The concession, which is good for 40 years, was granted by the Hellenic Asset Development Fund. Your Legal Partners acted as Greek law counsels to Hellenic Republic Asset Development Fund; Dracopoulos & Vassalakis acted as co-counsel to HRADF.

Alimos Marina located South West of Athens is one of the largest marinas in Greece with 1000 permanent positions. “Our involvement included legal support during the tender process, drafting and negation of Concession Agreement and State Direct Agreement, legal support to HRADF in relation to financing documents, monitoring of the closing and Concession commencement”, explained Katerina Christodoulou, Partner who alongside Prokopis Linardos, co-led the deal project.

Speaking to Lawyer Monthly on the deal, they said: “The project was challenging since many long-lasting legal impediments related to the use of marina had to be lifted in view of the privatisation.”

Aktor Concessions will put forward a total of EUR 57.5 million euros, with the value of the agreement coming to a total consideration of at least EUR 177 million, including an annual concession fee and a share of revenues as a percentage of the marina’s annual turnover.

TE Connectivity Ltd. (NYSE: TEL), a global industrial technology company with leading positions in connectivity and sensing solutions, completed its public takeover of First Sensor AG (XTRA: SIS). TE now holds 71.87% shares of First Sensor. First Sensor, founded as a technology start-up in the early 1990s, is a global player in sensor technology. With its expertise in chip design and production, as well as microelectronic packaging, it develops and produces standard sensors and customer-specific sensor solutions in the fields of photonics, pressure and advanced electronics for applications within the industrial, medical and transportation markets. In combining the First Sensor and TE portfolios, TE will be able to offer an even broader product base, including innovative, market-leading sensors, connectors and systems plus best-in-class capabilities, that supports the growth strategy of TE's sensors business and TE Connectivity as a whole.

Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer were legal advisers to TE Connectivity and Blomstein and Görg acted as legal adviser to First Sensor.

Davide Campari-Milano S.p.A. announced that it has entered into exclusive negotiations with the privately owned French company SARL FICOMA, family holding of Mr Francis Tribaut, (the ‘Seller’) for acquiring an 80% interest, with a medium-term route to total ownership, in the share capital of SARL Champagne Lallier and other group companies (jointly as the ‘Company’). A put option is granted to the Seller thereto in such context, whilst the transaction is subject to the completion of French labour law processes.

The projected transaction scope includes the brands, related stocks, real estate assets including owned and operated vineyards, and production facilities.

Allen & Overy, McDermott Will & Emery, Ségur Avocats, Caramelli Lazzarotto Associati and Nomodos advised on the transaction.

McDermott Will & Emery advised Campari Group with Antoine Vergnat (Tax).

Ségur Avocats advised Campari Group with Florence Achir (Employment).

Caramelli Lazzarotto Associati advised Campari Group with Silvia Lazzarotto (IP&IT).

Nomodos advised the sellers with Philippe Pierre, Marie-Claire Charbeaux, Gabriel Rapetti, Alexandre Payen and Baptiste Drache.

Banca Farmafactoring S.p.A. (“BFF” or the “Group”) – the leading financial services provider to suppliers of the National Healthcare System and Public Administration sectors in Europe – announces that it has signed a binding agreement with Equinova UK HoldCo Limited (“Equinova”) for the acquisition of DEPObank - Banca Depositaria Italiana S.p.A. (“DEPObank” or the “Target”) and the subsequent merger by incorporation into BFF (the “Transaction”).

The Transaction will (i) create the leading independent player in the Italian speciality finance space, (ii) boost DEPObank’s business, and (iii) strengthen the funding and capital resources available to serve BFF’s customers.

Legal advisers to DEPObank were Linklaters, Pirola Pennuto Zei & Associati and Carbonetti and Associates. The legal advisers to Equinova UK Holdco Limited were BonelliErede and advisers to BFF were Di Tanno and Associates and Legance.

In Ecuador, Bustamante & Bustamante advised Newcrest Mining Limited with Roque Bernardo Bustamante, Alfredo Larrea, Galo Sánchez, Sebastián Corral, Claudia Bustamante and Julio Olmedo.

