Though not exactly a household name, Sergei Magnitsky has come to symbolize the American and Western efforts to combat foreign corruption and money laundering across the globe. Understanding these recent efforts is critical for general counsel operating in international markets.

Sergei Magnitsky was a Russian tax accountant who worked closely with one of Russia’s largest foreign investment firms. Magnitsky eventually uncovered a highly complex $230m fraud, whereby Russian officials used forged documents to claim ownership in the foreign fund and then sued the Russian government for millions in ‘overpaid taxes’, upon which the Russian courts speedily agreed and ‘repaid’. Magnitsky sued the Russian state and paid dearly: he was arrested at home in front of his children, imprisoned, contracted gall stones and pancreatitis, and was eventually beaten to death. What followed was an aggressive series of anti-corruption measures by the United States, the first of which included the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012. Commonly referred to as the Magnitsky Act, the law imposed economic sanctions on Russian officials thought to be responsible for his assassination.

So why is this so important for general counsel?  First, the scope. The original iteration of the Magnitsky Act froze Western assets of specific Russian oligarchs and officials, including finances and real estate, and also barred entry into the United States. But the Magnitsky Act has since evolved far beyond the borders of Russia. On 23 December 2016, the United States passed the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act (Global Magnitsky Act), which authorizes the president to impose economic sanctions on human rights abusers and corrupt government officials anywhere in the world.

Second, the Magnitsky Act and its global successor are about money, which is enforced on the international stage through economic sanctions. Economic sanctions are used by the United States to accomplish foreign policy and national security goals. The administration and enforcement of these sanctions are delegated to the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), a financial intelligence agency that operates under the US Department of the Treasury. Basically, economic sanctions are imposed on countries, governments or individuals that are hostile to US interests. The Cuban embargo and the Iran nuclear-related sanctions are probably the most famous examples of these sanctions. OFAC regulates activity within the Global Magnitsky Act and Magnitsky Act under 31 C.F.R. Parts 583 and 584, respectively.

General Counsel must therefore maintain a basic understanding as to how these laws operate in practice. An individual or entity sanctioned under the Magnitsky Act or the Global Magnitsky Act is summarily included in the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) List, a ‘blacklist’ maintained by OFAC. This occurs after an administrative investigatory process where the subject individual or entity has very limited opportunities, if any, to intervene in order to avoid being sanctioned.

Once an individual or entity is blacklisted by OFAC, all of its assets in the United States, or in possession or control of US persons, are blocked and cannot be dealt with in any way. A Magnitsky sanction is the equivalent of a blanket prohibition to engage in any transactions with the sanctioned individual or entity. These sanctions can be seen already, for example, in Latin America. In 2018, the United States used these sanctions to target government officials in Latin America, most recently against Nicaraguan officials of the Ortega regime (including Ortega’s wife, Vice President and First Lady Rosario Murillo) accused of committing serious human rights violations during the recent anti-government protests where hundreds of Nicaraguans where killed. And in 2017, the parent company for famed jeweler Cartier reached a $334,800 civil settlement with the United States after it shipped jewelry to Shuen Wai Holding Limited, an entity in Hong Kong that had been added to the SDN list in 2008. In 2018, OFAC added 17 Saudis to the SDN list following the killing of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

In light of these enforcement frameworks, here are some of the things that general counsel for companies involved in international business need to be aware of:

Companies engaged in international transactions must exercise great care to refrain from doing business with any individual or entity subject to Magnitsky sanctions. To complicate things further, OFAC has said that, pursuant to its so-called ‘50 Percent Rule’, the sanctions are also applicable to any entities directly or indirectly owned 50% or more in the aggregate by a sanctioned individual or entity. Even if the blacklisted individual or entity does not have an ownership interest in another entity, OFAC has warned that the mere fact that a sanctioned person is representing a non-sanctioned entity (albeit in a non-personal capacity) may lead to a violation.

Companies are strictly liable for violating these sanctions. ‘We did not know’ no matter how sincere, is not a defense. The penalties could be very harsh, including significant fines and imprisonment. Civil penalties of $295,141 or twice the amount of the transaction could be imposed under the Magnitsky Act. The Global Magnitsky Act proscribes penalties of up to 20 years in prison and a $1m fine. The Magnitsky sanctions make for risky business in many areas of the world.

