Workplace experts, Acas, have launched a new guide to help employers manage staff who have a potentially life threatening or long term illness such as cancer, HIV or multiple sclerosis.

It is estimated that by 2020 almost one in two people (47%) will get cancer at some point in their lives but some employers may be ill equipped to deal with staff who have the condition and unfamiliar with the law.

Acas advises employers and small businesses to have regular discussions with employees who have a progressive illness and to make reasonable adjustments to their jobs if necessary.

Acas Head of Guidance, Stewart Gee, said: “Being diagnosed with a potentially life threatening illness such as cancer can be a devastating experience for a worker and a manager may worry about how they can provide the best possible support.

“Many employers may not be aware that as soon as anyone gets diagnosed as having cancer, HIV or multiple sclerosis then they have the same protection as someone with a disability according to the law, and are automatically protected against discrimination under the Equality Act.

“Our guidance published today offers advice to bosses on how best to provide support to team members and employees who have a potentially life threatening or long term illness as well as staying within the law.”

Acas’ top tips for managers on handling potentially life threatening illnesses at work include:

• Have an early conversation with staff members who have progressive illnesses very early on and establish whether or not they wish to share their news with team members. Colleagues may be more understanding about any change in work arrangements if they know what’s happening;
• Get an understanding of the illness and the effects it will have on their staff and what kind of reasonable adjustments that can help them. This could mean a change in working hours, type of work or extra time off for medical appointments depending on the circumstances;
• Regular chats can help to reveal if any additional adjustments will be needed and extra support that’s available at work; and
• Make sure employees are aware of their workplace rights including sick pay and other benefits they could be entitled to.

Acas’ full guidance is available at www.acas.org.uk/progressiveillness

(Source: Acas - Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service)

More than two thirds (70%) of the UK’s SME business owners are confident that the UK's decision to leave the EU will have no impact on their ability to access finance. This is according to the Close Brothers Business Barometer, a quarterly survey of UK SME owners and senior management across a range of sectors and regions.

Only in Greater London did over half of businesses (57%) answer ‘yes’ to the question ‘do you expect your access to finance to be impacted by Brexit?’. In contrast, in Northern Ireland and Wales, only 14% and 18% of business owners, respectively, answered ‘yes’.

“Overall, UK SMEs feel that despite the outcome of the EU referendum, their access to finance has not been noticeably disrupted, and nor do they expect it to be,” said Neil Davies, CEO, Close Brothers Asset Finance.

“Apart from Greater London businesses, all other regions feel that Brexit will have a limited impact on their ability to raise finance.

“We have consistently said that despite the outcome, it’s very much ‘business as usual’ and that we will continue to provide our customers with funding, as we’ve historically done through all economic cycles and periods of uncertainty. We even took out a full-page advert in the Sunday Times on 10 July saying exactly that.”

Sectors

There was a degree of variation within Close Brothers Asset Finance’s key sectors, with some expecting to see more of an impact than others. The breakdown of ‘yes’ responses to the question ‘do you expect your access to finance to be impacted by Brexit?’:

• Construction – 28%
• Engineering – 48%
• Manufacturing – 33%
• Transport – 37%
• Print – 47%

(Source: Close Brothers Asset Finance)

Earlier last week Pauline Cafferkey, the Scottish nurse who returned to the UK having contracted Ebola herself, was cleared of all allegations of dishonesty and misconduct. She had been working at an Ebola Treatment Centre in Sierra Leone in 2014.

The NMC referred her case to a Fitness to Practise hearing of the Conduct and Competence Committee. The specific allegations against her related to her conduct at the Public Health England screening area at Heathrow airport upon her return to the UK. The NMC alleged that she had dishonestly allowed an incorrect temperature to be recorded; left the screening area without reporting her true temperature; and did not tell a doctor that she had recently taken paracetamol which could have affected the temperature reading.

The NMC alleged that her actions had potentially put the public at risk, as well as jeopardising the reputation of her profession and that her fitness to practise was therefore impaired.