As part of the Fruta Del Norte project finance support that concluded with the financing for the development of such project, Partner Rodrigo Borja Calisto led the transaction with the support of other Lexim Abogados’ associate lawyers.

“In our capacity as Lundin Gold Ecuadorian's legal adviser, we participated in the entire process of the transaction carried out by Newcrest by which it acquired the Orion Resource Partners and Blackstone Tactical Opportunities. As a result of the transaction, Newcrest became the lender under the gold prepay and the stream facilities and the offtake agreements. The acquisition was structured as a purchase of the shares of Orion Resource Partners and Blackstone Tactical Opportunities for $460 million.”, explains Rodrigo.

“As part of the transaction”, he expanded, “We supported the assignment of all of the securities granted in favour of the lenders as part of the whole project finance for the Fruta Del Norte mining project, and also included Newcrest as part of the beneficiaries of such securities in Ecuador.”

Dafina Sharpe, Esq, Attorney and Financial Blogger at Dollars Plus Sense

 My story into starting my own firm:

I got into law because my mother valued education and encouraged me to continue my studies after college. I was the first and only lawyer in my family and I was excited at the potential of having a high-paying career. In the back of my mind at the time, I thought "lawyers and doctors make a lot of money" which I know now (at least for lawyers) is not true. When I first graduated from law school in 2008, I was making around $30,000-$35,000 a year.

When I moved back to NYC after law school, I was working as an associate for a small immigration law firm. What triggered my desire to start my own law firm was when I saw the retainer agreement in the client's file. I saw what my boss was charging clients, and I knew what he was paying me ($35,000) to do pretty much ALL the legal work.

At that moment I thought to myself "Wow! If only I could find clients of my own, I would be making WAY more money."

Although that desire sparked within me, I was never brave enough to go out on my own. I liked the security of having a job and knowing how much I was going to make every week (even if my salary was low) ...but God had different plans for me.

One day I asked my boss for two months off to study for New York's bar exam (at the time I was licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey). Since immigration law is regulated by federal law, I could use my PA or NJ licence to practice. However, I didn't want to be restricted with the type of law I practised and so I wanted to get my NY law licence.

I wouldn't say the journey was easy, but after two years, we were able to build a successful law firm.

My boss didn't need me to have a NY licence and when I requested two months off to study for the bar he said: "Okay, you can have the two months off to study, but I can't guarantee your job will be here when you get back." I knew that was a nice way of saying "If you leave, you can't come back." But I wasn't going to let that stop me. I figured I would just look for another job when I was done studying for the bar. However, as fate would have it, one of my colleagues at the small law firm wanted to start her own law practice too. When I was leaving, she approached me about the possibility of maybe starting a law firm together.

Like I said before, the desire to have my own firm was always there, but this time it was less scary to me. I was "fired" so I didn't have that job security anymore and I also had a partner to take this leap of faith with.

I wouldn't say the journey was easy, but after two years, we were able to build a successful law firm. Today, my partner has branched off and started her own firm. We're both still very good friends and consult with one another when we need advice or have legal questions.

My Tips and Advice:

If I had any advice to give young minorities and those from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds it would be this:

1) Don't go into the practice of law JUST to make money. You're not guaranteed to make six-figures when you graduate and you may feel frustrated that you worked so hard to graduate (maybe have a ton of student loans) and you're not being compensated well enough. Go into the practice of law because you truly have a passion to advocate for those that can't advocate for themselves. If you have a passion, the money will come.

2) FIND A MENTOR! I know this can be hard especially if you're the first or only lawyer in your family (like I was). But what that means for you is you have to work harder at networking.  Don't wait until you graduate from law school to find a mentor either. Go to as many events as possible where you know lawyers will be. Most lawyers (especially lawyers of colour) will make time to talk to you and give you advice because we've been where you are now...we understand how hard it can be.

If you're not in the top 10% of your law class, most of your success is going to come from WHO you know...not WHAT you know (and please believe that white guy in your class is using all of his contacts to get ahead). So, make networking a TOP PRIORITY.

