Upcoming competition law amendments to focus on economic concentration

The chairperson of the Ministerial advisory panel set up to propose ways of strengthening the Competition Act to deal with “persistently high levels of economic concentration” in the South African economy says the draft legislation should be released for public comment during November.

Addressing members of the competition law committee of the Law Society of the Northern Provinces in Johannesburg on Thursday, Advocate Michelle Le Roux reported that the panel had provided its input to Economic Development Minister Ebrahim Patel, who would publish draft amendments for public comment once he had finalised consultations with other stakeholders.

Advertisement

Patel announced the proposed amendments in his Budget Vote speech in May, indicating that the changes could compel the competition authorities to consider the ownership profile, as well as structural impediments to market entry, when assessing mergers or complaints of anti-competitive conduct.

Le Roux said the panel’s advice to the Minister sought to eschew “blunt interventions” in favour of “new and enhanced processes that should deliver evidence- and impact-based remedies, if implemented properly”. The panel’s recommendations also sought to navigate the paradox contained in the legislation of believing in markets “even if they fail us every single day”.

Advertisement

The starting point, however, was an acknowledgment of the current imperfections of the South African economy, where concentration persisted and where the ownership remains racially skewed. Research conducted by the Competition Commission into mergers since 1999 showed that more than 70% of sectors, with defined product markets, had dominant firms within them.

The panel had deliberated on where competition authorities encountered issues of concentration and ownership in the Act and had proposed ways to create or enhance the process of scrutiny during merger adjudications, abuse of dominance cases and proactive market inquiries.

Particular attention had been paid to enhancing market inquiries so that these could become focused and targeted, and to create mechanisms to deal with those structural problems in a market that could not be dealt with by the Competition Commission, which focused on the conduct of market participants.

“The types of structural question we are worrying about are, obviously, concentration, barriers to entry, the effects of regulation in a market and whether there is any current or historic advantage that firms enjoy. While some of the market outcomes that could warrant an inquiry could include problems relating to price, choice, quality, innovation, entry and exit.”

There were also changes proposed to empower the commission to “do more and better” in dealing with the issues of ownership and concentration.

Speaking during the same event, Competition Appeal Court Judge President Dennis Davis noted that South Africa’s Competition Act was already “extraordinarily ambitious” and went way beyond the scope of traditional competition law in the US and probably even in the European Union.

“The point I am making is that the Act poses enormously difficult challenges for both the Competition Tribunal and the Competition Appeal Court in trying to get it right – in trying to carve out an economic framework which makes sense of competition law,” Davis said, adding that it was necessary for competition-law practitioners to improve their understanding not only of the legislation, but also the economic concepts underpinning the arguments.

Le Roux said the architecture proposed by the panel advising the Minister sought to balance “justified intervention, while pushing back against over reach”.

“In our advice to the Minister, we have understood concentration to be a competition problem  . . . and we have understood public interest to include increasing the spread of ownership. We have, therefore, tried to be faithful to the architecture of the Act that we all know from the merger regime, where these concerns are equal, but are treated distinctly,” she explained.

Go to Source

Akerman Ranked by U.S. News – Best Lawyers Among ‘Best Law Firms’ Nationally with Record Number of Tier 1 Rankings

Akerman LOGO

Firm Again Achieves Top Rankings in Corporate, M&A, Real Estate, and Litigation Practice Areas

Top 100 U.S. law firm Akerman has once again been recognized by U.S. News – Best Lawyers as among the “Best Law Firms” in the United States. The firm earned a record 35 national practice rankings, recognized for its corporate, real estate, and litigation teams, among others. The firm also increased its national Tier 1 rankings to 16 practice areas, including Corporate, Mergers & Acquisitions, Real Estate, Construction, Environmental, Land Use & Zoning, Securities Regulation, Health Care, and Tax Law; and seven areas of commercial and financial litigation.

Clients commended Akerman for its “talented, creative, and dedicated lawyers,” with one remarking that “Akerman is a nimble and effective law firm. With the spirit of an entrepreneur and the legal mind of Learned Hand, the entire firm oozes cutting-edge legal thinking and practicality.”

Akerman received a record 90 Tier 1 rankings in total, including numerous Tier 1 Metropolitan Area rankings that recognize the firm’s strength in key business centers throughout the nation, including Chicago, Houston, Miami, New York, and Washington, D.C. The firm was also named “Law Firm of the Year” for Litigation-Real Estate.

