Category: International Law

Resale Price Maintenance in China: Enforcement Authorities Imposing Large Fines for Anti-Monopoly Law Violations

McDermottLogo_2c_rgb

Recently Shanghai High People’s Court reached a decision in the first lawsuit involving resale price maintenance (RPM) since China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) came into effect five years ago.  Shortly thereafter, a key enforcement agency announced RPM-related fines against six milk powder companies, five of which are non-Chinese.  Both cases clearly show that RPM can be a violation of the AML, and that RPM is currently under much greater scrutiny by enforcement authorities.  It would be prudent for all foreign corporations active in China’s consumer markets to take heed of these changes in China and conduct an immediate review of any potential RPM violations.

On 1 August 2013 the Shanghai High People’s Court reached a decision in the first anti-monopoly lawsuit involving resale price maintenance (RPM) since China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) came into effect in August 2008.  In addition to this judicial decision, on 7 August 2013 one of the key agencies in charge of enforcing the AML, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), announced RPM-related fines of USD 109 million against six milk powder companies, five of which are non-Chinese.  Both the High People’s Court and the NDRC have been striving to clarify how they will treat RPM, and specifically have focused on the issue of whether RPM should be treated as a per se violation or should be evaluated according to a “rule of reason” analysis.

Judicial Decisions in Civil Lawsuits

According to the recent decision by the Shanghai High People’s Court, in order to hold that an RPM provision is a monopoly agreement, the court must find that the RPM provision has restricted or eliminated competition.  Furthermore, the burden of proof will be on the plaintiff to show a restriction or elimination of competition arising out of the RPM.  The High People’s Court explicitly stated that this burden is the opposite from the burden of proof for horizontal monopolies, such as a cartel, in which case the burden of proof falls on the defendant to show that the agreement does not have any effect of eliminating or restricting competition.  This burden for horizontal monopolies has been further examined and confirmed by the “Judicial Interpretation of Anti-Monopoly Disputes” that was issued by China’s Supreme People’s Court on 1 June 2012.

Administrative Decisions in Enforcement Actions—Liquor and Infant Milk Formula

There have been several key RPM enforcement actions in 2013.  In February, the NDRC imposed a fine of USD 80 million on the famous Chinese liquor brands Maotai and Wuliangye for requiring distributors to resell the products above a certain price, which is common in some sectors in China.  On 2 July, according to the Price Supervision and Anti-Monopoly Bureau of the NDRC, six milk powder companies came under investigation for RPM violations of the AML.  According to the NDRC’s statements on the case, “from the evidence obtained, the milk powder companies under investigation instituted price controls over distributors and retailers, which excluded and limited market competition and therefore are alleged to have violated the Anti-Monopoly Law”.  The NDRC later announced record fines in that case of USD 109 million, which were the equivalent of between 3 per cent and 6 per cent of the companies’ revenue in 2012.

According to media reports, in the Maotai and Wuliangye cases, the NDRC provided clear indications about some of the factors that it will consider when determining whether the RPM has “eliminated or restricted competition”.   Specifically, when assessing the relevant market and market power of the two companies, the NDRC analysed the market structure and the role played by the two companies in the liquor industry, as well as the degree to which the products are substitutable with similar products and the loyalty of consumers towards the two liquors.  Based on this analysis, the NDRC concluded that the RPM provisions in the agreements with distributors of the two liquor giants eliminated and restricted competition, and thus were vertical “monopoly agreements”.

According to recent media reports, the NDRC has indicated it will “severely crack down” on and sanction vertical monopoly agreements such as RPM if they are maintained by business operators dominant in the market.  If business operators are not dominant, the NDRC reportedly indicated that it would still investigate all vertical monopoly conduct and determine if there has been any elimination or restriction of competition.

Conclusions

These civil lawsuits and administrative cases clearly show that RPM can be a violation of the AML and that RPM is currently under much greater scrutiny by enforcement authorities.  If RPM is an issue in civil lawsuits, a plaintiff will have to prove that RPM eliminates or restricts competition.  However, there are some indications that this burden of proof may be easily met.  In administrative cases, the NDRC will have to be satisfied that it has sufficient proof to show there is an elimination or restriction of competition.  However, it is unclear what level of evidence would be required to show such a restriction and it may not be a very high level, especially if the accused business operator is dominant in the market.

RPM has been a common feature of distribution agreements and other contracts in many sectors in China.  However, the recent cases clearly show there is a serious compliance risk if RPM continues to be part of a corporation’s normal practices.  This is particularly true for business operators that have a dominant market position or a group of business operators that are regarded as jointly dominant under the AML (in China, in certain circumstances, dominance is presumed with a market share as low as 10 per cent).  Unless the RPM conduct clearly falls within an exception in Article 15 of the AML, a company using RPM may face serious fines and confiscation of illegal gains.  It would be prudent for all foreign corporations active in China’s consumer markets to take heed of these changes to the enforcement priorities of the competition/antitrust authorities in China and conduct an immediate review of any potential RPM violations.

Alex An and Jared Nelson also contributed to this article.

Article By:

 of

Mexico: U.S. Natural Gas Savior?

Bracewell & Giuliani Logo

Much has been made of the exponential growth in natural gas supply within the continental United States due to the horizontal drilling and fracking techniques employed in recent years. The resulting natural gas glut has reversed the conventional wisdom that America would be a net importer of natural gas for most of the 21st century with the expectation now being that America, despite being by far the world’s largest consumer of hydrocarbons, will be a significant exporter of natural gas overseas in the coming years and decades. This development has resulted in a flurry of proposed liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) terminals that hope to export natural gas in order to take advantage of the large spreads between prices in America and those in Europe and Asia. Those price spreads exist because a worldwide market for natural gas doesn’t exist, as opposed to oil where the relatively short-lived Brent-WTI price differential has evaporated in recent months.

However, these export terminals cannot export gas to foreign countries lacking a free trade agreement with the U.S. without permits from the U.S. Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”). The queue for approval is long with only three facilities (including most recently the Lake Charles LNG Project in Lake Charles, Louisiana) receiving approval from the Department of Energy and only one of those (the Sabine Pass project in Cameron Parish, Louisiana) receiving approval from FERC. Given the long construction lead times for these projects and political pressure from environmentalists and buyers of natural gas who want prices to remain low, it won’t be until 2016 when any significant volumes of LNG are exported from the continental United States. Rival producers such as Qatar, Australia and Indonesia are rapidly signing contracts with Japan, Korea and China to satisfy the long-term needs of those countries as America continues to delay the development of its LNG infrastructure.

Meanwhile, the historically low natural gas prices created by the production glut are forcing energy companies to find a profitable market for their natural gas in the short to medium term. They appear to have found one in America’s backyard: Mexico. Constructing pipelines to straddle the U.S.-Mexico border entail less regulatory complexities and attract less political attention than LNG exports. With the existing U.S.-Mexico natural gas pipelines almost at capacity, energy companies cannot build border pipelines fast enough, with several new pipeline projects coming online, including Kinder Morgan’s El Paso Natural Gas Co. export pipeline near El Paso, Texas, with a capacity of 0.37 billion cubic feet per day. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration all of the in-progress pipeline projects on the U.S.-Mexico border could result in a doubling of American natural gas exports to Mexico by the end of 2014.

