The Centre for Commercial Law Studies at Queen Mary University of London is pleased to announce the details of our annual seminar series ‘New Voices in Commercial Law’ (NVCL).

Now in its sixth year, the series aims to provide a forum for debate and an opportunity for attendees to hear early career academics with outstanding potential discuss their research in an intellectually stimulating environment.

The seminars are part of the academic programme of events of the UNIDROIT-QMUL Institute of Transnational Commercial Law and they are convened by Dr Andromachi Georgosouli. Draft papers are circulated electronically in advance of each event to registered participants.

CCLS attendance certificates available on request. For more information email the CCLS Events Team on ccls-events@qmul.ac.uk.

Programme 2018-19

Friday 5 October 2018

Title: Increasing Consumers’ Trust in Digital Markets’
Speaker: Maria Ioannidou (QMUL, CCLS) '
Discussant: A. Georogosouli (CCLS, QMUL)

Paper Abstract:
Technological advancements have radically transformed consumers’ choice and empowered consumers. Yet, simultaneously, they have created new causes for consumer vulnerabilities and undermined consumers’ trust. This paper advances the claim that it is time to re-think consumer participation and enforcement tools in digital markets in order to tackle the emerging problem of “digital agoraphobia”. “Digital agoraphobia” connotes consumers’ fear, inability, apathy and lack of trust when engaging in various transactions on digital marketplaces. Despite the very substantial benefits of digital markets, this paper posits that in the light of their particular characteristics, consumer transactions entail a number of risks, which in turn complicate the exercise of consumer choice. Three main types of such constraints are identified. The first type is associated with the – seemingly – enhanced choice in online markets (“enhanced” choice constraints), whereas the second with the rather predominant model of free choice (“free” choice constraints). Finally, the third type of constraints relates to the increased delegation of choice making powers (“delegated” choice constraints). In light of these three main types of constraints on consumer choice, the paper argues that it is time to enhance procedural avenues for consumers’ participation and reconceptualise enforcement tools towards a “responsive” remodelling of competition law enforcement.

Author bio: Dr Maria Ioannidou is a Senior Lecturer in competition law at the School of Law, Queen Mary, University of London where she also serves as the Deputy Director of the Interdisciplinary Centre for Competition Law and Policy. Previously, she was a Lecturer in law at the University of Surrey. She has also practiced competition law in leading law firms in Athens, Greece and Brussels, Belgium. Maria studied law in Athens (BA, LLM) and Oxford (MJur, MPhil, Dphil. Her areas of interest include EU, UK and international competition law, competition law enforcement and the interaction between competition and consumer law. She is the managing editor for the Journal of Antitrust Enforcement and as an editor of the World Competition Law and Economics Review and the author of ‘Consumer Involvement in Private Competition Law Enforcement’ (OUP 2015).

Timings:

Registration: 17.00 - 17.30

Session: From 17.30

Friday 2 November 2018, 4:30pm

Title: Regulatory Enforcement of Principles-Based Financial Regulation: the (Un)anticipated Effects of Broad Standards
Speaker: Aleksandra Jordanoska (Dickson Poon School of Law, King’s College London)