The U.S. News – Best Lawyers rankings are based on overall firm performance, client feedback, and peer recognition derived from 5.5 million evaluations from across the United States. The rankings follow the recently released 2018 version of The Best Lawyers in America list, which recognizes the top 4 percent of practicing lawyers in the nation. More than 150 Akerman lawyers were named to the 2017 Best Lawyers list in 71 areas of law across the United States.

A list of the Akerman practices ranked nationally by U.S. News – Best Lawyers include:

National Rankings:
Antitrust Law
Appellate Practice
Banking and Finance Law
Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law
Commercial Litigation
Construction Law
Corporate Law
Employee Benefits (ERISA) Law
Employment Law-Management
Environmental Law
Franchise Law
Health Care Law
Insurance Law
International Arbitration – Commercial
International Trade and Finance Law
Labor Law – Management
Land Use & Zoning Law
Leveraged Buyouts and Private Equity Law
Litigation – Antitrust
Litigation – Banking & Finance
Litigation – Bankruptcy
Litigation – Construction
Litigation – Environmental
Litigation – Labor & Employment
Litigation – Real Estate
Litigation – Regulatory Enforcement (SEC, Telecom, Energy)
Mergers & Acquisitions Law
Private Funds/Hedge Funds Law
Railroad Law
Real Estate Law
Securities/Capital Markets Law
Securities Regulation
Tax Law
Trusts & Estates Law
Venture Capital Law

For a list of Akerman practices ranked by metropolitan area, please click here.
 


Connect To Your Customers & Grow Your Business

Click Here


Print Friendly

Go to Source

How Law Firms Can Make Information Security a Higher Priority

Lawyers always have been responsible for protecting their clients’ information, but that was a lot easier to do when everything was on paper. Here are four best practices to follow.

Some people think that law firms aren’t interesting targets for computer criminals. They don’t typically have terabytes of credit cards and bank accounts on file. But they do retain powerful clients, from wealthy individuals to big companies, and they often have privileged information about those clients, including details of business dealings and inside information about their negotiating positions and future plans.

Of course, law firms have always had an ethical responsibility to protect the confidentiality of their clients. This was a bit easier to do when everything was on paper; the only risk was if the attorney left a sensitive memo in a bar or if the firm didn’t have tight physical security to prevent a thief from gaining entry to the office — think Watergate. Clearly, things have changed, but like many other sectors, the adoption of new technology by law firms has outpaced the adoption of the security best practices needed to live with that technology safely.

There are now several prominent examples of how things can go wrong. Earlier this year, global law firm DLA Piper was hit by a strain of ransomware that forced management to shut down its offices for several days while IT dealt with the problem. In 2016, a breach referred to as the Panama Papers entailed a massive document disclosure of 2.6 terabytes of data from Panamanian-based law firm Mossack Fonseca. German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung got hold of the documents, resulting in coverage of celebrities’ and politicians’ financial transactions and other personal details. 

If events like these have a silver lining, it is the possibility that other firms might learn from them in hopes of avoiding the same fate. Here are four best practices law firms should consider as they seek to make information security a higher priority:

1. Prioritize information security in the right way. Unfortunately, when firms get serious about information security, they often do so by designating a person responsible for preventing breaches from occurring. While having a professional CISO is an important step that many firms ought to take, they should do so with a broader understanding of what that person is responsible for.

Breaches are going to occur. The CISO is not just responsible for reducing the risk that they’ll happen, but also leading the organization to adopt practices that will limit their impact and setting the organization up to respond properly and recover quickly when they do happen. And incidentally, CISO’s are most effective when the rest of the organization understands the importance of good security practices and is open to improving those practices rather than resisting them.

2. Reduce the firm’s information footprint. Through our day-to-day use of digital technology we tend to amass piles of valuable data, without even thinking about it. What will computer criminals be able to get access to if they compromise the computer or email account of a typical member of your firm? There may be a lot of old data, documents, and emails sitting on the laptops of your attorneys or on file servers that just don’t need to be there. Can you automatically archive old data to offline storage, where it isn’t readily available on the network?