This new export market should continue to support U.S. shale development in the near-term and medium-term future, especially in Texas, despite low natural gas prices and continued supply growth. Longer term prospects for U.S. natural gas exports to Mexico are also bright as well. Even though Mexico has large hydrocarbon reserves itself, the 1938 nationalization of its oil industry and the subsequent decades of underinvestment have seen Mexican hydrocarbon production steadily decline in the last decade. The Mexican constitution effectively prohibits private investment in hydrocarbon production and the Mexican public firmly believes in public ownership of hydrocarbons. There is widespread agreement among many Mexican politicians that private capital, especially from U.S. energy companies with the expertise to tap offshore and shale hydrocarbons, is needed to reverse the production decline, but whether public opposition can be overcome remains in doubt. Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto is pushing constitutional reforms to attract foreign capital, but even if those pass Mexico is years away from converting any private capital into increased production. If those reforms do not pass, Mexico will be forced to continue to look to U.S. natural gas producers to provide it with its growing energy needs.

So while a regulatory bottleneck is endangering America’s ability to be a long-term overseas exporter of natural gas, Mexico, with its growing economy and inability to tap its own reserves, seems poised to play an outsized role in a continued expansion of American natural gas production. LNG exports might be the wave of the future, but natural gas exports to Mexico are the here and now.

 of

Private Placement of Alternative Investment Funds in the European Union (EU): Changing Regulatory Landscape

GT Law

I. Overview

The European Commission’s Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (“AIFMD”) was designed to establish a unified framework throughout the EU for regulating previously unregulated Alternative Investment Funds (“AIF”).

The AIFMD is effective as per July 22, 2013. The AIFMD, as any other EU directive, however needs to be transposed into European Union members’ national laws before it will actually have effect. Moreover, the AIFMD leaves the member states with the flexibility to make their own choices on certain aspects. This concerns also the private placement of units in AIF´s.

In preparation for its enforcement by the individual EU member states, this memorandum will discuss the AIFMD’s effect on non-EU managers of AIFs (“AIFM”) marketing non-EU AIFs within the EU.  The memorandum will first give a broad overview of some of the AIFMD’s measures significant for non-EU AIFMs, followed by a table summarizing how the private placement of AIF´s in the major capital markets of the EU is affected the AIFMD.

It should be noted that prior to July 22, 2013, the marketing of AIF´s in EU member states already required an individual analysis for each member state. For the time being not much has changed in this respect but marketing unregulated funds to selected non retail investors has certainly become more complex due to the AIFMD. Also these distributions may no longer be expected to remain of relatively little interest to securities regulators and fund managers may therefore be required to strengthen their compliance efforts in this area.

II. Regulatory Target – AIF Managers

The AIFMD seeks to regulate a set of previously unregulated AIFs, namely, “all collective investment undertakings that are not regulated under the Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS) Directive.”  These include hedge funds, private equity funds, commodity funds, and real estate funds, among others.

Rather than regulating AIFs directly, however, the AIFMD regulates AIFMs—that is, entities providing either risk or portfolio management to an AIF.  According to the AIFMD, each AIF may only have a single entity as its manager.

The AIFMD applies to AIFMs that are: (1) themselves established in the EU (“EU AIFM”); (2) AIFMs that are not established in an EU country (“non-EU AIFM”), but that manage and market AIFs established in the EU (“EU AIF”); or (3) non-EU AIFMs that market AIFs that are not established in a EU country (“non-EU AIF”) within an EU jurisdiction.

This memo principally deals with the third category, non-EU AIFMs that market non-EU AIFs in the EU.

III. Exemption – Small AIFs

Pursuant to the AIFMD, AIFMs that manage small funds are exempt from the full rigor of the AIFMD regulatory regime.  A lighter regulatory regime is applicable to these AIFMs.

The AIFMD defines AIFMs that manage small funds as either: (1) an AIFM with aggregate assets under management not exceeding € 500 million, where the AIFs are not leveraged, and the investors do not have redemption rights for the first five years after their investment; or (2) an AIFM with aggregate assets under management not exceeding € 100 million.

AIFMs of smaller funds are largely exempted from the AIFMD, and will only be subject to registration, and limited reporting requirements.

IV. Marketing – Definition

As previously discussed, the AIFMD applies to non-EU AIFMs marketing non-EU AIFs in one or more EU jurisdictions.

The AIFMD defines marketing as “a direct or indirect offering or placement at the initiative of the AIFM or on behalf of the AIFM of units or shares of an AIF it manages to or with investors domiciled or with a registered office in the Union.”  This marketing definition does not include reverse solicitation, where the investor initiates the investment, and the investment is not at the AIFM’s direct or indirect initiative.

Thus, for example, if an EU investor initiated an investment in a U.S. AIF, managed by a U.S. AIFM, the U.S. AIFM and AIF would be unaffected by the AIFMD.  The AIFMD would only apply to U.S. AIFMs managing U.S. AIFs, if the U.S. AIFM solicited investment in the EU.

V. Regulating Non-EU AIFMs – National Private Placement Regimes

The AIFMD is designed to phase out national private placement regimes, creating a unified regulatory regime throughout the EU.  However, the AIFMD is scheduled to come into force in stages.

Between July 22, 2013, and 2018 (at the earliest), non-EU AIFMs will be able to market their non-EU AIFs in an EU jurisdiction (“EU Target Jurisdiction”) subject to the national private placement regimes applicable in that EU jurisdiction.

Thus for example, a U.S. AIFM marketing a U.S. AIF in the UK will be able to do so subject to the UK’s private placement regime.

VI. Regulating Non-EU AIFMs – Additional AIFMD Requirements

As explained, through 2018, the AIFMD will largely permit non-EU AIFMs to market non-EU AIFs subject to the private placement regime in the EU Target Jurisdiction.

However, the AIFMD does include three additional requirements for the non-EU AIFMD to be able to take advantage of the EU Target Jurisdiction’s private placement regime.  These include, specific disclosure and reporting requirements, cooperation agreements, and exclusion of AIFs and AIFMs established in certain countries.  Each of these will be discussed in turn.

a. Applicable AIFMD Reporting Requirements

By its terms, the AIFMD will require even non-EU AIFMs marketing non-EU AIFs pursuant to national private placement regimes to comply with certain AIFMD provisions concerning annual reports, disclosures to investors, periodic reporting to regulators, and acquisition of control over EU companies.

A non-EU AIFM will thus be required to make available: (1) an annual report for each non-EU AIF that it markets in the EU; (2) information relevant to potential investors, as well as changes in material information previously disclosed; (3) regular reports to the national regulator in the EU Target Jurisdiction; and (4) disclosure information to a listed or unlisted EU company over which the non-EU AIFM acquires control.

b. Cooperation Agreements

For non-EU AIFMs to be able to market their non-EU AIFs in an EU jurisdiction, the AIFMD requires that there be cooperation agreements in place between the regulator in the non-AIFM’s home jurisdiction, and the EU Target Jurisdiction.

ESMA has negotiated memoranda of understanding (“MOU”) with 34 regulators in a variety of jurisdictions.  These include regulators in Albania, Australia, Bermuda, Brazil, the British Virgin Islands, Canada (the provincial regulators of Alberta, Quebec and Ontario as well as the Superintendent of Financial Institutions), the Cayman Islands, Dubai, Guernsey, Hong Kong (Hong Kong Monetary Authority and Securities and Futures Commission), India, the Isle of Man, Israel, Jersey, Kenya, Malaysia’s Labuan Financial Services Authority, Mauritius, Montenegro, Morocco, Pakistan, Serbia, Singapore, Switzerland, Tanzania, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates and the United States (Federal Reserve Board, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and Securities and Exchange Commission).

