Month: November 2020

For 23 years, nations have developed their own national accounting standards. Some were more rules-based, others based on principles. The United States has developed rules-based SGAAPs, while in Europe, IFRS has prevailed. Establishing accounting standards in the United States has been and remains a political process. The policy takes place between the various members of the board of directors and the boards of directors. In addition, accounting bodies face a number of externalities such as technological change and markets. B, pressure from leaders and industry groups and changes in tax and security legislation. In addition, the proclamation of accounting rules in the United States has been influenced by regulatory interventions [z.B the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)] and even by congressional legislation. Continued engagement will facilitate the development of standards that recognize and address differences between legal systems without compromising the quality of financial reporting. Legal systems and laws, the regulatory framework, market structures and corporate governance differ and are important factors that characterize financial reporting. [16] Countries are also different in the development of their capital markets and national institutions. These complexities reinforce the FASB and IASB`s assessment that different words, formulations, translations and guidelines may be needed to achieve the level of comparability investors need to provide financial information in different reporting countries. 46The SEC released its final personnel report on July 13, 2012,”Work Plan for the Consideration of Incorporating International Financial Reporting Standards into the Financial Reporting System for U.S.

Issuers.” According to the report, “regardless of the outcome of the Commission`s decision to include IFRS, the General Staff expects that the SEC and other U.S. voters will continue to participate in the development or application of IFRS or both” (SEC, 2012, p. 1). Although many reasons have been put forward for the lack of support for IFRS convergence, the SEC riding was cited as non-partisan (SEC, 2012, p. 3). The report found that at the beginning of its convergence project study, it became clear that the definition of IASB standards was not supported, among other things, by the vast majority of U.S. capital market participants and did not appear to be consistent with the methods of creating other major capital markets in the world (SEC). 2012, p. 2). There have been other problems, such as the feasibility and applicability of IFRS, as well as concerns about the protection of governance in U.S. capital markets, which are currently controlled by the SEC.

66Etranormalization (Savall-Zaret, 2005) is an invitation to address standards in accounting, trade, human relations and the environment (including quality) to address the contradictions and uncertainties between standards , as the different nations practice. We are focusing here on accounting standards that differ between the United States and Europe. We will propose it in the socio-economic approach, Savall, Zardet and Bonnet (2008). In particular, they suggest that a number of diagnoses, projects can be carried out, implemented and evaluated so that a bottom-up dynamic as presented in Chart 5. While it is now clear that U.S. GAAP and IFRS will continue to co-exist in our public capital markets for the foreseeable future, it is equally clear that efforts to improve the respective standards and reduce the gaps between them should continue.

With an exclusive agency list, the seller employs a broker who acts as the exclusive agent of the real estate owner. The broker only collects a commission if he or she is the cause of the sale. In addition, the seller reserves the right to sell the property independently and non-bindingly. A listing contract authorizes the broker to represent the client and the client`s ownership with third parties, including the guarantee and submission of offers for the property. Under the provisions of the Real Estate Licensing Act, only a broker can act as a broker to list, sell or lease another person`s real estate, and in most states, list agreements must be written. A contract that the fraud law requires to write is a sale of land or real estate. The written agreement does not necessarily mean that all elements must be defined in writing, but simply that there is a written memorandum of the agreement. Although state laws vary, all contain some sort of writing obligation for the sale or transfer of land or real estate. An exclusive right to sell the list is the most commonly used list agreement. Under this agreement, the broker has the exclusive right to market the property for a specified period of time. If the property sold while the real estate agent has the list, the seller must pay the agreed commission, regardless of which buyer actually got it. This limits any conflict with the seller as to who was responsible for the buyer`s acquisition. If a conflict arises and a party wants to break up, it is also easier to keep everyone overboard with a written lease.

When writing is written in black and white, it is much harder to forget your agreement. With an exclusive-authorized offer, a broker is designated as the seller`s sole representative and has the exclusive right to represent the property. The broker receives a commission, regardless of who sells the property, while the listing agreement is in effect. An exclusive agency listing agreement gives a broker the right to market and sell a property for a certain period of time, while the owner retains the right to find a buyer and sell the property without having to pay commission to the broker. The seller must pay a commission only if the house is sold by the broker or by an agent or a licensed sub-agent of the real estate agent. This type of list is not very common in residential stores, because it increases the chances of a dispute between the broker and the seller about who was actually the cause of the sale supply. Anyone who regularly makes to-do lists knows how valuable it is to write things. You check the list at least a few times a day to make sure you don`t forget anything.

Document 18 Date: 19. August 1993 By: U.S. Embassy in Kigali An: U.S. Secretary of State Subj: The Rwanda Peace Process: Problems and Prospects for Implementation of the Peace Agreement Source: Freedom of Information Act Document Request 29 Date: 27 January 1993 From: Belgian Embassy in Kigali An: Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Brussels Subj: Visit to President Habyarimana Es gave a record of the presence of foreign troops in Rwanda in Uganda , RPF, rushed to northern Rwanda and appears to have made a profit against the pro-French regime in October 1990. According to one report, it is estimated that 300 French troops, 600 Belgian paratroopers and 500 soldiers from the Democratic Republic of Congo appeared to have foiled a possible attack on the capital.1 The presence of these foreign troops became controversial issues between the government and the rebels during the peace process, That is why the 1992 N`sele ceasefire agreement and the 1993 agreement on the integration of the armed forces of both foreign parties provided for the withdrawal of the armed forces two foreign states in 1992. Troops. In February 1993, the FRP spokesman in the northern town of Byumba accused French troops of helping government soldiers dig trenches and use cannons.2 France`s presence in Rwanda continued when the French Foreign Ministry confirmed that the reinforcement of the 150 French paratrooper contingent had been sent to Rwanda to “protect French citizens living in this African country.” 3 According to one report, France confirmed its 800-strong contingent deployed to Rwanda to protect French nationality, but the rebel movement had accused foreign troops, including the French, of fighting on the government`s side.4 According to the Human Rights Watch report, France simultaneously held up to 1,100; And when the Rwandan army grew from less than 10,000 to more than 30,000 soldiers, the French trained both fighters and soldiers who, in turn, were to serve as instructors for others.5 At the end of 1993, there was no report on the withdrawal of foreign troops from Rwanda. With regard to the ceasefire by which the parties agreed to a “ceasefire, the ceasefire will enter into force on 31 July 1992 at midnight (Rwanda time) ” and will mark the agreement to “finalize the mechanisms and conclusions agreed in accordance with the peace agreement, no later than 10 January 1993”. 2. conclusion of political negotiations and signing of the peace agreement by 10 October 1992; The Arusha Accords created a transitional National Assembly on several sides to replace the One-party National Development Council. After taking power, the RPF established a National Transitional Assembly, established on 25 November 1994. Of the 70 seats in the National Assembly, RPF 19, MDR 13, PSD 13, PL 13, PDC 6, PSR two, PDI two and the last two were allocated to other parties.1 The 11 seats of the MRND were divided between different parties, but six seats were retained for the army, a decision that Arusha had not anticipated. This multi-page Transitional National Assembly continued until the composition of the Assembly was rebalanced.