3. Involve your employees as a part of the solution. When it comes to reducing the firm’s information footprint, a bit of personal awareness on the part of individual employees can go a long way. Tagging an email as “attorney client privileged” won’t stop computer criminals from reading it. They should constantly ask themselves, “Is this conversation with a client an appropriate conversation to have via email, where it might be permanently stored or exposed, or should I pick up the phone?”

Employees are also your front lines for detecting things such as phishing attacks. Some people aren’t very responsive to training, but others will learn, and report suspicious things they see. Often, sophisticated attacks will target multiple employees. The ones who are good at identifying them may be your first warning.

4. Build an organization that is resilient. Again, breaches are going to happen. The sensible approach is to put together a thorough incident response and recovery strategy. The advent of ransomware makes an especially powerful case for this: if your firm has been backing up all its files and systems daily or even continually, there’s no need to pay tens of thousands of dollars to the criminals hijacking your firm’s files.

Maintaining a highly secure and safe operation should be top of mind for partners and directors at law firms of all sizes. This is not a routine IT administration task but a smart business strategy that can keep your firm thriving and in good stead with clients for many years to come.

Related Content:

Join Dark Reading LIVE for two days of practical cyber defense discussions. Learn from the industry’s most knowledgeable IT security experts. Check out the INsecurity agenda here.

Tom Cross is a highly experienced and respected information security leader who oversees all technical elements of OPAQ Networks and is responsible for communicating the technology strategy to partners, employees, and investors. He is the co-founder and former CTO of … View Full Bio

More Insights

Go to Source

Prestige Law Gets Innovative for New Website & Social Media

Prestige Law Gets Innovative for New Website And
Social Media

Prestige Law has reinvented its
online brand with the launch of its new website.

The
Chinese law firm has developed a simple, effective and
multi-lingual “Client Access Portal”. Using the portal,
potential and existing clients can access the law firm’s
terms of engagement, find the estimate costs for their
matter, upload relevant documents and record audio messages.
Potential or existing clients can then book an appointment
with the relevant lawyer and make a payment for the initial
consult or meeting.

Prestige Law has also added a new
function to its official WeChat, which is the most popular
social media platform in China. The firm has a virtual
database of its legal articles, eBooks and webinars on
Prestige Law’s page. Now, WeChat users can do key word
searching by speaking or typing to find relevant resources
from the law firm’s database.

Prestige Law’s virtual
reception and new WeChat functionality embraces the growing
relationship between law and technology. The firm is leading
the way for law firms in New Zealand.

Visit Prestige
Law:

https://prestige.law/

WeChat ID:
Prestigelawyers

ENDS

© Scoop Media

Go to Source

Law firm eyes Teesside office after securing increasing work in the area

North-east law firm Square One Law could soon be set to launch a base in Teesside after securing a growing amount of work in the area.

The Tyneside-based firm, has grown substantially since it was founded in 2011 and is estimated to generate revenues of £6m in its next accounts.

Square One has put off expanding outside of its single office, choosing instead to focus on developing its internal IT capabilities.

But now that the work has been completed, senior partner Ian Gilthorpe said that the firm may look to open an office in Teesside, reports The Chronicle.

Mr Gilthorpe said: “We are doing an increasing amount of work on Teesside and that is an option.

“We haven’t looked at our options until we have got this IT system sorted and we have been growing pretty rapidly here.”

He added: “We are doing an increasing amount of work on Teesside, and I think that it is very interesting the way the mayor and the Combined Authority are doing a great job of promoting Teesside.

“So I think this is an area where we have an interest.”

Square One has been acting for a range of clients on Teesside, including Able, which has instructed the firm to provide advice during the decommissioning of the Brent Delta Platform.

Mr Gilthorpe was among the panel members at the Gazette’s recent Meet the Mayor event at Hardwick Hall , Sedgefield, supported by Square One Law.

Video Loading

Back in Newcastle , Square One has grown its headcount to around 70 members of staff since the firm launched in 2011.

This week the firm continued its growth after hiring Adrian Hill to work as joint head of property. He will work alongside co-head Barney Frith.

Mr Hill has worked at a number of major law firms including Muckle LLP and Eversheds, where he was head of real estate in Leeds.

During his three decade long career Mr Hill has worked for a range of clients such as Muse, Langtree, Urban Splash, Taylor Wimpy, UK Land Estates, Rushbond plc, Igloo, IVG and Northumberland Estates.