These MOUs, however, are insufficient to permit non-EU AIFMs to market their non-EU AIFs in any EU jurisdiction.  Rather, the EU Target Country must have a separate cooperation agreement with the regulator in the non-EU AIFM’s home jurisdiction (presumably these separate cooperation agreements will be based on the MOUs negotiated by ESMA).

Thus, for example, for a U.S. AIFM to be able to market its U.S. AIF in the UK, the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority must have a cooperation agreement with the United States’ Securities and Exchange Commission.

c. Exclusion of Non-Cooperative Country or Territory

Finally, pursuant to the AIFMD, to be able to market based on the EU Target Country’s private placement regime, neither the non-EU AIFM nor the non-EU AIF may be considered a country considered a “Non-Cooperative Country or Territory,” by the Financial Action Task Force on anti-money laundering, and terrorist financing.

In sum, through 2018, non-EU AIFMs may market their non-EU AIFs in EU jurisdictions according to the relevant EU Target Jurisdiction’s private placement regime, subject to a few additional AIFMD requirements.

VII. The AIFMD in Each EU Jurisdiction

The above discussion outlines the AIFMD’s general requirements pertaining to non-EU AIFMs marketing non-EU AIFs.

However, because to take effect the AIFMD must be transposed into the national law of each EU jurisdiction, and because through 2018 the AIFMD largely relies on national private placement rules to regulate non-EU AIFMs, there is bound to be substantial variation in the AIFMD’s application across EU jurisdictions.

The table below details relevant aspects of the AIFMD’s application in each of the EU jurisdictions (plus Norway, and Switzerland).  Supplementing the memorandum, the table serves as a basic guide for the AIFMD’s application to non-EU AIFMs seeking to market their non-EU AIFs in each of the EU jurisdictions.  The chart includes, for each country, whether it has transposed the AIFMD on time (“On time” / “Not on time”), an overview of the private placement regime, relevant reporting requirements, transitional provisions, and a list of the countries with which a cooperation agreement is in place.

Because some of the EU countries have yet to transpose the AIFMD, or have not completed the transposition, and cooperation agreement process we will indicate on the outline where completion of the process is pending.

BELGIUM

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • Not on time
  • Private Placement Regime
    • At present, AIFMs must be registered locally, and are subject to a minimum investment amount of € 250,000.
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements – Pending
  • Transitional Provisions – Pending
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries – Pending

DENMARK

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • Not on time.
  • Private Placement Regime
    • Denmark permits marketing to a maximum of 8 offerees, and requires that a non-EU AIFM be licensed in its member state of reference.1
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements
    • Non-EU AIFs licensed in another EU jurisdiction pursuant to AIFM regulations must submit additional documentation to the Danish FSA, including operating and managing plans, and contact information.
  • Transitional Provisions
    • Transitional provisions will permit non-EU AIFMs to market AIFs under Denmark’s current private placement regime until at least July 22, 2014 (provided that the AIFMs commenced marketing prior to the transposition date of July 22, 2013).
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries – Pending

FINLAND

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • Not on time.
  • Private Placement Regime
    • Finland’s private placement regime permits AIFMs to market only to “professional” clients.
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements – Pending
  • Transitional Provisions
    • The AIFMD is not expected to apply to non-EU AIFMs until 2015.
    • Transitional rules have been proposed (although not yet adopted) permitting AIFMs to market pursuant to existing private placement rules, provided that the AIFMs can show that they have made a good faith effort to comply with AIFMD.
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries – Pending

FRANCE

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • On time.
  • Private Placement Regime
    • Under its present private placement regime, France does not permit AIFMs to actively solicit investment.
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements – Pending
  • Transitional Provisions
    • It appears that a transitional period will apply until 22 July 2014, during which all French AIFMs will be able to continue marketing and / or managing any AIFs in France on the pre-AIFMD basis (for example by using reverse solicitation).
    • Other AIFMs (whether EU but outside France or non-EU) would, therefore, need to be authorized.
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries – Pending

GERMANY

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • On time.
  • Private Placement Regime
    • Under the new German private placement regime, non-EU AIFMs may market to professional investors, subject to requirements.
    • To market in Germany, the non-EU AIFM must appoint an independent entity to act as a depositary (as defined in the AIFMD), and notify BaFin, Germany’s markets regulator, of the appointed depository’s identity.
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements
    • Notifying BaFin of its intention to market in Germany, and include an application with a comprehensive list of information and documents.  BaFin will have up to two months to review, and decide upon the application.
    • Making certain initial and ongoing investor disclosures.
    • Complying with reporting requirements to BaFin.
  • Transitional Provisions
    • Non-EU AIFMs that marketed funds in Germany by prior to the AIFMD’s July 22, 2013 effective date (“previously marketed funds”) will be permitted to continue marketing those previously marketed funds under existing private placement rules until July 21, 2014.
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries – Pending

IRELAND

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • On time.
  • Private Placement Regime
    • Under Ireland’s private placement regime, non-EU AIFMs will be able to market in Ireland without restrictions additional to those of the AIFMD, discussed above.
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements
    • Ireland will only require that the non-EU AIFMs comply with the AIFMD’s reporting requirements for non-EU AIFMs discussed above.
  • Transitional Provisions
    • Non-EU AIFMs managing qualified investor alternative investment funds (“QIAIF”), as defined under the relevant Irish provisions, which were authorized prior to the July 22, 2013 transposition date will not be required to be AIFMD compliant until July 22, 2015.
    • Non-EU AIFMs managing QIAIFs authorized after July 22, 2013 will have two years from the QIAIF’s launch date to become AIFMD compliant.
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries – Pending

ITALY

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • Not on time.
  • Private Placement Regime
    • Under Italy’s current private placement regime, which it seems will be available to non-EU AIFMs through 2015, AIFMs may market only to “expert” investors.
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements
    • Currently, AIFMs must disclose their balance sheets, certain administrative documents, and financial reports regarding their managers’ activities.
  • Transitional Provisions – Pending
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries – Pending

LUXEMBOURG

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • On time.
  • Private Placement Regime
    • Through 2018, Luxembourg will permit small and non-EU AIFMs to market pursuant to its private placement regime.
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements
    • Luxembourg imposes certain transparency requirements on AIFMs, including disclosure of an AIFM’s net asset value, and disclosures upon gaining control of an EU company.
  • Transitional Provisions
    • Beginning on July 22, 2014, in addition to complying with Luxembourg’s private placement regime, non-EU AIFMs will be required to comply with the third country provisions of the AIFMD.
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries
    • Luxembourg signed cooperation agreements with all 34 of the regulators that entered into MOUs with ESMA.

