Latest news with #SecuritiesLaw
Time of India
23-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Supreme Court and advisory jurisdiction
Vijay Gokhale is a lawyer and former investment banker. He has cumulative experience of more than 25 years in the financial services industry spanning public sector, private sector and MNCc. He is engaged in financial literacy and investor welfare initiatives. His areas of interest include matters relating to the Constitution, Civil and criminal laws, Securities Law, Financial Services, Consumer protection etc. LESS ... MORE The Supreme Court, while deciding a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government in April 2025, has fixed a time frame for withholding assent by the governor to a bill passed by the Legislative Assembly, reserving it for the President's consideration, giving assent to a bill after it's reconsideration by the house and for the President to decide on the bill before him. The judgment has generated a debate on the limits of judicial intervention in the domain of the Executive and the equilibrium to be maintained between the jurisdictions of the Executive and the Judiciary in constitutional matters. President Droupadi Murmu has now sought the Supreme Court's opinion on a total of fourteen points exercising her powers under Article 143 of the Constitution. This is the first time such an opinion has been sought in Prime Minister Narendra Modi's eleven-year tenure as Prime Minister. Whenever the President feels that a question of law or fact has arisen or is likely to arise, which is of such nature and public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the supreme Court upon it, the President may refer the question to the Court for consideration under Article 143(1) and the Court may after such hearing, as it thinks fit, report its opinion to the President. This is called the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This provision has its origin in Section 213(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935. The provision is not part of the judicial administration but is part of the advisory machinery created to assist the President. Since under Article 74(1) the President acts on the aid and advice of the Council of ministers although technically it is the President who seeks the opinion, it is in fact the Union Council of Minister which seeks it. But under Article 74(2) the Court shall not inquire whether the council indeed gave any advice and if so what. In the event, the President seeks such an opinion without the advice of the council, it will be a violation of the Constitution and the President would face impeachment under Article 61 of the constitution. Generally, the Supreme Court answers questions of law and fact which arise in the matters before it. However, Article 143 confers on the Supreme Court a special advisory jurisdiction to give its opinion on questions not related to the matters pending before it. Article 145(3) requires a Constitution Bench of at least five judges to be constituted to consider the matter referred by the President. Whenever such advice is sought, it is the duty of the court to consider the matter referred and give its report (opinion) to the President. The Supreme Court has opined in Keshav Sing (opinion) that because of the wording of Article 143(1) (the court may…report to the president its opinion thereon), it is not binding on the court to give such advice and the court can refuse to give such advice by providing strong, compelling and concise reasons. The court can also refuse to give advice on a matter which depends on the expert evidence or is of a political nature, stating that it is not competent to give opinion on such matter. Generally, the Supreme Court gives advice on all petitions. Out of at least 15 matters referred by President since 1950, the court has returned only one matter without an answer. That too on a technical ground. The President may seek advice on a point of law on which the Court has not ruled (in other words it is not res judicata) The Court does not consider whether the petition is made with a dishonest intent or does not check the truthfulness of the content of the reference. In Natural Resources Allocation Special Reference No. 1 of 2012, the Court has opined that a reference should not be returned unanswered on the basis of the form or pattern alone. It requires appropriate analysis, understanding and appreciation of content or issue on which opinion of Supreme Court is sought by President, keeping in view constitutional responsibility, juridical propriety and judicial discretion. Reference should not be vague, general or undefined. It is only when questions become unspecific and incomprehensible that risk of returning reference unanswered arises. In its 1991 opinion on the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, the Supreme Court clarified that the executive cannot, under the garb of article 143, seek to review or overturn the established judicial decisions of the Supreme Court. This provision is used in exceptional circumstances and cannot be used as a political tool to resolve political issues. Therefore, the power vested in the Supreme Court under Article 143(1) is discretionary. On a question whether the opinion provided by Supreme Court under article 143 is binding on other courts as per article 141 (the law declared by the Supreme court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India) supreme court in a nine judge bench judgment of Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society vs. State of Gujarat has ruled that although the opinion provided to the President under Article 143 has weight, it is not binding on the Supreme Court in any subsequent cases. The marginal note of Article 143 states 'Power of President to consult Supreme Court'. The word 'consult' undoubtedly indicates that the President is not bound to implement the opinion of the Supreme Court. Also, Article 142(1) which deals with enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme court and orders as to discovery etc. indicates that only the decrees and orders of the Supreme Court can be implemented. Since consultative opinion is not an order or decree, the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court cannot be implemented. Although the President usually respects the opinion of the Supreme Court, the opinion given under Article 143 is not binding on the President. Sometimes the Court also takes an assurance through the Attorney General that the President will respect the opinion of the Court. Since advisory jurisdiction is not binding as a precedent, even if the Supreme Court rules a law unconstitutional in a Section 143 opinion, the court must independently re-determine the validity of that law if a question arises in the future. Considering the above, it will be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court considers the request of President Murmu or rejects it or says that it is a review petition under the garb of article 143 opinion, whether it expresses it's opinion on all the points if it decides to give the opinion and whether it says that some points have been decided in the Tamil Nadu petition. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
RBI Recommends Shareholders Reject NYSB's "Mini-tender Offer"
