The following Chapter contains a comparison of the ECSPR with the United States regulatory framework for crowdfunding. In particular, the focus is on securities regulation in the United States. In order to provide for a more innovative European financial sector, it is important that the ECSPR is competitive in a global perspective. The United States is an important jurisdiction to compare the ECSPR with, considering the significant market volume of US crowdfunding as well as the fact that the United States has been a forerunner in adopting crowdfunding legislation. A conclusion in the Chapter is that the ECSPR contains many of the authorization and investor protection features which are applicable in the United States. However, there are also differences, for example regarding monetary limits on investments and ongoing disclosure obligations.

This Chapter examines the regulation of crowdfunding in the Nordic countries, specifically Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. Although the ECSPR harmonizes the regulation of crowdfunding platforms, the allowance of national interpretation in many important areas leads to a disparate regulatory landscape in the Nordic countries. This concerns the following three areas: firstly, the fact that it is decided in the civil law of each Member State which securities are considered transferable securities or other admitted instruments for crowdfunding purposes, which creates low harmonization. Secondly, the decision not to harmonize AML legislation with the ECSPR, which has led to different interpretations of the scope of AML requirements applicable to crowdfunding platforms. And thirdly, the monetary threshold for crowdfunding offers leaves some offers outside the scope of ECSPR, which leads to inconsistent disclosure requirements at the national level. This Chapter therefore concludes that the ECSPR would benefit from additional harmonization.

This book uniquely focuses on human rights issues associated with tourism development and tourism businesses. Tourism is a manifestation of globalization and it intersects with human rights on so many levels. These implications are increasingly relevant in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent global economic hardship. Split into two main sections, the first establishes a background to human rights issues with reference to tourism, and the second provides a multi-disciplinary analysis of a range of selected human rights issues in tourism; these include displacement, security, privacy, discrimination, freedom of movement, the rights of Indigenous people, sex tourism and labour conditions. All chapters include case studies to showcase specific issues such as legal rulings or tourism policies/regulations. This book is written by a highly regarded team of authors specializing in tourism studies and human rights law. This significant volume on the interaction between tourism development and the safeguarding of human rights will be of interest to a variety of disciplines, in the fields of tourism, political science and tourism/human rights.

The paper aims to contribute to the debate on corporate ownership, contextualising it in light of two trends on the global financial markets: the increased institutional ownership of corporations and the move towards a sustainable financial system. In particular, the focus is on institutional investors, risk management, and transparency as a tool to reorient capital flows and manage financial risk from non-sustainable activities. From a regulatory perspective, the focus is on one of the regulatory initiatives introduced in the European Commission Action Plan on Sustainable Growth to further these goals, i.e., the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR).

The European Union has recently enacted the Conflict Minerals Regulation, introducing new transparency requirements for importers of tantalum, tin, tungsten and gold from conflict-affected regions. Similar legislation has previously been enacted in the United States. The purpose of the new transparency requirements in both jurisdictions is to cut off funding for armed groups in confl ict areas and thus reduce the suffering of the civil population, with particular reference to the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The criticism of the legislation centers on the costs to companies in the minerals supply chain. In this article it is argued that the costs to companies subject to the transparency requirements can be minimized with carefully crafted legislation. It is also concluded that progress in achieving the humanitarian objectives of the legislation is slower than expected, mainly due to the lack of participation in the transparency efforts by all actors in the supply chain. Successful transparency regulation has to be supported by a multitude of actors in the international community. Also, mineral supply chain transparency regulation in itself is unlikely to solve armed conflicts in resource-rich but poor countries. Such legislation only provides for one component in a multi-level approach including legislative, economic and political efforts by the international community.