It is the allegation of dishonesty in relation to this incident that is of particular interest. The Conduct and Competence Committee of the NMC struck out the charge of dishonesty. This was after an expert gave evidence that the nurse’s ability to make decisions and reason properly were compromised by the onset of the illness by the time she reached the UK. The Committee concluded from this that her judgment had been impaired at the time and therefore she could not have been dishonest.

What constitutes dishonesty?

We deal with a lot of cases where medical professionals find themselves facing allegations of dishonesty. Many registrants struggle to understand how what they have done constitutes dishonesty.

It is easy for us all to agree that robbing a bank or stealing a bar of chocolate from the newsagent is dishonest. However there are circumstances that arise where a difference of opinion creeps in and the distinction between honest and dishonest is not as clear for all to see.

When it comes to medical professionals, recent cases we have dealt with involving allegations of dishonesty include circumstances such as taking paid employment with a second employer whilst in receipt of sick pay/parental leave from a primary employer; submitting inaccurate time sheets or mileage claims; removing information from a list for review at a departmental meeting; and falsifying documentation.

It is important to note that medical professionals can be referred for Fitness to Practise hearings for dishonesty arising not just in their professional life, but in their personal life as well. Some registrants struggle to understand the relevance of what they do in their personal life to their professional standing. However, the regulators regard the good character of a registrant to be a fundamental issue. The regulators uphold the reputation of the profession as well as protecting the public and this is often the public interest element which justifies a regulator bringing such cases.

Panels do not just look at cases where medical professionals have been dishonest by something they have done, they can also find that a registrant has been dishonest by something they have not done. It is possible to be dishonest by omission as well as a through a positive action.

It is also worth noting that the medical professional does not have to have gained personally from misconduct, for the panel to make a finding of dishonesty.

What does dishonesty mean in law?

The starting point in law with regard to ascertaining dishonesty is referred to as the ‘Ghosh test.’ To be dishonest there are 2 tests that both need to be passed:

1. First, whether according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people what was done was dishonest and;
2. If it was dishonest by those standards, then it needs to be considered whether the individual themselves must have realised that what they were doing was by those standards dishonest.

When a Fitness to Practise Panel considers allegations of dishonesty, the guidance provided to the Panel by the Legal Advisor still follows this Ghosh test.

There has been quite a lot of discussion in more recent years, in relation to the standards of “reasonable and honest people” and whether in regulatory and disciplinary hearings this should be the standards of “reasonable and honest medical professionals” specifically. Regulators and Fitness to Practise Panels have debated whether these 2 sets of people actually have different standards when it comes to honesty. The agreed rule, again adopted as part of the guidance provided to the panel, is that the assessment of honesty must be made in context and from an informed perspective. This allows for any specific knowledge and understanding of the professional context, without the need to imply a differing level of honesty.

Dishonesty by omission

Medical professionals may find themselves facing allegations of dishonesty by omission. Examples include failing to disclose previous fitness to practise history on an application form, regardless of whether this is specifically requested; failure to comply with the ‘duty of candour’ by not reporting appropriately when things have gone wrong; or being deliberately evasive when being asked a specific question that the registrant knows the answer to.

Some registrants struggle to accept that not doing something, or avoiding telling someone something, can constitute dishonesty. As an illustration, imagine that you are looking to sell your car to another private individual and your last MOT advisory for that car stated that there was corrosion in the brake cables that would need to be dealt with. Most people would agree that it is dishonest not to tell the buyer this information. Others may seek to argue that it only amounts to dishonesty if the specific question is asked and a lie is given in response, or even an evasive answer is given. However, such distinctions will find little favour with a Fitness to Practise Panel.