Read More

Invest in Teesside News

Commenting on his appointment, he said: “Square One Law is at an interesting stage of its development as it now looks to scale up. The challenging marketplace means all businesses need a clear strategy, strong leadership and focus on customer demands.

“I’m looking forward to being part of the team who will help the firm develop and continue to act for leading businesses in the region and nationally.”

Go to Source

Their clout diminished, Silicon Valley firms abandon fight over sex-trafficking bill

Battered from attacks by lawmakers and the public over the criminal activity taking place on their platforms, large internet companies have stopped fighting a push in Congress to combat online sex trafficking by holding them more accountable for the content on their sites.

The abrupt turnabout by the trade association representing such firms as Google, Facebook and Amazon enabled senators backed by victims’ rights advocates and almost every state attorney general on Wednesday to advance a measure limiting the legal immunity of websites where trafficking is promoted.

The Commerce Committee’s unanimous passage of the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act signaled a weakening of Silicon Valley’s political clout as politicians lose patience with the reluctance of some tech companies to more aggressively help victims and law enforcement. The measure’s advancement comes as firms face withering attacks on Capitol Hill for the platforms they unwittingly provided to Russian operatives seeking to influence American elections.

Online sex trafficking has likewise become a public relations problem for the firms. Lawmakers bristled at their refusal to consider stripping some of the immunity protections offered by the two-decade old Communication Decency Act, which have allowed websites, such as Backpage.com, to profit off of the illegal behavior of their posters. Judges have pointed to that immunity in dismissing claims by victims against such sites — sometimes in the face of what judges have acknowledged may be compelling evidence that the firms condoned trafficking.

Go to Source

Argentina congress passes law to fight corporate corruption

Reuters

BUENOS AIRES, Nov 8 (Reuters) – Argentina’s congress on Wednesday passed a law aimed at punishing companies for corruption by fining or blacklisting them from public contracts, a measure that comes as the judiciary reviews high-profile graft cases.

The measure also includes a provision for companies to sign leniency agreements lessening their punishments in exchange for providing pertinent information to prosecutors.

Fines can be up to five times the amount companies are determined to have obtained by illicit means and firms can be banned from bidding for public contracts for up to 10 years.

President Mauricio Macri has said the law was needed for Argentina to move forward with a corruption investigation involving Brazilian construction firm Odebrecht SA that has roiled Latin America in recent years.

The measure had already passed the Senate and on Wednesday passed the lower house with 144 votes in favor, six against and 31 abstentions.

“We are changing! This law promotes corporate ethics and harshly punishes companies that participate in corruption,” Laura Alonso, head of the government’s anti-corruption office, said on Twitter.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development had urged Argentina to pass the law in order to comply with its Anti-Bribery Convention.

Last week Amado Boudou, who had been former President Cristina Fernandez’s economy minister and vice president, was arrested on corruption charges.

Fernandez’s former planning minister, Julio De Vido, was arrested on Oct. 25, just three days after Macri’s “Cambiemos,” or “Let’s Change,” coalition swept Argentina’s Oct. 22 midterm elections.

Boudou and De Vido deny wrongdoing and Fernandez’s party has accused Macri of using the judicial system to persecute political opponents. (Reporting by Caroline Stauffer and Maximilian Heath; Editing by James Dalgleish)

Sorry we are not currently accepting comments on this article.

Go to Source

#ParadisePapers: Document Counters Saraki’s Claim That He Broke No Law

The asset declaration form the President of the Senate, Bukola Saraki, filed in 2003 after he became governor has countered the politician’s claim that he complied with the Code of Conduct and Tribunal law as far as his Cayman Islands company, Tenia Limited, is concerned.

PREMIUM TIMES had reported on Monday that the senator violated the law by failing to disclose a company he owned and ran (as sole shareholder and director) in an offshore tax haven while holding full-time appointment in Nigeria as governor and senator. Mr. Saraki established the company in 2001, two years before he became governor of Kwara.

But while reacting to the publication, which is part of this newspaper’s ongoing Paradise Papers series, the senator said through his spokesperson, Yusuph Olaniyonu, “For the umpteenth time, we will reiterate the fact that the Senate President has fully complied with the law on assets declaration, even as it concerns the company under reference.”

However, Mr. Saraki’s asset declaration filing obtained by PREMIUM TIMES showed that the politician’s submission to the Code of Conduct Bureau after his election in 2003 did not include Tenia Limited.