THE NETHERLANDS

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • On time.
  • Private Placement Regime
    • Netherlands will permit certain AIFMs to market pursuant to its private placement regime provided offerings are: (1) to less than 150 persons; (2) units have an individual nominal value of at least EUR 100,000 or consist of a package of units with at value of at least EUR 100,000; or (3) offered to professional investors only.
    • Non-EU AIFMs are exempted for offerings to qualified investors only if the AIFM is not domiciled in a non cooperative country under FATF rules and the Dutch regulator and the foreign regulator entered into a MOU.
    • AIFMs licensed by the relevant securities regulators in the USA, Jersey and Guernsey may offer to any investor under a license recognition regime.
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements
    • Notification to Netherlands Financial Markets Authority and reporting of investments, risk positions and investment strategy of AIF to Dutch Central Bank.
  • Transitional Provisions
    • Several grandfathering provisions for non-EU AIF’s that stopped marketing prior to 22 July 2013.
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries – Pending

POLAND

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • Not on time.
  • Private Placement Regime
    • So far, the Polish regulator has not published an AIFMD transposition regulation.
    • However, under the existing private placement regime, non-EU AIFs that wish to market its units in Poland may do so if:
      • The units are qualified as equity or debt securities under their respective governing law; and
      • The units are offered under the “private placement” regime, meaning a nonpublic offer to sell securities to no more than 149 identified investors
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements – Pending
  • Transitional Provisions
    • As mentioned above, the Polish regulator has not made an official announcement concerning AIFMS transposition.
  • However, a representative of the Polish regulator recently indicated in an interview that:
    • AIFMs currently marketing AIFs in Poland will have two years to determine whether they fall within the regulations of the AIFD; and
    • If so, the AIFMs will be required to become AIFMD compliant within the two-year period.
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries – Pending

SPAIN

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • Not on time.
  • Private Placement Regime
    • Currently, no private placement regime is available, and it in not anticipated that a private placement regime will be made available in the implementation of the AIFMD.
    • Under proposed rules, registration with, and authorization from the Spanish regulator is required for non-EU AIFMs to market non-EU AIFs to professional investors only in Spain.
    • Authorization to market may be denied if:
      • The non-EU AIF’s home state applies discriminatory marketing rules against Spanish AIFs;
      • The non-EU AIF provides insufficient assurance of compliance with Spanish law, or insufficient protection of Spanish investors; or
      • The non-EU AIFs will disrupt competition in the Spanish AIF market.
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements – Pending
  • Transitional Provisions – Pending
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries – Pending

SWEDEN

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • Not on time.
  • Private Placement Regime
    • At present, there is no private placement regime for marketing AIFs in Sweden.
    • Many AIFs, simply fall outside the scope of Sweden’s regulations, and may market freely in Sweden
    • Other AIFs affected by Sweden’s regulation may only be marketed by a Swedish AIFM, or an AIFM regulated in another EU country.
    • It is unclear whether non-EU AIFMs will be able to continue to market freely after the AIFMD comes into force, or whether they will be prevented from marketing in Sweden altogether
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements – Pending
  • Transitional Provisions – Pending
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries – Pending

UNITED KINGDOM

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • On time.
  • Private Placement Regime
    • Provided that an AIF has been marketed by the non-EU AIFM prior to July 22, 2013 in an EEA jurisdiction, the non-EU AIFM will be able to continue to market the funds under the UK’s private placement regime until July 21, 2014 without complying with the requirements of the AIFMD.
    • For new funds marketed from July 22, 2013, the non-EU AIFM will need to comply with the reporting requirements of the AIFMD set out below.
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements
    • Prior to marketing in the UK, an AIFM must give the FCA written notification of its intention to do so.
    • In the notification, the AIFM must affirm that it is responsible for complying with the relevant AIFMD requirements, and that these relevant requirements have been satisfied.
    • Once it has submitted the notification to the FCA, the AIFM may begin marketing—it need not wait for the FCA’s approval.
    • Additionally, the AIFM is subject to disclosure requirements, including:
      • Ensuring that investor disclosure in fund marketing materials meets the disclosure and transparency requirements set out in the directive;
      • Reporting either annually or semi-annually to the FCA proscribed information; and
      • Submitting and publishing an annual report for each AIF that the AIFM manages or markets.
  • Transitional Provisions
    • The non-EU AIFMs that marketed any AIF in the EU prior to the AIFMD’s July 22, 2013 effective date will be permitted to market AIFs in the UK under the pre-AIFMD rules until July 21, 2014.
    • Non-EU AIFMs taking advantage of the transitional provision may do so irrespective of whether or not the FSA has cooperation agreements in place
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries
    • The UK signed cooperation agreements with all 34 of the regulators that entered into MOUs with ESMA.

NORWAY2

  • Private Placement Regime
    • At present, Norway does not permit soliciting investment in AIFs.
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements – Pending
  • Transitional Provisions – Pending
  • Cooperation Agreements with EU Countries – Pending

SWITZERLAND

  • Private Placement Regime
    • Non-EU AIFMs may market through the Swiss private placement regime without any additional regulation, approval, or license requirement or the investor is:
      • A License financial institution;
      • A regulated insurance institution; or
      • An investor that has concluded a written discretionary asset management agreement with a licensed financial institution, or a financial intermediary, provided that information is provided to the investor through the financial institution, or intermediary, and that the financial intermediary is:
        • Regulated by anti-money laundering regulation;
        • Governed by the code of conduct employed by a specific self-regulatory body recognized by the Swiss regulator; and
        • Compliant with the recognized standards of the self-regulatory body.
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements – Pending
  • Transitional Provisions
    • Non-Swiss AIFMs have until March 1, 2015 to:
      • Appoint a Swizz representative, and a Swiss paying agent; and
      • Comply with all relevant regulations.
    • Non-Swiss AIFMs that have yet to be subject to Swiss regulation must:
      • Contact, and register with the Swiss regulator by September 1, 2013; and
      • If not sufficiently licensed in their home country, apply for a license by March 1, 2015.
    • Cooperation Agreements with EU Countries – Pending

1 An AIFM’s member state of reference (“MSR”) is the member state where the marketing of most of the AIF takes place.  So, for example if a U.S. AIFM markets in Denmark, and Denmark is the Member State of Reference, then the Danish FSA must issue the U.S. AIFM a license prior to commencement of the U.S. AIFM’s marketing activities in Denmark.

2 Norway, and Switzerland are non-EU countries of interest.  Because they are not part of the EU, they are not required to transpose the AIFMD.

Article By:

 of

Observations on a Milestone Bribery Investigation and Increased Scrutiny of Foreign Companies in China

McDermottLogo_2c_rgb

The Chinese government’s recent crackdown on alleged bribery and corruption of local officials by multinational pharmaceutical companies could signal a broad trend toward elevated scrutiny of all foreign corporations operating in the country—and provides an even greater incentive for companies to identify and implement anti-corruption practices focused on China’s unique business and legal culture.

Elevated Compliance Risks, Elevated Compliance Duties

The international pharmaceutical industry is the latest commercial sector to face increased scrutiny in China.  A major investigation of a leading pharmaceutical company has allegedly uncovered evidence of what Chinese authorities have characterized as “widespread, prolonged corruption” and has generated considerable publicity.  The investigation marks the latest in a recent surge of aggressive inquiries by the Chinese government into foreign companies, targeted at alleged violations ranging from bribery to price-fixing.

This new trend is a worrying development for international companies operating in China, and a signal that the sporadic crackdowns may finally be coalescing into a new reality of permanently elevated scrutiny by the central Chinese government.  This “new normal” will increase the need for proactive policies, procedures and diligence by international companies, which have traditionally faced significant compliance pressures and risks, mainly from non-Chinese laws such as the United States’ Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the United Kingdom’s Bribery Act.

Background

In early July 2013, the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) announced a milestone investigation into GlaxoSmithKline Plc. (GSK) that has allegedly uncovered bribery involving millions of U.S. dollars that were funneled through more than 700 travel agents and other third parties over the last six years.  More than 20 GSK employees, including high-level executives, have been detained by the police, and international travel restrictions have been imposed on at least one foreign executive.  Notably, the government has indicated that the investigation uncovered signs that other pharmaceutical companies may have illegally given incentives to doctors and other hospital staff, or bribes to government officials and medical associations.

