one of the problems we are having in the political debate around the pandemic is that science is proving as difficult to pin down as nailing jelly to the wall. By the time scientific advice is filtered through the policy-making process, we finish up in England, at least with such absurdities as prohibiting two families from organising a children's party for seven in a park, while dozens congregate legally, and apparently safely, inside a badly ventilated pub (at least before 10pm). We are told that scientists have signed off on such nonsense because it fits the theory of R, reducing the overall transmission rate in the population.

There is a buzz in the scientific community around research which suggests that the scientists who advise our government are worrying too much about R and not enough about K. The theory of K dispersion starts with an anomaly: that some places have been devastated by Covid (like Lombardy in Italy) but others, for no obvious reason, much less (southern and central Italy). The horrors of Manaos or Guayaquil have by-passed other cities. The theory of R centres on average transmission rates, while K centres on concentrated clusters originating with a small number of super-spreaders or super-spreading events.

Apparently, only 10 to 20 per cent of infected people are responsible for 80 to 90 per cent of transmission. Most infected people barely transmit it (children hardly at all), though some of those (such as politicians on the stump) meet so many people at close range they can have the same effect as a super-spreader. The infamous Patient 31 in Daegu, South Korea, appears to have single-handedly infected over 5000 people through her evangelical church. The policy implication is that instead of locking down large areas of the country because R has crept above 1, the overwhelming priority is to track down, and isolate, the super-spreaders and minimise events and venues where they can spread the virus.

The one country where this point has been understood and acted upon most effectively is Japan. Japan could have been devastated by Covid and there were plenty of people warning of disaster. It has enormous cities, a very high population density and one of the highest proportions of elderly people in the world. Unlike some of its Asian neighbours, it was not well prepared for the pandemic and did not have a ready mass test and trace system. Unlike China, it was unable, for legal as well as political reasons, to impose a tough lockdown. Mass transport continued and much of normal life. The government relied on persuasion and the public's self-discipline. Japan has had outbreaks and deaths but its Covid death rate is the lowest in the G7.

The Japanese approach, which we ought to be studying carefully, had two main elements: cluster busting, tracing back contacts of infected people to identify clusters and the super-spreader events which gave rise to them; and a preoccupation with ventilation, encouraging people to avoid crowds, in close contact, in closed spaces, especially chanting and singing.

Combined with social distancing, an understanding of the value of masks, and incentives for temporary closure of theatres, music events and stadiums, the country has fared reasonably well. They have suffered just one death per 100,000 people, compared to the UK's 62, and the US's 59. The Japanese economy, the world's third largest, has taken a hit, though not as bad as the worst affected countries like the UK, France, Spain and Italy. Japan seems to have avoided the worst of all worlds experienced in the UK: burdensome and increasingly resented restrictions, unnecessary economic damage and ineffectual mitigation.

The Japanese experience might also prove helpful to Trump. Assuming that he recovers quickly and gets back to the campaign trail, he has to find a way of acknowledging that his cavalier disregard for scientific advice wasn't smart; but, at the same time, he has to keep faith with his libertarian supporters who will not accept formal restrictions. A version of the Japanese approach might play well, especially since Tokyo has gone to extraordinary lengths to keep onside with Trump.

When it comes to emerging from a Covid infection personally, there are some lessons for Trump to learn from his good friend Boris Johnson. There is a sympathy vote but it doesn't last long; and the public expect, above all, competence when their lives and livelihoods are at stake. Another, more painful, lesson is that this is a disease which doesn't always lend itself to swift and permanent recovery. Even if Trump leaves hospital, he could be back on oxygen support in a week's time.

Without claiming any medical knowledge, I am struck, like many British observers, by the fact that our prime minister gives the impression of suffering from long Covid: permanently below par; seemingly exhausted; uncharacteristically slow-witted. It seemed unlikely a few weeks ago but Mr Biden's major selling point in the coming election may prove to be his relatively good health, energy and fitness at 77 years old.

