Informasi Perusahaan

Mengenal A.C.T.

Tampilkan Lebih Banyak

Informasi Perusahaan

Mengenal A.C.T.

A.C.T. BROKERS LTD operates as an international online broker providing access to over 1,000 financial instruments through its trading platform. The company's stated mission is to offer exceptional trading conditions, including tight spreads, advanced technology, and dedicated customer support, to a global client base.

Tampilkan Lebih Banyak

Industri

Valuta Asing Pialang RitelUTAMA
Keuangan Layanan Lainnya

Perangkat Lunak

Tidak ada data yang tersedia

Sepertinya bagian ini kosong. Segera kembali untuk pembaruan!

Kontak

Sosial

Perusahaan belum memperbarui informasinya.

LAYANAN INI TIDAK TERSEDIA DI WILAYAH ANDA

A.C.T.

Britania Raya

Didirikan

2002 (24 Tahun)

Ditemukan

Terakhir online: Tidak ada aktivitas terbaru

Klaim perusahaan Kunjungi Situs Web

TrustScore tidak tersediaSkor belum cukup untuk menampilkan tren.

Jadilah yang pertama memberi rating dan ulasan untuk perusahaan ini.

SKOR KESELURUHAN

Lisensi

--/40

Ulasan

--/60

0 ulasan

Disediakan oleh TrustFinance

TrustScore tidak tersediaSkor belum cukup untuk menampilkan tren.

Jadilah yang pertama memberi rating dan ulasan untuk perusahaan ini.

TrustFinance bukan penasihat keuangan berlisensi dan tidak berafiliasi dengan lembaga keuangan mana pun di wilayah Anda. Kami menyarankan Anda melakukan riset sendiri sebelum membuat keputusan investasi.

FTD LIMITED

(505 ulasan)

British Virgin Islands

2017

(9 tahun)

Informasi Keamanan :

BVI FSC

Informasi Keamanan

Peringatan

Perusahaan ini saat ini Belum Terbukti.

Harap berhati-hati terhadap potensi risiko!

Lisensi

Lisensi Kelas A

Dikeluarkan oleh regulator terkenal secara global, lisensi ini memastikan perlindungan pedagang tertinggi melalui kepatuhan yang ketat, pemisahan dana, asuransi, dan audit rutin. Penyelesaian sengketa dan kepatuhan terhadap standar AML/CTF semakin meningkatkan keamanan.

Lisensi Kelas B

Diberikan oleh regulator regional yang dihormati, lisensi ini menawarkan langkah-langkah keamanan yang kuat seperti pemisahan dana, pelaporan keuangan, dan skema kompensasi. Meskipun sedikit kurang ketat daripada Tingkat 1, lisensi ini memberikan perlindungan regional yang dapat diandalkan.

Lisensi Kelas C

Dikeluarkan oleh regulator di pasar negara berkembang, lisensi ini menawarkan perlindungan dasar seperti persyaratan modal minimum dan kebijakan AML. Pengawasan kurang ketat, sehingga pedagang harus berhati-hati dan memverifikasi langkah-langkah keamanan.

Lisensi Kelas D

Dari yurisdiksi dengan pengawasan minimal, lisensi ini seringkali tidak memiliki perlindungan utama seperti pemisahan dana dan asuransi. Meskipun menarik untuk fleksibilitas operasional, lisensi ini menimbulkan risiko yang lebih tinggi bagi pedagang.

Informasi Perusahaan

Mengenal A.C.T.

Tampilkan Lebih Banyak

Informasi Perusahaan

Mengenal A.C.T.

Tampilkan Lebih Banyak

Industri

Valuta Asing Pialang RitelUTAMA
Keuangan Layanan Lainnya

Perangkat Lunak

Tidak ada data yang tersedia

Sepertinya bagian ini kosong. Segera kembali untuk pembaruan!

Kontak

Sosial

Perusahaan belum memperbarui informasinya.