Particular industries could be more susceptible to being identified under the Global Magnitsky Act. One general rule of thumb for identifying at-risk industries is FCPA compliance. Industries susceptible to Global Magnitsky Act violations often mirror those FCPA violations, such as energy, oil and gas, pharmaceuticals, and telecommunications.

Countries with a history of public corruption and human rights abuses warrant heightened scrutiny.

Strong compliance measures ensure adequate prevention and a swift reaction when a violation occurs. Like FCPA compliance, GCs should oversee a risk-based approach tailored to the business operations. And strong compliance begins with comprehensive screening.

Use experienced third-parties. Commercially available screening tools can aid effective screening. Some entities, particularly those owned or represented by a sanctioned individual or entity, can be harder to trace, because their names may not be included in OFAC’s SDN List.

These laws leave little room for error (and zero excuses). Significant investments in a robust compliance program that can conduct the most comprehensive due diligence available, while timely and expensive, will often pale in comparison to the price of violations that could have been avoided. 

See more from Polsinelli at: www.polsinelli.com

Introduction

As the COVID-19 pandemic creates significant uncertainty and unique challenges in the global investment environment, its impact on Latin America presents several opportunities for private equity funds. In navigating the new investment landscape with respect to their Latin American investment programs, there are number of corporate, finance and tax issues PE funds should consider before proceeding with Latin American acquisitions or increasing investment in existing portfolio assets. This article discusses certain tax structuring, transfer pricing, and tax compliance considerations relevant for PE funds holding Latin American portfolio assets or expanding their investment in Latin America.

Tax Structuring Considerations

Acquisition of Distressed Latin American Companies

PE funds are seeking acquisitions of distressed Latin American companies or those requiring capital infusions to survive the economic downturn. For example, targets include, among others, family-held companies with shareholders seeking liquidity or diversification, companies unable to restructure their debt or continue with an existing IPO plan, and real estate holding companies with immediate cash needs but steady revenue flows.

In structuring acquisitions of Latin American targets, PE funds must identify the appropriate vehicles through which to invest. For example, a PE fund might analyze whether it should establish a tax treaty structure to effect an acquisition. In a private equity context, the primary tax consideration for most fund managers is taxation on exit (ie capital gains tax). For example, among others, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Mexico generally impose, with some exceptions, tax upon the sale of shares by nonresident investors. Accordingly, funds might establish a Spanish or Dutch investment structure because of Spain and the Netherlands’ significant tax treaty network in Latin America, or structures with transparent investment vehicles such as Canadian limited partnerships (eg Alberta or Ontario) and certain Luxembourg entities. Funds might also consider establishing local investment vehicles to mitigate taxation on exit, such as Brazilian Fundos de Investimento em Participações (FIPs), which can eliminate Brazilian capital gains tax on exit (although such structure has been scrutinized by the Brazilian tax authorities in recent years). Fund sponsors are rightly concerned that exit taxes in Latin America can reduce a fund’s IRR, especially if some taxes are not creditable against taxes of fund investors.

Tax due diligence is as important as ever. Among other things, deal teams should carefully examine items such as operating loss carryovers, permanent establishment risk for multinational targets, tax compliance, accrued and outstanding income, payroll, and VAT tax liabilities etc. Also, a target’s receipt of government subsidies, credits, or other assistance in response to the global pandemic could restrict its ability to pay dividends or even alter the timing of a future exit. If indeed a target has received such assistance, funds must consider whether the proposed acquisition will jeopardize continued assistance or if a sale or change of control will require immediate repayment of such assistance.

Debt Restructuring and Acquisition of Portfolio Company Debt

Dealing with portfolio company debt is another area that has recently received significant attention. In order to preserve cash to meet operational needs, leveraged portfolio companies have developed strategies for managing their debt service, including working with lenders to obtain a combination of additional borrowings, forbearance and standstill agreements, and debt covenant waivers.