As medical professionals, throughout your training and professional career there are a number of processes and accepted standards of professionalism in relation to communicating with patients, receiving feedback, liaising with colleagues, providing information etc. Registrants may find themselves the subject of a Fitness to Practise investigation when these standards are not met and relationships and/or communications break down. In this situation, medical professionals can find themselves at risk of allegations of dishonesty by omission, for instance by not engaging with your Educational Supervisor or mentor; not seeking advice or assistance on a complicated or unusual case; or not reporting an issue affecting a patient’s safety.

Examples from recent investigations

There have been recent examples where registrants faced allegations of dishonesty in Fitness to Practise hearings, and the panels have found registrants to be dishonest. A doctor claiming to be unaware of the parental leave policy, which specifically did not allow the undertaking of separate employment whilst on parental leave was found to be dishonest. The Panel concluded that the doctor should have been aware of the policy and the leave application form made clear the purpose of that leave.

A midwife who the Panel found had included information in their diary regarding work that they had not carried out was found to be dishonest. The Panel concluded that it was a legal requirement for a diary to be an accurate record of work carried out, rather than work intended to be carried out.

A doctor who removed the names of patients from a list for review at a meeting was found to be dishonest. The Panel found that the doctor would have known that they were depriving their colleagues of a learning opportunity.

An operating department practitioner, regulated by the HCPC, who worked agency shifts whilst on paid sick leave from another employer was found to be dishonest. The Panel in that case concluded that this action came firmly into the category of serious acts of dishonesty.

The regulators hold professionals to high standards of integrity. In the case of Pauline Cafferkey, the panel clearly gave a lot of weight to the expert evidence in relation to the impact that the onset of her illness would have had on her judgement. In striking out the allegation of dishonesty, the Committee obviously came to the conclusion that in relation to the second stage of the dishonesty test, the nurse could not have realised that what she was doing was dishonest.

An allegation of dishonesty is amongst the most serious allegations a medical professional can face. If a Panel finds that a registrant has been dishonest, especially where the registrant has denied this, a sanction of erasure or removal from the register can unfortunately be the most likely outcome.

Written by Marie Dancer and Victoria Rees, expert fitness to practise lawyers from Richard Nelson LLP and the Medic Assistance Scheme.

(Source: Richard Nelson LLP)

Law firms and their clients continue to make national headlines for all the wrong reasons, as both sides are now a prime target for cyber criminals. The increased frequency of attacks like these is truly alarming, not only for clients, but also for the solicitors who can take a huge hit to their reputation in seconds. One solicitor in Guildford, for example, was conned into sending a criminal more than £700,000 of her clients’ money, resulting in her suspension by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

It is worrying how easy it is for these criminals to breach a firm’s security systems in many cases. The problem is that there are a variety of methods that hackers can use to access just about any file on a computer and ultimately a firm’s network. The Business Email Compromise (BEC) is an especially popular method at the moment. This particular scam focuses on the weakest link of a firm’s security – the human sat at a desk.

Fraudsters essentially use a BEC to deceive lawyers and their clients into transferring a large sum of money into a fraudulent account. These attacks can take place from one of two angles: either the client is targeted or the law firm itself is compromised.

Either way, the criminal will typically email the law firm or the buyer, asking them to make a payment. In reality, they’ll find that the bank details have been changed – either those of the solicitor or of the client – so that the money ends up being transferred into a fraudulent account.  Scams like these have increased by 40% in the recent years and according to the accountancy firm Hazlewoods, a shocking 2.3 million was lost due to attacks on law firms between November 2015 and April 2016 alone.

How have the threats changed over the years?

The truth is that the threats facing law firms haven't really changed all that much in the last 20 years. However, the force behind the threats has changed. Experienced hackers now commit these crimes for the money, particularly through extortion, blackmail and corporate espionage.

As a result, the pressures facing the legal industry are now two-pronged. Industry regulators are becoming more and more focussed on Information Security and requiring law firms to take the issue seriously. At the same time, clients are also driving new behaviours by requiring their law firms to prove their robust information security measures – sometimes even at the pitching stage.