Pengguna yang melihat A.C.T. juga melihat…

IUX

XM

FXGT

Deriv

Exness

IUX

XM

FXGT

Deriv

Exness

Berita

TrustFinance Badan Intelijen

Tanggal penelitian: 7月 28, 2026

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act does not preempt state law claims against transportation brokers for negligent hiring of motor carriers, allowing such claims to proceed under state law. This decision emphasizes the broker's duty to exercise reasonable care when hiring carriers, but does not create strict liability or alter existing vicarious liability standards. The ruling may lead to increased claims and scrutiny on carrier selection processes, prompting brokers to enhance their vetting and documentation practices to mitigate risks.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act does not preempt state law claims against transportation brokers for negligent hiring of motor carriers, allowing such claims to proceed under state law. This decision emphasizes the broker's duty to exercise reasonable care when hiring carriers, but does not create strict liability or alter existing vicarious liability standards. The ruling may lead to increased claims and scrutiny on carrier selection processes, prompting brokers to enhance their vetting and documentation practices to mitigate risks.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in the Montgomery v. Caribe case that freight brokers can be sued under state law for negligently hiring unsafe motor carriers, raising liability and vetting concerns. The ruling allows state negligence claims against brokers if they fail to exercise reasonable care in selecting carriers. This decision could lead to increased litigation exposure and inconsistent state standards for brokers, prompting them to tighten carrier selection processes and document their safety evaluations more rigorously.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in the Montgomery v. Caribe case that freight brokers can be sued under state law for negligently hiring unsafe motor carriers, raising liability and vetting concerns. The ruling allows state negligence claims against brokers if they fail to exercise reasonable care in selecting carriers. This decision could lead to increased litigation exposure and inconsistent state standards for brokers, prompting them to tighten carrier selection processes and document their safety evaluations more rigorously.

The Supreme Court is currently deliberating on the case Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, which addresses whether federal law preempts state law claims against freight brokers for negligent hiring. The case arose from an accident involving Shawn Montgomery, who argues that Caribe Transport and the broker C.H. Robinson were negligent in selecting a motor carrier. The district and appellate courts ruled in favor of the claim's relation to state safety regulations, but the Supreme Court is reviewing conflicting circuit court decisions. Key arguments focus on the interpretation of federal regulations and their implications on state tort claims, with a decision expected by June.

The Supreme Court is currently deliberating on the case Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, which addresses whether federal law preempts state law claims against freight brokers for negligent hiring. The case arose from an accident involving Shawn Montgomery, who argues that Caribe Transport and the broker C.H. Robinson were negligent in selecting a motor carrier. The district and appellate courts ruled in favor of the claim's relation to state safety regulations, but the Supreme Court is reviewing conflicting circuit court decisions. Key arguments focus on the interpretation of federal regulations and their implications on state tort claims, with a decision expected by June.

The U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC has removed the legal shield that freight brokers previously relied on to defend against negligent hiring lawsuits. This ruling allows state-law claims against brokers, compelling them to demonstrate reasonable care in carrier selection. The decision does not impose automatic liability but opens the door for increased litigation, requiring brokers to document their vetting processes and ensure compliance with safety standards. The ruling emphasizes the need for brokers to maintain thorough records and to implement consistent safety criteria when selecting carriers, as failure to do so could expose them to legal risks and higher insurance costs.

The U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC has removed the legal shield that freight brokers previously relied on to defend against negligent hiring lawsuits. This ruling allows state-law claims against brokers, compelling them to demonstrate reasonable care in carrier selection. The decision does not impose automatic liability but opens the door for increased litigation, requiring brokers to document their vetting processes and ensure compliance with safety standards. The ruling emphasizes the need for brokers to maintain thorough records and to implement consistent safety criteria when selecting carriers, as failure to do so could expose them to legal risks and higher insurance costs.

