Tag: International Law

Politics and Consequences: An Update on U.S. Sanctions Against Iran

Sheppard Mullin 2012

Since Hassan Rouhani’s election to the Iranian presidency, some U.S. leaders have expressed interest in diplomatic talks with Iran.  It is currently unclear whether any such talks will ever occur, or on what terms.  In the face of ongoing uncertainty, the U.S. sanctions program against Iran has continued to develop in a piecemeal sometimes inconsistent fashion.

More Restrictive Sanctions: Executive Order 13645

On June 3, 2013, President Obama’s Executive Order 13645 authorized sanctions against foreign financial institutions that conduct or facilitate significant transactions in the Iranian Rial or that provide support to Iranian persons on the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list.  Under the Executive Order, the Secretary of Treasury may prohibit those financial institutions from opening or maintaining a correspondent or payable through account and may block the institutions’ property in the United States.

Less Restrictive Provisions

Notwithstanding the restrictions in EO 13645, there remains some room for engaging in business with Iran in some sectors.

The Executive Order itself is restricted to certain types of transactions.  A foreign financial institution engaged in transactions involving petroleum products from Iran may be subject to restrictions on its accounts in the United States only if the President of the United States determines there is a sufficient supply of such products from countries other than Iran.  The same sanctions apply to a natural gas transaction only if the transaction is solely for trade between Iran and the country with primary jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution, and any funds owed to Iran as a result of the trade are credited to an account located in the latter country.

The prohibition against significant foreign financial transactions for SDNs does not apply to transactions for the provision of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices to Iran, or to transactions involving a natural gas project described in section 603(a) of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012.

On July 25, the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) followed in the wake of the Executive Order, issuing a General License for the exportation or reexportation of medicine and basic medical supplies to Iran.  OFAC delineated the scope and limitations of the authorization via a list of frequently asked questions and new guidance, and updated section 560.530(a)(3)(i) of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations to reflect the change.

Under the new regulations, the sale of food, medicine, and medical devices by U.S. persons or from the United States to Iran, and the sale of food, agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices to Iran by non-U.S. persons are not subject to U.S. sanctions.  The financing or facilitation of such sales by non-U.S. persons do not trigger sanctions either, so long as the transaction does not involve certain specifically proscribed conduct or designated persons (such as Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or a designated Iranian bank).  Iranian oil revenues held in Central Bank of Iran or non-designated Iranian bank accounts at foreign banks, for example, may be used to finance exports of food, agricultural commodities, medicine, or medical devices to Iran from the country in which the account is held or from any other foreign country.

Separately, On September 10, OFAC issued two new general licenses. General License E authorizes nongovernmental organizations to export or reexport services to or related to Iran in support of specific not-for-profit activities designed to directly benefit the Iranian people.  The enumerated activities include those aimed at basic human needs, post-disaster reconstruction, environmental and wildlife conservation, human rights, and democracy.

General License F permits the importation into the United States, exportation from the United States, or other dealing in Iranian-origin services related to professional and amateur sporting activities and exchanges involving the United States and Iran.  The authorized activities include those related to matches and events, sponsorship of players, coaching, refereeing, and training.

Conclusion

The recent Executive Order and General Licenses highlight a fundamental fact about U.S. sanctions programs: because they are subject to unilateral executive control, changes can be sweeping and abrupt.  It remains to be seen whether the United States will engage in increased diplomacy with Iran.  But what is clear is that shifting geopolitical realities are sure to alter the future course of the Iran sanctions program and to carry real consequences for U.S. and foreign businesses.

It’s Time to Register for the 2015 Diversity Immigrant Visa Lottery!

MintzLogo2010_Black

On October 1, 2013, the U.S. Department of State will begin accepting requests to register for the 2015 Diversity Immigrant Visa Program (DV-2015), also known as the Green Card Lottery. The Diversity Lottery Program provides a path for foreign nationals to become permanent residents of the United States regardless of whether they have a family member or an employer willing to sponsor them. This program is a success, facilitating the immigration of people from across the globe. If you meet the eligibility requirements and wish to secure permanent residence status in the United States, you should consider registration in the lottery.