It is this client-side pressure that will be the most immediate concern for firms, which not only need to demonstrate tight security to drive business, but must also increasingly be available to deal with clients’ concerns outside of work hours and away from the office. This means working on different devices and away from established office systems, but still maintaining the highest levels of security.

Meanwhile, whilst the threats related to cyber crime continue to increase, regulation and client expectations will also build steadily. For today’s law firms, the challenge of maintaining flexible and convenient working practices whilst keeping data beyond the reach of cyber criminals is therefore likely to be a key concern, both now in the years ahead.

Why are law firms the most targeted?

Other markets have suffered from cyber attacks in recent years, but nowhere near to the same degree as law firms. Because lawyers often have access to large funds in their systems, they are an incredibly attractive target for hackers.  The problem is that criminals know that solicitors are the “middle man” in a wide variety of financial transactions, so if they can find a weakness they’ll exploit it.

Moreover, law firms typically rely on email to share bank account and other personal details, which also puts them at risk of a cyber attack. In more extreme cases, an attacker may even visit the firm where the solicitor works in order to gain even greater knowledge of the company’s operations.

It’s important to realise that attacks like these are never carried out at random. They can take months of planning and are usually quite intricate, since the fraudsters have to ensure that everything goes off without a hitch to avoid being caught. As such, the people behind these attacks tend to be incredibly intelligent. After all, hacking is not easy, especially in situations where robust security systems are in place.

How to avoid being hacked?

In most cases, the secret to defending against these attacks is already contained within the firm itself.  The first step is to ensure that all staff are trained well enough to recognise a suspicious call or email.

For example, employees should be encouraged to take a close look at the email sender in any messages they receive. In the BEC scam, an element in the email address will often be very slightly different, whether it is a wrongly spelled domain name or suffix, such as .net instead of .com.

Secondly, it is important to check that that the email style is the same as the sender’s usual correspondence.  If the email recipient notices the style or grammar is considerably different, that could be a red flag. If in doubt, both employees and clients should contact the sender to determine whether it is genuine, since the IT team can often track who and where the email has come from if it’s not.

Creating a secure, online portal is another way of sharing information between solicitors and their clients,s reducing the risk of being hacked. There are a different variety of portals that firms can create in order to keep clients’ information safe, both off the shelf or bespoke to a specific firm. Each has different levels of security, so it is up to the firm to decide which to implement. Ideally any situation where money is transferred needs at least a two-stage authorisation process.

Solutions like these may sound overwhelming, but following just one or two of these steps will help to ensure that only the right people have access to private or personal information. For the most part, the security systems that are needed to protect firms from attacks like these are probably already in place in most cases.  It’s therefore vital that all staff are provided with basic IT security training, covering areas such as data protection on the move, verification procedures, how to report suspect communications, etc.

Using the ISO 27001 standard is an ideal solution to ensure a firm actively manages and reviews how it manages the security of its assets, including financial information, intellectual property, employee details and confidential third-party data. ISO 27001 is a proven method for conducting a comprehensive risk assessment and managing any issues that are identified. The process is not difficult, and certification can normally be achieved for a reasonable price.

What happens next?

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) believes that firms are responsible for safeguarding client funds, which means that law firms must replace any money that is improperly withheld or withdrawn from a client account. It is therefore imperative that law firms, particularly those dealing with property purchases and other large financial transactions, are extra vigilant.

In the event of a high-profile cyber attack, firms not only risk seeing their reputation in tatters, but could also be banned from practising law altogether.  As such, firms no longer have the option of simply ignoring this risk, and must instead take action to protect themselves – and their clients – right now.

Author: Robert Rutherford, CEO of the business and IT consultancy QuoStar.

(Source: QuoStar)

The Ministry of Defence is facing a Judicial Review over the framework of support it provides to service personnel facing judicial process.

Hilary Meredith, CEO of Hilary Meredith Solicitors Ltd, has been instructed by clients currently subject to judicial process and investigations to consider bringing the Judicial Review. Ms Meredith recently provided evidence at the Defence Sub Committee’s inquiry into the support offered by the Ministry of Defence to former and serving military personnel who are subject to judicial process.