In order to ease the process with lenders, some PE funds have chosen to request capital calls to fund their struggling portfolio companies, while others have lent to their Latin American portfolio companies. Other PE fund groups have instead opted to acquire their portfolio companies’ third party debt. In certain cases, funds seek to acquire the debt at a discounted price and sell it at a premium when market conditions improve, while in other cases, the motivation is simply to maintain some modicum of control over a portfolio company’s debt service. Some funds have considered raising credit funds and/or establishing a special structure for that purpose, such as an Irish intermediation structure.

PE funds must address the Latin American tax consequences arising from each alternative for both the fund and the portfolio company. Some key considerations include:

• Cancellation of debt considerations. As part of a debt restructuring, portfolio companies must consider whether income or other taxes are imposed on any amount of cancelled debt.
• Deductibility of interest payments. To the extent a PE fund lends to a portfolio company or acquires its third party debt, the fund should consider whether the interest paid by the portfolio company is a tax deductible expense, particularly if the fund and the portfolio company are considered to be related or if the fund is organized in a low-tax jurisdiction as determined by local law.
• Withholding taxes. Withholding taxes imposed on interest payments must also be analyzed. Most Latin American jurisdictions, including Argentina, Colombia, and Mexico, impose withholding tax on interest paid to nonresident lenders. An income tax treaty may reduce the withholding tax rate for PE funds using a treaty platform for their Latin American investments. Spain and the Netherlands, for example, are jurisdictions commonly used by PE funds (and other investors) for investing in Latin America.

In addition to the considerations listed above, PE funds must also address transfer pricing concerns, particularly as it relates to whether the terms and conditions of related party debt is arm’s-length and otherwise compliant with local transfer pricing rules.

Transfer Pricing

Reviewing, updating and, if needed, revising transfer pricing arrangements is a method by which portfolio companies may preserve cash and otherwise manage tax positions. For instance, adherence to the arm’s-length principal, in conjunction with contractual provisions in intercompany agreements (e.g., force majeure), permits related parties to adjust their intercompany arrangements to reflect economic reality. For example, in the absence of an advantageous income tax treaty, many Latin American jurisdictions impose significant withholding taxes on service payments, royalties, and management/monitoring fees paid abroad. Analyzing existing arrangements may yield opportunities to mitigate or otherwise restructure the payments, resulting in potential tax savings.

In any case, as Latin American governments seek to raise revenue through taxes and increased tax audits, portfolio companies should ensure their transfer pricing documentation and cost-sharing policies are compliant with local country transfer pricing requirements and of course, reality. They should examine whether their transfer pricing has reacted to supply chain and operational changes brought on by the pandemic, and whether such changes require remedial changes to internal pricing of goods and services. While Chile, Colombia, and Mexico are the only Latin American members of the OECD, the domestic legislation of a number of Latin American jurisdictions contain many of the same or similar principles set forth in OECD transfer pricing guidance. For those Latin American jurisdictions that do not explicitly adopt OECD transfer pricing principles, such principles may serve as secondary or supplemental guidance in interpreting domestic transfer pricing legislation (eg Brazil).

In assessing transfer pricing risk, portfolio companies should examine their current intercompany transaction flow and supply chain and corresponding intercompany agreements. Mature portfolio companies with older transfer pricing policies may discover their intercompany transaction flow and supply chain has evolved over time, such that their intercompany agreements do not accurately reflect current reality. For example, the method of compensation (eg profit split, cost-plus etc) originally provided for in an agreement may no longer be appropriate. Similarly, an intercompany agreement may not describe services actually provided between related parties. Because it is common for government auditors to request intercompany agreements in connection with a transfer pricing audit, such auditors can seize on the fact that intercompany agreements are not being followed, are otherwise inconsistent with reality, or do not even exist.

Tax Compliance

As Latin American governments continue developing strategies for battling the pandemic, they are also developing strategies for an economic recovery. While the pandemic’s true cumulative economic impact is still very much unknown, past economic downturns show us that PE funds can expect to see increased audit activity within their portfolio of Latin American companies.

Accordingly, PE funds should work closely with the management of their Latin American portfolio companies to ensure they have a robust tax compliance program in place such that they are well positioned to defend against potential tax audits or avoid potential penalties of lax internal pricing and arm’s-length documentation. They should consider and reassess material uncertain tax positions that, if successfully challenged, could result in significant tax liability and substantial penalties.

Conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic will continue to generate significant challenges for many Latin American businesses, some of which sought additional funding and credit facilities from their shareholders and lenders, while others concluded filing for reorganization or bankruptcy is their only viable alternative. PE sponsors with Latin American investment programs face substantial challenges, but many others find investment opportunities notwithstanding the current economic environment. Addressing tax structuring, transfer pricing, and tax compliance considerations in Latin America is an important part of overcoming inevitable obstacles and seizing on new investment opportunities.

During COVID-19, the Peruvian government has approved transitory regulations that, by making the management of labor relations more flexible, have allowed the continuity of labor relationships. For example, the Emergency Decree extraordinarily allows employers to apply leave without payment to its employees, provided that it is approved by the Ministry of Labor. In addition, regulations for remote work have been issued, which have allowed employers to vary form face-to-face provision of services to home office, with a less rigid regulation than that of telework, which already existed in our legislation.

In any case, this flexibility has a temporary scope. Labor relations in Peru are mainly ruled by the provisions contained in the Labor Productivity and Competitiveness Law and by the labor case law. Peruvian labor laws and, above all, labor case law, have quite a protectionist slant toward employees. For example, according to Peruvian legislation, temporary hiring is an exception and, as such, it has various requirements for its validity, which are also strictly controlled by the authorities. In addition, the constitutional case law has determined that an employee can request his or her replacement in the event of an unjustified dismissal.

In fact, this is confirmed by the results of the World Economic Forum. The Global Competitiveness Report 2019, in which, of the 141 countries analyzed worldwide, Peru is in position 134 in terms of job placement and employees’ dismissal.

In addition, during the employment relationship, Peruvian legislation has provided several benefits to which employees in private activity are entitled:

(i) Remuneration: Employees shall receive a minimum wage of S/ 930.00 (Nine Hundred and Thirty and 00/100 Soles) if rendering services for an ordinary working day, (not exceeding of eight daily hours or 48 monthly hours). Reduced working hours shall be proportionally paid.

(ii) Family allowance: Family allowance shall be paid to employees having children under 18 years old or until the age of 24 if they are studying at college or university. The employees are entitled to receive an amount equivalent to 10% of the minimum wage (currently S/ 93.00), irrespective of the number of children the employee has).

(iii) Compensation for length of services: The purpose of this benefit is to serve as coverage in case of termination of employment. It is equivalent to 9.72% of the monthly remuneration approximately. It shall be paid in May and November by the employer in a bank account in the name of the employee.

(iv) Legal bonuses in July and December: Employees are entitled to the payment of two bonuses during the year, each one equal to one monthly salary. The bonuses are paid one in July and one in December, proportionally to the full months worked during the period.

(v) Extraordinary bonuses: Employees are entitled to the payment of two extraordinary bonuses each year, payable on July and December, equivalent to 9% of the monthly salary.

(vi) Profit sharing: This benefit is mandatory for employers with twenty employees or more.

Employees have the right to receive a percentage of the annual income before taxes of the employer.

Depending on the economic activity of each employer the percentage to be distributed among the employees of a company varies between 5% and 10%. The annual amount to be received by each employee may not exceed 18 monthly remunerations.

(vii) Mandatory life insurance: A life insurance policy must be hired by the employer at its cost and expense in favor of all its employees.

Employees are also entitled to paid leave such as weekly rest, maternity leave, paternity leave, sick leave, and vacations. Regarding vacations, employees are entitled to 30 calendar days of paid vacations per year. Once a complete year of service is achieved, the employee must use his or her 30 days of vacations within the subsequent year of accruing the right.

Otherwise, if this does not occur, the employee will earn the right to an additional remuneration and a severance as a compensation for not having taken vacations on time, equal to a monthly remuneration for each one.

On the other hand, employers also have important obligations regarding safety and health at work. Indeed, employers have a legal prevention duty and therefore must devote all their efforts to preventing occupational accidents or diseases, complying with obligations such as training of employees, establishment of a committee on safety and health at work, and risk assessment, among others. Safety and Health at Work is a fundamental aspect for organizations in Peru.