The exact trigger for the GSK inquiry is currently unknown, but there has been wide speculation about a variety of motives for the timing and targets of the case including a desire to reduce healthcare costs.  Regardless of the cause of the investigation, the case is expected to spawn a significant, industry-wide investigation and crackdown, in which the PRC government will be targeting foreign pharmaceutical companies with official “requests,” unannounced visits and dawn raids.  Indeed, at least one other company has acknowledged being visited recently by government investigators in connection with this investigation.

Our Observations

Concealed From the Government, Hidden From the Home Office

GSK’s response to the investigation has been clear and public.  The company has stated that its global headquarters was not aware of the bribery in China, and has reaffirmed its zero tolerance policy for compliance violations.

Certainly, the PRC—as evidenced by the statements of Gao Feng, a top official in China’s Ministry of Public Security—seems to believe “bribery is part of the strategy” of pharmaceutical companies and has expanded its investigations to other multinationals in China.  This raises concern that a culture of compliance may not be as strongly embedded in companies as one would hope, or, at minimum, such a culture is not perceived as strongly embedded.  The China operations of multinationals often experience significant turnover and have increasingly shifted to a local-hire model.  The shift to local hires is due to a variety of factors, including new social security requirements, food safety concerns, increasing pollution and a rise in perceived hostility towards foreigners.  As key positions change hands for whatever reason, multinational companies can expect that local teams, in their efforts to impress corporate leaders, may be guided more by sales results than compliance with regulations, supervisory controls and policies dictated by global headquarters.

Recommendations

In the wake of the Chinese government’s launch of a new round of aggressive investigations, multinational companies should begin scrutinizing their operations more carefully to ensure that their policies are well understood, and look for signs of potential bribery being carried out by their employees.  To do so, they should truly localize their global compliance policy and program to specifically address their local operations in China, including the development and implementation of the following:

  1. Thorough and complete Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) risk-based due diligence for mergers with, and acquisitions of, Chinese local companies
  2. Thorough due diligence review of third-party business partners, including but not limited to agents, distributors, consultants and travel agents
  3. A robust compliance program covering all critical functions, including sales and marketing personnel as well as compliance, legal, finance and human resources staff
  4. A well-run ethics helpline with active follow-up to all complaints and queries
  5. Ongoing compliance training for local management as well as employees
  6. Periodic compliance audits and immediate remediation as necessary

To fully benefit from these compliance efforts, multinationals should consider engaging professionals with the following skills and strengths:

  1. Familiar not only with FCPA requirements but also PRC anti-corruption laws and regulations
  2. Possess a deep understanding of Chinese business culture, along with a command of the unique nuances of compliance challenges in China, and able to to identify and formulate effective responses to new and innovative forms of bribery and corruption
  3. Specialized in dealing with Chinese government investigations appropriately and licensed in China

The insights of such professionals would be helpful in minimizing risk and potential consequences, including reputational damage and executives’ liability.

Ultimately, as the current anti-corruption campaign illustrates, global compliance measures superimposed upon China’s unique business environment are not enough.  A truly effective compliance program for China needs to be one that identifies and addresses the issues arising out of local business and legal culture.

Article By:

of

Treasury and IRS Postpone the Effective Dates of Several Key Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) Provisions

GT Law

On July 12th, the IRS issued Notice 2013-43, which postpones the effective dates of several key FATCA provisions.   This Notice provides: (i) revised timelines for implementation of FATCA; and (ii) additional guidance concerning the treatment of financial institutions located in jurisdictions that have signed intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) for the implementation of FATCA but have not yet brought those IGAs into force.

Overview

FATCA, which will be phased in between 2013 and 2017, subjects many categories of payments made by U.S. persons to “Foreign Financial Institutions” (including most banks, funds, investment entities, depositories and insurance companies, collectively referred to as  “FFIs”) and certain non-financial foreign entities (including multinationals, partnerships and trusts, collectively referred to as “NFFEs”) to a 30% U.S. withholding tax unless the foreign recipient, and each member of its affiliated group, have agreed in advance to provide information to the IRS on their (direct and indirect) U.S. owners, creditors and investors (“U.S. Account Holders”).

FATCA generally (i) requires FFIs to provide information to the IRS regarding their U.S. Account Holders; (ii) requires certain NFFEs to provide information on their “Substantial U.S. Owners” to withholding agents; (iii) requires certain certifications that the FFI or NFFE is compliant with FATCA rules; (iv) enhances certain withholding tax rules and imposes a withholding tax on certain payments (“Withholdable Payments”) to FFIs and NFFEs that fail to comply with their obligations; and (v) imposes increased disclosure obligations on certain NFFEs that present a high risk of U.S. tax avoidance.

The burden of complying with FATCA falls on both the foreign recipients of Withholdable Payments, which have to identify and disclose their U.S. Account Holders in order to be exempt from the FATCA withholding, and on the payors of such payments (as withholding agents), which are required to obtain certification of such exemption from the foreign payees in order not to withhold.  A failure to obtain such certification can subject the payors to personal liability for any taxes not withheld.

Treasury Regulations under FATCA were issued on January 17, 2013.  In addition, the United States has begun the process of signing IGAs with other countries to implement FATCA on a government to government basis. The IGAs currently fall into two categories, Model 1 and Model 2, which contain different terms and requirements.

Notice 2013-43

Notice 2013-43 provides a six-month extension (from January 1 to July 1, 2014) for when FATCA withholding will begin and for implementing new account opening procedures as well as related requirements to comply with FATCA.  Importantly, the definition of “Grandfathered Obligation” (i.e., an obligation not subject to withholding) will be revised to include obligations outstanding on July 1, 2014 (whereas under the current rules, “grandfathered obligations” were obligations issued before January 1, 2014).  Withholding on gross proceeds is still scheduled to begin on January 1, 2017.

The timeline for foreign financial institutions (FFIs) to register as participating foreign financial institutions (PFFIs) is also extended, with the registration portal expected to open on August 19, 2013.  When the FATCA registration website opens, a financial institution will be able to begin the process of registering by creating an account and inputting the required information.  Prior to January 1, 2014, however, any information entered into the system, even if submitted as “final,” will not be regarded as a final submission, but will merely be stored until the information is submitted as final on or after January 1, 2014. Thus, financial institutions can use the remainder of 2013 to get familiar with the registration process, to input preliminary information, and to refine that information. On or after January 1, 2014, each financial institution must finalize its registration information and submit the information as final.  The IRS will electronically post the first IRS FFI List by June 2, 2014, and will update the list on a monthly basis thereafter. Thus, to ensure inclusion in the June 2014 IRS FFI List, FFIs would need to finalize their registration by April 25, 2014.

Finally, a jurisdiction will be treated as having in effect an IGA with the United States if the jurisdiction is listed on the Treasury website as a jurisdiction that is treated as having an IGA in effect. In general, Treasury and the IRS intend to include on this list jurisdictions that have signed but have not yet brought into force an IGA. The list of jurisdictions that are treated as having an IGA in effect is available at the following address: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/treaties/Pages/FATCA-Archive.aspx.

Conclusions

Six months ago, when the IRS issued the final FATCA Regulations, it intended to provide some clarity and certainty for FFIs and other affected taxpayers intending to comply with FATCA this year.  However, as of today, FFIs still face significant uncertainties pertaining to the implementation of FATCA in accordance with the timeline provided in the Regulations.  In addition, the progress of the IGA program has been much slower than expected.  At the beginning of the year, the Treasury and IRS indicated that active negotiations on IGAs were taking place with dozens of countries.  Nevertheless, as of today, only 10 IGAs have been signed.  FATCA compliance may differ depending on whether the FFI is in an IGA or non-IGA jurisdiction (and if the FFI is from an IGA jurisdiction, there will be a different term; depending on whether the IGA is a Model 1 or Model 2 IGA and whether the IGA is reciprocal or not).  Thus, there is growing concern among FFIs from jurisdictions that have yet to sign an IGA with the IRS with respect to the course of action to comply with FATCA.