Paper Abstract
Much research discusses the optimal design of regulatory regimes in terms of choosing the appropriate level of rules indeterminacy. The debate revolves primarily around arguments about whether specific and detailed rules or broader and abstract standard-level principles contribute to a more efficient regulatory design, both in terms of costs to business in complying with regulation and the costs to regulators for achieving compliance. Less attention has been devoted to analysing the effects of principles-based regulation upon enforcement work, and the control of misconduct in financial markets.
This paper engages with broader questions of how the facets of a principles-based regulatory regime affect the enforcement process in the UK financial markets: what aspects of principles-based regulation underpin the nature of the enforcement regime? What are its effects upon the processing of misconduct? These issues are examined in the context of the enforcement practices of the conduct of business regulator, the powerful Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), whose regime is based on eleven standard-level principles. Empirically, the research combines qualitative and quantitative data from the coding of FCA enforcement decisions (2009-2017) and enforcement officials’ speeches, and from semi-structured interviews (FCA staff; regulatory lawyers and compliance officers).
The paper analyses the development of principles-based regulatory enforcement in the post-crisis period and the (un)anticipated effects of enforcing broad standards in the UK financial markets in practice. The reliance on principles-based regulatory enforcement appears to be an effective enforcement tool in some respects, especially in the context of the complexity of finance, but it also causes challenges for regulators and regulatees alike. The paper examines the implications of the choice of a regulatory design (rules vs standards) upon regulatory enforcement in the financial markets, highlighting the ways in which principles-based regulation can contribute or detract from achieving enforcement outcomes.

Author bio: Dr Aleksandra Jordanoska is Lecturer at the Dickson Poon School of Law, King’s College London. Her research broadly engages with modes of governance in financial markets, the regulation of financial technologies, regulation theory, and financial crime. Aleksandra has been Visiting Scholar at the Centre for the Study of Law & Society, University of California, Berkeley; RegNet, Australian National University; HEUNI, Helsinki and at the International Institute for Sociology of Law, Onati. She is the co-chair of the Collaborative Research Network in Regulatory Governance of the American Law and Society Association.

Timings:

Registration: 16.30 - 17.00

Session: From 17.00

Friday 7 December 2018, 4:30pm

Title: Is Tax Reform Really About Tax Competitiveness? - The Impact of Competitiveness and the US Tax Reform in China
Speaker: Yue Dai (“Daisy”) (Shanghai University of Finance and Economics)
Discussants: Prof J. Vella (Oxford University): TBC and Dr B. Schneider (CCLS, QMUL)

Paper Abstract

With the fear that the economic competition with China has taken the US backwards, the Trump administration continued using the campaign slogan “Make America Great Again” as a major theme to push forward the TRA17 framework. The Chinese government worries the TRA17’s spillover effects on China’s economies, especially the competitive advantage gained by the US from the lower rate, expensing and the patent box, and the participation exemption. However, China is unlikely to be any kind of threat in tax policies to the US, because the country will stay in the early stage of modernizing taxation. The study of TRA17 and competitiveness could actually build helpful linkage for China to examine its own tax system. The US needs not see China as a competitor in tax competitiveness indexes. A reform pivots around competitiveness could add on more problems and loopholes. At the end of the day, fundamental problems of a country’s tax system and tax loopholes might be very longstanding, and cannot be resolved by raising competitiveness alone. Meaningful reform will likely happen gradually, with an emphasis on tax principles that can endure, and a transparent and deliberative process that enjoys broad support.

Author Bio: Yue Dai (“Daisy”) is an assistant professor of law at the Shanghai University of Finance and Economics and a registered New York State Attorney, with expertise in PRC and US tax laws. She is an academic visitor at the University of Oxford, Faculty of Law. She has several papers published in prominent Chinese journals and in Tax Notes. Now, she is working on multiple tax research projects, including the G20 countries tax competitiveness. In 2016, she won the first prize in the Donald C. Alexander Tax Law Writing Competition. She has worked in big law firms as tax legal counsel, the US Federal District court, the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the University of Illinois Legal Office. She received the J.D. degree from the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, and the B.A. degree (Economics and Foreign Affairs) from the University of Virginia.

Commentator Bio: Bernard Schneider is Lecturer in International Tax Law and Director of the LLM in Tax Law at the Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary University of London School of Law. His main research interests include international and comparative tax law, tax policy and administration, the taxation of individuals, taxation in emerging and developing economies and the US and Chinese tax systems. He teaches international and comparative, US and Chinese taxation and Chinese business law.

Timings:

Registration: 16.30 - 17.00

Session: From 17.00

New Voices in Commercial Law Seminar Series 18-19