At the Inquiry, MPs heard how investigators from the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT) are turning up on family doorsteps and at barracks’ gates demanding information or threatening arrest.

In one harrowing incident they appeared at an ex-girlfriend’s house and interviewed her on whether her former partner had tattoos, was abusive or talked in his sleep. In another, they turned up at a barracks and threatened to arrest an officer despite the fact he was acquitted by an internal probe 10 years earlier. Even witnesses have been threatened with arrest, as the probe into alleged Iraq War wrongdoing has got completely out of hand.

As has been widely reported, Ms Meredith is representing a decorated major who faces prosecution for manslaughter over the death of an Iraqi teenager 13 years ago.

The decision by IHAT to consider charges comes despite a military investigation as long ago as 2006 that cleared him (and two others) of wrongdoing.

A spokesman for no 10 this week insisted that IHAT was independent and said anyone from the forces involved would receive support, including legal advice.

MP Jonny Mercer, a former soldier, responded by saying: “This is definitely not the case.”

Prime Minister Theresa May today said she will not allow an "industry of vexatious allegations" against UK troops over claims of abuse in Iraq.

She insisted that action had been taken to address false claims and IHAT's work would be completed by the end of 2019, after a review of the system by former Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir David Calvert-Smith.

While welcoming the Prime Minister’s announcement, Ms Meredith believes the support currently provided by the Ministry of Defence is wholly inadequate and says our troops are being left to “hang out to dry”.

Commenting on the Judicial Review, she said: “I passionately believe that the Ministry of Defence should be held to account when it fails our servicemen and women.

“The Ministry of Defence should be standing behind all our servicemen and women facing judicial process. A framework of support and assistance needs to be put in place.”

Having consulted with veterans, she is calling on the Ministry of Defence to guarantee the following:

1 – The right to a framework of help and support for serving and ex-military personnel to include, Chain of Command, welfare and medical support.

2 – The right to independent legal advice.

3 – The right for funding for such advice.

4 – The right to a fair trial.

5 – Time limits be imposed on these cases.

6 – The rights promised to military personnel under the military covenant to be upheld.

(Source: Hilary Meredith Solicitors Ltd)

CISAC - the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers – recently acknowledged that the ‘Copyright Package’ released by the European Commission is a good starting point towards addressing the unfair situation for creators in the digital market. CISAC also called European institutions to take further measures to secure fair remuneration and a better future for creators online.

The ‘Copyright Package’ contains a new proposal for a Directive on Copyright in Digital Single Market that tackles the issue of transfer of value. Also referred to as the ‘value gap’, the transfer of value is the market distortion created by the use of copyright works by online intermediaries without properly remunerating the creators. The new EU proposal recognises the role and obligations of online services in the digital market and calls on them to take appropriate measures to ensure the protection of creative works.

CISAC Director General Gadi Oron commented: “Europe is waking up to the global community of creators calling for urgent action to secure a fairer digital market. The proposal is a step in the right direction but additional steps are required to ensure creators receive fair remuneration and to prevent abuse of the existing legal framework by online intermediaries. We are looking at the European Parliament and the Member States for more significant action towards a better future for creators in the digital marketplace.”

CISAC President Jean-Michel Jarre declared: “The European Commission has made an effort to respond to the chorus of voices calling on government support to address the unfair situation in today's digital market, where major players are using the works of creators to generate colossal revenues without fairly remunerating them. In Europe, given its great richness of talent, European institutions bear the responsibility in protecting its creative community and securing a better future for new generations of creators.”

(Source: CISAC)

Ahead of a Congressional hearing held by House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX), members of Congress, law experts, and environmental groups gathered at the Capitol to highlight all that Exxon knew and buried about climate change, and to push back on the Chairman’s overreaching subpoenas.