Accordingly, an employee can only be dismissed if there is a cause established by law, related to his/her conduct or capacity, and duly proved. In addition, a formal procedure provided by law must be carried out. In that sense, if a dismissal without a proven cause is carried out, according to our labor case law, the employee could claim: (i) his/her reinstatement to his/her job position; or, (ii) the payment of the mandatory severance for arbitrary dismissal, at their sole discretion.

The authorities in charge of verifying that employers comply with their obligations are SUNAFIL (for its acronym in Spanish) and the judiciary. Indeed, SUNAFIL, through an inspection procedure verifies whether there was a breach and, if applicable, can impose a fine on the employer. Also, employees can pursue a claim to the judiciary to assert any right that has been violated. It is important to note that both are independent routes and it is not necessary to go to one before the other; however, it is usual for employees to request an inspection from SUNAFIL before going to court, since SUNAFIL’s final resolution could serve as a means of proof with important institutional support.

According to our migratory and labor regulations, in order for a foreigner to provide services in Peruvian territory, he or she requires a work visa issued by the migratory authority and an employment contract duly registered before the Ministry of Labor. For this, prior to the effective provision of services in Peru, an immigration procedure must be initiated before the immigration authority (either from Peru or from abroad). It is important to mention that there are certain countries with multilateral agreements with Peru (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia and Ecuador) and, therefore, there are particular rules for obtaining a work visa.

Finally, in Peru, unionization and the right to strike are constitutionally recognized rights. In this sense, labor unions activity has special protection and is increasingly active in Peru. Unions are representative, especially in sectors such as mining or the industrial sector, and increasingly, they are affiliated with federations that seek to act as interlocutors.

See more from Vinatea & Toyama at: www.vinateatoyama.com

Funding Landscape in Latin America

A lot is different in Latin America, compared to the Anglo-American world. This is also the case as regards litigation or arbitration funding. The language to start with, civil law v common law, duration of court proceedings, popularity of arbitration, the price of legal advice and much more. Whereas litigation funding has a long history in the UK and in the United States, its twin brother – arbitration finance – is still in its infancy in Latin America.

However, the trend in many (not all) Latin American jurisdictions is obvious. Arbitration has become more interesting as proceedings appear to be more reliable, duration more predictable and international enforceability – relatively –easy. The legal skillset is also at hand.

All this led to the establishment of local third party funders in the past years like Leste in Brazil, Lexfinance in Peru or specialised Carpentum Capital operating out of Switzerland but with lawyers on the ground in LatAm. Most recent Hakamana was set up in Chile. These funders are perfectly suited to serve growing local demand and complement or replace bigger Anglo-American investors, usually only funding investor state disputes or other very pricy cases.

Whereas demand is increasing, awareness of arbitration finance in Latin America is still very low. And even if the very basics are known, there are a couple of misconceptions around.

The biggest being that arbitration funding would only be required by clients, lacking of resources to finance a legal proceeding. This is a very traditional view of third party funding and may indeed be the case in jurisdictions who have a very young market in that respect. In the US according to a study on litigation funding from 2019, less than 30% of clients revert to litigation funding for that reason. The vast majority makes use of it as a financing tool in order to hedge litigation risks, outsource legal costs or free up working capital.

Another common misunderstanding is that a funder would acquire the litigation rights, which is not the rule (but it is possible under certain circumstances, eg by way of monetizing an award). Funders usually assume the cost risk. All expenses relating to arbitrators, arbitral institution, experts or law firms are borne by the funding partner up to an amount of committed capital, which is agreed beforehand. In case of a successful outcome, the result is shared – it could be a percentage of the result, or a multiple of the investment or a combination. If the case is lost, investment is also gone. Hence the risk is high, which is why only a fraction of cases will pass the scrutiny.

The Process

In order to survive this process, you should first know, how it works. Each investor may break its process in to various stages, but it always comes down to three crucial steps:

At the outset confidentiality will be agreed, conflicts must be cleared and the funder will check whether a potential investment would be in line with internal guidelines or appetite. Specific proceedings may be ruled out, minimum or maximum investments set and ethical standards applied. That’s the easy part.