Registration begins October 1, 2013

The State Department will open online registration for the DV 2015 Program on Tuesday, October 1, 2013 at 12:00 noon, Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) (GMT-4), and conclude on Saturday, November 2, 2013 at 12:00 noon, Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) (GMT-4). Individuals who meet the eligibility requirements and submit an application during the appointed time will be entered into a lottery from which 55‚000 green card entries will be selected. Applications must be submitted electronically by 12:00 noon EST on Saturday‚ November 2‚ 2013. Detailed instructions are athttp://travel.state.gov/pdf/DV_2015_Instructions.pdf. There is no fee to register for consideration in the lottery. Entries may not be submitted through the U.S. Postal Service.

Am I eligible for a green card if I am selected in the lottery?

Selection in the lottery does not guarantee the applicant a green card; applicants must still meet all standards for admissibility and be able to process their green cards within the allotted time. Immediate family members of successful lottery applicants are eligible for green cards as well, provided they meet the same admissibility standards. Individuals who are selected and eligible for one of the 55,000 visa numbers may either secure an immigrant visa at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate or, if they are in the United States and qualified to do so, adjust their status by filing an application and supporting documentation with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

What countries are eligible?

Lottery visas are apportioned to foreign nationals hailing from the following six geographic regions: Africa; Asia; Europe; North America; Oceania; and South America‚ Central America, and the Caribbean. To qualify‚ a foreign national must claim nativity or country of birth in an eligible country and meet certain education or work experience requirements. The purpose of the program is to diversify and encourage immigration from countries that send lower numbers of immigrants to the United States.

Not all countries in the six eligible regions fall within the Green Card Lottery program. Because each of the following countries has sent more than 50‚000 immigrants to the United States in the past five years, natives of these countries will not be eligible for the DV 2015 Lottery: Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, China (mainland-born), Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, South Korea, United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and Vietnam.

For the coming year, Nigeria was added to this list of countries ineligible for the lottery.

How do I know if I was selected in the lottery?

Official notifications of selection will be made through Entrant Status Check, available starting May 1, 2014, through at least June 30, 2015, on the E-DV website: www.dvlottery.state.gov. Please note that the Department of State does not send selectee notifications or letters by regular postal mail or by e-mail. Any e-mail notification or mailed letter stating that you have been selected to receive a DV does not come from the Department of State and is not legitimate. Any e-mail communication you receive from the Department of State will direct you to review Entrant Status Check for new information about your application.

Article By:

 of

The Financial Crises in Detroit and Spain and a New Round of Deaccessioning Debates

Sheppard Mullin 2012

When public institutions are suffering from financial deficits, one question is usually raised: can they sell art to survive? In the museum world it is generally understood that you are to deaccession art only if the work is duplicative of another work in the collection, or for similar collections-related reasons, and the sale proceeds are used exclusively for collections activities. Therefore, for example, you cannot seek to sell art to obtain sufficient liquidity to meet any financial obligation, or make debt service payments. There is little government regulation on deaccessioning (for example, the NY Board of Regents has the power to provide limitations on deaccessioning on New York museums chartered after 1890). However, private institutions such as the American Alliance of Museums (“AAM”) and the Association of Art Museum Directors (“AAMD”) have adopted for their members certain policy guidelines on deaccessioning. Their members are subject to sanctions such as censure, suspension and/or expulsion in the event they do not follow these guidelines.

This is the debate currently happening in the city of Detroit, which has recently filed for bankruptcy, and countries in Europe such as Spain, where steep cuts in its budget have affected state-sponsored museums such as the Prado museum.

As for Detroit’s bankruptcy, some have argued whether the Detroit Institute of Arts (“DIA”) should sell its artwork, yielding an estimate of $2 billion (the city of Detroit has a $20 billion debt). The DIA has 600,000 annual visitors and a collection of approximately 65,000 artworks. Michigan’s attorney general, Bill Schuette, has stated that DIA’s artworks were ‘held in trust for the public’ and could only be sold for the purpose of acquiring new art. Others have claimed that the collection should be sold to refrain Detroit’s retired employees from losing part of their pensions.

From a bankruptcy law perspective, municipalities, unlike businesses, cannot be forced to liquidate their municipal assets (the concept which provides that if a debtor wishes to reorganize it must provide creditors with at least as much as they would get in liquidation does not apply to municipalities). A municipal restructuring plan cannot be approved unless it complies with state law, and as mentioned above, Michigan’s attorney general issued a non-binding opinion stating that the artworks were held in trust for the citizens of Michigan, and thus cannot be sold.