In that document, the senator only listed European and American Trading Company, Tyberry Corporation, Eficaz Ltd., Gensoft, All Africa Media Company, Merrill HHB Fund, Mundernet Fund and Izorch Incorporated as the only eight offshore companies he held substantial or ordinary stockholdings outside Nigeria.

He also failed to declare the company when he was reelected governor in 2007 and senator in 2011 and 2015. Yet he admitted that the company was only struck off in 2015.

Nigeria’s Code of Conduct Act mandates all public officials to, on assumption of office, complete and return assets declaration forms to the Code of Conduct Bureau, after swearing to an affidavit before a High Court Judge on a date not exceeding 30 days after receiving the form.

The law says the submission should also cover assets owned by spouses and children below the age of 18.

By failing to declare that offshore company, the senator violated that law, and the Code of Conduct Tribunal could slam a criminal charge on him.

Mr. Saraki recently faced a 13-count corruption charge at the Tribunal over alleged false declaration of assets. He was acquitted and discharged by the court but the Nigerian government has since appealed the verdict.

Mr. Saraki appears a serial user of offshore companies to conceal assets.

PREMIUM TIMES had during its #PanamaPapers reporting in 2016 linked three firms to the senator. The first, Girol Properties Ltd., was registered in the British Virgin Island (BVI) on August 25, 2004 (a year after the politician became governor).

The second company, Sandon Development Limited, was registered in Seychelles Island on January 12, 2011 and had Mrs. Saraki and one Babatunde Morakinyo, (a long-term personal aide and friend of Mr. Saraki) as shareholders.

The third hidden company in the name of Mrs. Saraki is Landfield International Developments Ltd. It was registered in the British Virgin Islands on April 8, 2014.

The companies were never disclosed as required by law, and the Nigerian authorities are yet to bring charges against the senator despite several promises to do so.



BUKOLA-SARAKI-ASSETS.pdf



Go to Source

Paradise Papers: As JP Morgan rushed to sell stake in Emaar MGF, Bermuda law firm ignored red flags to clear deal

Written by Jay Mazoomdaar
| New Delhi |
Updated: November 9, 2017 5:28 am


JPmorgan PAradise Papers, j p morgan, JPmorgan, j p morgan Appleby records show that JP Morgan wanted the documents prepared for the share transactions vetted within three days.

Months before Emaar MGF filed for demerger, financial services major JP Morgan approached Bermuda law firm Appleby in September 2015 for legal assistance in selling over 7 million equity shares it held in the Indian realty developer to Hong Kong-based asset management firm SSG Capital Management, Appleby records show. SSG had already invested Rs 600 crore in Emaar MGF in January 2015. Dubai-based Emaar Properties PJSC and India’s MGF Development Ltd announced the decision to end their joint venture — Emaar MGF — through reorganisation and demerger in April 2016.

Appleby records show that JP Morgan wanted the documents prepared for the share transactions vetted within three days. Appleby’s Mauritius office went ahead with the assignment even though its own compliance department flagged a number of ongoing investigations into corruption charges against Emaar MGF in India.

In 2007, JP Morgan Mauritius Holdings II Limited (JPII) — a subsidiary of JP Morgan Chase & Co — picked up 7,237,704 equity shares in Emaar MGF. According to Appleby records, JP Morgan Mauritius Holdings VI Limited (JPVI), the parent company of JPII, financed the share acquisition through an interest-free loan of $24.67 million to JPII.

Subsequently, JPVI transferred its shareholding in JPII to its wholly-owned Mauritius subsidiary Indocean Financial Holding Limited (Indocean) along with all rights in the loan to JPII.

In September 2015, show Appleby records, JP Morgan proposed to transfer the 7,237,704 Emaar shares from JPII to Indocean which, in turn would transfer the shares of JPII to JPVI. Thereafter, the SSG group was to acquire Indocean – ie, the Emaar shares — from JPVI.

Also Read | 714 Indians in Paradise Papers 

While the 7,237,704 Emaar shares were then valued at US$2.5 million, show Appleby records, Indocean would pay JPII $1 in cash and the remaining price would be set off against “a certain amount of” the $24.67 million loan owed by JPII. According to Appleby records, the balance of the loan would be “forgiven” by Indocean.

