Morrison v National Australia Bank Ltd: Adventures on the Barbary Coast: Morrison and Enforcement in a Globalised Securities Market

Although efforts have been made to develop international or harmonised regimes for the enforcement of securities law, the global architecture of securities regulation is underdeveloped. In particular, the harmonisation project may be sidelined by nation

Mutational activation of BRAF confers sensitivity to transforming growth factor beta inhibitors in human cancer cells

Recent data implicate elevated transforming growth factor-β (TGFβ) signalling in BRAF inhibitor drug-resistance mechanisms, but the potential for targeting TGFβ signalling in cases of advanced melanoma has not been investigated. We show that mutant BRAFV600E confers an intrinsic dependence on TGFβ/TGFβ receptor 1 (TGFBR1) signalling for clonogenicity of murine melanocytes. Pharmacological inhibition of the TGFBR1 blocked the clonogenicity of human mutant BRAF melanoma cells through SMAD4-independent inhibition of mitosis, and also inhibited metastasis in xenografted zebrafish. When investigating the therapeutic potential of combining inhibitors of mutant BRAF and TGFBR1, we noted that unexpectedly, low-dose PLX-4720 (a vemurafenib analogue) promoted proliferation of drug-naïve melanoma cells. Pharmacological or pharmacogenetic inhibition of TGFBR1 blocked growth promotion and phosphorylation of SRC, which is frequently associated with vemurafenib-resistance mechanisms. Importantly, vemurafenib-resistant patient derived cells retained sensitivity to TGFBR1 inhibition, suggesting that TGFBR1 could be targeted therapeutically to combat the development of vemurafenib drug-resistance

Modulation of enhancer looping and differential gene targeting by Epstein-Barr virus transcription factors directs cellular reprogramming

Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) epigenetically reprogrammes B-lymphocytes to drive immortalization and facilitate viral persistence. Host-cell transcription is perturbed principally through the actions of EBV EBNA 2, 3A, 3B and 3C, with cellular genes deregulated by specific combinations of these EBNAs through unknown mechanisms. Comparing human genome binding by these viral transcription factors, we discovered that 25% of binding sites were shared by EBNA 2 and the EBNA 3s and were located predominantly in enhancers. Moreover, 80% of potential EBNA 3A, 3B or 3C target genes were also targeted by EBNA 2, implicating extensive interplay between EBNA 2 and 3 proteins in cellular reprogramming. Investigating shared enhancer sites neighbouring two new targets (WEE1 and CTBP2) we discovered that EBNA 3 proteins repress transcription by modulating enhancer-promoter loop formation to establish repressive chromatin hubs or prevent assembly of active hubs. Re-ChIP analysis revealed that EBNA 2 and 3 proteins do not bind simultaneously at shared sites but compete for binding thereby modulating enhancer-promoter interactions. At an EBNA 3-only intergenic enhancer site between ADAM28 and ADAMDEC1 EBNA 3C was also able to independently direct epigenetic repression of both genes through enhancer-promoter looping. Significantly, studying shared or unique EBNA 3 binding sites at WEE1, CTBP2, ITGAL (LFA-1 alpha chain), BCL2L11 (Bim) and the ADAMs, we also discovered that different sets of EBNA 3 proteins bind regulatory elements in a gene and cell-type specific manner. Binding profiles correlated with the effects of individual EBNA 3 proteins on the expression of these genes, providing a molecular basis for the targeting of different sets of cellular genes by the EBNA 3s. Our results therefore highlight the influence of the genomic and cellular context in determining the specificity of gene deregulation by EBV and provide a paradigm for host-cell reprogramming through modulation of enhancer-promoter interactions by viral transcription factors

Ability-based view in action: a software corporation study

This research investigates antecedents, developments and consequences of dynamic capabilities in an organization. It contributes by searching theoretical and empirical answers to the questions: (a) What are the antecedents which can provide an organization with dynamic and ordinary capabilities?; (b) How do these antecedents contribute to create capabilities in an organization?; (c) How do they affect an organization's competitive advantage?; (d) Can we assess and measure the antecedents and consequences to an organization? From a first (theoretical) perspective, this paper searches answers to the first, second and third questions by reviewing concepts of an ability-based view of organizations that involves the abilities of cognition, intelligence, autonomy, learning and knowledge management, and which contributes to explain the dynamic behavior of the firm in the pursuit of competitive advantage. From a second (empirical) perspective, this paper reinforces and delivers findings to the second, third and fourth questions by presenting a case study that evidences the ability-based view in action in a software corporation, where it contributes by investigating: (a) the development of organizational capabilities; (b) the effects of the new capabilities on the organization; and (c) the assessment and measurement of the abilities and consequences

Strategic Belief Management

While (managerial) beliefs are central to many aspects of strategic organization, interactive beliefs are almost entirely neglected, save for some game theory treatments. In an increasingly connected and networked economy, firms confront coordination problems that arise because of network effects. The capability to manage beliefs will increasingly be a strategic one, a key source of wealth creation, and a key research area for strategic organization scholars. KEYWORDS: Interactive beliefs, coordination, network economy, common knowledge. JEL CODE: D84, M3

Theory and research in strategic management: Swings of a pendulum

The development of the field of strategic management within the last two decades has been dramatic. While its roots have been in a more applied area, often referred to as business policy, the current field of strategic management is strongly theory based, with substantial empirical research, and is eclectic in nature. This review of the development of the field and its current position examines the field’s early development and the primary theoretical and methodological bases through its history. Early developments include Chandler’s (1962) Strategy and Structure and Ansoff’s (1965) Corporate Strategy. These early works took on a contingency perspective (fit between strategy and structure) and a resource-based framework emphasizing internal strengths and weaknesses. Perhaps, one of the more significant contributions to the development of strategic management came from industrial organization (IO) economics, specifically the work of Michael Porter. The structure-conduct-performance framework and the notion of strategic groups, as well as providing a foundation for research on competitive dynamics, are flourishing currently. The IO paradigm also brought econometric tools to the research on strategic management. Building on the IO economics framework, the organizational economics perspective contributed transaction costs economics and agency theory to strategic management. More recent theoretical contributions focus on the resource-based view of the firm. While it has its roots in Edith Penrose’s work in the late 1950s, the resource-based view was largely introduced to the field of strategic management in the 1980s and became a dominant framework in the 1990s. Based on the resource-based view or developing concurrently were research on strategic leadership, strategic decision theory (process research) and knowledge-based view of the firm. The research methodologies are becoming increasingly sophisticated and now frequently combine both quantitative and qualitative approaches and unique and new statistical tools. Finally, this review examines the future directions, both in terms of theory and methodologies, as the study of strategic management evolves.Yeshttps://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/manuscript-submission-guideline