As for Spain, the Spanish Official Gazette has published the annual statements of the Prado museum and one thing is clear: art is not immune to Spain’s recession. Patronage from the Spanish government had a 28% drop (from approximately €6.6 million to €4.8 million) in the last 2 years. However, rather than deaccessioning, this drop has been set off by increasing its international loans. Therefore, the museum authorities allocated these foreign loans receipts as deemed patronage, and this has allowed the museum to stabilize its balance sheet. The annual statements report that the main private sponsors for temporary exhibitions were Axa, Telefónica, BBVA and La Caixa, who contributed a total aggregate amount of €625,000. However, the statements do not specify how much the museums actually invested in setting up such temporary exhibitions. The Contemporary Art Institute (Instituto de Arte Contemporáneo) has been criticizing the lack of transparency in museums and art galleries that receive sponsorship or other type of financial assistance from the state. This Institute has created standards of best practices for contemporary art museums (the “Standards”), which attempt to follow the path of the AAM’s National Standards and Best Practices for U.S. Museums (see http://www.aam-us.org/resources/ethics-standards-and-best-practices/standards and http://www.iac.org.es/seguimiento-del-documento-de-buenas-practicas/documento-de-buenas-practicas-en-museos-y-centros-de-arte).

Spain’s Ministry of Culture was actively involved in drafting these Standards, which were revised and signed in 2007 by the Ministry of Culture, the Contemporary Art Institute, and other prestigious institutions, such as ADACE (Association of Directors of Contemporary Art in Spain), CG (the Consortium of Contemporary Art Galleries), UAAV (the Association of Visual Artists), CCAV (the Board of Critics of Visual Arts), and UAGAE (the Association of Art Galleries of Spain). As in the United States, the Standards are voluntary. The pressure by funders, regulators, the press and the public may be considerable, but museums still choose to follow, or not, the Standards. As of this date, of all 50 museums ranked by the Contemporary Art Institute, only two museums comply with the Standards’ minimum requirements: the Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía and the Artium.

Spain is also trying to overcome the steep cuts in state subsidies and public grants for art institutions by enacting a bill that will heavily increase tax benefits for museum’s private donors (mirroring the French system) through the Patronage Act (Ley de Mecenazgo). If this bill is passed, tax deductions will increase from 25% to 70% for natural persons, and from 35% to 65% for legal persons. Moreover, small donations of less than €150 will be fully deductible. The aim is to achieve France’s success, where revenues increased from €150 million to € 683 million in a seven-year period (2004 to 2011).

In conclusion, the vast majority of museums are nonprofit and ask for public support in return for providing some kind of public good. Thus, it is essential that museums are broadly accountable for their conduct, in particular in times of recession.

Should they sell part of their collection, or should they choose Spain’s path? i.e. advocate for a subset of artworks in the collection to be sent on a 10-year tour (or less) to museums around the world, receiving a revenue stream while having part of its collection available for the public as a representative and emissary of the city of Detroit? Or is there another path?

Article By:

 of

International Group Structures Are Subject to An Ongoing Review for Optimizing Their Tax Position

GT Law

The recent trends show that offshore jurisdictions are off the corporate agenda in view of the increased scrutiny and decreased levels of acceptance from both fiscal and corporate social responsibility perspectives. Client feedback confirms the following rationale for moving corporate tax planning solutions onshore:

  • Increased scrutiny on tax havens and statutory requirements regarding tax substance, potential issues concerning withholding tax and taxation of foreign profits; and
  • Avoiding overtly complicated tax systems with strict CFC (controlled foreign company) regulations, thin capitalization rules and prohibitive transfer tax applicability.

It is a well-known fact that the Netherlands is not a tax haven but a safe haven and a logical choice as an alternative with an extensive double taxation treaty network. In addition, the Netherlands has an extensive bilateral investment protection treaty network that is regarded to provide premium coverage in view of the broad definition of “investor” and “investment” and providing access to dispute resolution through arbitration against independent states and awards that are enforceable against states, often referred to as “the Dutch Gold Standard.” Dutch structures are increasingly a recurring feature in international corporate structures for the purpose of protecting key corporate and personal assets. In this GT Alert, we briefly set out the options for migrating a corporate structure to the Netherlands to benefit from the all of the features that the Netherlands has to offer.

