1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Saudi Arabia to Open Stock Market to Foreign Financial Institutions – Timeline Announced

Saudi Arabia to Open Stock Market to Foreign Financial Institutions – Timeline Announced

Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.17.15

On July 22, 2014, the Saudi Arabian Capital Market Authority (CMA) announced that qualified foreign financial institutions would be permitted to buy and sell stocks listed on the Saudi stock market in accordance with rules to be adopted by the CMA. The CMA subsequently released its Draft Rules for Qualified Foreign Financial Institutions' Investment in Listed Shares (the Draft Rules) and solicited opinions and suggestions from investors and other interested parties on the Draft Rules.

Click here to continue reading a brief summary of the Draft Rules.

On April 16, 2015, the CMA announced that it has now adopted the following timeline to permit foreign financial institutions to buy and sell stocks listed on the Saudi stock market:

  1. Final Rules will be approved and published on 15/7/1436H (corresponding to May 4, 2015G);
  2. The Final Rules will be effective starting from 14/8/1436H (corresponding to June 1, 2015G); and
  3. Qualified foreign financial institutions shall be allowed to invest in listed shares starting from 28/8/1436H (corresponding to June 15, 2015G).

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26

DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability

On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”...