The event featured prominent members of Congress including Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA), Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Rep. Katherine Clark (D-MA) and Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT), who have been leading the charge against Exxon to hold the fossil fuel company for its role in orchestrating a decades-long campaign of deception and misinformation about climate change.

At the event, Sharon Eubanks, the former Department of Justice lawyer who led the historical suit against Big Tobacco, echoed the call for a federal investigation into Exxon. Representing the climate movement, May Boeve, 350.org Executive Director, and Jesse Bragg, Corporate Accountability International Media Director, spoke to financial ties between Big Oil and the Science Committee, as well as climate impacts that likely could have been curbed if Exxon had told the truth when its scientists warned executives about climate change.

Rep. Smith’s hearing is set to feature professors of law who are expected to exclusively focus on affirming the Committee’s authority to subpoena environmental groups and the attorneys general of New York and Massachusetts. At least two of Rep. Smith’s witnesses, Ronald Rotunda and Elizabeth Price Foley, have significant ties to fossil fuel industry-funded groups such as the Heartland Institute and the Koch-funded Cato Institute, both which have funding ties to “dark money” financial channels Donors Trust and Donors Capital.

Since 1998, Rep. Smith has received a total of $675,597 from the fossil fuel industry, including $24,770 over the course of his career which came directly from ExxonMobil -- making oil and gas his most generous industry contributor throughout his career.

This event took place the day after thousands across the country, with a large rally in Washington, DC, rallied in solidarity with the Standing Rock Sioux and Indigenous Peoples who are protecting people and planet from the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Just this week, NASA confirmed that August 2016 was the hottest month in history, marking it the sixteenth hottest consecutive month on record.

(Source: ExxonKnew.org)

The House of Lords Constitution Committee recently published a report on ‘The invoking of Article 50’ in which it states that Government should not trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament. The Committee says it would be ‘constitutionally inappropriate’ and would set ‘a disturbing precedent’ for the Government to act on the referendum without explicit parliamentary approval.

The Committee says that the referendum result was clear, and that Parliament is now responsible for ensuring the Government implements that result and takes forward Brexit negotiations in a way that achieves the best possible outcome for the UK as a whole. Parliament and the Government will need to work together with a mutual respect for each party’s constitutional role—and that starts with the Parliamentary involvement and assent for the invoking of Article 50.

The report points out that although the EU referendum was, in legal terms, advisory, it was accompanied by a clear undertaking by the Government, based on a manifesto commitment, to implement the decision reached in the referendum. In the UK’s representative democracy, it should be Parliament which takes the decision to act following the referendum. The Committee therefore states that Parliament should play a central role in the decision to trigger Article 50, and have a key role scrutinising both the Brexit negotiations and in approving the final deal between the UK and EU.

In considering Article 50, the Committee conclude that it is unclear whether Article 50, once triggered, could be unilaterally reversed by the UK. The report therefore states that Parliament should act on the assumption that triggering Article 50 would be irreversible, and that Article 50 should be triggered "only when it is in the UK’s best interests to begin the formal two-year negotiation process."

Commenting Lord Lang of Monkton, Chairman of the Committee, said:

"The referendum result was clear and it is right that the Government are preparing to take Britain out of the EU. However, our constitution is built on the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and the decision to act following the referendum should be taken by Parliament.

"Parliament should be asked to approve the decision to trigger Article 50—a decision which will start the formal process of the UK leaving the EU and set a deadline for the UK’s exit.

"Parliament’s assent could be sought by means of legislation or through resolutions tabled in both Houses of Parliament. An Act of Parliament would give greater legal certainty and could be used to enshrine the "constitutional requirements" required by Article 50, allowing for the setting of advantageous pre-conditions regarding the exit negotiations to be met before Article 50 could be triggered. A resolution could be simpler and quicker to secure but might not provide the same watertight legal authority. We consider that either would be a constitutionally acceptable means of securing parliamentary approval for the triggering of Article 50.

