Search results for

German and French insolvency reforms are trying to deter forum shopping and encourage pre-bankruptcy proceedings. But are they working?

Kai Hoshino The Financial Instruments and Exchange Act of Japan (FIEA) and the relevant cabinet office ordinance were amended, effective as of April 1 2012, to expand the English-language Disclosure Rules. Under the amended Rules, foreign companies may file both primary and continuous disclosure documents in English, together with limited Japanese translations and certain defined supplementary documents. The amended Rules are expected to substantially reduce the burden of Japanese-language disclosure obligations on foreign issuers. In Japan, subject to certain exceptions, companies that offer shares, stock acquisition rights, bonds and certain other financial instruments to the public are required to file a Securities Registration Statement with the Japanese authorities. Upon doing so, the company will become subject to the continuous disclosure regime, which includes the filing of a number of FIEA documents: an annual securities report, a semi-annual report or quarterly reports, and extraordinary reports. Those foreign companies that elect to satisfy all disclosure obligations in Japanese generally prepare the FIEA documents by translating into Japanese the disclosure documents submitted by such company in its home jurisdiction. This can be very onerous as it involves the translation of, among other items, the description of the company's business, its risk factors, the management discussion and analysis (MD&A) and the company's financial statements, together with the accompanying notes, from such company's disclosure documents into Japanese.

Louise Hill Graham Natalie Bell Generally speaking, the British Virgin Islands (BVI) is an extremely flexible jurisdiction in relation to the granting and registering of security interests. One of the strengths of the BVI as an offshore jurisdiction is that it provides a stable platform for companies to provide collateral as security for debt finance and for the secured lenders to register and protect the priority of their interest. However, the largely unfettered right of business entities formed in the BVI to grant and register security interests is subject to one particular footnote which is easily overlooked. In the BVI, business entities are required to hold licences in order to conduct certain types of regulated business "in or from within" the Territory (meaning either through a BVI entity, or through a foreign entity physically operating within the jurisdiction). These licences are issued by the BVI Financial Services Commission (FSC) and regulate certain types of financial services activity. The principal types of regulated activity include banking business, trust business, insurance, investment business and company management business.

Distressed investors and their lawyers were still digesting the impact of Royal Decree Law 18/2002 (RDL 18/2002), dated May 11, on the restructuring and transfer of real estate assets from financial entities, when a draft of the July 2012 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) agreed at EU Council level on financial-sector policy conditionality was disclosed some days ago. There is now an agreed MoU dated July 20 which sets up a broad variety of specific measures to reinforce financial stability in Spain in the context of the recapitalisation of the Spanish banking sector.

Malaysia's Securities Commission recently issued a new Code on Corporate Governance 2012 (MCCG 2012) in an attempt to enhance and further reform the country's corporate governance landscape. The MCCG 2012 will supersede the 2007 Code on Corporate Governance when it takes effect on December 31 2012.

In overall shariah governance structure for Islamic financial institutions (IFIs), shariah audit occupies the most critical place. It completes the cycle of shariah compliance for an IFI, as it reveals the level of an IFI's compliance with the principles of shariah in all its operations.

HFT critics have pounced on the Knight Capital, Bats and Facebook trade glitches. But some reforms could do more harm than good

As Europe approaches its debt maturity wall, amend-and-extend requests are piling up. As a solution, it’s easier said than done

An FCPA or Bribery Act allegation is troubling enough, but the larger threat could be collateral lawsuits

Antonio Felix de Araujo Cintra The Brazilian credit securitisation industry has developed at an amazing rate in recent years. Since the enactment of Instruction CVM No. 356, which set out the rules for the organisation and operation of securitisation funds in Brazil (the so-called FIDCs), credit securitisation transformed itself from being an exotic financial product into one of the first alternatives sought by companies looking for possible general capital funding. At a time when interest rates were still very high in Brazil, the creation of FIDCs enabled companies to sell their trade receivables to raise working capital at more accessible rates. The same mechanism was quickly adopted by smaller banks, which sold their car and consumer loan portfolios to FIDCs to be able to continue to make new loans without breaching their capital requirement rules established by the Central Bank. In addition, FIDCs were also created to provide financing for small and medium-sized suppliers of large corporations and to purchase non-performing loans, precatórios (payment obligations of the Brazilian public sector) and other types of credits, creating a very useful secondary market for all kinds of credits.