Afridi & Angell’s James Bowden highlights four of the latest legal updates.
In the past year the UAE saw an unusual number of important legislative developments. For this feature, we have picked a few of the key developments to summarise briefly. This is by no means exhaustive.
International arbitration as a method of dispute resolution is constantly growing in complexity and sophistication, and has become a universally-respected mechanism globally, which requires excellent legal counsel.
Achieving excellence in dispute resolution is what has driven LALIVE, since its foundation over 50 years ago, to evolve into a truly international firm, with a group comprised of 36 practitioners exclusively practising international commercial and investment arbitration, who together speak more than a dozen languages, and whose legal expertise covers Switzerland and several key jurisdictions around the world. It is currently considered to be among the top ten arbitration practices worldwide.
Continue reading “ARBITRATION: Excellence in international arbitration”
Cogence Search’s Mark Husband on London litigation.
TripAdvisor has declared London the ‘number one destination on Earth’ for 2016, beating Paris, New York and Rome for the honour. For international corporates, London is an attractive jurisdiction in which to litigate or arbitrate disputes, offering quality legal services as well as a multinational/multilingual talent pool, a variety of funders and funding options, top-tier hotels and cultural attractions.
Continue reading “‘Earth has not anything to show more fair’”
Kobre & Kim’s Robert Henoch and Michael Ng discuss third-party financing.
Outward-facing Israeli companies often find themselves facing off against larger, deep-pocketed adversaries, such as joint venture partners, investors, distributors, customers, licensees, or those who have infringed on their intellectual property (IP) rights. When this happens, well-financed opponents can leverage the threatened expenses of the legal process in their home countries to destroy the rights of smaller Israeli companies. Third-party litigation funding offers a potential solution for Israeli companies to vindicate their legal rights under such circumstances.
Continue reading “Litigation funding: Levelling the playing field”
HFN’s Alan Sacks highlights the economic inequality issue.
Despite the obvious successes of the Israeli business sector – driven by Israel’s extraordinary achievements in the technology arena – there are clearly systemic problems in the economy. There are few who begrudge the sudden wealth of hi-tech entrepreneurs who secure an ‘exit’ for their technology and knowhow. The situation changes though when the disparity between rich and poor is highlighted, and when large sections of the public feel that a limited group of individuals is growing rich at their expense.
Yigal Arnon’s Barry Levenfeld discusses tech sector exits.
Do Israeli companies exit too early? Some, primarily government officials, but also esteemed academics, think so. Israeli technology companies should resist being sold, they say. Instead, the companies should develop into global giants, employ thousands of Israelis – including those without advanced computer science degrees – and thereby enhance their contribution to the Israeli economy. The most recent salvo came from Manuel Trajtenberg, a Knesset member and respected economist, who warned at a conference: ‘The exits we applaud today are a disaster for the state of Israel.’ And then, twisting the knife further, he added: ‘A handful of people grow rich by selling the future of the nation.’
Homburger’s Andri Hess details the Nagoya Ordinance.
Switzerland is a member of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and signed the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization on 11 May 2011. The Nagoya Protocol pursues the implementation of the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilisation of genetic resources, which is the third of the three core objectives of the CBD. On 1 February 2016, the main parts of the Swiss implementing ordinance (Nagoya Ordinance) entered into force.
Continue reading “Compliance obligations: genetic resources”
With the growth of enforcement activity worldwide, companies are being forced to create or adapt their internal structures and incorporate stricter, more sophisticated risk and compliance management systems, to detect and prevent legal risks and address any wrongdoing that could result in the infringement of domestic or international regulations.
The team at LALIVE, an international law firm renowned for its expertise and experience in international legal matters, in particular dispute resolution, investigations and regulatory advisory services, has been helping clients to successfully navigate and adapt to international regulations for the past 15 years. LALIVE has built a robust business crime defence and investigations practice, led by four partners based in Geneva and Zürich, all established practitioners with strong track records in domestic and cross-border litigation, international investigations, business crime defence as well as best-practice risk and compliance management, who combine an excellent understanding of the legal environment and enforcement agency processes, and practice in Switzerland and abroad.
Continue reading “INVESTIGATIONS: Successfully navigating challenging international regulations”
Bär & Karrer’s Christoph Neeracher and Luca Jagmetti advise on the new rules.
As part of a new Swiss legislation aimed at preventing money laundering and tax evasion, any entity acquiring 25% or more of a non-listed Swiss company must inform the latter regarding the acquiring entity’s beneficial owner and update such information in case of changes.
In standard private equity structures, the administrative burden of the new legislation can be minimised by implementing a practicable solution compliant with the rules. As typically the general partner (GP) takes the relevant decisions regarding the fund and its portfolio companies, the individuals controlling the GP (respectively controlling the ultimate shareholder of the GP) should be disclosed as beneficial owners. If such individuals cannot be determined, the top executive officer (chair or chief executive) of the GP, or respectively of its ultimate shareholder, may be disclosed.
Continue reading “Beneficial ownership in Swiss PE acquisitions”
Nick Grandage and Daniel Franks of Norton Rose Fulbright discuss major developments over the last year in finance law.