MIAMI, May 15, 2025 /CNW/ - Restaurant Brands International Inc. (NYSE: QSR) (TSX: QSR) ("RBI") has been notified of an unsolicited mini-tender offer made by New York Stock and Bond LLC ("NYSB") to purchase up to 100,000 RBI common shares, or approximately 0.03% of the company's outstanding common shares, at a price of US$44.00 per share. RBI cautions shareholders that the mini-tender offer has been made at a price below market price for RBI shares. The offer represents a discount of 29.96% on the NYSE closing price for RBI common shares on April 21, 2025, the last trading day before the mini-tender offer was commenced. RBI does not endorse this unsolicited offer, has no association with NYSB or its offer, and recommends that shareholders do not tender their shares to the offer. According to NYSB's offer documents, RBI shareholders who have already tendered their shares can withdraw their shares at any time within 14 days after the date of delivery of the shareholder's tender form by following the procedures described in the offer documents. For background, mini-tender offers are designed to seek less than 5% of a company's outstanding shares, avoiding disclosure and procedural requirements applicable to most bids under U.S. and Canadian securities regulations. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) have expressed serious concerns about mini-tender offers, including the possibility that investors might tender to such offers without understanding the offer price relative to the actual market price of their securities. The SEC states that "bidders make mini-tender offers at below-market prices, hoping that they will catch investors off guard if the investors do not compare the offer price to the current market price." RBI strongly encourages brokers, dealers and other market participants to exercise caution and review the letter regarding broker-dealer mini-tender offer dissemination and disclosures on the SEC website at RBI requests that a copy of this news release be included in any distribution of materials relating to NYSB's mini-tender offer for RBI shares. Comments from the CSA on mini-tenders can be found on the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) website at Information about mini-tender offers can be found on the SEC website at NYSB has made similar unsolicited mini-tender offers for shares of other public companies. About Restaurant Brands International Inc. Restaurant Brands International Inc. is one of the world's largest quick service restaurant companies with nearly $45 billion in annual system-wide sales and over 32,000 restaurants in more than 120 countries and territories. RBI owns four of the world's most prominent and iconic quick service restaurant brands – TIM HORTONS®, BURGER KING®, POPEYES®, and FIREHOUSE SUBS®. These independently operated brands have been serving their respective guests, franchisees and communities for decades. Through its Restaurant Brands for Good framework, RBI is improving sustainable outcomes related to its food, the planet, and people and communities. RBI's principal executive offices are in Miami, Florida. In North America, RBI's brands are headquartered in their home markets where they were founded decades ago: Canada for Tim Hortons and the U.S. for Burger King, Popeyes and Firehouse Subs. To learn more about RBI, please visit the company's website at View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE Restaurant Brands International Inc. View original content to download multimedia: Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Jordan News
06-05-2025
- Business
- Jordan News
Financial Services Companies Association: The Sector is Under Strict Oversight and Trading is a Personal Responsibility
Financial Services Companies Association: The Sector is Under Strict Oversight and Trading is a Personal Responsibility The Financial Services Companies Association has expressed its rejection of what it described as an "intense and misleading media campaign" targeting the financial brokerage sector recently through certain news websites and social media platforms. اضافة اعلان In a press statement issued on May 5, the Association — the professional body representing brokerage firms licensed by the Jordan Securities Commission — stressed that some of the circulated information lacks accuracy, distorts the sector's image, and overlooks the legal and regulatory environment under which these companies operate. The statement pointed out that the financial services sector operates under a comprehensive legal framework, including the Foreign Exchange Trading Regulation Law No. 1 of 2017 and the Securities Law, in addition to the instructions issued by the Jordan Securities Commission. This ensures that companies comply with the highest standards of professionalism and transparency. The Association clarified that brokerage firms do not directly manage clients' funds but instead provide licensed trading platforms that investors use based on their individual decisions. It added that any losses resulting from trading are the responsibility of the investor, which is clearly explained in the agreements signed with the clients. The statement rejected comparisons between current brokerage firms and the fraudulent exchanges that were shut down following the events of 2008–2012, affirming that the nature of operations and regulatory oversight has completely changed, and such comparisons do not reflect the current regulatory reality. The Association called on media outlets to verify information before publishing it and urged regulatory and media entities to fulfill their responsibilities in educating the public, especially amid attempts by some parties to mislead investors or influence their decisions with inaccurate information. It also noted that it reserves its legal right to pursue anyone who spreads false information that harms the reputation of the sector or undermines the work of licensed companies and regulatory bodies.
Observer
25-03-2025
- Business
- Observer
FSA suspends some activities of the Financial Corporation
The Financial Services Authority has issued administrative Decision No. 20/205 suspending some activities of Financial Corporation Company (SAOG) permanently and issued compulsory instructions to the company. The move was made to enhance compliance and ensure the integrity of the financial markets The decision was issued for breaching the Securities Law and the Executive Regulation of the Capital Market Law No. 1/2009 for failing to adjust its situation under Decision No. 5/2024 as well as failing to comply with the instructions issued by FSA on August 25, 2024. Accordingly, FSA suspended the company from carrying out brokerage activity, marketing non-Omani securities, and research and advice activity permanently. The decision also included obliging the company to take a set of procedures within not more than three months from the date of the decision. The company was directed to deal with all the complaints filed by the consumers and enable themto disposition their portfolios, further instructing the company to restructure the internal control systems to ensure compliance with the regulations and appoint qualifies staff to assume responsibilities. FSA said it will continue implementing the regulations governing the financial markets and will take all necessary actions to ensure full compliance with the laws to enhance investors' confidence and financial market's stability.
