Tag results for 'Business Law International'
Human Rights Due Diligence in Norway: The Initial Years of the Transparency Act in Practice
The Norwegian Transparency Act is Norway’s first piece of legislation to impose human rights due diligence obligations on companies, and joins the ranks of several legislative acts on business and human rights adopted globally in the last decade. The Act builds on international soft law standards, including the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. It contains three main obligations: a duty to conduct due diligence covering human rights and decent working conditions in the companies’ own operations, supply chains and business partner relationships; a duty to report on the due companies’ diligence; and – notably – a duty to answer to information requests from the public. The Transparency Act applies both to Norwegian companies as well as some foreign companies that meet certain criteria and exceed further specified thresholds. In July 2025, the Act will have been in force for three years. The first years of the Act’s operations have largely been hallmarked by companies adapting to new requirements and gradually strengthening their human rights due diligence. However, in September 2024, the first infringement fee was issued to a company for failing to comply with the Act. Although the decision was overturned by the appellate body in February 2025, it illustrates that in-scope companies now face a real risk of sanctions for non-compliance. This article provides a general overview of the Transparency Act, and reviews its first years of operations, including the first penalty that was issued in 2024 and overturned in 2025, as well as the Norwegian Ministry of Children and Families’ ongoing evaluation of the Act. Throughout its analysis of the Transparency Act, the article compares the scope and nature of its obligations with those of similar legislation in other countries and regions, in particular with the recently adopted European Union Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive.
Released on Jun 11, 2025
Reforming the EU’s Product Liability Regime for Artificial Intelligence, IoT and Other Emerging Digital Technologies
Until the advent of new technology and the imminent enforcement challenges posed by AI, the product liability regime that applied at the European Union (EU) level had served the EU well for close to 40 years. At the national level, the rules among EU Member States implementing the Product Liability Directive (PLD – Directive 85/374/EEC) harmonised the liability of producers for defective products. These rules coexisted with other extra-contractual liability rules that can also be invoked by those who have suffered damage. As a result, in relation to liability claims in the EU, there are three avenues currently available for compensation claims (complementary pillars of liability), namely: compensation based on a fault-based liability claim; reliance on a strict liability claim; or actions based on claims against the producer of a defective product. The European Commission (the ‘Commission’) published in September 2022 a proposal for a new Directive on liability for defective products, which would revise, repeal and replace the Product Liability Directive. A new (revised) Product Liability Directive (‘revised PLD’) was formally signed on 23 October 2024 and published on 18 November 2024, with its new rules applying to all products placed on the EU market or put into service after 9 December 2026. This article seeks to assess whether the revised PLD is capable of achieving specific objectives in terms of: accommodating the latest technological advances, circular economy business models and global value chains; ensuring that liability rules reflect the nature and risks of products in the digital age and in the circular economy; promoting undistorted competition (eg, to ensure that a level playing field exists between EU and non-EU manufacturers); ensuring that businesses and consumers are subject to fair and predictable rules; instilling confidence in the safety and reliability of AI-enabled and other innovative products and services; ensuring that consumers’ health and property are afforded a high level of protection for any harm caused by hazardous products, including digital products and AI systems; reducing disproportionate obstacles to achieving effective compensation (by easing the burden of proof in complex cases and easing restrictions on making claims), and ensuring that a fair balance exists between manufacturers/economic operators and consumers (without discouraging investment and innovation in AI-powered products and other emerging digital technologies); and maintaining an appropriate balance between the interests of claimants and defendants before Member State courts.
