Urgent.News

What's breaking now, across thousands of outlets.

Finance & Markets

Talks with US won’t happen while interim deal is breached, Iranian minister says

Talks with US won’t happen while interim deal is breached, Iranian minister says

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated on Sunday that the United States will not initiate talks until Washington ceases to breach an interim deal signed in June. Araghchi mentioned that exchanges are occurring through intermediaries. He reiterated Iran's stance that an agreement regarding the Strait of Hormuz, involving both Tehran and Muscat, is nearing completion, but the reopening of the strategic waterway remains contingent upon the US fulfilling additional conditions and compensating for the breach of the June agreement.

The IRGC declared that the strait would not reopen until the US accepts all of Iran's demands, describing it as a "theatre of war" rather than merely a shipping lane. The ongoing attacks in the strait, which were previously open, led to the breakdown of a ceasefire reached in April. Mediators have since called for both parties to resume negotiations based on the terms of the June memorandum.

Araghchi had previously indicated that discussions with Oman on transit and management of the strait were nearing completion, but emphasized that reopening Hormuz is subject to the fulfillment of other conditions and compensation for the breach of the June deal. Security chief Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr outlined a list of demands for the reopening of the strait, which includes an end to the war and aggression against Iran and its allies, lifting the US naval blockade, ending sanctions, releasing frozen assets, and compensating Iran for wartime damages.

The IRGC further stated that the reopening of Hormuz is unrelated to the negotiations with Oman, asserting that the "enemy is forced to accept Iran's conditions for the opening of the strait."

Written by urgent.news from New Straits Times's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.

This story

This is one outlet's version. Read the fullest account.

Read the original at investing.com →

More in Finance & Markets

Advanced Capital Market and Unrelated “Stock Price Suppression Prevention Law” The “Capital Markets and Financial Investment Services and Activities Act” (hereinafter referred to as the “Capital Market Act”), which was enacted on August 4, 2007, and has been implemented in full since February 4, 2009, was established with the purpose of contributing to the sound development and transparency of the capital market and the protection of investors by comprehensively regulating financial investment services and activities and the issuance and trading of securities, etc. In line with this purpose, the Capital Market Act has introduced various systems such as strengthening disclosure obligations for issuers, improving market transparency, enhancing trading supervision, and introducing a market abuse prevention system. However, despite these efforts, there are criticisms that the current Capital Market Act has not been able to properly regulate the market and protect investors, and there are opinions that it is necessary to improve the Capital Market Act to make it more effective in regulating the market and protecting investors. In this situation, the “Act on the Prevention of Stock Price Suppression” (hereinafter referred to as the “Stock Price Suppression Prevention Act”) was proposed by Rep. Kim of the Democratic Party on April 14, 2011. The main contents of the proposed bill are to add “Article 14-2 (Prohibition of Stock Price Suppression)” and “Article 14-3 (Presumption of Stock Price Suppression)” to the Capital Market Act. The proposed Article 14-2 (Prohibition of Stock Price Suppression) of the bill stipulates that “In trading securities, no person shall take or promise to take any action that would have an unfair impact on the formation of stock prices, such as manipulating stock prices through planned trading, or trading at a predetermined price or higher or lower than a predetermined price.” The proposed Article 14-3 (Presumption of Stock Price Suppression) of the bill stipulates that “In cases where a person trades securities at a predetermined price or higher or lower than a predetermined price, it shall be presumed that such person has taken an action that would have an unfair impact on the formation of stock prices, such as manipulating stock prices through planned trading.” In addition, the proposed bill provides that a person who violates Article 14-2 (Prohibition of Stock Price Suppression) shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than 1 billion won, and a person who has been punished for violating Article 14-2 (Prohibition of Stock Price Suppression) shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 15 years or a fine of not more than 2 billion won if he/she commits the same offense again within 5 years after the date of such punishment. The enactment of the Stock Price Suppression Prevention Act is intended to prevent stock price manipulation and protect investors by prohibiting planned trading and other actions that have an unfair impact on the formation of stock prices. However, some argue that the enactment of the Stock Price Suppression Prevention Act is not necessary because the Capital Market Act already has provisions regulating market manipulation, such as Article 101 (Market Manipulation), and that the enactment of the Stock Price Suppression Act would only create legal confusion and increase the number of overlapping regulations. In addition, some argue that the provisions of the Stock Price Suppression Prevention Act, such as presumed guilty under certain circumstances, may violate the presumption of innocence and the principle of no punishment without law, which are fundamental principles of the Constitution. In light of the above, this report aims to examine the legislative necessity and appropriateness of the proposed Stock Price Suppression Prevention Act and to provide a legislative improvement plan for the Capital Market Act. To this end, this report first examines the current status of the Capital Market Act and the problems of the current system, and then examines the legislative necessity and appropriateness of the proposed Stock Price Suppression Prevention Act. Next, this report analyzes the problems of the proposed Stock Price Suppression Prevention Act and suggests a legislative improvement plan for the Capital Market Act. Finally, this report concludes with an evaluation of the legislative improvement plan and provides a conclusion. The report consists of a total of 56 pages, including 5 chapters and 1 conclusion. Chapter 1 introduces the background and purpose of the research, and Chapter 2 examines the current status and problems of the Capital Market Act. Chapter 3 examines the legislative necessity and appropriateness of the proposed Stock Price Suppression Prevention Act, and Chapter 4 analyzes the problems of the proposed Stock Price Suppression Prevention Act and suggests a legislative improvement plan for the Capital Market Act. Chapter 5 evaluates the legislative improvement plan and provides a conclusion. This report is expected to contribute to the sound development of the capital market and the protection of investors by providing a legislative improvement plan for the Capital Market Act.

More from Sunday 9 August →