Thông tin công ty

Làm quen A.C.T.

Hiển thị thêm

Thông tin công ty

Làm quen 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.

Hiển thị thêm

Ngành công nghiệp

Ngoại hối Nhà môi giới bán lẻCHÍNH
Tài chính Dịch vụ khác

Phần mềm

Không có dữ liệu có sẵn

Có vẻ như phần này trống. Hãy quay lại sớm để cập nhật!

Liên hệ

Mạng xã hội

Công ty chưa cập nhật thông tin.

DỊCH VỤ NÀY KHÔNG CÓ SẴN Ở KHU VỰC CỦA BẠN

A.C.T.

Vương quốc Anh

Năm

2002 (24 Năm)

Được thành lập

Trực tuyến lần cuối: Không có hoạt động gần đây

Công ty yêu cầu Truy cập trang web

Chưa có TrustScoreChưa đủ điểm để hiển thị xu hướng.

Hãy là người đầu tiên đánh giá và nhận xét công ty này.

ĐIỂM TỔNG THỂ

Giấy phép

--/40

Đánh giá

--/60

0 đánh giá

Được cung cấp bởi TrustFinance

Chưa có TrustScoreChưa đủ điểm để hiển thị xu hướng.

Hãy là người đầu tiên đánh giá và nhận xét công ty này.

TrustFinance không phải là cố vấn tài chính được cấp phép và không liên kết với bất kỳ tổ chức tài chính nào trong khu vực của bạn. Chúng tôi khuyến khích bạn tự nghiên cứu trước khi đưa ra bất kỳ quyết định đầu tư nào.

Được quy định

Được đề xuất

(74 đánh giá)

Cyprus

2009

(17 năm)

Thông tin Bảo mật :

CySEC

FSCA

DFSA

Thông tin Bảo mật

Cảnh báo

Công ty này hiện đang Chưa được chứng minh.

Hãy thận trọng với những rủi ro tiềm ẩn!

Giấy phép

Giấy phép hạng A

Được cấp bởi các cơ quan quản lý nổi tiếng toàn cầu, các giấy phép này đảm bảo sự bảo vệ cao nhất cho nhà giao dịch thông qua tuân thủ nghiêm ngặt, tách biệt quỹ, bảo hiểm và kiểm toán thường xuyên. Giải quyết tranh chấp và tuân thủ các tiêu chuẩn AML/CTF giúp tăng cường bảo mật hơn nữa.

Giấy phép hạng B

Được cấp bởi các cơ quan quản lý khu vực uy tín, các giấy phép này cung cấp các biện pháp an toàn mạnh mẽ như tách biệt quỹ, báo cáo tài chính và chương trình bồi thường. Mặc dù ít nghiêm ngặt hơn so với Cấp 1, nhưng chúng cung cấp sự bảo vệ khu vực đáng tin cậy.

Giấy phép hạng C

Được cấp bởi các cơ quan quản lý tại các thị trường mới nổi, các giấy phép này cung cấp các biện pháp bảo vệ cơ bản như yêu cầu vốn tối thiểu và chính sách AML. Giám sát ít nghiêm ngặt hơn, vì vậy các nhà giao dịch nên thận trọng và xác minh các biện pháp an toàn.

Giấy phép hạng D

Từ các khu vực pháp lý có sự giám sát tối thiểu, các giấy phép này thường thiếu các biện pháp bảo vệ quan trọng như tách biệt quỹ và bảo hiểm. Mặc dù hấp dẫn về tính linh hoạt trong hoạt động, nhưng chúng gây ra rủi ro cao hơn cho các nhà giao dịch.

Thông tin công ty

Làm quen A.C.T.

Hiển thị thêm

Thông tin công ty

Làm quen A.C.T.

Hiển thị thêm

Ngành công nghiệp

Ngoại hối Nhà môi giới bán lẻCHÍNH
Tài chính Dịch vụ khác

Phần mềm

Không có dữ liệu có sẵn

Có vẻ như phần này trống. Hãy quay lại sớm để cập nhật!

Liên hệ

Mạng xã hội

Công ty chưa cập nhật thông tin.

Người dùng xem A.C.T. cũng xem…

IUX

XM

FXGT

Deriv

Exness

IUX

XM

FXGT

Deriv

Exness

Tin tức

TrustFinance Cơ quan Tình báo

Ngày nghiên cứu: Th07 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.

Được cung cấp bởi Phân tích AI của TrustFinance

Đánh giá

A.C.T. Đánh giá

Đánh giá

Tổng 0

Phân tích đánh giá AI

Hãy để TrustFinance AI tóm tắt tất cả các đánh giá cho bạn.

Được cung cấp bởi Phân tích AI của TrustFinance

Xếp

Bộ lọc

Tin tức

TrustFinance Cơ quan Tình báo

Ngày nghiên cứu: Th07 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.

Được cung cấp bởi Phân tích AI của TrustFinance