Search results for

The nominees for this year's Asia and Americas awards have been announced

Hedge fund managers must be cautious of litigation risks lurking under the AIFMD

Reflecting on the Hong Kong Market Misconduct Tribunal’s first 10 years suggests it could be set for a more prominent role

Regulators have taken steps to clarify the enforceability of put and call options in India. But there are outstanding issues to be addressed

The OECD’s 15-step plan to address harmful tax practices has significant implications for corporate structuring

Dinesh Eedi Karan Talwar There has been lot of uncertainty on the enforceability of exit options in shareholders' agreements (SHAs) of public limited companies (PLCs), especially those listed in India. Conflicting decisions of various High Courts regarding restrictions on the free transferability of securities, orders of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) on the legality of put and call options and the intransigence of the government on the same issue created havoc and confusion among the investor community. In an attempt to enhance its business image and clear all ambiguities, sections 5 and 58 of the Companies Act 2013 provide clarity on the validity and enforceability of such provisions in the SHA and Articles of Association (AoAs) of PLCs. The provisions, however, have not yet come into force. Section 5 envisages provisions in the AoA which can only be altered with conditions or procedures that are even stricter than those required for special resolution. Section 58(2) provides that, as a general rule, securities of PLCs shall be freely transferable, but any contract or arrangement for the transfer of securities between two parties shall be enforceable as a contract, implying that contracted restrictions on the transfer of securities (such as right of first refusal, and drag- and tag-along rights) are valid even if they are not specifically spelt out in the AoA.

Gizela Tuhurska The use of email for personal use (such as visiting social network sites and online shopping) is considered the most frequent forms of abuse of company resources. Employers are battling this trend through more consistent enforcement of codes of conduct and by closely monitoring how their employees use work time and resources. This means that various monitoring methods are being put into practice, such as checking employees' web traffic and the emails they send and receive, and even the installation of monitoring cameras. However, as there is fairly strict legislation in Slovakia regarding protection of privacy and personal data, as well as mandatory provisions in the Labour Code, employers' hands are tied to a certain extent and these forms of monitoring can only be employed in compliance with strictly defined conditions. That legislation has been reinforced this year by the adoption of a completely new Act on Personal Data Protection and an amendment to the Labour Code, which expressly governs the matter of monitoring employees in the workplace. Under existing legislation, employers can only employ monitoring in the workplace if there is a compelling reason, whether in respect of protecting the company's property, if the employee handles the company's production technology, or for the sake of safety in technologically difficult production processes. Although the consent of employee representatives (trade unions or works council) is not required for installing a monitoring system, by law the employer must consult them on this matter. Furthermore, no monitoring system can be put into place without notifying the employees as to the extent of the monitoring, how it will be conducted and how long it will last. There are no specifics as to how employees should be notified, but practice has shown that it is best to put it in writing as an internal guideline which all the employees will sign as proof they were made aware of it. That way, in the event of a law suit or an inspection by the Office for Personal Data Protection of the Slovak Republic, the employer will be able to demonstrate that it notified the employees in compliance with law.

Emil Ruppert Mineral streaming is a transaction whereby an end user or trading company (and these days also investors and hedge funds) makes an upfront capital payment in exchange for the right to purchase a percentage of a mining project's future production. Also known as volumetric production payments or metal purchase agreements, this mechanism provides mining companies with the necessary financing to bring projects to production.

Soonghee Lee The Supreme Court of Korea rendered an en banc decision on four knock-in/knock-out currency option cases (the KIKO cases) last September. In the KIKO cases, the Korean exporters argued that the KIKO currency option contracts (the KIKO contracts) were void, and should either be rescinded or terminated. They argued that the banks had waived the exercise of their call options, and sought the return of monies paid to the banks as unjust gains; they also argued that the banks had committed tort by violating their obligation to explain and violating the suitability principle during the process of entering into the KIKO contracts, and claimed compensation for damages. A summary of the major legal principles determined by the Supreme Court last September is as follows.

Urs Kägi Several new Swiss laws and amendments have entered into force as of January 1 2014. For firms doing business in Switzerland, changes in executive compensation regulation, in reorganisation proceedings and in respect to redundancy plans are among the most important ones. In Switzerland, the preceding year was characterised by animated discussion on executive compensation which resulted in two milestone decisions on national constitutional referendums. In March 2013, Swiss voters approved the initiative of lawmaker Thomas Minder by a strong majority of 68%. This initiative, which was supported by both left-wing and certain conservative right-wing parties, requires the strengthening of shareholders' powers in public companies, mandating among other things a binding say-on-pay-vote. In November 2013, a large majority of more than 65% of Swiss voters rejected the young socialists' 1:12 initiative, which aimed at introducing a salary cap of 12 times the lowest salary within the same firm. The two unambiguous results sent a strong message for the years to come: executive compensation needs to be regulated by a tight corporate governance regime but not by governmental intervention such as salary caps. Viewed from this perspective, these decisions are well in line with Switzerland's traditional business-friendly attitude and faith in "democratic" self-regulation (including by shareholders' vote), although the Minder initiative unfortunately also provides for prohibitions of certain forms of compensation (backed up by criminal sanctions), which is unnecessarily rigid.