Search results for

In 1999, Korea abolished the so-called positive list system and adopted the negative list system with respect to capital transactions, thereby regulating only such transactions as listed in the Foreign Exchange Transactions Law of Korea (FETL). Simultaneously, lawmakers passed a sunset provision requiring the advance approval of the Ministry of Finance and Economy (MOFE) or the Bank of Korea (BOK) for certain capital transactions (restricted transactions). That sunset provision will terminate on December 31 2005 and as a result, beginning on January 1 2006, MOFE (or BOK) approval requirements in respect of restricted transactions will automatically cease to be effective and be changed to reporting requirements.

The Norwegian Financial Supervisory Authority (FSA) proposes to amend the Act on Securities Funds to open up the establishment of special funds in Norway. These funds would become a new group of securities funds, through which investors would be offered participation in high-risk investment schemes. Special funds would create a new organization model for venture capital and private equity funds. If the proposition is adopted, hedge funds and derivative funds will be allowed to set up in Norway.

In October 2003 Switzerland amended the Federal Penal Code (FPC) and enacted provisions exposing corporations to penal prosecution. With this step Switzerland took up the pace set by Anglo-Saxon and some European countries years ago.

Japan's new Company Law, which is expected to be implemented in May 2006, will replace and significantly modify the current provisions of the Commercial Code that relate to companies. The new Company Law will probably have an impact on the type of entities used as special purpose companies (SPCs) in securitization transactions.

James Rice reveals the locations of choice for law firm expansion and looks at the business reasons underpinning firms' growth strategies

In the IMF letter of intent dated April 26 2005, the Turkish government undertook to introduce a new banking law that would improve the sector's supervisory and regulatory framework. Parliament first approved the new banks act on July 2 2005. Although president Sezer previously exercised his veto right against three provisions of the new act, the parliament passed it on October 20 2005 without any amendments.

On September 24 2005, the new Competition Protection Law (CPL) took effect in Serbia. While protecting market competition is an important goal, and anti-monopoly legislation has been long-awaited in Serbia, the law might unfortunately lead to investor uncertainty resulting in a backlog of deals that cannot be closed for lack of anti-monopoly clearance.

In the June 2005 edition of IFLR, the bill implementing Directive 2003/71/EC on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading was discussed.

Competition issues in Portugal have gained momentum since a new competition act was passed in June 2003. The act empowers a new supervisory body, the Competition Authority, to tackle, what was until recently, a dormant issue. The recent application of an €16 million fine against five drugs and diagnostics multinationals forms the most striking example of how seriously competition issues are taken in Portugal. The fine is the largest ever and was imposed for concerted practises in 36 different public tenders to supply 22 hospitals. Although the rules are not radically different from those established by the 1993 Competition Act, the Competition Authority has been awarded the statutory independence, and the resources, to pursue a serious and comprehensive competition policy that was previously lacking. Apart from public-sector supplies, the Competition Authority has been showing a steadfast approach to its duties, tackling such different markets and sectors as telecoms, energy, construction and pharmaceuticals.

The House of Lords' judgment in the Spectrum Plus case in summer 2005 marks an important landmark in settling a much-contested English common law position on book debts. Specifically, the case clarifies the requirement that a secured creditor must have control over a debtor's asset (in this case, the debtor's receivables) for it to have a fixed charge over that asset; and the conceding of control over the asset in question for use by the debtor in the ordinary course of its business is at best compatible only with a floating charge over that asset.