Released on Jun 11, 2025
Collective Redress in the Netherlands: Principles, Possibilities and a Look into the Future
The Netherlands has positioned itself as a leading European jurisdiction for collective redress. Over the past few years, many (often international) ‘mass damage claims’ have found their way to Dutch courtrooms. Notable examples include massive privacy litigation cases and several other collective actions in the ‘tech’ sector. The Dutch collective regime also attracts landmark competition follow-on cases. This development may not come as a surprise. Many international corporations or their subsidiaries have a seat in the Netherlands and litigation in the Netherlands is considered relatively inexpensive. From a legal perspective, Dutch courts tend to be quite liberal in accepting international jurisdiction, while Dutch civil law offers ample possibilities for collective redress in mass damage cases. Also, Dutch law offers several routes to collective redress. Apart from ‘classic’ routes via power of attorney, assignment of claims or mandate, it has been accepted for decades, first by the Dutch Supreme Court in its case law, later confirmed by the legislator in the Dutch Civil Code, that a foundation or association may bring collective claims for the benefit of a ‘class’ of claimants or environmental or other general interests. Such collective claims used to be limited to obtaining collective injunctions, prohibitions or declaratory judgments. A collective claim for damages was excluded, because it was believed that collective proceedings do not allow for a proper assessment of the individual circumstances of the case needed for a damages award. Individual follow-up proceedings therefore remained warranted to obtain compensation. Over time, this belief has changed. In 2005, the Dutch legislator introduced the possibility to petition the Amsterdam Court of Appeal to declare a – voluntarily reached – collective settlement generally binding to the entire class of persons the collective settlement pertains to, with an opt out-possibility. In 2020, to enhance possibilities to settle ‘mass damage claims’, the Dutch legislator took a next, sweeping step, introducing the Wet afwikkeling massaschade in collectieve actie (WAMCA), enabling a foundation or association to claim collective damages for an entire class of persons, also on an opt-out basis. This article will discuss the possibilities for collective redress offered by Dutch civil law in more detail, focusing on the WAMCA. It will briefly discuss its background and then focus on the admissibility requirements for a foundation or association acting for the benefit of a group of stakeholders (to which we will also refer as ‘representative’). Five years after its introduction, the admissibility requirements have proven to be quite challenging for claimants. To date, only one WAMCA case has successfully met these standing requirements and proceeded to a judgment on the merits. This Vattenfall case was about alleged wrongful invoicing by an energy company. The District Court decided that the invoicing was not wrongful and dismissed the collective claim for damages in its entirety. The first court judgment actually awarding collective damages under the WAMCA is yet to come. We expect the more ‘classic’ routes to collective redress – such as those currently utilised in cartel damages litigation, which remains a flourishing practice – to continue to remain important. The future may bring even more mass damage cases, for instance following new European legislation in the field of ESG such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive.
Released on Jun 11, 2025
The European Commission, Fiscal State Aid and its Incursion into Member States’ Tax Autonomy
The European Commission has commenced State aid investigations into multinationals’ tax arrangements, including in respect of Apple, Fiat, Starbucks and Amazon. Developments during the past ten years have been seismic, the debates have been fierce and press coverage has been unparalleled. There are both legal and non-legal reasons for this. The main non-legal reasons are the involvement of high-profile multinational companies as alleged aid beneficiaries, the ensuing diplomatic spat between the EU and the US over the alleged ‘targeting’ of US companies and the nexus between the investigations and the EU’s fight against corporate tax avoidance. The main legal reasons are explored in this article. In this article it is asserted that the Commission has overreached and exceeded its mandate by advancing novel legal theories in relation to EU State aid law. More specifically, it has endeavoured effectively to circumvent the unanimity requirement in adopting EU tax legislation by using its exclusive competence in State aid matters to push Member States into adopting OECD taxation standards. The author seeks to demonstrate that, despite some setbacks, the pendulum seems to be swinging towards more deference towards Member States’ tax autonomy in areas where there is no harmonised EU law, and that this is a positive development for two reasons. First, in terms of legal certainty, it provides closure in a series of ‘open’ matters. Second, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has sought to strike the right balance between exclusive EU competence (State aid law) and Member States’ tax sovereignty. Through the analysis that follows, the article will endeavour to shed light on a number of questions, as seen through the case law. First, what are the limits to the EU getting involved in national tax policy? Is it legitimate to circumvent those jurisdictional restrictions through the use of State aid policy? Second, what was the logic of the Commission’s approach and what were its weaknesses? Third, did the CJEU fully accept the Commission’s approach? The structure is as follows. The first part will provide some State aid background for those who are not familiar with EU State aid law and recent seminal cases. The second part analyses what the case law means for Member States’ tax sovereignty, while the third part concludes.