Follow this link:
Trump now needs to balance science with his libertarian instincts he should look to Japan for inspiration - The Independent

Histria Books Announces the Release of the "All Rise!: The Libertarian Way with Judge Jim Gray" – PR.com

Las Vegas, NV, October 05, 2020 --(PR.com)-- Histria Books is pleased to announce the release of All Rise!: The Libertarian Way with Judge Jim Gray by 2012 Libertarian Vice-Presidential Candidate Judge James R. Gray (ret.). The book is published by Gaudium Publishing, an imprint of Histria Books dedicated to outstanding works of non-fiction in a variety of fields. Former Congressman Tom Campbell has penned the foreword to the book.

What do Libertarians believe that sets them apart from other political parties? How do Libertarian values, approaches and principles result in more successful pursuits of happiness than the approaches of other political parties? And how does Judge Jim Gray dare to say that the Libertarians are the only political party in the mainstream of American political thought today? All Rise! The Libertarian Way with Judge Jim Gray attempts to answer all of these questions and more.

All Rise! discusses how government has failed to run economies throughout history, and how it is failing to perform under todays duress, which will leave a legacy of debt to our children and grandchildren. Judge Gray is a recipient of the 2019 Judge Franklin G. West Lifetime Achievement Award from the Orange County Bar Association.

All Rise! The Libertarian Way with judge Jim Gray, 224 pp., ISBN 978-1-59211-080-3, is available at HistriaBooks.com and from all major book retailers. Titles published under the various imprints of Histria Books are distributed worldwide by the Casemate Group. For information on publishing with Histria Books, please visit HistriaBooks.com or contact us at info@histriabooks.com.

Follow this link:
Histria Books Announces the Release of the "All Rise!: The Libertarian Way with Judge Jim Gray" - PR.com

Jody Craven of Kitimat in the running for North Coast MLA Prince Rupert Northern View – Prince Rupert Northern View

Kitimat resident, Jody Craven has been announced as the British Columbia Libertarian Party candidate for the North Coast Riding MLA position in the upcoming Oct. 24 provincial election, the party announced in press release on Oct. 5.

Issues that are listed in the press release as being important to Craven are solutions to provide more job security in the fishing industry and insurance for British Columbians.

The ICBC monopoly needs to go and we need to open the door for competition in auto insurance, Craven said. As MLA, Id also like to sit down with local fishermen and together come up with solutions to provide more job security in their industry.

Craven said blue collar jobs are very important to him and this region having worked for UNIFOR 2301 and Rio Tinto Alcan Inc. for the past 34 years.

When computers and artificial intelligence came to the wharf, a lot of jobs were lost the NDP didnt fight to protect those workers, which is a shame. I think more collaboration with local industries and stakeholders is needed to build a stronger and more stable community, he said.

Craven isnt a stranger to political candidacy, having run in the 2019 federal election as a representative for the Peoples Party of Canada.

Currently studying at Coast Mountain College, Craven said his experience involves being recently elected to the Board of Directors for The North Matters.

In October 2018, I was invited as a guest speaker at a Potlatch with Northern Health in Gitsegukla. At the end of last year, I attended a fundraiser dinner for the Kitimat Humane Society and was also invited to a Mason fundraiser dinner, he said.

I was also involved in a safe talk environment for the Wetsuweten women, families, chiefs and all the bands that supported Coastal Gas Link on behalf of The North Matters in Houston, B.C. of this year back on March 14th 2020.

Craven said he lives with his wife, Mary, and has two grown sons and a three-year old granddaughter.

I spent some of my early years in Prince Rupert and then eventually settled down in Kitimat. I raised my family in Kitimat and worked in the area since 1980.

The BC Libertarian Party was founded in 1986 with a mandate to advocate for individual liberty, lower taxes, free markets, and social tolerance, said the press release. In 2017 the BC Libertarian Party ran 30 candidates in the provincial elections and has rallied 25 candidates across the province for the upcoming provincial election.

More to come

Election 2020

More:
Jody Craven of Kitimat in the running for North Coast MLA Prince Rupert Northern View - Prince Rupert Northern View