3) Don't let where you come from stop you from achieving your dream. I was born in East New York, Brooklyn, and was raised most of my life by a single mom. I was lucky that my mom pushed my sister and me to be successful. She set high expectations for us. So, if you don't have that person in your life to push you, you should set high expectations for yourself. Especially if you're from a rough neighbourhood, use that as motivation to want to get out and do better for yourself.

Finally, the only way we can beat systematic racism in law is to work on achieving our dreams, and once you're in a position of power, use that power to empower other people of colour.

If you're coming from a background where your parent(s) can't afford to help you pay for college/law school, look into getting grants and scholarships...as a last resort, you can take out student loans.

Finally, the only way we can beat systematic racism in law is to work on achieving our dreams, and once you're in a position of power, use that power to empower other people of colour. As a black woman, I understand that the odds are NOT in my favour, but I’ve been blessed enough to beat those odds—and that’s why I started my blog Dollars Plus Sense. I knew once I was able to improve my finances, I had a duty to help other women and people of colour that may have struggled with money as I did. My goal was (and still is) to inspire and help women improve their finances and close the wealth gap in America.

Tiffany Walker, Attorney at FVF Law

My Law School Experience:

Law school is a unique challenge that you can never really prepare for and a different learning experience than anything you’ve experienced before.  I went to Loyola University of New Orleans’ College of Law. I was always comfortable as a student there as I felt it was a progressive school. As a black law student, the discussion of historic civil rights cases (Brown v. Board of Education, Plessy v. Ferguson, etc.) can sometimes be a little touchy and uncomfortable, but I saw hope in the fact that the white students in my classes seemed eager to learn about these cases and grow.

My Tips for Current and Future Law Students and Young Lawyers:

The workload is intense so you must learn time management skills and you absolutely must do all the reading. As intimidating as they are, don’t fear the cold call! The rest of the class is so relieved they weren’t called on, that they aren’t even listening to your answer.

I believe it’s important to have a group of friends for support and survival throughout law school. Friends with different backgrounds and experiences will help you grow and expand your perspective, so seek those people out. It’s also important for black students to support each other. Often, law students of colour are the first in their families to go to any kind of graduate school. It was helpful for me to have a group of friends that understood the extra pressures that can bring.

Being black in America comes with its own set of challenges.

Law school and the legal field are formal places. It’s common for black law students and young lawyers to try and mould themselves to fit into a “white box”. My biggest piece of advice to law students and young lawyers is to be authentically you. Differences make the legal profession better. Don’t shrink yourself to become what you think you are supposed to be or what you think lawyers are supposed to look and act like. You have something important to offer and altering that is a disservice to yourself and the legal field.

Making a Difference in the Legal Field:

Similar to how it’s important for Hollywood to tell stories including people of colour, it is also important for the legal field and other professions. When black children see people that look like them as lawyers and doctors and movie stars and teachers, it’s easier to image those paths in their future. My father is a police officer and I saw a lot of lawyers growing up. But I didn’t see many black lawyers or black female lawyers. All races need to be represented in the legal field and I am proud to be part of that story and to let young girls know there is a place for them in law.

Being black in America comes with its own set of challenges. That experience helps you empathize with a wide variety of people. It can help you connect with your clients in a different way than your white coworkers.

And if something happens in your workplace, don’t just swallow it and move on. People can’t change and grow if they don’t know they’ve done something wrong. Don’t be scared to speak up. The people that hired you did so for a reason, and they care about you.

I was just four when I came to England from Jamaica and when infant school commenced, I was so excited. I loved learning and making friends and I was itching to explore my surroundings. One day I remember queuing up for lunch, and having never done so before I was a little apprehensive. When my turn came I used my very best manners to request my choice. However, the dinner lady refused to serve me until I spoke “proper English”. I didn’t understand what she meant, as I was speaking English! Confused, I just repeated my request assuming she hadn’t heard me properly. However, once again she told me that she wasn't going to serve me until I learnt to speak properly.

By this time the queue next to me was building and I looked back at it helplessly because I didn’t know what to do. Thankfully a teacher came over and made the dinner lady serve me. It wasn’t until much later, that this incident - which had only stayed with me because of my embarrassment -, took on a new meaning.

