Re the reference to "Office of International Corp Fin":
"The Division of Corporation Finance has a separate office -- the Office of International Corporate Finance (OICF) -- that serves as the central point of contact for foreign private issuers registering with the SEC. Senior attorneys in the Office are able to help guide foreign registrants through the registration process. "
"The Division of Corporation Finance staff recognizes that foreign private issuers and foreign governments often face unique circumstances when accessing U.S. public markets in connection with the initial registration of their securities under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Division has afforded to foreign private issuers and foreign governments the ability to submit to the staff registration statements and amendments on a non-public basis in connection with their first-time registration with the Commission..."
So the SEC definitely uses the words "registration" and "corporate", and it is not incorrect to say that CANADA is a business/corporation, registered with the SEC, with business address in DC.
Thanks Christine. I suspect most, if not all, countries are registered with it. No list published on its site though. Only an individual search option it seems. If you do come across a list would appreciate it if you would forward. Thanks in advance.
"The Division of Corporation Finance has a separate office -- the Office of International Corporate Finance (OICF). I guess this settles the matter - Republic of South Africa and Canada are corporations if anyone still has any doubts Lol
From my recent experiences with a FOURTEEN y ear journey t hrough the South AFrican court system, all I can say is that we are NOT living in a constitutional democracy governed by the Rule of Law and the Bill of Rights. We are living in an autocratic autocricy governed by belligerent paternalism. I submitted an application to the CC based on a violation of my right to a fair hearing which occured in an arbitration hearing 2010. This case began as one of 'unfair dismissal' from the Ed. Dept. The Ed. Dept. Rep, who claimed to have all my application documents with him, but which he did not present to the hearing (i.e. he withheld them) made the claim that I was on a fixed term contract. This contract does not and never did, exist. To cut a fourteen year story short, I discovered the perjury five years later due to being sent back to arbitration after a five year procedure with the Review Labour Court. These withheld forms were handed to me \as evidence' in the second arbitration hearing 2015. My comments on this aspect of procedure was ignored by the arbitrator. While I won this case, the arbitrator failed to acknowledge statements by the Ed. Dept. witnesses that the principal of the school 'had no authority' to offer me a permanent post with the school. i.e. he made an illegal claim. According to legal procedure this constitutes a priori breach of contract. Again to cut a long story short (the second Review application was dismissed by the Labour Court (also under judicial bias!!) so I made an application to the CC based on my right to a fair hearing being violated and that while I had won an award, the arbitrator ignored salient evidence and did not go far enough to declare a breach of contract. These are all FACTS and are on record. These FACTS EVOLVED over time as more and more '\truths' emerged over time. The judges of the CC claimed that my application had 'little chance of success' and further refused appeal. The Education Department did not respond (ignored) the application and the ELRC (second respondent) abided by my application. So the CC, without any opposition to my application made a ruling that the violation of the Rule of Law was not a violation, and that there was no violation to my right for a fair hearing. What am I missing? (Please bare in mind that this is the briefest of summaries....and you just cannot make up the utter impunity of judges and advocates alike that I had to deal with)
CANADA is also registered with the SEC:
https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000230098&owner=exclude&count=40&hidefilings=0
From the entry:
"CIK#: 0000230098"
"State location: DC"
"Business Address
CANADIAN EMBASSY
501 PENNSYLVANIA AVE NW
WASHINGTON DC 20001
613-369-3646"
"(Office of International Corp Fin)"
"SIC: 8888 - FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS"
******
Re the reference to "Office of International Corp Fin":
"The Division of Corporation Finance has a separate office -- the Office of International Corporate Finance (OICF) -- that serves as the central point of contact for foreign private issuers registering with the SEC. Senior attorneys in the Office are able to help guide foreign registrants through the registration process. "
https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/internatl/issues0501.htm
SIC = "The Standard Industrial Classification Codes that appear in a company's disseminated EDGAR filings indicate the company's type of business."
https://www.sec.gov/corpfin/division-of-corporation-finance-standard-industrial-classification-sic-code-list
"The Division of Corporation Finance staff recognizes that foreign private issuers and foreign governments often face unique circumstances when accessing U.S. public markets in connection with the initial registration of their securities under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Division has afforded to foreign private issuers and foreign governments the ability to submit to the staff registration statements and amendments on a non-public basis in connection with their first-time registration with the Commission..."
https://www.sec.gov/corpfin/divisionscorpfininternatlnonpublicsubmissionshtm
So the SEC definitely uses the words "registration" and "corporate", and it is not incorrect to say that CANADA is a business/corporation, registered with the SEC, with business address in DC.
Thanks Christine. I suspect most, if not all, countries are registered with it. No list published on its site though. Only an individual search option it seems. If you do come across a list would appreciate it if you would forward. Thanks in advance.
"The Division of Corporation Finance has a separate office -- the Office of International Corporate Finance (OICF). I guess this settles the matter - Republic of South Africa and Canada are corporations if anyone still has any doubts Lol
Will do Faiez. Thanks for your interesting article :)
Thanks Christine 🙏 You are most welcome :)
From my recent experiences with a FOURTEEN y ear journey t hrough the South AFrican court system, all I can say is that we are NOT living in a constitutional democracy governed by the Rule of Law and the Bill of Rights. We are living in an autocratic autocricy governed by belligerent paternalism. I submitted an application to the CC based on a violation of my right to a fair hearing which occured in an arbitration hearing 2010. This case began as one of 'unfair dismissal' from the Ed. Dept. The Ed. Dept. Rep, who claimed to have all my application documents with him, but which he did not present to the hearing (i.e. he withheld them) made the claim that I was on a fixed term contract. This contract does not and never did, exist. To cut a fourteen year story short, I discovered the perjury five years later due to being sent back to arbitration after a five year procedure with the Review Labour Court. These withheld forms were handed to me \as evidence' in the second arbitration hearing 2015. My comments on this aspect of procedure was ignored by the arbitrator. While I won this case, the arbitrator failed to acknowledge statements by the Ed. Dept. witnesses that the principal of the school 'had no authority' to offer me a permanent post with the school. i.e. he made an illegal claim. According to legal procedure this constitutes a priori breach of contract. Again to cut a long story short (the second Review application was dismissed by the Labour Court (also under judicial bias!!) so I made an application to the CC based on my right to a fair hearing being violated and that while I had won an award, the arbitrator ignored salient evidence and did not go far enough to declare a breach of contract. These are all FACTS and are on record. These FACTS EVOLVED over time as more and more '\truths' emerged over time. The judges of the CC claimed that my application had 'little chance of success' and further refused appeal. The Education Department did not respond (ignored) the application and the ELRC (second respondent) abided by my application. So the CC, without any opposition to my application made a ruling that the violation of the Rule of Law was not a violation, and that there was no violation to my right for a fair hearing. What am I missing? (Please bare in mind that this is the briefest of summaries....and you just cannot make up the utter impunity of judges and advocates alike that I had to deal with)