In a second round essential documentation is shared, such as basic contracts, correspondence, legal opinions, financial information of counterparty, expert valuations etc. Also important: the budget of the case with an anticipated cash-flow. This phase is the internal due diligence or ‘first level’ review. The funder will decide, if it can invest in the case and calculate on what terms it would do so potentially. If positive, a non-binding offer is made and the client signs a term sheet. At this stage the investor gains exclusivity to pursue the investigations for a certain time frame. Most cases won’t pass this stage either because the probability of success is not high enough, realistic outcome is lower than expected, the counterparty not sufficiently solvent or the case may take too long.

If terms are agreed in principle and no smoking gun detected, the funder will spend even more time and money on an external due diligence or ‘second level’ review. Another lawyer than the client’s one will opine on various aspects of the case. If claim evaluation is an issue, an additional expert may be required to review damage reports, or arbitrators for a specific industry may be asked to share their view on custom and practise in that industry. All this should happen in a speedy and transparent fashion, as the client will be eager to get the final approval for his arbitration finance.

In theory the whole process should take a couple of weeks only, but depending on the complexity and value of the case it may easily take months. Don’t be shy to ask your funder for transparency and commitment to timelines.

The Funder’s View and How to avoid Pitfalls

On the other hand, you can also accelerate the process of arbitration finance in Latin America, if you know what the investor will look at.

You may be surprised, but the merits of the case are not the core issue. It will just be assumed that you don’t come around with a hopeless case, invented stories or a useless lawyer.

It’s the economy of the case. Starting with the collectability and ending with the cost-to-demand ratio. Your case may be as good as it gets on paper, but if you pursue this against a soon to become insolvent party, it does not really help. The quantification of a realistic outcome, rarely equalling the demand, comes next.

The funder will also look at a worst case budget and how it will be paid out. Worst case in our world not being a lost arbitration or litigation, but a proceeding going through annulment and up to execution. Too many lawyers or general counsels omit to think beyond the first award.

Therefore and in order to shorten the time up to a positive funding decision, you should:

• target the right investor. Ideally someone with the appetite for your arbitration in terms of size and jurisdiction as well as understanding for the local legal culture;
• think twice (at least) about the economics of the case. Potential outcomes, realistic result, duration and cash-flows are to be considered;
• work with a capable lawyer having a good track record in the legal sector at stake;
• have crucial documentation at hand and avoid piecemeal production of documents;
• be transparent and disclose the good, the bad and the ugly. Rest assured that the investor will find the weak spots anyway.

If you understand the process and know that the investor tackles a claim from a slightly different angle, arbitration finance in Latin America or elsewhere will be no secret science, but an accessible tool of dispute resolution. 

See more from Carpentum Capital at: carpentum-capital.com

The COVID-19 pandemic hit Paraguay’s economy very hard and just when the country was recovering after a period of stagnation (-3% year-to-date in the first half of 2019). 2019 wasn’t a good year for employment either, the combined unemployment and underemployment rate reaching 14.5% in the first half of the year and retracting to 12.9% in the second half. This favorable path continued during the first two months of 2020 but with the beginning of COVID in March, began to slow down. Social distancing measures have most severely affected the service sector although informal labor was also badly affected.

The Government and the Paraguayan Central Bank (BCP) adopted a series of exceptional measures to address the economic and financial needs of both individuals and companies. In this regard it’s worth mentioning the BPC’s decision to reduce the policy interest rate by 175 basis points to 2.25% and the temporarily relaxed provisioning rules not to penalize credit restructurings and prolongations as well as the Government’s anti-crisis fiscal package approved by Parliament.

Another measure to alleviate the crisis has been low interest loans granted by the National Development Bank (BNF) to finance MSME’s payroll during the outbreak; in line with this it is worth mentioning that in June credits granted to the private sector grew by 4.1% YtD and loans granted to MSMEs reached USD$217m in July, while in May they totalled USD£130m.

Nevertheless, in 2021-22 growth is expected to return to 4% due inter alia to consistent macroeconomic policies, anchored in inflation targeting and a gradual return towards the FRL ceilings. Another key role in economic recovery will and is being played by public investments particularly in public works.

Legal Updates

The pandemic has represented an opportunity to introduce major and necessary changes that have helped modernize the local legal framework.   