As I went through the English education system growing up in the east end, apart from being called a ‘silly black’ once by another child, I was never really conscious of being treated less favourably on the grounds of my race. The National Front and the BNP would indeed knock on our front door, but I can’t say I ever felt threatened by them as a child, this would come much later as an adult as I was chased home by a group of men.

I had a college lecturer tell me once that the education system had failed me because I was clearly not going to become a Barrister and that at 17, I needed to wake up and realise this.

I also wasn’t brought up in a household where race was ‘allowed’ to be used as an excuse. My parents expected me to achieve my personal goals regardless of what I looked like, and in any event, coming from such a deprived area, poverty provided for a much bigger distraction.

Even so, I was determined I was going to be a Barrister. Most of my peers at the time didn’t even know what the role was and when I informed teachers at school and later in college, it was met by either a half smile heavily laden with pity or complete dismissal. I had a college lecturer tell me once that the education system had failed me because I was clearly not going to become a Barrister and that at 17, I needed to wake up and realise this. I chose to disagree, and often look back on this conversation wondering why the lecturer thought it more appropriate to advise me to give up rather than help me to achieve.

I was offered a seat at Kings College London to read Law. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend what would have been my first year, due to my father’s ill health. My parents were now going to return to the West Indies, but I wanted to stay to finish my education.

It was obvious to the city manager that the local manager had not only misled me, but also tried to block my attendance at Bar School.

The next 10 years weren’t easy. I couldn’t go to King’s because I could no longer afford to (those were the days just before student loans) and then when I did get to go to university, I spent most of my time not eating and working to pay for my travel and accommodation. Over that decade, there were times when I was homeless and I was heavily reliant on friends and family for charity, all because I refused to give up on my dream.

When I received an offer from Bar School I was overjoyed, but needed to obtain a professional loan to pay for the privilege. I applied at my local bank and would regularly see the manager who promised my application was being processed. It was a week into Bar School and the money had still not arrived some six months after the initial application. I visited a manager of the same bank in the city to explain the problem. He went to check on his system and when he returned, he was very red in the face.

In short, he explained that my local manager had not processed my application and had instead warned the central office that if one was made it should be denied, for reasons clear to the city manager that weren’t true. It was obvious to the city manager that the local manager had not only misled me, but also tried to block my attendance at Bar School. I have no idea why this stranger to me tried to do this, but I can guess.

I have been asked on two separate occasions by (white) Barristers why I was sitting in the advocates' room when clients should be waiting outside!

I went onto overcome a number of further hurdles with the help of others who came to my rescue right at the point when I thought I could take no more. I then entered a profession where I had not been entirely welcomed: I had comments made about the suitability of my hair (it was braided at the time); I had to overcome incidences in my career where my colour was directly raised as an issue (for example being paid less or not being accepted by clients); and even this year, I have been asked on two separate occasions by (white) Barristers why I was sitting in the advocates' room when clients should be waiting outside!

However, I have learnt that my parents were right. My colour has never stopped me from achieving my goals, the only person with the power to do that was me. When I look back at the hurdles I have overcome: homelessness, poverty, restricted access to financial support, microaggressive and overt racism, none of this has ultimately stood in my way.

You may not always see the path ahead, but that doesn’t mean your goal isn’t achievable. Opportunities will seem lost but then reappear. So now you know the decision is yours, what will you do?

Paula suggested:

Black Barristers Network - can put you in contact with junior and senior black Barristers who are currently practising.

In Black and White: A Young Barrister's Story of Race and Class in a Broken Justice System - this book allows any aspiring BAME lawyer to see what it’s really like at the Bar through the eyes of a young black Barrister.

I grew up in Kingston, Jamaica and went to university in the USA.  I moved to the UK after graduating and have been living in London since 2008.  I think my route into law probably began when I was told that I was too argumentative as a child – I was led to believe that only lawyers considered this a quasi-positive trait.  Although I liked the idea of law, I really enjoyed chemistry and ended up studying Materials Science and Engineering at university.   My interest in law, however, didn’t go away and I thought perhaps I could combine this with my technical background.  Fast forward a few years and I think I’ve managed to do just that: specialising in patent litigation at EIP.