Released on Jun 10, 2025
Case comment: UK Court of Appeal Redefines Patentability Boundaries for Artificial Neural Networks
In a landmark judgment, the UK Court of Appeal has clarified the patent eligibility of artificial intelligence (AI)-driven systems, examining artificial neural networks under the computer program exclusion and clarifying patent eligibility requirements for intellectual property protection in AI innovation.
Released on Feb 19, 2025
Summary: How is the World Shaping the Financial Innovation Industry? (2024)
To explore the recent evolution of Fintech, this article provides a general analysis of the latest IBA Banking & Financial Law Committee research project, Fintech: how is the world shaping the financial innovation industry? (2024). In doing so, it aims to illustrate the key changes across various areas of interest and regions, focusing on how different jurisdictions have adapted their regulatory frameworks to accommodate new technologies and user behaviour. This analysis includes an overview of Fintech and crypto regulatory frameworks, payment service providers and digital wallets and open banking. Each area has seen major developments, and there exist clear examples of how different jurisdictions have chosen specific approaches in law-making to adapt to new or upcoming technologies.
Released on Feb 19, 2025
The FDI Regime in Pakistan
This article provides a comprehensive examination of Pakistan’s legislative and policy framework for attracting and protecting foreign direct investment (FDI). It examines key legislative acts, including the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947, the Foreign Private Investment (Promotion and Protection) Act 1976 and the Protection of Economic Reforms Act 1992, highlighting their significance in fostering a stable and investor-friendly environment. The article also examines the Investment Policies of 2013 and 2023, focusing on liberalisation efforts and facilitation measures such as the one-window operations and incentives for high-value sectors. The article provides comparative analysis with India and Bangladesh’s FDI regimes, which underscores similarities and differences, with a focus on regulatory measures, challenges and special programmes such as Make in India and Bangladesh’s open-door policy. The article further highlights Pakistan’s emphasis on Special Economic Zones and significant infrastructure projects such as the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor as key components of its strategy for attracting varied international investment.
Released on Feb 18, 2025
The Use of Language in International Business Law
Language in the context of the law can affect the ability of parties to participate and access justice, thus influencing sovereign equality and due process. With such implications, the choice of language in the law is one requiring significant reflection. The choice of law may also bring with it certain legal and cultural influences. This article explores the language of the law in different contexts. The use of language is the common thread throughout, affecting the law in a wide range of environments. It addresses five topics, each of which is the subject of substantive and extensive exploration and research in the academic papers of legal and linguistic experts alike. The article therefore provides an overview of the use of language in the practice of international business law.
Released on Feb 18, 2025
Settlement of Mass Consumer Class Actions in Canada: An Analysis of Developments, Trends and Challenges
Since the introduction of the legislative regime for class actions in Canada, there has been a growing number, size and scope of legal claims being litigated as class proceedings in Canada, including mass consumer class actions. As most class actions settle before proceeding to trial, and the court must approve any class action settlement, this has led to increased judicial scrutiny of class action settlements, and a growing body of case law in Canada analysing what a class action settlement that is fair, reasonable and in the best interest of the class members looks like, particularly in the unique context of a mass consumer class action. In this article, we provide an in-depth review of the law in Canada concerning the settlement of mass consumer class actions, outline the observed trend of increased judicial scrutiny over mass consumer class action settlements and ultimately conclude that the question of whether a settlement is fair, reasonable and in the best interest of the class can be a challenging question to answer in mass consumer class actions, given the unique features of these types of claims.