How to Achieve a Corporate Migration

Migrating a corporate entity within the EU into the Netherlands is a straightforward process from a Dutch law perspective. The following options are available:

Registration of an EU member state entity with the Dutch Trade Registry

The tax residence of an existing holding company can often be changed by moving its place of effective management and control outside of its existing jurisdiction for tax purposes. This may trigger a tax charge on exit.

Cross border merger

EU parent companies can migrate to the Netherlands by effecting a statutory merger with a Dutch entity under the cross-border merger regulations. It is also possible for non-EU parent companies to merge with a Dutch company by initially entering into the EU through a conduit EU jurisdiction that permits cross-border mergers with non-EU entities.

Share swap

It is possible to incorporate a holding company in the Netherlands whereby the existing shareholders exchange their existing shares for shares in the newly created Dutch holding company.

Re-registration as Societas Europaea 

An EU parent company can re-register as a European Company (Societas Europaea) and transfer its statutory seat to the Netherlands followed by a re-registration in the Netherlands as a Dutch parent company.

Why migrate to the Netherlands?

Key drivers for migrating the top holding company of an international group structure to the Netherlands are:

  • Low corporate income tax rate of 25% on trading profits (20% up to EUR 200K first band);
  • The Netherlands has an extensive double taxation treaty network with well over 90 jurisdictions;
  • The Netherlands has entered into a vast number of bilateral investment protection treaties (BITS) that offer comprehensive protection against unfair treatment of investments by sovereign states through access to world class dispute arbitration;
  • International and well-recognized jurisdiction with one-tier corporate governance system similar to that of common law countries;
  • Straightforward, cost-efficient and fast incorporation process for Dutch entities;
  • Public company N.V. entities are widely recognized as listing vehicles;
  • The Netherlands is the premier port of entry to mainland Europe with excellent facilities in terms of corporate and financial services;
  • English language optional for proceedings before the Amsterdam courts; and
  • Limited and straightforward corporate reporting requirements.

Taxation

The Netherlands is a gateway to Europe and the rest of the world. For many years, the Netherlands has been a preferred location for foreign companies to establish a business. The location, the political stability and, especially, the beneficial tax regime have turned the Netherlands into one of the go-to countries in this respect. The following tax points are of particular relevance:

  • The general Dutch corporate income tax rate is 25% (20% up to EUR 200K first band). This rate is more than competitive in the region, as all countries surrounding the Netherlands have higher corporate income tax rates.
  • Traditionally, the Dutch participation exemption has been a major attractor of companies to the Netherlands. This facility allows the receipt of dividends and capital gains from subsidiaries free of tax in the Netherlands. The Dutch facility is still one of the most flexible and easy accessible compared to other jurisdictions, especially, with regard to the following conditions: no holding period is required, an interest of 5% is already sufficient to apply, interest in subsidiaries located in tax havens are allowed to benefit from the facility and certain other specific benefits are available.
  • No withholding tax on royalties and no withholding tax on interest.
  • Dividends are taxed at a statutory rate of 15%. However, this rate may be reduced by virtue of tax treaties to 0-10%. In principle, no dividend withholding tax applies to distributions made by a Dutch cooperative pursuant to the domestic rules.
  • No controlled foreign company/Subpart F rules
  • No thin capitalization rules.
  • There is no stamp duty or capital tax.
  • One of the most extensive international tax treaty networks (the Netherlands has concluded over 90 tax treaties, more than most other countries) and the membership of the EU (and corresponding access to EU treaties) ascertain minimal taxation on payments to any group company.
  • Another traditional benefit of the Netherlands is the open attitude of the Dutch tax authorities. The Netherlands offers the possibility to discuss and reach agreement on tax positions in advance with the Dutch tax authorities that can be formalized in agreements (or advance tax rulings) to offer optimum certainty in advance.
  • Currently, the Dutch government´s main focus is on innovation. In 2007, the government was one of the first countries to introduce a special tax regime aimed at innovation (Innovation box). Based on the Innovation box, income earned out of R&D activities can benefit from an 80% exemption, resulting in an effective tax rate of 5%;
  • The Netherlands has extensive experience in the use of hybrid structures (i.e. hybrid entities and hybrid loans). These structures can be used to further optimize the group tax rate.
  • The Netherlands has traditionally not only been very welcoming to foreign companies, but also to expatriates. In the Dutch Personal Income Tax Act, expatriates (with certain skills) can receive 30% of their income as a tax free allowance under the so-called “30%-ruling.” A benefit that also benefits the employer in negotiating (net) salaries.
  • Customs authorities in the Netherlands have a reputation for being cooperative, innovative and exceptionally efficient; all to facilitate the free flow of goods. Customs duties or import charges are charged at a later date, if the goods are stored in accordance with customs procedures in the Netherlands. This leads to considerable cash-flow advantages to foreign shippers.
  • The Netherlands’ position on Value Added Tax (VAT) is also advantageous. In contrast to other EU member states, the Netherlands has instituted a system that provides for the deferment of VAT at the time of import. Instead of paying VAT when the goods are imported into free circulations within the EU, the payment can be deferred to a periodic VAT return. The Dutch VAT system offers companies significant cash-flow and interest benefits.
  • Even though the Netherlands provides several unparalleled tax facilities, it is not blacklisted as a tax haven, but can be considered as a safe haven.
Article By:

 of

Is a Limited Liability Company (LLC) good for Canadians buying in the U.S.?

Altro Levy Logo

If you are Canadian, the answer to that question is: it depends.

People purchasing real estate in the U.S. are faced with different challenges depending on whether they plan on using the property personally or renting it. In this article, we will address the latter issue and its different implications.

A Tax Efficient Structure

There are two main issues to be considered when renting property in the U.S.; income tax and liability. Because rental properties generate income, it is necessary to determine the most tax efficient structure in which to hold the property. On the other hand, because a third party (most likely a tenant) will be using the property, it is essential to create a structure that also offers creditor protection to protect against potential civil liability claims from such third party. A limited liability company (LLC) provides both those elements.

In the U.S., an LLC allows a purchaser to benefit from the low individual tax rates and therefore avoid the higher corporate tax rates inherent to owning property in a corporation. A corporation is an independent taxpayer and is taxed at a higher rate. However, an LLC is not an independent taxpayer but rather a “flow through” entity, which means that its revenue is taxed in the hands of its owner. Therefore, if the owner is an individual, the LLC’s revenue is taxed at the low individual rate.

Creditor Protection

Although one of the main goals of tax planning is to minimize tax, the main advantage of the LLC is creditor protection. When owning property in your personal name, you are exposed to liability claims from creditors such as a tenant who may have suffered injuries on your property while renting it. Should a judgement be rendered against you finding you liable for the injuries, the creditor could seek execution of this judgment not only against your U.S. property but also against the rest of your assets. However, when owning property in an LLC, only the assets in your LLC (i.e. your U.S. property) are within reach of the creditor.

The Issue for Canadian Buyers

After reading this, you may be thinking an LLC is the best solution for your U.S. real estate purchase. Unfortunately this structure can be disastrous for Canadian residents due to double taxation. Under the Canada-U.S. Tax Treaty, a Canadian resident is granted foreign tax credits for any tax paid to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). Those credits can be used to offset the tax owed to the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) on the same revenue or capital gain. Although the IRS considers the LLC as a flow through entity and taxes only the owner personally, the CRA does not recognize the flow through nature of the LLC but rather considers it a separate taxpayer, therefore creating a mismatch on said foreign tax credits. In this type of situation, the CRA will tax the owner of the property on the full amount of the revenue or capital gain and will not allow the use of any foreign tax credits for what was paid to the IRS. This is the known and dreaded double taxation. The owner of the property will pay taxes twice on the same revenue or capital gain, once in the U.S. and once in Canada. Depending on the values and amounts involved, Canadian residents can be required to pay in excess of 70% of taxes on their property income or capital gain due to double taxation. In extreme circumstances, this rate can even climb up to 80%.

That being said, even though LLCs should be avoided in the above-described situation, LLCs can be a valuable tool in a carefully planned structure. As general partner of a Limited Partnership for example. When used in such a structure, an LLC can help provide an extra layer of creditor protection to a Canadian resident while creating very limited tax consequences.

