Search results for

A new law came into force on January 1 2015, intended to protect and motivate whistleblowers. A whistleblower is a natural person who, in good faith, reports something they learn of while at work, that could significantly help to expose activities that are against the public interest. A report is made in good faith if the whistleblower, considering the facts of which he is aware and considering his knowledge, is convinced that what he is reporting is accurate. Apart from the enumerated exceptions (such as the protection of classified information, bank secrets and legal services), public interest reports and disclosures are not considered a breach of confidentiality. The primary goal of the law is to protect the whistleblower from retaliation by the employer. An employer can make a legal act or issue a decision relating to the protected whistleblower only with the consent of the whistleblower or with the prior consent of the labour inspectorate. The consent of the labour inspectorate is not required if the employer's act confers a right on the employee or if it is in relation to termination of employment not associated with the employer's evaluation. The labour inspectorate will grant the employer consent for the proposed act toward the protected whistleblower only if the employer can demonstrate that the proposed act has no connection to the report. If the employer cannot demonstrate this, the labour inspectorate will not grant consent. The legal act will be invalid without the prior consent of the labour inspectorate.

Rocky Alejandro L Reyes In 2013, after several decades of implementing measures to solve its economic problems, the Philippines attained an investment grade rating from the big three credit rating agencies. The investment grade rating and the fast pace of economic development in the Philippines should have attracted a lot of foreign direct investment (FDI). However, Philippine laws' restrictions on foreign ownership of land, educational institutions, public utilities and mass media, to name a few, continued to hinder the growth of such investment. Many foreign ownership restrictions on certain business activities remain in the Constitution and statutes. For example, the ownership of private lands is exclusively reserved for Philippine citizens and corporations with at least 60% of its capital owned by Filipino citizens. The exploitation of natural resources, including all modes of potential energy, is subject to the same nationality requirement. This limited foreign equity investment in renewable energy development, such as hydro, geothermal, wind and solar power generation.

Vu Le Bang Under the Ordinance on Foreign Exchange Control of Vietnam, foreign investors participating in business cooperation contacts (FIs) and foreign invested enterprises (FIEs) must open a direct investment capital account (DICA) at an authorised credit institution. Such institution must be one used for investment capital contribution, principal investment capital remittance, profits, and other legitimate receivables. In this regard, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) issued Circular 19/2014/TT-NHNN (Circular 19), effective from Sept 25 2014, to provide further guidelines. Notably, under Circular 19, FIs and FIEs are permitted to open a DICA in Vietnamese dong, which was not permitted previously. A DICA should be used to perform FIE receipt and expenditure loan transactions, regardless of the type (whether a domestic or a foreign loan) and term of the loan (whether short-, medium- or long-term). DICAs were originally used to deal with foreign loan transactions prior to Circular 19, in relation to FIE loan transactions. Further, payments of capital and project transactions in relation to FIEs should be performed through a DICA. While welcoming Circular 19, many banks in Vietnam have so far raised concerns over its strict implementation, and over the increased obligations it imposes. Specifically, if domestic loans are strictly subject to a DICA, it will likely become more burdensome for all the relevant parties, including the borrower, lender, and bank controlling the DICA. More importantly, it has been argued that the wording regarding a DICA could be interpreted as either 'is allowed to use' (meaning optional), or 'has to be used for' (meaning compulsory), in relation to certain activities under Circular 19.

Terje Gulbrandsen On December 10 2014, Oslo Børs (the Oslo Stock Exchange) resolved certain amendments to the listing rules, with the new rules entering into force on January 12 2015. Before the amendments, there had been a requirement that at the time of application for listing on Oslo Børs, the main part of the company's activities must not be in a pre-commercial phase. Directive 2001/34/EC on the admission of securities to official stock exchange listing does not contain any requirement for a company to have reached a commercial phase in order to be listed on a stock exchange, and nor is there any such requirement for any stock exchange comparable to Oslo Børs. Despite this, Oslo Børs has until now found it appropriate to apply such a requirement for listing on it.

Clifford Chance’s Francis Edwards, Terry Yang and Yasuyuki Takayami explain why the global requirement can clash with local confidentiality obligations

Law firms ushered in 2015 with a spate of lateral hires. KING & SPALDING's New York office bolstered its cross-border transactional capability with the addition of Ye Cecilia Hong, who was previously a partner at Kirkland & Ellis. Fluent in Mandarin Chinese as well as English, Hong advises public and private borrowers and lenders on multijurisdictional distressed financings and restructurings.

As useful as a Russian bailout Rushing through emergency legislation to prop up its troubled lenders is not enough to save Russia from a financial crisis in 2015. On December 22 its central bank had to intervene after a deposit run threatened to bankrupt midsize lender National Trust Bank.

A new UK framework designed to hold parties to their promises means care must be taken before making statements in the course of a takeover battle

The likely default of Kaisa called into question the structures of offshore Chinese bonds. Across Asia, restructuring lawyers have more or less thought 'I told you so', as bondholders responded last month by selling their Chinese real-estate holdings in fear of future defaults.

Both bidders and targets will now need one