Search results for

Chinese private equity has evolved, and funds are now more involved in the mid-cap and large-cap spaces. Here's what to expect

The competition regime for Comesa has been the target of numerous criticisms over its first 13 months. But a senior figure at the regulator has told IFLR that it is taking swift action to resolve its teething problems

The key takeways from the first day of IFLR's Asia M&A Forum in Hong Kong

Antonio Felix de Araujo Cintra Paulo Roberto Martins de Toledo Leme The Brazilian Securities Commission (CVM) announced in February an important decision from its board of commissioners regarding preferred shares issued by Brazilian publicly-held corporations. During the registration procedures of the initial public offering (IPO) of the Brazilian airline Azul, the company had its request to become public denied by the CVM's technical department. The decision was motivated by a specific section of Azul's by-laws that entitled each preferred share to a dividend equivalent to 75 times the dividends payable to the common shares. For the CVM's technical team responsible for reviewing Azul's application, the provision in Azul's by-laws did not comply with Brazilian corporate law because it violated the general principle that economic rights should be related to shareholders' political rights.

China’s government might not allow its banks to default until it finalises its bankruptcy regulations for financial institutions

A lack of prime RMBS issuance last year created a window for non-conforming and more bespoke trades. Here’s what to expect from 2014

Besnik Duraj The new Albanian government, formed after the 2013 general elections, has already fulfilled one of its election promises: the reform of the Albanian tax system from flat tax to tiered rates. Significant amendments have been introduced in the national laws on income tax, national taxes, tax procedures, excise, local taxes, value-added tax, the hydrocarbon tax system, and health contributions. The most important changes as of January 1 2014 are briefly presented below.

Costas Stamatiou Following the bail-in of depositors as a condition of international financial support to Cyprus in March 2013, restrictive measures were imposed on deposits within the Cyprus banking system as of March 15 2013. These restrictions are gradually being relaxed, and the government has announced that it hopes to remove them entirely in the first few months of 2014. It should be noted that the restrictive measures apply only to funds within the Cyprus banking system as of March 15 2013. Any funds introduced after that date are free of any restriction. Further progress towards the normalisation of the banking system has been made with the release by Bank of Cyprus, the largest commercial bank, of €950 million ($1.3 billion) of blocked deposits. When the bank was recapitalised in July 2013, €2.9 billion of deposits were blocked. The target date for release of the first tranche of €950 million was the end of January 2014, with an option for the bank to roll over the deposits for a further period of six months. Having established evidence of improving stability in its deposit base and an increasing level of customer confidence, the bank's management determined that there was no need to exercise the option to roll over the deposits, and accordingly released them. The Ministry of Finance and the Central Bank of Cyprus have welcomed this move as a significant step in strengthening the confidence of the public and investors, and as an indication that the banking system is on course for stabilisation.

In 2010, the US Congress adopted the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (Hire) Act which imposed US withholding tax on dividend equivalents embedded in certain cross-border equity swaps that are paid by US persons to foreign counterparties. At the same time, Congress gave the US Treasury authority to expand the scope of the Hire Act US withholding tax rules to other equity derivative instruments. Since then, the Treasury Department has floated a number of proposals to do just that; however, none of the proposals have had much traction. On December 5 2013, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) proposed a wholly new approach and issued new proposed regulations under the Internal Revenue Code to expand the US withholding tax rules to dividend equivalents on derivatives, including forwards, options, and structured notes. Most surprisingly, the Treasury put a date on the proposed rules: if finally adopted, they will apply from 2016 to payments on certain equity-linked instruments (ELIs) acquired on or after March 5 2014.

Soonghee Lee In May 2011, an employee at a defendant's branches introduced a discretionary investment agreement operated by a certain investment advisory company to individual investors (the plaintiffs). The investment product was mainly invested in KOSPI 200 options listed on the Korea Exchange using contract monies received by the investment advisory company from investors under discretionary investment agreements. In introducing the investment product, the employee presented and introduced a discretionary investment proposal prepared by the investment advisory company. Later, the employee visited the plaintiffs and prepared an application for the opening of an account, which proposed the plaintiffs' subscription to the investment product, with the defendant as the securities company for transactions. In August 2011, the KOSPI 200 stock price index declined sharply, and the plaintiffs incurred considerable losses. The plaintiffs then filed a suit for damages against the defendant, claiming the defendant had made an investment recommendation and thus had violated the suitability principle and its duty to explain, which should have been observed when the investment recommendation was made, under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (FISCMA). In the course of litigation, the defendant argued that no investment recommendation had been made, since the investment product was not sold by the defendant itself, and investment recommendations must be construed as limited in scope to cases where the relevant financial investment business recommends an agreement which it directly handles. The defendant's argument was that it had merely introduced the investment product and, for the plaintiffs' convenience, had assisted in the execution of the contracts. Therefore, the defendant had not made an investment recommendation subject to the suitability principle and the duty to explain. In support of such argument, the defendant stated it did not receive any sales commission or operating income, and did not directly handle the investment product. The court of first instance held that the defendant, as a financial investment business, was in the position of a person recommending the investment product to the plaintiffs. The court held that the employee first presented and explained the discretionary investment proposal to the plaintiffs while introducing the investment product; the plaintiffs only intended to invest after listening to such explanation, and their investment decision seems to have been based on the employee's explanation. As the employee even prepared a confirmation statement on the results of investment tendency screening and a discretionary investment agreement for each of the plaintiffs, in their name, the plaintiffs could reasonably believe that the defendant was performing the role of an intermediary for the discretionary investment agreements, and although the defendant did not obtain any sales commission or operating income, the defendant did earn a transaction fee.