Released on Feb 17, 2025
Business Law International (BLI) – September 2024
Released on Sep 25, 2024
Book Review: Governing Law Risks in International Business Transactions
Released on Sep 25, 2024
Case Comment: Mac Attack – EU General Court Rules on Revocation Action Against McDonald’s Big Mac Trademark
On 5 June 2024, the General Court ruled on a long-running trademark dispute between Supermac (Holdings) Ltd (‘Supermac’) and McDonald’s International Property Company, Ltd concerning a trademark registration for what may be considered the latter’s most famous menu item, the Big Mac. Supermac’s success in the case provides a salient reminder to rights holders that, even for marks as established and well known as ‘BIG MAC’, they face partial or even full revocation of their registered rights if they cannot provide sufficient evidence of use of the mark across all goods and services for which they are registered.
Released on Sep 25, 2024
The UK’s Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act Passes into Law
On 24 May 2024, in one of the last official legislative actions of the UK’s government prior to the July general election, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (the ‘DMCC Act’) was passed by the UK Parliament, thereby making the UK the fourth jurisdiction in the world to introduce a specific regime for the regulation of digital platforms alongside the European Union, Germany and Japan. It appears that countries such as Australia, Brazil, India and Turkey will be following suit with their own dedicated digital platform regulatory regimes. In overt statements of self-affirmation, UK authorities and commentators have been at pains to describe their digital platforms regime as more ‘flexible’, ‘bespoke’ and ‘targeted’ than their EU counterpart, whose regulatory regime they describe variously as ‘blunt’ and applying ‘blanket rules’ on companies that run the risk of creating ‘unnecessary burdens on business’. While the heart of the new legislation focuses on the creation of a regime for the imposition of obligations on digital platforms, the DMCC Act also introduces important provisions that change existing competition law practice and the enforcement of consumer protection rules.
Released on Sep 25, 2024
Cybersecurity Risks to Business and Legal Sectors
In an increasingly connected world where remote working is the norm, the speed and demand for instant access to information has followed the trajectory of Moore’s law. Our services in the knowledge economy are available – and accessible – instantaneously through digital communications and videoconferencing anywhere in the world, at any time. Locks and cameras have been replaced by firewalls, compliance protocols and data monitoring, and we are more reliant on third-party security and cloud storage for business efficiency. Our papers have been replaced by mobile devices, the sensitive material by digital data on proprietary software and systems, communications through apps and Wi-Fi networks. Our personal lives merge imperceptibly but progressively with professional demands in this 24/7 solutions-orientated work environment. All these touchpoints give rise to increasing vulnerability in organisations: cyber risk management and security has never been more important. This article seeks to: explore those risks by examining cybersecurity at a macro level; address the ways to build resilience; and discuss the stumbling blocks for obtaining global cybersecurity.
Released on Sep 25, 2024
Exploring Resources in Extreme Cold Environments – the Antarctica Case: Feasibility or Fantasy?
This article assesses the feasibility and implications of resource exploration and exploitation in Antarctica. It discusses mineral and freshwater exploration in the light of the continent’s geological features and improved accessibility owing to the melting ice caps. Analysis of legal frameworks, such as the Antarctic Treaty System and conservation conventions, reveals challenges in regulating exploitation. Geopolitical dynamics surrounding resource exploitation are addressed, identifying interests and conflicts among stakeholders. By integrating these aspects, the article offers initial insights into the opportunities and obstacles of resource exploitation in Antarctica, aiming to facilitate decision-making and policy formulation in this unique and delicate environment.
Released on Sep 25, 2024
The Climate Emergency Disputes Crisis Affecting Industry Today
As the world grapples with the escalating impacts of climate breakdown and the urgent need to transition to sustainable energy sources, various industrial sectors find themselves at a crossroads. The shifting climate is not only an environmental challenge but also a formidable business risk, altering market dynamics, regulatory landscapes and operational conditions globally. Industries must navigate a complex array of threats, from physical damage due to extreme weather events to economic pressures arising from stringent emission regulations and volatile energy markets. This article delves into the specific dispute risks posed by the climate crisis and the energy transition affecting several key industry sectors, exploring the profound implications for their operations and outlining strategies for resilience and adaptation in a rapidly evolving global context. It also looks at how these dispute risks can be mitigated and, in particular, how conflicts arising from climate breakdown can be managed. Traditional dispute resolution mechanisms will, in many cases, not be adequate to deal with these new forms of conflict. Thought leadership is needed to address situations where dialogue and consensus will form the basis for better and lasting solutions as opposed to adversarial processes. Novel dispute resolution tools will have to be developed and current tools modified to meet this need. Business has not yet taken adequate steps to recognise and assess climate dispute risk, and this article aims to highlight this and suggest means to mitigate it.
