Category: Blog

New Delhi: The Central government on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that the Bar Council of India (BCI) would frame rules to open up the legal sector to foreign lawyers and law firms, failing which it would, and urged the court to quickly wrap up two cases pending before it on the issue.

“The government wants to work with the Bar Council of India. It must frame the rules, or the government will step in and frame it. It is not that the government lacks the jurisdiction to do so,” Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh told a bench, comprising Justices Adarsh Kumar Goel and UU Lalit.

The BCI, on its part, said it was willing to frame rules to allow foreign firms on the basis of reciprocity, but did not want to give foreign arbitrators a free run in the country.

The Council also expressed its reservations on allowing foreign law firms to open liaison offices in India, currently barred by the Bombay High Court. Two cases, challenging a Bombay High Court order and another a Madras High Court order, have been pending for over five years.

The government had, in July 2017, filed an early hearing petition urging the court to wrap up these cases quickly.

The Madras High Court had, in 2012, allowed foreign lawyers to fly in and out of the country to advise their clients.

This was challenged by a lawyer. The Bombay High Court, in another ruling in 2009, disallowed foreign firms from setting up liaison offices in India with RBI permission.

In response to the government plea for an early hearing, the two-judge bench hearing the case began hearing opposing arguments on both sides. Appearing for the BCI, senior advocate CU Singh said the BCI only wants the rules to take care of the recipro-city issue by other countries so that they extend similar facilities to Indian lawyers. It was also against any lawyer functioning in India outside the regulatory regime. “They can’t have a carte blanche, do what they wish,” CU Singh argued. He was, however, averse to foreign arbitrators being allowed to freely take part in Indian arbitration.

“Arbitration is also part of legal practice,” he contended, suggesting that arbitration must also be subject to BCI regulations. He said the BCI was willing to work things out, but the commerce ministry had brought in a foreign body to draft a law to open up the sector bypassing it. “That is not acceptable.” The BCI is the top regulato ry body regulating both educational standards and legal practices in India. It also takes disciplinary action against errant lawyers and faulty educational standards. His suggestion that arbitration be subjected to BCI oversight was vehemently opposed by senior advocate Dushyant Dave who appeared for the London Council of Arbitration.

“This will finish off arbitration in India and act as a dampener on investment,” he argued. “No one will sign contracts which have India as the seat of arbitration or under Indian laws,” he cautioned. “We, Indian lawyers, appear in every forum around the world. We don’t have to seek any permission,” he contended.

Dave suggested that the court appoint senior advocate Fali S Nariman as the amicus to help out the court in deciding whether arbitration should be subject to BCI regulations or not.

Go to Source

by ehamann
Filed on 10. Jan, 2018 in Business Briefs, Contents

Go to Source

Go to Source

Mary Ollivier has been appointed Acting Executive Director
of the New Zealand Law Society, from 16 January.

She takes
over from Christine Grice, who has been appointed a High
Court Judge.

Mrs Ollivier has been the Law Society’s
General Manager Regulatory since the role was established
following major changes to the regulation of lawyers in
2008.

She was admitted as a barrister and solicitor of the
High Court in December 1991 after previously qualifying and
working as a legal executive. Mrs Ollivier worked as a
lawyer with law firms in Auckland and Wellington and
overseas before moving to the Wellington District Law
Society in the mid-1990s as Professional Standards Director
and then Deputy Executive Director. She moved to the New
Zealand Law Society in 2008 to assist with implementation of
the new Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006.

Mrs Ollivier
has served as Secretary of the Wellington Woman Lawyers
Association and chaired the Professional Partnership
Network. She has also been involved in legal regulatory
matters at an international level and was appointed to the
Joint Australia/New Zealand Standards Committee QR-015 to
update the ISO standard Guidelines for complaints handling
in organisations.

Christine Grice will be sworn in as a
High Court Justice on 1 February in Wellington. She was the
Law Society’s second woman President from 2000 to 2003 and
was appointed Executive Director in
2009.

© Scoop Media

Go to Source

Japanese firms raise alarm over investment hurdles

LAHORE: Asad Majeed Khan, Pakistan’s ambassador in Tokyo, has said different government departments were creating hurdles in the way of Japanese investors, which was denting their existing investments and deterring the new ones, The News learnt on Wednesday.