"Parliament and the Government will need to work together to ensure that the UK achieves the best possible outcome when it withdraws from the EU. It is therefore important that Parliament plays a key role in scrutinising the Brexit negotiations once Article 50 is triggered. We all want the negotiations to produce a deal that works for both the UK and the EU, and Parliament must be involved in holding the Government to account in delivering that."

(Source: House of Lords)

“The recent amendment to the UK Finance Bill 2016 to include enabling legislation that would require companies to publish a ‘country-by-country report’ (CbCR), showing where they paid their taxes and earned their revenues, is nothing more than an ineffectual naming and shaming exercise,” says Miles Dean, Managing Partner, Milestone International Tax.

“If countries do adopt CbCR, what purpose does it serve? It would show that countries like Luxembourg and Ireland aren't interested in Corporation Tax - they want bums on seats; they want jobs that produce income, that generates income tax receipts, and that gives rise to consumption, thus producing VAT receipts. This begs the question: is Corporation Tax necessary? Is it the solution, or is there an alternative? Maybe Ireland and Luxembourg are ahead of the curve on this one.

“What gets missed in all of this brouhaha is the fact that whatever tax is suffered by a multinational enterprise (MNE) is ultimately passed on to the consumer: Vodafone, Starbucks, Amazon, Boots, Shell, Apple etc., would simply increase the price of their product to protect their bottom line.

“What CbCR would undoubtedly show up is that the US tax system is to blame for much of the corporate tax ‘abuse’. An outdated, not fit for purpose Controlled Foreign Companies (CFC) regime, coupled with the ‘Check the Box’ election, no exemption for foreign dividends, and pliant treaty partners like Luxembourg and Ireland (who can't compete unless they drop their Corporation Tax aspirations), and you have the perfect (tax) storm: very low effective corporate tax rate and long term tax deferral (there being no incentive for the likes of Apple to repatriate their profits to the US).

“The UK and other countries can bleat about how unfair it is that Ireland and Luxembourg are gaming the system, but HMRC could have policed its treaty network better, including invoking anti-abuse provisions in its treaties (Limitation on Benefits).

“Earlier this week Caroline Flint MP said: ‘Today is a victory for fairer taxation. A victory for openness, and a clear message to those global corporations that shift profits to low tax havens, that we expect them to play by the same rules as every other business.’”

“But which UK MNE’s is she concerned about? She probably can’t name one UK MNE that she thinks these new rules will apply to or affect. The simple reason for this is that it is US MNE’s and their legitimate tax planning (which they have employed in reaction to the laws set down by their legislature), that is the focus of most attention, and which has skewed the debate. There is no political will in the US to change the status quo, nor is there any evidence that the US will kowtow to the OECD. So the campaigners and MP’s can holler all they like, but CbCR isn’t going to change a great deal.

“The other problem is that the expectations of the likes of Flint will never be met – to suggest a domestic company is the same as a MNE is Alice in Wonderland stuff – either genuinely stupid or wilfully blind. MNE’s are hugely complex enterprises and, like it or not, have the ability to locate operations, risks, staff, manufacturing, etc. wherever they like and wherever they can get the best deal. Period. That’s life and that’s choice. What the campaigners really want is to remove choice.”

(Source: Miles Dean, Managing Partner, Milestone International Tax)

Italian law firm Picciau|Sagramoso has advised Austep, an Italian engineering company specialized in Water & Wastewater Treatment (Wwt) and Waste to Energy (WTE), in the investment of the company by the private equity fund White Cloud Capital.

Signed on July 21st, the investment agreement is expected to proceed in four tranches, dependent on a number of conditions. The first tranche of the transaction was closed on the 2nd August.

Austep aims to use the resource acquired through the investment to finance the business’ foreign market expansion, particularly in Europe, Asia and the Americas, by developing larger and more capable installations.

Austep was advised by Picciau|Sagramoso, with a team led by Partner Giovanni A. Sagramoso. White Cloud Capital was advised on the investment by a team at Bonelli Erede, led by Partner Gianfranco Veneziano.