Released on Sep 25, 2024
Rethinking the Path to Digital Platform Regulation in Brazil: a Critical Appraisal of DMA-inspired Bill 2.768/22
Inspired by other initiatives of ex ante regulation in digital markets, the Brazilian Bill 2.768/22 targets digital service providers that control essential access to certain services. If the bill is approved by Congress, it will cover various digital platforms, such as social networks, messaging services and search engines, imposing obligations related to transparency, fair service provision, data handling and access for professional users. Enforcement mechanisms include fines, operational restrictions and the creation of the Digital Platforms Oversight Fund to support regulatory activities. This article critically examines Bill 2.768/22, comparing it to the European Union Digital Markets Act and similar statutory provisions from other jurisdictions, most notably Article 19a of the German Competition Act and the United Kingdom's recently approved Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act. The article highlights shortcomings of the Brazilian Bill under discussion that would need to be addressed in order to avoid potential negative impacts in innovation and other distortions in Brazilian digital markets.
Released on Sep 25, 2024
Case comment: AI Art and Copyright
The growing use and popularity of generative artificial intelligence (AI) have presented the US Copyright Office and US courts with novel questions of copyright law. The Copyright Office has already begun addressing copyright registration applications involving AI while, at the same time, copyright infringement cases involving AI have begun working their way through our courts. The law is far from settled, but standards are materialising that can guide practitioners working in this rapidly evolving area of law.
Released on May 12, 2024
Case Comment: Clarifying the Iniquity Exception: Court of Appeal Provides Guidance on the Applicability of the Exception to Legal Privilege
Privilege is a fundamental legal right and a powerful tool under English law. Legal advice privilege protects communications between a lawyer and a client that are made for the purpose of giving or receiving legal advice. Litigation privilege protects communications between lawyers or their clients and any third party for the purpose of obtaining advice or information in connection with existing or reasonably contemplated litigation. Privilege is vital in allowing parties to access legal advice safe in the knowledge that confidential and sensitive information will not fall into the public domain. Were these protections not in place, parties may fail to seek legal advice or fail to communicate openly with their lawyers and there would be a risk that legal advisers would have to advise based upon an incomplete factual basis. Despite the importance of the rules of privilege, it has long been understood that legal advice privilege and litigation privilege cannot be asserted in respect of communications that further a criminal or fraudulent purpose. This principle is known as the ‘iniquity exception’. The recent Court of Appeal judgment in Al Sadeq v Dechert LLP and Others provides helpful guidance on the applicability of the exception and the threshold that must be met in order for the exception to be applied by the court. This article analyses the Court of Appeal’s judgment and comment on the key take-away points for practitioners.
Released on May 12, 2024
Kosovo’s Membership of International Organisations
Although the International Court of Justice in 2010 concluded that Kosovo’s independence was not contrary to international law, Kosovo’s continued standing as a semi-recognised state hinders its acceptance into international organisations. This article reviews Kosovo’s unsuccessful (the UN, UNESCO and Interpol), successful (the IMF, the World Bank) and potentially successful (the Council of Europe) applications for acceptance into international organisations. It argues that, at least in terms of its membership of international organisations, for as long as Kosovo’s statehood remains contested, it will be a ‘Western’ rather than a fully ‘international’ state, for three reasons. First, because international law is strongly biased against secession, secessionist states such as Kosovo face obstacles when attempting to join international organisations, even if supported by powerful countries such as the US. Second, Kosovo’s chances for acceptance into international organisations are higher if the organisation is heavily influenced by the US and key Western European countries, and decision-making is not based on unanimity. Finally, if competing powers such as Russia can exercise veto rights and/or the scope of states voting for acceptance of Kosovo into international organisations is extended beyond North America and Europe, the probability of acceptance by such international organisations decreases.