In recent years the advancements in technology have led to an upheaval in many markets. In the financial sector, technological innovations have led to the emergence of technology-enabled financial services, ranging from new product offerings to new business concepts. In this article, the regulatory challenges facing online intermediary platforms, and in particular equity-based crowdfunding platforms, are discussed more in detail. An integral part of crowdfunding is the prevalence of actors who provide crowdfunding services, operating digital crowdfunding platforms, where the business funding interest of investors and companies is matched. Equity-based digital platforms have over the past few years become an important financing alternative, especially for small and medium-sized growth companies. However, such platforms have only recently attracted the attention of regulators. In this article, the regulatory framework covering equity-based crowdfunding platforms in the Nordic countries is discussed in detail. It is concluded that the Nordic countries have very different approaches to regulating crowdfunding platforms, hindering the development of a pan-Nordic market in equity crowdfunding. The proposal for a pan-European opt-in legislation covering Crowdfunding Service Providers (CSPs) is likely to complicate the regulatory framework in the Nordic countries even further. Although the Nordic countries have chosen different paths in regulating equity-based CSPs, the regulatory regime each country has chosen for the registration or authorization of CSPs does not seem to be decisive of the success of local equity crowdfunding markets. This does not mean that regulation of the sector is irrelevant for the success of an alternative finance market. On the contrary, the regulatory requirements on crowdfunding project owners seem to have a significant effect on the development of the market. It is suggested in the article that the dismal development of equity crowdfunding in Norway and Denmark is likely to be caused by the restrictions on offers in private company shares on online intermediary platforms in the two countries, and not by the admittedly burdensome authorization requirements applicable to CSPs. The legal environment is thus of importance for the development of equity crowdfunding in individual Nordic countries, although not in the way it is usually perceived to be of importance.

Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) face proportionally higher costs than larger corporations when offering their shares to the public. An alternative to bank financing or an initial public offering is to raise small amounts of capital from the crowd, i.e. crowdfunding. During the past year, both the European Union (EU) and the United States (US) have either proposed or implemented changes to the regulation of prospectuses. The aim in both jurisdictions is to promote innovative forms of business financing. Changes in prospectus regulation should however not be at the expense of investor protection regulation. Non-qualified investors are generally seen as less sophisticated and in need of more comprehensive investor protection regulation than institutional and other qualified investors. In this article, the proposed changes to the EU prospectus regulation are examined in light of the newly adopted Regulation A and Regulation Crowdfunding in the US, with a focus on how the proposed changes will affect retail investors as well as SMEs and their ability to raise capital through crowdfunding. A conclusion drawn from the comparative study is that several safeguards intended to protect non-qualified investors in crowdfunding offers are present in the US but not in the EU. It is argued in this article that the changes proposed in the EU, making it easier for SMEs to raise capital on the capital markets, should be accompanied by more robust investor protection regulation.

Both national and international regulators have focused on criminalizing individuals engaging in child sex tourism (CST). It is, however, just as important to focus on the infrastructure making CST possible. In this article, an evaluation is made of what, if any, responsibility can be attributed to corporations organizing or facilitating CST. An evaluation of international and national regulation shows that progress has been made during recent years in establishing corporate liability for CST crimes. However, there are still significant loopholes in international and national regulation. Also, enforcement of existing regulation is lax.

In my dissertation I examine the disclosure obligations of publicly listed corporations on the securities markets. I adress these issues within both the American and Swedish legal contexts. The purpose of this doctoral dissertation is to determine the current state of Swedish law in regards to the regulation of disclosures in publicly listed corporations. I also examine if there is a need of improvement in regards to the Swedish regulation of disclosures by publicly listed corporations. The study is mainly focused on securities law, although some corporate law rules, closely related to the regulation of disclosures on the stock market, are also examined. The subject of this study is corporate disclosures on the secondary market, including both disclosures in financial reports and ad hoc disclosures. In the study, selective disclosures by corporations are examined more in detail. An evaluation is also made of the regulation of damages in securities disclosure cases. It is argued that a proper protection of investors requires that investors have the right to seek redress for damages accrued to them by misleading disclosures. In the study it is proposed that the Swedish legislators enact new tort rules in Swedish law regulating investors’ right to seek redress for pure economic loss resulting from false or misleading corporate disclosures.