In this article I will: (i) offer some advice and tips for other BAME lawyers/students; (ii) say what I think could be done to further encourage and ensure that those from ethnic minority backgrounds get the same opportunities to progress in the legal sphere; and (iii) share my thoughts on how lawyers/students can react to systemic racism in law.

Before I begin, I will say that the views expressed here are my own and that I do not speak on behalf of the “black community” (whatever that may be).

My advice and tips

While I think I am very lucky to be on my current path, it hasn’t all been smooth sailing and I definitely wouldn’t have navigated some of the obstacles I’ve faced without help from those around me. This brings me on to my first “tip” to other BAME lawyers/students: ask for help if you need it, because more often than not, people want to (and are happy to) help.

I’ve also noticed that at each stage of my career so far, I have found myself questioning whether I’m really good enough or really belong there.  I’ve since learned that this is not uncommon and that many people (BAME and non-BAME), have experienced some form of “impostor syndrome”.  My second tip would therefore be to believe that you belong/are good enough.

This will make it easier to follow my third tip which is to channel confidence.  This one, I admit, is a bit of a tricky one to put into practice and is probably akin to someone saying, “be less nervous”.  That said, people do seem to react more positively to someone who at least appears to know what he or she is talking about.

My fourth tip would be to get feedback regularly.  You can’t address an issue unless you know about it or have the confidence to be certain that you’re doing something well unless you get feedback.  So ask for it, and ask for it often.

And my last tip is: don’t be put off by the fact that there may not be an abundance of faces like yours in senior positions.  Change will happen (and is happening) and diversity is getting (and hopefully will continue to get) more than just lip service.

What can be done to ensure equality of opportunity? 

When it comes to what can be done to ensure equality of opportunity, I think the first thing for law firms to do is to look at the data.  What do the numbers say? Does the office reflect the racial diversity of society?  If you don’t know or don’t have the data, then you won’t be able to identify and tackle the issue properly. Firms need to examine their recruitment processes and in particular, look at how they’re doing when it comes to retaining BAME talent.

Secondly, once you have the data, if there are problems, they need to be acknowledged openly.  Only then can we try to find solutions. The temptation is often to focus on what is going well or the statistics that look good, but it is important to both recognise and address the areas which could be improved. Even if, on paper, the office is “diverse”, there needs to be an acceptance that biases exist and that we actively need to take steps to counter them.  It is also important to ask BAME staff about their experiences – the issues they face may not always be visible to everyone else.

There will not be a one-size-fits-all solution and each firm will have different issues that need to be addressed.

Mentoring and sponsorship are other measures that could be used to help BAME lawyers if they’re struggling to find their place in a possibly unfamiliar world.  In my experience, having someone to speak to and ask the “stupid” or awkward questions can be invaluable.

Firms should also not be afraid to break from tradition.  If the old way of doing things means maintaining the status quo, then let’s try something different – how about swapping one of the wine and cheese evenings for, say, supper at Nando’s?

How lawyers/students can react to systemic racism in law

With systemic racism in other areas of society being highlighted, we should take a hard look at the legal profession.  To all lawyers, whether BAME or not, I would say we first need to recognise that we all have conscious and subconscious biases – because, in acknowledging this, we can start to redress the imbalance.  Given that the current situation is unequal, continuing in the same vein should not be a viable option. If we disagree with how things are, then we need to act now and make actual changes. To that end, law firms need to not just talk the politically correct talk.  There is no quick fix; it will require sustained effort, but it is the right thing to do.  I would love to see dedicated teams within law firms whose job it is to investigate and come up with ideas on tackling racism in law.

To BAME lawyers/students my message is: (1) don’t be disheartened; and (2) be prepared to talk about race and your experiences (we don’t do it enough).

To non-BAME lawyers/students my message is: (1) we all dislike unfairness, so let’s do something about it (inertia is easy, but wrong); and (2) speak out and give your support (BAME people cannot do it on their own).

Alex Morgan

Managing Associate, Solicitor
London, EIP

Alex is a qualified solicitor-advocate and joined EIP from the intellectual property department of a large international law firm. He specialises in patent litigation and has experience of proceedings before the High Court, Court of Appeal, Copyright Tribunal, European Intellectual Property Office, as well as in ICC Arbitration.