Released on May 12, 2024
Historical and Current National Environmental Tax Policies and the Position of Brazil
In the face of growing environmental challenges, governments worldwide are increasingly turning to innovative solutions to address the impact of human activities on the planet. The evolution of environmental taxes is a fascinating journey that mirrors society’s changing attitudes towards nature, sustainability and the urgent need to address environmental hurdles. As one delves into the history of environmental taxes, it is possible to uncover a timeline marked by pivotal moments, evolving various policies and a growing global consciousness regarding the impact of human activities.
Released on May 12, 2024
Supply Chains: an Analysis of Nearshoring and Friendshoring Trends
Organising a worldwide operation of supply chain distribution is not easy; on the one hand, one needs a detailed view and analysis of customs and labour considerations, taxes, costs of transport, cultural similarities and differences while, on the other hand, one needs an overview of all these issues and to be able to consider them as a whole. It is in this context of strategic decision-making that the concepts of nearshoring and friendshoring arise. These two concepts are of central importance and require a differentiated understanding of the associated legal and cultural intricacies. The 2020 pandemic came about in a context in which the model of productive globalisation based on international supply networks was already showing signs of exhaustion or even reversal owing to many reasons (environmental concerns, protectionist measures, geopolitical crisis, etc). This could be seen in companies’ decisions to return certain segments of production to their countries of origin or to nearby countries. This article deals with the advantages, disadvantages and potential risks of nearshoring and friendshoring, with a special emphasis on Argentina. It also looks at the general significance of near- and friendshoring in the future. In addition, it will highlight the legal considerations that lawyers need to pay particular attention to in the context of near- and friendshoring.
Released on May 12, 2024
The Evolution of Public–Private Partnerships in Pakistan
Public–private partnerships (PPPs) are collaborative arrangements in which the public and private sectors invest resources and skills to achieve common goals, usually in infrastructure development, public service provision or economic development. These collaborations capitalise on the strengths of both sectors: the public sector’s regulatory and social mandate and the private sector’s efficiency, creativity and funding. PPPs contribute significantly to economic development by facilitating large-scale initiatives that would otherwise be impracticable for the public sector owing to financial restrictions or a lack of technical skills. Governments can speed up infrastructure construction, such as roads, hospitals, schools and water systems, which are critical to a country’s economic growth and societal wellbeing, by involving private companies. These collaborations also allow for risk sharing, in which the private sector absorbs some of the financial, operational or other risks, thereby leading to more efficient and successful project delivery. Furthermore, PPPs can deliver more timely and high-quality services to the public, as private sector entities are frequently under competitive and budgetary pressure to maintain high standards. However, the success of PPPs is dependent on a strong legal and regulatory framework, clear and transparent contracts and rigorous project management to guarantee that the public interest is protected and that the expected social and economic advantages are realised.
Released on May 12, 2024
Cross-border M&A Transactions Involving Multilatinas in Emerging Latin American Economies: the Post-Covid-19 Outlook
Despite a general drop in the global number of M&A deals in the aftermath of the global pandemic, multilatinas – companies operating in many Latin American countries – seem to be boosting the market, especially when it comes to cross-border deals involving Latin American emerging economies. The aim of this article is to analyse the recent cross-border M&A transactions between multilatinas and the novel key issues that corporate lawyers should consider in this context.
Released on May 12, 2024
Business Law International (BLI) – May 2024
Released on May 12, 2024
Case Comment: Quincecare Revisited – The Supreme Court Decision in Philipp v Barclays Bank UK PLC
In the recent case of Philipp v Barclays Bank UK PLC [2023] UKSC 25 in England, the Supreme Court confirmed that the Quincecare duty of care does not extend to circumstances where a customer gives explicit instructions to a bank to make a payment. This article considers the Philipp v Barclays Bank UK PLC case in more detail, revisiting the Quincecare duty of care owed by banks and the position at law going forward, including as a result of changes to laws and guidelines that have arisen in light of the facts in this case to address advance push payment fraud. It looks at key considerations for business customers and banks to ensure that they take proactive measures to align themselves with the evolving legal landscape.