As you probably realised by now, the way you own property in the U.S. is crucial and putting your asset(s) in the wrong structure can lead to very unpleasant surprises. Always talk to a cross-border legal advisor before making any decisions in order to make sure you are aware of all the tax implications.

Article By:

 of

Argentina Legal Highlights (Volume II, 2013)

Beveridge Diamond Logo

Latin American Region Enviromental Report, Second Quarter, 2013

Packaging Waste Management Bill Introduced in Chamber of Deputies

On April 11, 2013, a bill (No. 1859-D-2013; the “Bill”) was introduced in the Chamber of Deputies that would create a national, comprehensive packaging-waste management system. The Bill would apply to most packaging and packaging waste, and would regulate most entities that are involved with the packaging of products, the marketing of packaged goods, or the recycling or recovery of packaging waste. (Arts. 2, 7) A covered entity could comply with its responsibilities through one of two methods. (Art. 9) One option would allow it to pay a fee and participate in a provincially or municipally administered Packaging-Waste Management Program (Programa de Gestión de Residuos de Envases), which would set requirements for collection, transportation, temporary storage, processing, and recovery of packaging waste. (Arts. 10-23) Alternatively, a covered entity could administer its own government-approved Deposit and Return System (Sistema de Depósito, Devolución y Retorno). (Arts. 24-26) The Bill was referred to the committees on Industry, Natural Resources and Conservation of the Human Environment, and Budget and Finance.

Reference Sources (in Spanish):

Battery Waste Bill Introduced in Chamber of Deputies

On April 25, 2013, a battery waste management bill (No. 1859-D-2013; the “Bill”) was introduced in the Chamber of Deputies. The Bill would cover nearly all batteries, with the exception of industrial and car batteries. (Art. 2) Most of the obligations established by the Bill would fall on battery producers: i.e., manufacturers, importers, brand owners, and resellers. These companies would be responsible for collection and management of battery waste and required to implement one of the following waste-management options: (a) establishing their own Individual Battery Waste Management System (Sistema de Gestión Individual de Residuos de Pilas y Acumuladores ); (b) participate in an Integrated Battery Waste Management System (Sistema Integrado de Gestión de Residuos de Pilas y Acumuladores); or (c) establish a deposit-and-return system. (Art. 5) Regardless of the option chosen, approval of the Secretariat of Environment and Sustainable Development (Secretaría de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable) would be required. (Arts. 6-8) The Bill would also set standards for battery collection, treatment, recycling, and disposal (Arts. 9-10), impose labeling requirements (Art. 15), and require equipment manufacturers to make battery removal easy (Art. 16). Under the Bill, as under current Argentine law, used batteries would be deemed hazardous by definition, and thereby subject to Argentina’s extensive restrictions on transport, storage and handling of hazardous wastes. (Art. 3)

Reference Sources (in Spanish):

Article By:

 of

Mexico Legal Highlights (Volume II, 2013)

Beveridge Diamond Logo

Latin American Region Enviromental Report, Second Quarter, 2013

Mexico Enacts Landmark Environmental Liability Law

On June 7, 2013, Mexico published its long-awaited Federal Environmental Liability Law (Ley Federal de Responsabilidad Ambiental; the “Law”), establishing the types of harms that incur liability and specifying which parties have standing to sue for environmental restoration.  The scope of occurrences that create liability under the Law is broad: “Any person or entity who by act or omission directly or indirectly occasions a harm to the environment, will be liable and will be obligated for the reparation of the harm or, when reparation is not possible, to environmental compensation.”  (Art. 10)  The Law provides important exceptions, stating that “environmental harm” is not deemed to have occurred if: (1) the activity that caused it was previously authorized through an environmental impact assessment process; or (2) the limits (i.e., of emissions, etc.) established by the relevant laws or regulations were not exceeded.  (Art. 6)  Where there is a qualifying activity and harm, the Law grants standing to the following: (1) the inhabitant of the community adjacent to the environmental harm; (2) Mexican environmental non-profit organizations; (3) the federal government through its environmental prosecution office (Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente; commonly known as “PROFEPA”); and (4) the state governments through their prosecutorial offices or institutions that exercise environmental protection functions.  (Art. 28)