Furthermore, last year, the IRS issued a draft version of the IRS Form W-8BEN-E, which foreign persons would use to certify as to their FATCA status.  The proposed W-8BEN-E form is an eight page long complex form containing a list of over 20 types of FATCA categories.  It was expected that the IRS would finalize the W-8BEN-E, and, importantly, would issue guidance on how to prepare it early enough so that all affected taxpayers would be able to comply with it.  Nevertheless, the IRS instead issued another draft in May 2013, and still expects comments from the tax community on the new draft.  As a result, it is not expected that the final W-8BEN-E Form, with the instructions, will be issued before the fall of 2013.

The six-month extension provided in Notice 2013-43, will hopefully allow Treasury and the IRS, on the one hand, to provide more guidance with respect to implementation of FATCA; and affected taxpayers, on the other hand, to get more clarity as to how to comply with FATCA.

Department of State Releases August 2013 Visa Bulletin

Morgan Lewis logo

EB-2 category for individuals chargeable to India advances by more than three years.

The U.S. Department of State (DOS) has released its August 2013 Visa Bulletin. The Visa Bulletin sets out per country priority date cutoffs that regulate the flow of adjustment of status (AOS) and consular immigrant visa applications. Foreign nationals may file applications to adjust their status to that of permanent resident or to obtain approval of an immigrant visa at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad, provided that their priority dates are prior to the respective cutoff dates specified by the DOS.

What Does the August 2013 Visa Bulletin Say?

The cutoff date in the EB-2 category for individuals chargeable to India has advanced by three years and four months in an effort to fully utilize the numbers available under the annual limit. It is expected that such movement will generate a significant amount of demand from individuals chargeable to India during the coming months.

EB-1: All EB-1 categories remain current.

EB-2: A cutoff date of January 1, 2008 is now in effect for individuals in the EB-2 category from India, reflecting forward movement of three years and four months. A cutoff date of August 8, 2008 remains in effect from the July Visa Bulletin for individuals in the EB-2 category from China. The cutoff date remains current for individuals in the EB-2 category from all other countries.

EB-3: There is continued backlog in the EB-3 category for all countries, with minor forward movement for EB-3 individuals from the Philippines and no forward movement for EB-3 individuals from the rest of the world.

The relevant priority date cutoffs for foreign nationals in the EB-3 category are as follows:

China: January 1, 2009 (no forward movement)
India: January 22, 2003 (no forward movement)
Mexico: January 1, 2009 (no forward movement)
Philippines: October 22, 2006 (forward movement of 21 days)
Rest of the World: January 1, 2009 (no forward movement)

Developments Affecting the EB-2 Employment-Based Category

Mexico, the Philippines, and the Rest of the World

In November 2012, the EB-2 category for individuals chargeable to all countries other than China and India became current. This meant that EB-2 individuals chargeable to countries other than China and India could file AOS applications or have applications approved on or afterNovember 1, 2012. The August Visa Bulletin indicates that the EB-2 category will continue to remain current for these individuals through August 2013.

China

As with the July Visa Bulletin, the August Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of August 8, 2008 for EB-2 individuals chargeable to China. This means that EB-2 individuals chargeable to China with a priority date prior to August 8, 2008 may continue to file AOS applications or have applications approved through August 2013.

India

From October 2012 through the present, the cutoff date for EB-2 individuals chargeable to India has been September 1, 2004. The August Visa Bulletin indicates forward movement of this cutoff date by more than three years to January 1, 2008. This means that EB-2 individuals chargeable to India with a priority date prior to January 1, 2008 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in August 2013. The August Visa Bulletin indicates that this cutoff date has been advanced in an effort to fully utilize the numbers available under the EB-2 annual limit. It is expected that such movement will generate a significant amount of demand from individuals chargeable to India during the coming months.

This significant advancement in the cutoff date for EB-2 individuals chargeable to India will quite possibly be followed by significant retrogression in the new fiscal year. Consequently, AOS applications filed in September 2013 may be received and receipted by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; however, adjudication could be delayed. Applications for interim benefits, including employment authorization and advance parole, should be adjudicated in a timely manner notwithstanding any possible retrogression of cutoff dates.

Developments Affecting the EB-3 Employment-Based Category

In May, June, and July, the cutoff dates for EB-3 individuals chargeable to most countries advanced significantly in an attempt to generate demand and fully utilize the annual numerical limits for the category. The August Visa Bulletin indicates no additional forward movement in this category, with the exception of the Philippines, which advanced by 21 days.

China

The July Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of January 1, 2009 for EB-3 individuals chargeable to China. The August Visa Bulletin indicates no movement of this cutoff date. This means that EB-3 individuals chargeable to China with a priority date prior to January 1, 2009 may file AOS applications or have applications approved through August 2013.

India

Additionally, the July Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of January 22, 2003 for EB-3 individuals chargeable to India. The August Visa Bulletin indicates no movement of this cutoff date. This means that EB-3 individuals chargeable to India with a priority date prior to January 22, 2003 may file AOS applications or have applications approved through August 2013.

Rest of the World

The July Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of January 1, 2009 for EB-3 individuals chargeable to the Rest of the World. The August Visa Bulletin indicates no movement of this cutoff date. This means that individuals chargeable to all countries other than China, India, Mexico, and the Philippines with a priority date prior to January 1, 2009 may file AOS applications or have applications approved through August 2013.

How This Affects You

Priority date cutoffs are assessed on a monthly basis by the DOS, based on anticipated demand. Cutoff dates can move forward or backward or remain static. Employers and employees should take the immigrant visa backlogs into account in their long-term planning and take measures to mitigate their effects. To see the August 2013 Visa Bulletin in its entirety, please visit the DOS website here.

Article By:

of

China’s First-Ever National Standard on Data Privacy – Best Practices for Companies in China on Managing Data Privacy

Sheppard Mullin 2012

Companies doing business in China should take careful notice that China is now paying more attention to personal data privacy collection. This would be an opportune time for private companies to internally review existing data collection and management practices, as well as determine whether these fall within the new guidelines, and where necessary, develop and incorporate new internal data privacy practices.

The Information Security Technology-Guide for Personal Information Protection within Public and Commercial Systems (“Guidelines”), China’s first-ever national standard for personal data privacy protection, came into effect on February 1, 2013. The Guidelines, while not legally binding, are just what they purport to be – guidelines – some commentators view these as technical guidelines. However, the Guidelines should not be taken lightly as this may be a pre-cursor of new legislation ahead. China is not quite ready to issue new binding legislation, but there are indications it seeks to develop consistency with other internationally accepted practices, especially following recent data legislation enacted in the region by neighboring Hong Kong and other Asian countries.

What should companies look for when examining existing data privacy and collection policy and practices? As the Guidelines provide for rules on collecting, handling, transferring and deleting personal information, these areas of a company’s current policies should be reviewed.

“Personal Information”

What personal information is subject to the Guidelines? The Guidelines define “personal information” as “computer data that may be processed by an information system, relevant to a certain natural person, and that may be used solely or along with other information to identify such natural person.”