“Given that Indocean will be transferred to SSG, it is crucial that no part of the loan be outstanding after closing of the sale of the Emaar Shares,” read the brief for Appleby, which was to ensure that “an unconditional and irrevocable release” be “entered into between JPII and Indocean.”

Underlining the urgency, in its first email on the assignment to Appleby on September 14, 2015, JP Morgan sought a fee quote “no later than 15 September 2015” and once approved, Appleby’s comments on the share transfer documents “no later than 17 September 2015.”

Under section 9.1(i) of the Income Tax Act, “all income accruing or arising, whether directly or indirectly, through or from any business connection in India, or through or from any property in India, or through or from any asset or source of income in India, or through the transfer of a capital asset situate in India” are taxable in India.

Appointed as the Mauritian law advisor to facilitate the transactions, Appleby did a “world check” on the firms involved, on September 15. Its compliance department flagged these cases against Emaar MGF:

Feb 2008: Case registered by Delhi police for suspected involvement in land scam.

Dec 2009: Allegedly involved in money laundering scam.

Feb 2012: Chargesheet filed by CBI under Prevention of Corruption Act as accused in the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC)-Emaar properties scam.

June 2014: Office premises searched by Income Tax department for alleged tax evasion.

EXPLAINED: Why the Paradise Papers matter

Asked to take a call, Appleby’s dispute resolution department held that these would not “affect the present engagement”. Approving the assignment worth $8,000-10,000 Malcolm Moller, head of Appleby’s Mauritius operations, wrote: “It should be ok.”

SEE PHOTOS | Paradise Papers: Here are the Indians on the list

RESPONSE

A spokesperson of Emaar MGF Land Ltd stated: “JP Morgan has been a shareholder of the company since 2007, holding approximately 0.7 per cent equity shares. As per the records of the company, the said entities transferred these shares during 2015 and 2016. These transactions were secondary market transactions between the said entities, and the company has no role or financial involvement in such transactions, except recording the name of the shareholders in its records. No money was either paid by the company nor any money was received by the company due to such transactions. We are not privy to any documents relating to these transactions. Emaar MGF is a law abiding corporate citizen and has always operated itself in compliance with the law of the land.”
JP Morgan did not respond to questionnaires emailed by The Indian Express.

Click here for full coverage on Paradise Papers

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App

Go to Source

Paradise Papers: From Mauritius to Malta, GMR set up web of 28 offshore firms to drive expansion

Written by Sandeep Singh
| New Delhi |
Updated: November 9, 2017 5:30 am


Paradise Papers, Appleby, GMR black money, GMR companies, GMR, GMR paradise papers, GMR Holdings Private Ltd, GMR group, GMR group infrastructure, GMR group money laundering, paradise papers india, Appleby documents reveal that GMR Group also executed or sought execution of transactions from the Bermuda law firm that would allegedly help it avoid tax.

AS PART of its global business expansion plans in infrastructure and energy, the GMR group created a web of companies that involved setting up at least 28 entities across 10 jurisdictions, including Mauritius, the Isle of Man, Spain, Singapore and Malta. These entities were then structured as step-down subsidiaries of GMR Holdings Private Ltd (India).

Appleby documents reveal that GMR Group also executed or sought execution of transactions from the Bermuda law firm that would allegedly help it avoid tax; convert inter-company loans across jurisdictions into compulsory convertible debentures avoid transfer pricing issues; and, in several instances, change the nature of funds (debt to equity and vice-versa) when they were transferred from a subsidiary in one jurisdiction to another.

Also Read | GMR firm bought plane, sold it in two weeks at loss

In 2008, GMR Infrastructure (Malta) Ltd — a subsidiary of GMR Holdings Pvt Ltd (India) — acquired 50 per cent stake in Intergen, a US-based power company through a series of entities and step-down subsidiaries in Mauritius, Cyprus, the Isle of Man, Malta and the Netherlands. The acquisition was routed through GMR Holding (Malta), which took a loan of $837 million of which $637 million was refinanced from Axis Bank Singapore.

However, when the GMR Group decided to prepay a loan of $100 million to Axis Bank in April 2010, it made direct payment to the bank’s Singapore branch from GMR Mauritius, a subsidiary of GMR Holdings India.

The documents include an instruction from a GMR group official to Appleby for passing dummy accounting entries into four companies across three jurisdictions.