The Law enumerates the factors that judges must observe in the issuance of judgments, both in determining the appropriate measure of liability (Art. 39) and in the elements that a judicial decision must contain (Art. 37).  Rather than money damages, the principal restoration due under the Law is either remediation of the harm or “compensatory” investment in other environmental improvements.  For cases of intentional causation of environmental harm, in addition to requiring restoration, courts may assess “economic sanctions” (apparently a counterpart to punitive damages) ranging from 300 to 50,000 (for individuals) or 1,000 to 600,000 (for companies) times the daily minimum wage in Mexico City.  (Art. 19)  The Law provides for two forums in addition to the existing court system: first, the Law envisions the creation of District courts specialized in environmental issues to be established within two years (Art. 30; Third Transitory Art.); second, the Law encourages the use of alternative dispute resolution in parallel with formal judicial proceedings (Arts. 47-51).   The statute of limitations for bringing actions under the Law is twelve years from the date on which the environmental harm and its effects were caused.  (Art. 29)

Reference Sources (in Spanish):

Mexico Regulates Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions

A new Official Mexican Standard (Norma Oficial Mexicana; “NOM”), NOM-163-SEMARNAT-ENER-SCFI-2013, limits the emissions of greenhouse gases allowed from passenger vehicles and light trucks sold in Mexico.  The emission limits are mandatory for new vehicles up to 3, 857 kilograms, and apply to the fleets of vehicles sold by a given company in model-years 2014-2016; however, companies that sell less than 500 vehicles per model-year are exempt.  (Art. 2)  The bulk of NOM-163 sets forth the parameters and methodology used to calculate corporate targets and actual averages of carbon dioxide emissions (reported in grams of carbon dioxide per kilometer) and its equivalent in terms of fuel efficiency (reported in kilometers per liter).  Companies that registered sales of between 501 and 2,500 vehicles in 2012 may opt for an alternative, potentially less stringent program that requires emissions reductions of approximately 25% from 2012 levels.  (Art. 6)  A credit system will be established in order to incentivize the use and development of high-efficiency vehicles.  (Art. 5.5.2)

Reference Sources (in Spanish):

Mexico Issues Product Stewardship Requirements for Plastics

Through a May 21, 2013, decree (the “Decree”) amending the General Law for the Prevention and Integral Management of Wastes (Ley General para la Prevención y Gestión Integral de los Residuos; the “Waste Law”), Mexico has enacted product stewardship requirements for plastics at both the beginning and end of their life.  The Decree provides for the issuance of Official Mexican Standards (Normas Oficiales Mexicanas; “NOMs”) that establish environmental and technical criteria for the plastic and expanded polystyrene materials used in products and packaging and which becomes wastes.  (Art. 7(VI))  The NOMs must consider the principles of reduction, recycling and reuse.  Unlike the technical standards of most countries, most NOMs stand as binding law (i.e., without being incorporated by legal provisions), so criteria developed in Mexico can potentially have a direct impact on materials used internationally.  At the end of life, the Decree subjects plastics and expanded polystyrene to the producer take-back requirements that apply to special management wastes.  (Art. 28)  For certain circumstances, plastics and expanded polystyrene had already been included in the regulation on special management waste take-back plans, NOM-161-SEMARNAT-2011, issued in February 2013.  Their inclusion in the Waste Law may be intended to backfill a legal gap, and could also be used as authority to expand take-back requirements for these materials.

Reference Sources (in Spanish):

Mexico Will Establish Voluntary Sustainability Certification for Goods and Services

On May 24, 2013, Mexico amended its General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection (Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección del Ambiente; “LGEEPA”) to provide for the establishment of a certification and labeling program for environmentally sustainable goods and services.  Specifically, LGEEPA now directs the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales; “SEMARNAT”) “to promote the identification of those products, goods, inputs and services with lesser environmental impact.”  (Art. 37 bis)  Such identification would be through a voluntary marking or certificate, and would have to be based on environmental criteria taking into account the life cycle of the product or service to be certified.  The new LGEEPA text also includes a broadly worded directive for SEMARNAT to issue regulations on the “requirements, specifications, conditions, procedures, goals, parameters and permissible limits that must be observed . . . in the use of natural resources, in the development of economic activities, in the production, use and disposition of goods, in inputs and in processes.”  (Art. 36)

Reference Sources (in Spanish):

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