Is it legal for a stock broker to restrict trading on a specific stock? Brokers like Robinhood are restricting purchases of GameStop stock driving the price down. Is this market manipulation and against the law? Or does the SEC permit this? You can find an article talking about this here, Robinhood blocks new purchases of GameStop stock Robinhood, TD Ameritrade restrict trading of GameStop, AMC stock
Brokers are not required by law to trade every available stock. They are ultimately private business people, not public services. Also, when there is circumstantial evidence that illegal securities fraud and market manipulation is underway in the shares of a particular security, as in the case of GameStop, there may be more liability exposure from allowing the broker's customers to trade in the stock, potentially exposing them to securities fraud, than there is to barring trading in the stock. Also relevant: &quot;Nasdaq CEO Friedman says the exchange will halt trading in a stock if they link unusual activity to social media chatter.&quot;: Friedman said the Nasdaq's role as a &quot;self-regulatory organization&quot; is to make sure activity in the market is &quot;legitimate&quot; and to root out manipulation in the market. She did not detail what kind of technology the Nasdaq uses to &quot;evaluate social media chatter,&quot; but she said if the Nasdaq can match unusual trading with social media activity, the exchange will halt the stock and potentially engage with the SEC to evaluate and investigate. One illegal market manipulation activity that the SEC goes after is a &quot;pump-and-dump&quot; scheme. An investor buys a stock, and then publicly &quot;pumps&quot; it, by spreading a rumor or another catalyst for the stock go up. Other people see the rumors and buy the stock, causing the price to rise. The person who originated the rumor sells the stock to them at a higher price in a &quot;dump,&quot; and takes the profits. Friedman said the Nasdaq collaborates with the FINRA and SEC to identify and investigate pump and dump schemes, but she said it's unclear whether the current Reddit activity qualifies as a pump and dump scheme. &quot;Regulators kind of have to catch up with the technology that's now available,&quot; Friedman said. Background on the economic and regulatory motivators for the action taken can be found here: [T]here is a two-day settlement between if you buy the stock today, those brokerage firms that you bought that stock on have to fund that trade with the clearing central house called DTC for two whole days. And because of the volatility of stocks, DTC has made the cost of the collateral of the two-day holding period extremely expensive.
It would depend on how the ownership contract is written. 30% sounds like a minority stake, so I don't know how they could block new investments unless the contract requires a super-majority to approve new rounds of financing. How does the remaining 70% of ownership feel about this? If they are abiding by the terms of the ownership contract I don't see that this is questionable behavior on their part. This is a business relationship. Business partners may come to have different outlooks on the future of the company, and the best way to protect their investment. Consider flipping the viewpoint: "I'm a minority owner in a company I no longer have confidence in. I would like to dissolve the company and sell off the assets to re-coup as much of my original investment as I can. The other owners want to chase this to the bitter end, and do a new round of financing, which will significantly dilute my shares, without (in my opinion) giving the company a real chance of success. What can I do?" When the founder of your friend's company accepted money for shares in the company, they gave up absolute control over the company's direction. Assuming none of the parties are acting in violation of the ownership contract, the most reasonable way to resolve a conflict like this is to buy out the dissenting shareholders.
The order itself is here. It applies to &quot;any United States person&quot;, which includes citizens, LPRs, entities with a US basis, and any other person in the US including tourists. It applies to transactions, and not static possession. There is no exception to the effect that &quot;you can trade as long as it's not on the NYSE&quot;, and it says Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited The order is not just directed at brokers, or the NYSE, it applies to everybody / everything everywhere, if you are a US person. Apparently there was some unclarity on the OTC question, which was clarified by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, to the effect that it includes OTC trading.
I think you would have difficulty distorting the situation - Pokemon Go is not magic that defies existing laws, and this would be no different to a mall issuing a trespass notice (which is effectively how they would kick you out) for any other reason. I would question the ability of a store to "Arrest" you - that is a job for the police - After they trespass you (ie by giving you notice to leave), if you come back again then they can call the police to arrest you - but its not as clear-cut as someone seeing you playing a game and arresting you. I don't think Pokemon players are a "protected class" of people, so finding a valid cause of action might be tricky. About the best you could do would be to talk with your wallet (ie shop elsewhere with your friends), but for my money that would make me more likely to go to that mall !
I am not aware of any law making this illegal. You need to avoid any "bait and switch" tactics, though, like initially offering cola for $1 and then not actually letting them buy it for that price.
australia Companies can have different classes of shares with different rights: rights to dividends, voting, distribution of assets on winding up etc. Basically, it’s pretty much completely customisable.
This is from a Canadian point of view, but the rules regarding how corporations run is generally pretty standard. I took a few classes in corporate governance, but I'm working mostly from memory, so hopefully most of the information is accurate! A corporation is its own entity, separate from any shareholders, and it can make whatever policies it wants. Unless you are an officer or on the board of directors, your participation in the company usually will be limited to voting in shareholders' meetings and receiving dividends. Refusal of service is a policy matter, so the fact that you are a shareholder (or anyone else, for that matter!) should be irrelevant. In fact, you might be denied service because you're an officer due to conflicts of interest. If the company was unincorporated, you may have more rights, but you'd probably be subject to some sort of agreement.
If you cannot legally purchase a gun in Utah due to any restriction, such as residency, and you engage someone else to knowingly buy or gift you a gun (such as a "straw man" purchase from a dealer or private sale), that is illegal. From the same link you posted (my emphasis): Can I buy a firearm as a gift for someone? Yes, as long as the receiver is not a prohibited person and the gifting is not being used to circumvent a background check or other laws. Calling a purchase intended in place of another is a straw purchase.