Commissions disclosure

Governance Forces The Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 (also known as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Public Law 107-204) was passed after the well-publicized corporate governance failures starting in 2001.The intent of the act was to strengthen corporate governance and financial disclosure rules under the Security and Exchange Commission s (SEC) rules for publicly traded companies. 

In the United States, public companies are required to report their financial performance quarterly, with an annual report required at the end of the fiscal year. Non-U.S. companies with a stock trading on a U.S. stock exchange must also file quarterly and annual statements. Even foreign, public companies not on a U.S. exchange file annual reports for use by investors, analysts, and employees. Annual and quarterly reports are often found on the companies websites listed under investor relations. In the United States, these reports are available from the Securities and Exchange Commission (http //www.sec.gov) at no charge. Financial information on private companies is much more difficult to find. Users must depend on disclosure by the private company or rely on primary research vendors for information. 

In the early 1980s, the so-called super fund legislation created huge liabilities for companies faced with cleaning up contaminated sites. Despite this legislation, there was a shortfall in the measurement and disclosure of these liabilities in corporate financial statements. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) looked into this and created the following rules to ensure adequate environmental disclosure in Form K-10 ... 

Commission (SEC), and state Blue Sky laws, present even more difficult problems. Public offerings, when possible, should be delayed until patent applications are filed because public disclosure, even if accidental or in violation of a confidentiality agreement, can preclude patent protection in most countries of the world. Once again, there is great pressure for filing patent applications as quickly as possible. 

Descriptions of the syntheses of zeolites and zeotypes are very widely disseminated in the journal and patent literature. Searches carried out on, for example, zeolite A or ZSM-5 would reveal hundreds of examples. In general, it is often instructive to look both at some of the original synthesis procedures (often as patent examples) and also at some of the most recently published methods. For all materials, the extent of information increases with the length of time since first disclosure. This means that the amount of data on (for example) recently-discovered zeotype phases may be quite limited. A very useful source for experimental methods and reliable synthetic procedures for zeolites and the more common zeotypes can be found in the handbook issued by the Synthesis Commission of the International Zeolite Association (IZA) [51]. 

The Commission finds that the disclosure of detailed transactional information is necessary to provide shippers with the price transparency they need to make informed decisions, and the ability to monitor transactions for undue discrimination and preference. Shippers need to know the price paid for capacity over a particular path to enable them to decide, for instance, how much to offer for the specific capacity they seek.. . . The disclosure of all transactional information without the shipper s name will be inadequate for other shippers to determine whether they are similarly situated to the transacting shipper for purposes of revealing undue discrimination or preference. Finally, to be meaningful, for decision making purposes, the transactional information must be reported at the time of the actual transaction. ... 

Law no. 2010-788 of 12 July 2010 with a national commitment to the environment (Grenelle II Law), published in JORF no. 160 on 13 July 2010. A system was put in place for manufacturers, importers and distributers of substances in the nanoparticle form, in the form of or contained in blends, associated or not, or materials that reject such substances under normal or reasonably foreseeable conditions of use. The declaration includes elements that facilitate the identification of the substances concerned, their usages and quantities on the market, as well as the identities of corporate users who have sold them whether in or not in return for payment. At the request of the administrative authority, available information regarding the dangers of these substances can be transmitted. A decree (Decree no. 2012-232 of 17 February 2012 regarding the annual declaration of substances in the nanoparticle form, published in JORF no. 43 of 19 February 2012) of the legislative system was implemented to define the expression substances in the nanoparticle form (the definition of nanomateiial provided in the 2011 recommendation of the European Commission previously cited) or even sanctions (producer, importer, distributer or user who fails to provide full disclosure is liable for an administrative fine of 3,000 euros which can be coupled with a daily fine of 300 euros). 

In January 2006, the council was replaced by the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care with the same role. The annual reports of the ACSQHC included recommendahons such as developing a national strategy for preventing health care-associated infechons, a national trial of disclosure of adverse events, and nahonal credentialing for medical prach-tioners in hospitals. 

The American College of Physicians and American Society of Internal Medicine suggests disclosing if it is material to the patient s weU-being. The AMA advises error disclosure whenever major medical complications occur. The Joint Commission criterion is for any unanticipated outcome. The NPSF bases the disclosure threshold on any injury occurrence. Use a predetermined error threshold. 

Proposed Trade Regulation Rules Concerning Disclosure of Cellular Plastics Products 39 Federal Regulation 28, 292, August 1974 40 Federal Regulation 30, 842, Federal Trade Commission (FTC), July 1975. 

The action to prevent unauthorized use or disclosure of confidential information is a civil one. The criminal law is rarely involved. However, the Law Commission have proposed that there should be a new offence covering the misuse of a trade secret and this will be... 

Full justification is required of why disclosure of the information might harm the applicant industrially or commercially. Information accepted as confidential by the receiving competent authority shall be treated as confidential by the other competent authorities. Member States and the Commission. 

Each member of the Confidentiality Commission shall, as soon as he or she is informed of a dispute, disclose to the Chair any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his or her impartiality or independence in regard to the case. The Chair shall inform all members of the Confidentiality Commission of any such disclosure and, if the Confidentiality Commission... 

Surveys can help to define the components of disclosure that matter most to patients and their families (1) disclosure of all harmful errors, (2) an explanation as to why the error occurred, (3) how to minimize the error s effects, and (4) steps the physician and organization will take to prevent recurrences. Full disclosure of an error incorporates these components as weU as acknowledgement of responsibility and an apology by the physician. Many physicians choose their words carefully by failing to clearly explain the error or its effects on the patient s health. Circumstances surrounding an error can become complex. Physicians may not know how much information to disclose and how to explain the error to the patient. Recently developed guidelines should assist physicians with this process. Since 2001, the Joint Commission requires disclosure of unanticipated outcomes of care. In 2006, the National Quality Forum endorsed fuU disclosure of serious unanticipated outcomes as one of its 30 safe practices for healthcare. 

Engineers should strive for transparency in the procurement and execution of projects. Transparency includes disclosure of names, addresses, purposes, and fees or commissions paid for all agents facilitating projects. 

Discussion turned to Murra)r s disclosure to the appropriations subcommittee. General Counsel Mitchell and Commissioner Libby noted that since he had read only the conclusions into the record, most of the report remained confidential. Strauss contended that the importance was not in how much was disclosed. He emphasized "the fact that we had such a letter, that it was an unfavorable recommendation, [and] was compromised at that time without Commission action having been taken." Commissioner Vance attempted to provide a broader view of the problem. He suggested that the Commission deal with two separate points. First was a general question about the agency position on matters of this kind. The second was the specific problem that in this case the report had been partially disclosed. He asked whether it was better not to reveal any more than already divulged, "or is it better to make the whole thing in effect available to the committee " ... 

Section 2.790 of the Commission s rules of practice stated, "The Commission may withhold any document or part thereof from public inspection if disclosure of its contents is not required in the public interest and would adversely affect the interest of the person concerned." See AEC 23/28 (7 July 1955), AEC 23/35 (6 Jan. 1956), AEC press release, 6 Feb. 1956, AEC/NRC. See also Green, "Law of Reactor Safety," p. 130. 

---