COVID-19 pandemic, apart from the human cost, has had a severe economic impact worldwide. The Indian economy has not been immune from the economic hit and is currently facing one of the worst economic slumps.

In order to combat the economic impact of the pandemic on the Indian economy, the Indian Government recently unveiled various reforms and economic relief packages, and the defence sector has been one of the biggest beneficiaries.

As part of the economic relief package announced by the Finance Minister, the following key measures were announced for the defence sector:

(a)        proposal to increase the foreign direct investment (FDI) limit from the existing 49% to 74%, under the automatic route,

(b)        notifying a list of weapons/platforms the import of which shall be banned, with year wise timeline,

(c)        indigenisation of imported spares, and

(d)        separate budget provisioning for domestic capital procurement.

Additionally, the draft of the new Defence Procurement Policy (DPP) 2020, which was launched before the economic reform package was announced by the Finance Minister, provides additional relaxations, primarily in relation to the offset policy1.

It is expected that the reforms announced as part of the economic relief package as well as the proposed amendments set out in the draft of the new DPP 2020, both of which aim at boosting domestic defence manufacturing sector, and reducing reliance on imports as part of the 'Make In India' initiative, will provide much need impetus to the domestic defence industry.

We have, in this article, set out our views on the various reforms announced in relation to the defence sector.

Increase in FDI limit

The extant FDI policy permits 100% FDI in the defence manufacturing sector2. However, while FDI up to 49% is permitted under the automatic route, any FDI beyond 49% requires prior Government approval. Additionally, any investment beyond 49% is subject to the condition that such investment must result in access to modern technology3.

Paying heed to the long pending demand of foreign original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), the Government of India has proposed to increase FDI in defence manufacturing under the automatic route from the existing ceiling of 49% to 74%.

With equity ownership in Indian JVs capped at 49%, the foreign 'OEMs' currently were not able to exercise ‘control’, and therefore, were reluctant to transfer the sensitive and cutting edge technologies to their Indian joint ventures (JVs). However, the revised limit of 74% will now enable foreign OEMs to own and control their Indian JVs. It is expected that the ability to exercise ownership and control will entice major global players to set up a manufacturing base in India.

While this is a welcome step, in case the revised FDI limit will continue to be subject to the sector specific conditionality’s, then the objective of increasing the FDI limit may not achieve the desired result. This is on account of the fact that the requirement of prior Government approval triggers in case of foreign investment in an Indian company (not seeking industrial licence), if such foreign investment results into (a) change in ownership pattern of such Indian company, or (b) the transfer of stake by existing investor to a new foreign investor in such Indian company. Though the details of the proposed amendment in FDI policy are not currently available, it remains to be seen whether the said requirement of prior Government approval would also be applicable in case the foreign JV partners propose to increase their stake in existing Indian JVs up to the revised limited of 74% (resulting into a change in ownership pattern of the concerned Indian JV).

Banning the import of weapons/platforms

While India is the second largest importer of arms and armaments, it occupies the 23rd position in the list of defence exporters. As per publically available reports and statistics, around 60-65% of the country’s military requirements are met by imports. This not only places a huge cost on the exchequer but dependence on import has hampered the growth of the domestic defence manufacturing sector.

Intending to boost the domestic sector, the Government has announced that it will issue a negative import list for weapons/platforms. The list will come with a year wise timeline.

This step is likely to result in two-fold benefits – one, reduction in import bills, and second, encouragement to Indian entities engaged in the manufacturing of defence products to indigenously design, develop and manufacture modern defence equipment.

Indigenisation of imported spares

Another important step towards reducing import cost is the policy announcement regarding the indigenisation of imported spares.

While reducing the ever-growing cost of imports is one of the reasons behind this move, another (and arguably more critical) reason is the fact that since most of the weapon and systems being used by the Indian armed forces are of foreign origin, lack of timely availability of spares is a critical security concern as it impacts maintenance and servicing of the weapons and systems.