Released on Jan 19, 2024
Data Protection and Privacy Class Action Lawsuits in the UK: the Damages Conundrum
The majority of class action lawsuits in privacy and data protection in the United Kingdom have not succeeded. This may appear surprising, given the breadth of data rights found in the UK GDPR, the Data Protection Act 2018 and the development of the tort of misuse of private information. This article reviews the cases to date, including the most recent attempt in Prismall v Google UK Limited [2023] EWHC 1169 (KB), and examines why class action lawsuits – generally referred to as ‘group litigation’ in England – have failed to provide results for individuals whose data and information have been misused or inadequately protected.
Released on Jan 19, 2024
Looking for Venture Debt? What to Expect
Venture debt is an attractive alternative for startups that need to raise funds to expand their growth. Moving away from venture capital and traditional loan lending, venture debt is composed of different terms and standard provisions that allow it to work in the venture ecosystem. So how do these terms work and what are the items that a loan agreement will include as standards of the industry? This article will first consider structural terms, without which a venture debt agreement would not exist. These are the parties involved (lender and borrower), the amount lent (which varies depending on the lender), the term of the loan (usually 36 to 48 months) and the interest rate (which is both a structural term and a pricing term). Secondly, the article looks at pricing terms, which include all elements of payment from the company to the venture lender. These include interest rates, additional fees such as commitment fees, prepayment fees and other kinds of fees, collateral (mainly intellectual property and/or an all-asset lien) and warrants (an equity interest on the company). Finally, the article looks at legal terms, which include additional obligations and provisions to avoid or engage the borrower in actions that benefit the loan. These include standard provisions such as closing conditions, representations and warranties, and covenants (either positive, negative and, less commonly, financial covenants), as well as other provisions, such as the material adverse change (MAC) clause, the investor abandonment clause and the event of default provision. These terms are particularly a matter of negotiation in a venture debt deal, and in any case each agreement will find a balance for the lender and borrower for venture debt to work in the specific context.
Released on Jan 19, 2024
Demystifying Protectionist Regimes in the Age of Globalisation: A Brief Comparative Analysis of the Indian and Other FDI Screening Regimes
The world is experiencing the effects of increased globalisation at a transcendental speed. One of the key factors behind such globalisation is foreign direct investment (FDI). FDIs often outperform government aids and portfolio investments, as one of the largest sources of non-debt external financing. In addition to the direct benefit of capital inflows that FDIs bring, certain indirect benefits follow suit. Access to diversified international markets, an increase in domestic supply chains, reforms in domestic laws and regulation to keep pace with modernisation are key indirect benefits, which have made FDIs an attractive option for domestic markets. However, while modern governments are well informed about the lucrativeness of FDIs coming from resource-rich destinations, many countries have begun to implement rigid screening mechanisms before permitting FDI inflows. The rise of opportunistic takeovers and foreign investments made with undesirable motives has propelled an increase in FDI screening mechanisms across countries. The first part of this article aims to understand the general rise of protectionism in the formulation of FDI policies and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the same. The second part involves an analysis of Indian FDI regimes with a protectionist character. Finally, in the third part, the authors compare the Indian FDI regime with other FDI regimes around the world, to identify protectionism in FDI laws.
Released on Jan 19, 2024
Gender Balance Quotas – the Key to Gender Equality?
Gender equality in boardrooms is losing momentum. Some countries have already made efforts to compensate for the underrepresentation of women on boards through legislative action – an approach that is now also being pursued by the European Union with the adoption of the so-called ‘Women on Boards’ Directive (EU) 2022/2381. This article provides an overview of the regulations passed and sheds light on their background. It also compares the different national approaches to improving female representation on boards and their effectiveness, focusing on the goal of promoting long-term change in gender diversity.
Released on Jan 19, 2024