Corporate Law

The Executive Branch enacted Decree 3605/2020 allowing PLCs to hold their board and shareholders meetings through telematic means provided that a series of requirements are met such as, inter-alia:

a) Real time presence and participation of authorized participants is ensured;

b) Meetings are recorded and kept within corporate files for 5 years and;

c) Mechanisms for the accreditation of rights to participate are established.

This provision represents a breakthrough in Paraguayan corporate practice and a clear advantage for foreign investors and shareholders as they can now take part in company decisions avoiding delays and fines especially during the pandemic. This exceptional measure will remain in force until 31 December 2020 and we are confident it will become a definitive practice.

Another important provision enacted is the suspension until 15 September 2020 of the application of fines and sanctions for non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of converting bearer shares into nominative shares.

Labor Law

This may be the field that saw the biggest changes. These sought to help businesses and employees cope with the crisis and reduce the negative impact on employment. Some of the most important decisions adopted by the Government are:

a) Contributions to the Social Security Institute (SSI) may be refinanced without interest for up to 18 months.

b) During the pandemic and whenever the nature of their work allowed, employers are encouraged to implement home and teleworking so as to avoid the spread of the virus; this measure is provisional and will last until the 31 December, nevertheless a draft bill has been presented to Congress in order to make it definitive.

c) A new regulation aimed at simplifying the application process for requesting employees’ job suspension was enacted. The procedure will remain in force during the pandemic and will benefit MSMEs only.

Anti-Trust and Regulatory Law

As a consequence of the COVID-19 crisis a lot of effort was made by the Government as well as the media and citizens in general aimed at controlling the public expenditure and public bidding processes. As a result of this, the National Competition Commission (CONACOM) undertook a series of formal investigations under Paraguayan Competition Law.

a) One was aimed at determining if prohibited agreements practices had been performed; the investigation was focused on public bidding processes for the purchase of medicines and medical related goods.

b) In another, CONACOM’s Investigation Department initiated preliminary investigation proceedings in order to identify possible violations of the Competition Law in connection with the latest operation involving a concentration proceeding between the biggest meat processing company and one of its competitors.

This is the first time CONACOM has used its investigative powers and its power to initiate ex officio proceedings; we believe this will improve the level of transparency of our public system and, at the same time, will force local businesses to strengthen their compliance policies, in particular those businesses in a dominant position.

Tax Law

Along with labor, tax law was the other field to see the greatest number of significant changes. During the crisis the Government enacted a series of important tax relief measures such as, inter alia:

a) Tax Deferrals;

b) Exception of penalties for late filing;

c) Exception of import duties and VAT reductions on all goods qualified as of first need;

d) Deadline extensions for filing and payment of the Withholding Tax on Dividends, Corporate Income Tax, Income Tax on Individuals, Income Tax on Agricultural Activities and Income Tax on Commercial, Industrial and Service Activities.

Procedural Law

The Executive branch enacted the Law by which the Judiciary’s summer recess is suspended thus all judicial activities and deadlines remain.   

Bankruptcy Law

A draft bill to modifying the bankruptcy law is being studied by the Legislative branch. The current law dates back to 1969 thus its modernization is seen as being key to improving the country’s business climate; the new law will allow companies at risk of insolvency to swiftly put their accounts in order and hence re-emerge more stably while also benefiting creditors. This law will be particularly important in the aftermath of the pandemic crisis.

Data Protection Law

Currently Paraguay does not have a general Data Protection Law, however, as a result of the increase in social and commercial activity on the internet due to social distancing measures it became apparent that the country could no longer remain without such an important provision; as a consequence a bill is currently being studied in Congress and is expected to be enacted by the end of 2020 or the beginning of 2021.

Conclusion

We cannot ignore the negative effects produced by COVID-19. However, we believe that Paraguay will re-emerge stronger wherever we can capitalize on the opportunities arising from the crisis aimed at accelerating the modernization process and increasing transparency of institutions.

So far, our country has taken adequate measures and has better coped with the crisis than some of the other countries in the region. In truth, the pandemic’s impact has been less harsh than in those countries whether in respect to fatalities and infections or in economic terms.

As for opportunities for the years ahead these will certainly come from the public sector particularly public works (civil and road) and from telecommunications as both sectors have shown a very dynamic performance over this period. 

See more from Vouga Abogados at: www.vouga.com.py