The ambassador shared his reservations with Secretary Foreign Ministry Tehmina Janjua in a letter, whose copy is available with The News.

The concerns are mostly related to Board of Investment (BoI) Karachi office, Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), and Karachi’s law enforcement agencies.

The ambassador quoting his meetings with Japanese businessmen stated that they were keen to further invest in Pakistan but the problems faced by them were affecting their expansion and new investment plans.

The major concerns come from BoI Karachi as, according to the letter, Japanese businesses are mostly concentrated in the coastal city.

“The BoI office in Karachi lacks the authority to resolve problems faced by the Japanese companies and they have to frequently fly between Karachi and Islamabad for resolving even minor issues,” the ambassador said in the letter.

He added that in order to address this problem, Japanese investors have proposed that the BoI’s resident director in Karachi may be empowered to settle the issues up to a certain level.

Ambassador Khan also wrote in the letter that Japanese investors were facing delays in the sanctioning of refunds and other tax benefits, assured to them by the authorities at the time of investment.

“In their view, there seems to exist a disconnect between policymaking and operational sides of the FBR, which needs to be fixed,” the envoy said.

He added, the security situation in Karachi was also of deep concern to them. “Japanese nationals have faced a number of street crimes in Karachi, which is a general concern, but speedy facilitation by the police will be very helpful,” ambassador Khan said.

The ambassador, however, appreciated the government for the successful implementation of its counterterrorism strategy and improvement in the overall law and order situation.

“Japan has made a policy decision to diversify its global investment presence and is exploring investment opportunities in other countries and Pakistan with low cost and young labour force is still an attractive option for Japanese investors,” Khan added.

Taking notice of the ambassador’s concerns, Foreign Secretary Tehmina Janjua instructed the chairman BoI Naeem Zamindar and chairman FBR Tariq Pasha to resolve the issues on urgent basis to pave way for enhancing Japanese investment in Pakistan.

An official at the FBR said that the board had already expedited the refunding process for all the taxpayers without any discrimination.

“Japanese firms in Pakistan, especially auto companies had raised the same issues with former finance minister Ishaq Dar’s through Japanese ambassador in Pakistan,” the official said.

Commenting on the issue, a BoI functionary said that policy decisions were taken only at the board’s head office.

“However, the BoI board of directors, which is chaired by Prime Minister of Pakistan, can empower any resident director in any matter,” he added.

Go to Source

Jan 10, 2018 (ACCESSWIRE via COMTEX) — NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / January 10, 2018 / Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Philip Morris International Inc. (“Philip Morris” or the “Company”)

PM, +0.71%

and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the District of New Jersey, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Philip Morris securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Philip Morris securities between July 26, 2016, and December 20, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until February 20, 2018 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

[Click here to join this class action]

Philip Morris is a Virginia corporation with its principal executive offices located at 120 Park Avenue, New York, New York. Philip Morris, through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and other nicotine containing products.

Philip Morris is currently developing a portfolio of Reduced-Risk Products (“RRP”). RRP does not burn tobacco and produces significantly lower levels of harmful or potentially harmful compounds than found in smoke. Phillip Morris has four RRP platforms in various stages of development and commercialization readiness. Platform 1 uses a precisely controlled heating device that Philip Morris is commercializing under the IQOS brand name, into which a specially designed and proprietary consumable tobacco product (“IQOS Consumables”) is inserted and heated to generate an aerosol

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) there were irregularities in the clinical experiments that underpin Philip Morris’ application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for approval of its iQOS smoking device; and (2) as a result, defendants’ statements about Philip Morris’ business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

On December 20, 2017, Reuters published a report stating that “[f]ormer employees and contractors [of Phillip Morris] have detailed irregularities in the clinical experiments that underpin Philip Morris International’s application to the FDA for approval of its iQOS smoking device.”

On this news, shares of Philip Morris fell $3.75 per share or approximately 3.5% from its previous closing price to close at $104.37 per share on December 20, 2017, damaging investors.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com.

SOURCE: Pomerantz LLP

http://www.accesswire.com/img.ashx?id=485827

Copyright 2018 ACCESSWIRE

Go to Source