In view of the above and to ensure that the operational and battle readiness is not hampered due to lack of spares the Government took the decision to rope in the domestic defence industry to manufacture the spares. The decision to course spares locally is expected to also entice foreign OEMs and suppliers to set up facilities in India for manufacturing and supply of spares to Indian armed forces.

Separate budget provisioning for domestic capital procurement

The Government’s announcement of having a separate budget for domestic procurement, along with a time-bound defence procurement process, is expected to act as a confidence booster to the domestic defence sector by ensuring a demarcated allocation of funds to be used specifically for local procurements.

Key changes proposed in the new DPP 2020

The objective of the new DPP 2020 is to promote indigenous design capacity and ensure higher localisation. The effective implementation of the new DPP 2020 would increase the role of the domestic industry, especially the private sector, in defence production.

The key changes introduced in the draft DPP 2020 are as follows:

(a)                    Addition of a provision for leasing of weapons and systems – apart from the cost aspects, this new provision will enable the armed forces to acquire weapons and systems the sale of which is prohibited by the Government of the country where the relevant foreign OEM is situated. This will be useful for military equipment not used in actual warfare like transport fleets, trainers, simulators, etc.;

(b)        Addition of price variation clause – a new clause, which will be applicable to all cases where the total cost of the contract is more than INR 1,000 crore (approx. USD 132 million)  and the delivery schedule exceeds 60 months, would be inserted in procurement contracts to cater to the escalation of price from the last date of submission of bids till the finalisation of the contract;

(c)                    Hike in the indigenous content ratio – in order to support the ‘Make in India’ initiative, the indigenous content ratio stipulated for various categories of procurement has been increased by around 10%;

(d)        Addition of a provision for long term product support –  as per this provision, the OEMs would need to provide product support, including the supply of spares and management of obsolescence for the life of the product (minimum 30 years from the date of delivery of the last aircraft by the production agency); and,

(e)                    Changes to the off-set policy – as per the extant DPP 2016, FDI in JVs with Indian enterprises for the manufacture and/or maintenance of eligible products and provision of eligible services is permitted for offset. However, the new DPP 2020 proposes that investment in defence manufacturing (whether through FDI or direct investment or JVs or through the non-equity route for co-production, co-development and production or licensed production of defence products) would be eligible for offset. Further, DPP 2020 has introduced higher offset multipliers for transfer of technology, and procurements from MSMEs.

Concluding remarks

While the measures announced by the Government have been welcomed, there are a number of other aspects which need to be resolved.

Public sector undertakings (despite their poor track record as regards time and cost overruns, inefficiencies and poor financial performance) have been the preferred suppliers for big-ticket purchases. Confidence would need to be given to the private players that the Government would place firm orders for significant quantities in order to make their investments viable.

Further, a number of changes would need to be made to the DPP so as to align with the changes announced. For example, while DPP 2020 does recognise Indian subsidiaries of the foreign OEMs in relation to 'Buy (Global-Manufacturers in India)', a new procurement category introduced in DPP 2020 to promote 'Make in India', the existing criteria for selection of “Indian vendor”, which is restricted to entities owned and controlled by companies/individuals resident in India, would need to be revised to include Indian subsidiaries of foreign defence manufacturers for other procurement categories also in view of the proposed FDI liberalisation.

Only time will tell how far these reforms go towards achieving the intended objectives.

****

Disclaimer: This publication is not intended to be a comprehensive review of all developments in the law and practice, or to cover all aspects of those referred to herein. This publication has been prepared for information purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Although reasonable care has been taken to ensure that the information in this publication is true and accurate, such information is provided ‘as is’, without any warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy or completeness of any such information.

Gaurav Wahie, Partner                                                               Dinesh Gupta, Senior Associate

¹ As per the offset policy foreign suppliers of defence equipment are required to invest a percentage of the order value in India, by various options such as capital investment and/or technology transfer.

²Given the sensitive nature of the defence sector, investment from Pakistan is prohibited. Further, pursuant to a recent press note issued on 17 April 2020 (Press Note 3 of 2020), foreign investment (in any sector) from citizens/residents as well as entities incorporated in countries which share a land border with India now require prior approval of the Government.

³There is lack of clarity on whether modern technology would be modern compared to technology available in India or technology available globally.