Paradise Papers, Appleby, GMR black money, GMR companies, GMR, GMR paradise papers, GMR Holdings Private Ltd, GMR group, GMR group infrastructure, GMR group money laundering, paradise papers india, Among Appleby data: Email from GMR official seeking change in stake structure.

“This prepayment has to be done by April 6, 2010. Considering the number of working days available from now (March 29, 2010) to April 6, it may not be practical to route the US$100mn from Mauritius to Cyprus to Isle of Man to Malta. Hence, we are proposing to make this payment directly from GMR Mauritius to Axis Bank Singapore. However, the entries would be passed in the books of Accounts of Cyprus and Isle of Man companies as though the funds are received from respective parent companies and for Malta this transaction has to be recorded as if the funds were received as CCDs from GMR Energy Global Limited GEGL and repayment of Short Term Loan was made. We would be transferring US$100MM from India to Mauritius by tomorrow. Once the payment is made I will send you the copy of the swift message from Mauritius and you can make appropriate entries in IOM books,” states the instruction contained in Appleby records.

This is one of several instances of innovative accounting and change in nature of funds done by the GMR group in the period between 2009 and 2012 where it was looking to expand its global operations through its presence in Isle of Man.

“GMR Group has a larger emphasis on the business plans for Isle of Companies and these companies would eventually become larger in size in holding investments and centralizing all our business development activities and fund raising initiatives for the group business outside India. Hence, I am of the opinion that the team would gear up to shoulder more responsibilities and be prepared to take up any business proposal with open mind,” a GMR Group official said in a letter to Appleby in January 2010.

Also Read | 714 Indians in Paradise Papers

Records show that the Group moved for alleged tax avoidance in other jurisdictions. GMR held 40 per cent stake in ISG International Airport Turkey through GMR Infrastructure Ltd India (35 per cent) and GMR Spain (5 per cent). Records show it decided to move the holding with the Spain entity to a company registered in Malta to benefit from a favourable tax treaty.

“The benefit of investing in ISG, Turkey through MALTA Company will be that Turkey and Malta have favorable tax treaty whereas there is no tax treaty between Isle of Man & Turkey. In case investment is direct from GAGL, Isle of Man to ISG Turkey and in future, if GAGL Isle of Man disposes of its stake in ISG, Turkey, there will be a tax implication in Turkey since there is no tax treaty between the two countries. In the absence of a tax treaty, the Turkish rules will apply,” a GMR official wrote to Appleby.

EXPLAINED: Why the Paradise Papers matter

To achieve this, the Group decided to set up a company in Malta and identified an existing company i.e GMR International (Malta) Ltd, a 100 per cent subsidiary of GMR Infra Mauritius Ltd. The company was later named GMR Airports (Malta) Ltd.

In another instance, looking to repay loans taken by GMR Holdings (Malta), the group instructed Appleby officials to change the nature of funds while transferring it from one group entity to another.

In January 2011, a GMR official wrote to Appleby, stating that while GMR Infrastructure Global Ltd (GIGL, IOM) “will receive $6mn” from its immediate holding company GMR Infra (Cyprus), “the money needs to be treated as share application money and should be transferred to GHML as a contribution to CCD by GEGL which is a step down subsidiary of GIGL (IOM)”.

“These funds are required by Malta to service the interest on the loan taken,” said the GMR official.

SEE PHOTOS | Paradise Papers: Here are the Indians on the list

Experts say financing the operations with debt often results in meaningful reduction of the overall tax rate applicable to the operation. Also, in many jurisdictions, repayment of invested capital (in the form of debt principal) and interest payments is free of withholding tax if the investment qualifies as a debt instrument.

In another instance, GMR Infra SOCIEDAD (GMR Spain) granted an inter company loan to GMR Energy Global Limited, Isle of Man (GEGL), but the money was utilised by GEGL (IoM) among other purposes, for its investment in GMR Malta. While the outstanding inter-company debt was approximately

EUR 27 million and the loan carried an interest rate of Euribor (Euro Interbank Offered Rate, a daily reference rate, published by the European Money Markets Institute).

On this transaction, records show, a GMR official told an Appleby official that GEGL was not in a position to service the interest / repay the loan. The GMR official stated: “Such an outstanding amount along with the fact that the interest rate charged is low will, in the long run, create transfer pricing issues in Spain. Accordingly we are contemplating a restructuring exercise to convert the outstanding loan into CCDs, which will be converted to equity in due course.”