The California Privacy Protection Agency is transitioning from implementing to enforcing the California Delete Act's Delete Request and Opt-Out Platform (DROP). Since its launch on January 1, 2026, over 242,000 Californians have submitted requests to delete their personal information from data brokers, exceeding expectations. The agency has established a dedicated enforcement unit to ensure compliance with the Delete Act and is expanding its capacity with the appointment of a chief privacy auditor. Data brokers have until August 1 to integrate DROP obligations, and the agency plans ongoing public education to enhance consumer participation. An updated public data broker registry will be published in March 2026, and another DROP update is scheduled for the IAPP Global Summit on March 31.

The California Privacy Protection Agency is transitioning from implementing to enforcing the California Delete Act's Delete Request and Opt-Out Platform (DROP). Since its launch on January 1, 2026, over 242,000 Californians have submitted requests to delete their personal information from data brokers, exceeding expectations. The agency has established a dedicated enforcement unit to ensure compliance with the Delete Act and is expanding its capacity with the appointment of a chief privacy auditor. Data brokers have until August 1 to integrate DROP obligations, and the agency plans ongoing public education to enhance consumer participation. An updated public data broker registry will be published in March 2026, and another DROP update is scheduled for the IAPP Global Summit on March 31.

Disediakan oleh Analisis AI TrustFinance

Ulasan

A.C.T. Ulasan

Ulasan

Total 0

Analisis Tinjauan AI

Mari biarkan TrustFinance AI merangkum semua ulasan untuk Anda.

Disediakan oleh Analisis AI TrustFinance

Urutkan berdasarkan

Filter

Berita

TrustFinance Badan Intelijen

Tanggal penelitian: 7月 28, 2026

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act does not preempt state law claims against transportation brokers for negligent hiring of motor carriers, allowing such claims to proceed under state law. This decision emphasizes the broker's duty to exercise reasonable care when hiring carriers, but does not create strict liability or alter existing vicarious liability standards. The ruling may lead to increased claims and scrutiny on carrier selection processes, prompting brokers to enhance their vetting and documentation practices to mitigate risks.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in the Montgomery v. Caribe case that freight brokers can be sued under state law for negligently hiring unsafe motor carriers, raising liability and vetting concerns. The ruling allows state negligence claims against brokers if they fail to exercise reasonable care in selecting carriers. This decision could lead to increased litigation exposure and inconsistent state standards for brokers, prompting them to tighten carrier selection processes and document their safety evaluations more rigorously.

The Supreme Court is currently deliberating on the case Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, which addresses whether federal law preempts state law claims against freight brokers for negligent hiring. The case arose from an accident involving Shawn Montgomery, who argues that Caribe Transport and the broker C.H. Robinson were negligent in selecting a motor carrier. The district and appellate courts ruled in favor of the claim's relation to state safety regulations, but the Supreme Court is reviewing conflicting circuit court decisions. Key arguments focus on the interpretation of federal regulations and their implications on state tort claims, with a decision expected by June.

The U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC has removed the legal shield that freight brokers previously relied on to defend against negligent hiring lawsuits. This ruling allows state-law claims against brokers, compelling them to demonstrate reasonable care in carrier selection. The decision does not impose automatic liability but opens the door for increased litigation, requiring brokers to document their vetting processes and ensure compliance with safety standards. The ruling emphasizes the need for brokers to maintain thorough records and to implement consistent safety criteria when selecting carriers, as failure to do so could expose them to legal risks and higher insurance costs.

The California Privacy Protection Agency is transitioning from implementing to enforcing the California Delete Act's Delete Request and Opt-Out Platform (DROP). Since its launch on January 1, 2026, over 242,000 Californians have submitted requests to delete their personal information from data brokers, exceeding expectations. The agency has established a dedicated enforcement unit to ensure compliance with the Delete Act and is expanding its capacity with the appointment of a chief privacy auditor. Data brokers have until August 1 to integrate DROP obligations, and the agency plans ongoing public education to enhance consumer participation. An updated public data broker registry will be published in March 2026, and another DROP update is scheduled for the IAPP Global Summit on March 31.

Disediakan oleh Analisis AI TrustFinance