“General” and “Sensitive” Personal Information

The Guidelines makes a distinction on handling “general” as opposed to “sensitive” personal information. Sensitive personal information is defined as “information the leakage of which will cause adverse consequences to the subject individual” e.g. information such as an individual’s identity card, religious views or fingerprints.

Consent Required

If an individual’s personal information is being collected, that individual should be informed as to the purpose and the scope of the data being collected; tacit consent must be obtained- the individual does not object after being well informed. With “sensitive” personal information being collected, a higher level of consent must be obtained prior to collection and use; the individual must provide express consent and such evidence be retained.

Notice

Best practices dictate a well-informed notice be given the individual prior to collection of any personal information. The notice should clearly spell out, among other items, what information is being collected, the purpose for which the information will be used, the method of collection, party to whom the personal information will be disclosed and retention period.

Cross Border Transfer

The Guidelines further limit the transfer of personal information to any organization outside of P.R. China except where the individual provides consent, the government authorizes the transfer or the transfer is required by law. It is unclear as to which law applies where transfer is “required by law”- PRC law or law of any other country.

Notification of Breach

There is a notification requirement. The individual must be notified if personal information is lost, altered or divulged. If the breach incident is material, then the “personal information protection administration authority.” The Guidelines, however, do not define or make clear this administration authority is here.

Retention and Deletion

Best practices for a company is to minimize the amount of personal information collected. Personal information once used to achieve their intended purpose should not be stored and maintained, but immediately deleted.

The Guidelines may not be binding authority, but at a minimum sets certain standards for the collection, transfer and management of personal information. Especially for companies operating in China, the Guidelines is a call to action, and for implementation of best practices relating to data privacy. Companies should take this opportunity to assess their data privacy and security policies, review and revise customer information intake procedures and documentation, and develop and implement clear, company-wide internal data privacy policies and methods.

Article By:

 of

Canadians, the American Dream, and the EB-5 Investor Visa

Altro Levy Logo

It’s that time of year when Canadians wintering south of the border begin to realize that fairly soon they will be packing their things and making the long trip north again. Some of them will do so willingly, eager to get back to friends and family, others will consider extending their stay by another couple of weeks or months, and still others will wonder if there is not some way to make a permanent move south.

The cliché of the Canadian “Snow Bird” exists, because it is a reality. Every winter thousands of Canadians travel south to places like Florida, Arizona, California and Hawaii. The majority retired, they may effectively spend half of their retirement Stateside.

Agreements between the US and Canada make this yearly passage possible. Under US immigration laws, Canadians are generally allowed entry as a visitor in the US for up to 6 months (180 days) at a time when they cross the US border by land, air or sea.

When it comes to taxes, the US Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) has its own set of rules completely distinct from US immigration law. The US IRS allows Canadians to spend up to 182 days in the US under its “substantial presence” test over the course of 3 years before requiring Canadians to file a non-resident US tax return. Even then, the Canada-US tax treaty provides protections to facilitate this reporting and to keep Canadians on side with both the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) and the IRS (see IRS Form 8833 Treaty Based Return Position Disclosure).

It is important for every Canadian spending time south of the border to make note of these separate, and sometimes conflicting, rules.

For those Canadians wishing to extend their stay in the US, they should look at both of these aforementioned rules to determine if this possibility exists for them. With the US and Canada announcing new initiatives to share information on the entry and exit of people across their shared border, it is possible that overstaying your 6 month entry to the US by even a few days could cause issues with US immigration next time you try to reenter the US. Additionally, for those who wish to avoid the hassle of US income tax filings, special care and attention should be given to the IRS’ “substantial presence” test.

What about those Canadians whose American Dream is not just passing October to April in the US, but rather relocating permanently?

While the US has various visa options available for those looking to work or start a business in the US, it does not have any retiree visa options, unless, perhaps, the applicant is closely related to a US citizen.

Those without a US citizen as a close relative who wish to immigrate to the US without the responsibility of working or starting a company may wish to consider the EB-5 Investor Visa.

The EB-5 Investor Visa was created by the Immigration Act of 1990, and it is a direct pathway to US permanent residency (also known as a US green card). Permanent residency allows you to live and work, or not work, in the US for as long as you would like. It also gives access to potential eligibility for programs such as US Social Security Insurance and Medicare.

To qualify for an EB-5 Investor Visa, the applicant is generally required to invest $1 Million USD in a business entity that creates or preserves at least 10 full-time jobs for US workers within 2 years. In exchange, the investor receives conditional permanent residency for the first two years, and full permanent residency at 2 years once he or she proves fulfillment of the visa requirements. It also allows the spouse and unmarried children under age 21 of the applicant to receive permanent residency.

For those who do not want or are not able to make a $1 Million USD investment, the US government will issue an EB-5 Investor Visa for investments of $500,000 USD in an approved “regional center” project, or if the passive investment is made in either a targeted low employment or rural area. Additionally, those who invest in regional centers receive the added benefit of being able to look to “indirect job creation” to fulfill the 10 full-time US jobs requirement.

Entrepreneurs starting an enterprise in the US may use the EB-5 visa, but it is equally accessible to passive investors looking for a way to make a permanent move to the US, especially when dealing with an approved regional center.

Article By:

 of

China Enacts New Employment Law Affecting Employers Who Do Not Directly Employ Their Workers

Sheppard Mullin 2012

China has a new employment law. This new law significantly impacts an employer who does not directly employ its own workers, but instead uses agencies such as FESCO or third party staffing companies, also known as labor dispatching agencies. At the end of 2012, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress adopted the Decision on the Revision of the Labor Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China (“Amendment”). The Amendment will take effect July 1st of this year. The intent of the Amendment is to offer better protection to workers employed by labor dispatching agencies.

Labor dispatching is a common method of employment where a worker enters into an employment contract with a labor dispatch agency and is then dispatched to work in another company – commonly referred to as the “host company”. This type of employment arrangement has proved problematic because many of the dispatched workers are not paid wages commensurate with their work as compared to their direct hire, permanent employee counterparts. Additionally, the dispatched workers’ health and safety rights are not well protected. The Amendment tackles this problem by requiring employers to hire the majority of their workforce directly and by strictly controlling the number of dispatched laborers. Moreover, the Amendment clearly states that all employers shall stick to the principle of “equal pay for equal work”.

The four main revisions introduced by the Amendment can be found by clicking here:

MAIN SECTION:

Heightened Standards

First, the standards for establishing a Labor Dispatch Agency are heightened. Specifically, a labor dispatch agency is now required to:

a. have a minimum registered capital of no less than RMB 2,000,000 (previously only RMB 500,000);

b. operate from a permanent business premise with facilities that are suitable to conduct its business;

c. have internal dispatch rules that are compliant with the relevant laws and administrative regulations;

d. satisfy other conditions as prescribed by laws and administrative regulations; and

e. apply for an administrative license and obtain approval from the relevant labor authorities.

All labor dispatch agencies established after July 1, 2013, will need to meet these new local labor law requirements before they can start the company registration process. Existing agencies that are already licensed have until July 1, 2014, to meet all local labor law requirements before renewing their business registration.

Equal Pay for Equal Work

Second, one of the most problematic areas of the former dispatch model was the inequitable pay between dispatch workers and their similarly situated, direct hire counterparts. The Amendment adds the principle of “equal pay for equal work” such that dispatch agencies must provide the same remuneration standards for dispatched employees as is provided to the direct hire employees who hold similar positions.