RESPONSE FROM GMR GROUP:

At the outset, we would like to emphasize that GMR group conducts its business in conformity with legislative requirements with transparency to achieve best possible returns to the investors. The entire overseas set-up was done keeping in view various investments in infrastructure projects in overseas the group was planning to undertake, considering the optimum ways to meet the financing needs and to meet the local regulatory requirements. Due care is taken to ensure the resultant investments are well in line with permissible regulations both domestically and in overseas.

Also Read | Secrecy of tax havens smashed, says Jaitley, orders action; all to be probed, says tax chief

GMR Group iswas having business entities in various jurisdictions like Turkey, Singapore, Indonesia, Nepal, Philippines, etc. The business of infrastructure where separate business entities need to be set up for each project/activity on account of concession agreements, multiple partners necessarily need large number of companies. The entity in Mauritius is the first level subsidiary through which all overseas investments are done by listed entity. In view of specific needs to cater to the investment in Intergen BV, we had to set up Isle of Man and Malta entities which are in the process of closure post Intergen divestment. Currently, we do not have any entity in Spain. The Singapore entity is involved in the construction of airport terminal along with our partner in Philippines. All these entities are set up in line with extant regulations governing investments, tax treaties, and full disclosures are made to respective authorities on the activities of these entities regularly.

The investment in Intergen NV was made through an entity in Malta as Intergen is set up as a company in that jurisdiction and because of the Netherlands preference for investments from Europe over other countries, we had to necessarily do the investment in that way. The investment was done through step-down subsidiaries taking into account our existing overseas subsidiary at Mauritius through which we have to make all overseas investments as per RBI regulations, the existing tax treaty agreements between Mauritius and ultimate country of investment, ie., Netherlands and the future plans of listing of this entity in overseas exchanges for which Isle of Man was preferred in between.

As you may be aware, Intergen NV is a well-diversified utility company registered in Netherlands having generation facilities in Netherlands, UK, Mexico, Philippines, Australia totaling 8,000 MW with another 4,600MW in development. We acquired 50% stake in this company and other shareholder was Ontario Teachers Pension Plan Board. As mentioned, the entire investment was made in line with the above structure.

As regards payment to Axis Bank, the same was done by GMR entity in Mauritius directly as the entity in Mauritius was the ultimate overseas holding company in charge of the investment and considering the need to close the loan on due date to facilitate completion of investment transaction. There is nothing unusual in the transaction and such direct remittances do happen many a time to save on the time and costs involved. As long as all the entities involved accept the completion of transactions, there is no irregularity or violation of any law. The direct payment was resorted to as the loan to Axis Bank was to be paid on 6th April, 2010 as per notice already served and sending the funds through all the companies involved would have delayed the remittance as each transfer would have taken one business working day considering USD remittance and we would have missed the payment due date.

It is not correct to say GMR group has transferred ISG investment to a group company in Malta to evade taxes in foreign jurisdiction. The re-organisation of shareholding was done to rationalize the overseas chain of companies post our Intergen divestment. As we understand, Turkey and Malta do not enjoy a favourable tax treaty compared to Turkey and Spain and ultimately Malta Revenue Authorities have confirmed our tax status in year 2014.

There are occasions on which the nature of funds transferred from one entity to another entity is changed subsequent to transfer of funds. These were primarily cases of miscommunication or on account of changes proposed in the capital structure which are in line with local jurisdictional laws.

Restructuring of investments do happen because of change in business requirements like fresh investments, divestments which warrant reclassification of investments in subsidiaries. Also, we may have to reclassify investments based on local laws which need to be complied with like Income Tax and Corporate Laws governing debt and equity. The Group has followed all relevant laws and regulations in conducting its business including investments.

GMR Group is/was having operations in various countries and at times making investments from different companies in various jurisdictions becomes necessary considering the availability of funds at that particular point of time and time involved in transferring money from one country to another country. There is no complexity in these transactions and required documentation for each of these transactions was done before completion of remittances. It is common for directors in charge of individual companies to raise certain questions before taking up a transaction and sufficient support is always provided for. In view of investments in different jurisdictions and different partners, we need to necessarily maintain different holding companies to facilitate encumbrances by various financing banks and at times the jurisdiction of holding company do depend on banks’ compliance requirements also.

Click here for full coverage on Paradise Papers

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App

Go to Source