Clarification of Acceptable Outsourcing

Third, the Amendment clarifies that labor dispatch arrangements should only be implemented for temporary, ancillary or substitute positions. The Amendment clearly defines these categories as follows:

  • Temporary position: A position that will last no more than six months
  • Auxiliary position: A position that is not a part of the main or core business of the company
  • Substitute position: A position that must be temporarily filled because a permanent employee is away from work on leave or for other reasons

The Amendment further narrows the use of outsourcing by limiting the percentage of outsourced workers a company may have. The actual percentage shall be prescribed by the Labor Administration Department of the State Council. This percentage of dispatched workers does not apply to representative offices established by foreign companies in China. This is because representative offices are not allowed to hire Chinese employees directly, and instead must hire them through a labor dispatching agency.

Tougher Penalties

Fourth, the Amendment imposes tougher penalties. Specifically, for entities providing labor dispatch services without a license, the labor authorities may confiscate all illegal gains and impose a fine of no less than one time, but not more than five times, the illegal gains on such entities. Where there are no illegal gains, a fine of no more than RMB 50,000 may be imposed.

Employers and dispatching agencies violating the law, and failing to correct the violations within a certain time period, may be fined between RMB 5,000 and RMB 10,000 per dispatched worker. Additionally, labor dispatching agencies may get their business licenses revoked.

Conclusion

How aggressively the new law will be enforced remains to be seen, but companies should be prepared none the less. Companies that use labor dispatch agencies should ensure that their service provider has the proper license. Furthermore, any company with a high percentage of dispatched workers should evaluate their employment model and prepare for potentially transitioning their employment strategies in order to comply with the new Labor Contract Law. This may include direct hiring for some of the currently outsourced positions. Lastly, companies should evaluate their internal policies to ensure that they are sufficient for any changes – especially those involving headcount – that may be made.

Article By:

 of

Six Ways to do Business Overseas While Reducing the Perils of Future Litigation

Sheppard Mullin 2012

As an executive or in-house counsel, your work likely reaches across the globe.

90% of companies in the United States are involved in litigation—much of it international. American companies have increased overseas business from 49% in 2008 to 72% as late as 2010.

If you work for a medium to large corporation, you are liking working overseas or interacting with colleagues that are. This means that you are likely working around the clock putting out fires, making deals, and juggling regulatory hurdles. Are you worried of running so fast in such unknown territory that you may miss something? Do you wish you had more time to learn everything to minimize your company’s business and litigation risks?

I have good and bad news. The bad—it is nearly impossible to know all of the intricacies of international law, customs, or the unique business challenges facing your company. The good news—you don’t have to. The reality is that ignorance of international law is not what gets you in trouble . . . facts do. Case in point, see Wal-Mart’s bribery scandal in Mexico.

Here are six habits you already know and should put into practice to reduce the risks of bad facts leading to future international litigation:

1. Watch What You Put in Email

You are in charge of an international project and the pressure is mounting. Your foreign counterparts seek written assurances. So, you go on the record via email stating definitively and unequivocally the company’s position. Years later and, with hindsight, you learn you were wrong and it comes back to bite you in litigation. Or maybe you feel especially close to your Brazilian counter-part after a night of food and drinks, so you share information via email about your company’s “issues.” That email is later produced in litigation and becomes evidence against your company.

Remember, emails live on forever and travel . . . fast! Like water leaks, emails go unnoticed until the full impact of their damage emerges years later.

This is basic, but often key in litigation. If you are doing business overseas: watch your tone, grammar, use of local colloquialisms, or use of vague undefined terms (e.g. “material” breach). Avoid definitive words like: “always,” “never,” or “definitely.” Give yourself margin for error. If you are assuming, say so in your email. If you still need approval for your written position, note as much in the email. Ask yourself, “is what I am writing something I would be okay having blown up on an overhead projector in court?” If so, send away.

2. Write Facts Down and Do So Clearly

The fear of bad facts or cross-examination should not deter you from writing. Given the language barriers of international work, communication is vital to your success. So, you should write emails and correspondence. But how? The key is clarity of facts.

This means, writing facts, not conclusions or opinions. When you portray facts, be objective and detail-oriented. For example, retell the other side’s position and your company’s response. Don’t assume that the other side will stick to the same story they told you orally, so document it.

However, you are often called to make conclusions or state an opinion. When you do, make sure you identify why, the process leading to the conclusion/opinion, and what factors could change your initial viewpoint.

Litigation is drama and international litigation is drama on a global scale where each side gives their “story.” Take the lead and document the “real story” by writing it down. When you do, and litigation erupts, a litigator like me can clearly and persuasively tell your story.

3. Respect Cultural Sensitivities, But Don’t Be Afraid to Follow Up

You are in meetings with your counter-parts in Asia and essential business issues come up. Yet, you are concerned about being culturally sensitive and not losing “face.” So, you let the issue pass and put it on your to-do list. As the days pass, hundreds of other “to-do” issues join it on your list and you forget.

Respect cultural sensitivities, but always follow-up. Better yet, document it, follow-up over the phone or in person, and document what you did. I have seen clients’ major multi-million dollar litigation matters get sidetracked because an executive failed to follow-up on a legitimate concern and subsequently “waived” the issue.

4. Be a Gatekeeper and Assert Your Contractual Rights

Companies and their executives fly to the moon to strike an international deal that benefits the company. They hire great lawyers to put in all the bells and whistles to protect their business interests. Yet, when the deal meets the reality of daily business life, gravity takes over and the precious rights protected in the contract fall flat to earth.

If you are the executive sent overseas to manage the project or handle the international distribution business, become the gatekeeper. That means: read the previously negotiated contract, understand it, ask questions about it, know it intimately, and then follow the terms of the contract.

If the contract gives you the right to documents from the foreign company, politely, but firmly get your documents. If the contract calls for a delivery schedule, follow it and insist the other side do the same. If the contract requires your foreign counterpart to act a certain way, do a number of things, or behave within the confines of a certain standard, make sure they do.

Your failure to know your contract and follow it, could waive important rights, change the terms of the contract, and create multiple avenues of arguments for the other side. This could come to haunt you later when you are back in the United States and the project you were in charge of heads to litigation.

5. Ask Questions, Look Around, and Gather Information

Maybe the most important and underused tool in your arsenal to reduce the risk of overseas business leading to litigation is to ask questions.

As you undertake your overseas assignment, you will notice that some things don’t make sense. When this happens, ask questions. Who is the foreign executive you are dealing with? What is his role in the company? Why is he asking you to meet with him and a foreign government official at a swanky resort? Could this be a problem? Maybe, but you will never know where you and your company stand unless you ask questions.

While you are asking questions, look around. If you are managing a construction project in Qatar, get on the ground and look at the project site. Don’t rely on others to tell you what is happening, see it for yourself. Open your eyes . . . is anything off? What’s there that shouldn’t be there? What isn’t there that should be there? If you know your contract (as in Tip 4 above), you will know what doesn’t look right.

Gather readily available information. The reality is that international litigation becomes very difficult and expensive from the United States when all of the evidence remains overseas. So, if you hear your foreign counter-part discuss a “regulation,” “policy,” or “contract” that they are relying on, ask to have a copy . . . and actually get it. Doing so will give your company an advantage in discovery if litigation ensues.

In the end, use your senses. What do you see and hear? Does it smell or feel right? If not, take note, ask questions, and gather information as it occurs.

6. Seek Advice

Note, it is wise to seek advice on international law when doing business overseas. Whether you are working on an international investment deal,cross border real estate transaction, want to protect your intellectual property, or are worried about immigration exposure, it is good business to get counsel.

Article By:

 of