Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Last weekLastLast week the US House of Representatives passed bipartisan legislation that would update the federal government's technology and systems. The bill, known as the Modernizing Government Technology Act, was introduced by Congressmen Will Hurd, Robin Kelly, and Gerry Connolly.
The US Senate is currently considering companion legislation introduced by Senators Jerry Moran and Tom Udall.
CSRA President and CEO Larry Prior released the following statement on the passage of the House bill: "CSRA is pleased to see the broad, bipartisan support for the Modernizing Government Technology Act (MGT Act). As recent cyber threats have shown, time is of the essence to upgrade our government's critical IT infrastructure. Today's passage in the House is an important step, and we congratulate Congressman Will Hurd, Congresswoman Robin Kelly, and Congressman Gerry Connolly on this achievement. We hope the companion legislation championed by Senator Moran and Senator Udall receives quick consideration in the Senate as well."
Forward-looking Statements
All statements in this press release and in all future press releases that do not directly and exclusively relate to historical facts constitute "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements represent CSRA's intentions, plans, expectations and beliefs, including statements about including statements about the total value realized by CSRA under the contract, the actual duration of and services delivered under the contract, the effects of the program contract on our business services, the effectiveness of our services and solutions, and our ability to enhance mission capabilities of our customers. The forward-looking statements are subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors, many of which are outside the control of CSRA. These factors could cause actual results to differ materially from forward-looking statements. For a written description of these factors, see the sections titled "Risk Factors" and "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" in CSRA's most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K and any updating information in subsequent SEC filings. CSRA disclaims any intention or obligation to update these forward-looking statements whether as a result of subsequent event or otherwise.
(Source: CSRA Inc.)
UK Prime Minister Theresa May has promised, in the run up to the snap general election next month, that by a conservative government workers’ rights would see a huge expansion, including a statutory right to leave for a relative’s care, and to leave for a parent whose child had passed.
Also included in the promises are rights in relation to the gig economy, training, pension protection, a potential minimum wage rise, a guarantee that European worker rights would be sustained post-Brexit, and more.
Here below are Your Thoughts on the news, from reputable sources who voiced their comments to Lawyer Monthly.
Leon Deakin, Partner in the Employment team at Coffin Mew Solicitors:
The Conservative manifesto announcement contains some attractive headlines for workers but an examination of the detail leaves many questions to be answered.
For example, the statutory right to take up to a year off to care for a disabled dependant before being able to return to a guaranteed role does, in theory, extend existing rights and create some flexibility for the vast number of workers who have caring responsibilities. However, the time taken will be unpaid and therefore, I suspect the take up will not be significant and certainly not likely to last for extended periods of time as the norm.
The proposed statutory right to up to 2 weeks’ paid leave upon child bereavement is also difficult to argue with in terms of sentiment and may protect those with unsympathetic or inflexible bosses. However, my experience of the approach by employers in the most extreme circumstances such as these already tends towards generosity and understanding.
Similarly, announcing workers will not lose any protections flowing from EU law is not necessarily the commitment it appears to be. Put simply, the UK has, in many cases, given workers greater rights than it is obliged to so the chances of ever seeking to remove those due to Brexit was slim. Indeed, I suspect it is some of the decisions of the ECJ which are more likely to be the targets of revision rather than the ‘laws’ and the commitment today is vague at best on whether the guarantee includes these or not.
For these reasons, suggestions that this is the greatest expansion of workers’ rights by a Conservative Government ring slightly hollow.
Tim Goodwin, Associate, Winckworth Sherwood:
It was David Cameron who scaled back employment rights radically, most notably making it harder to bring unfair dismissal claims and introducing huge Tribunal fees – in most cases up to £1,200 – which has seen claims fall by up to 70%. Unless action is taken to make bringing a claim more realistic, I can’t see that some of these new rights, such as unpaid leave to care for a relative, will add much because the reality is that, unless workers can enforce their rights, they will not be observed.
It’s heartening to see that workers’ rights we have from EU law will be preserved post-Brexit. Many of the leading Brexit voices – including some that are in the cabinet now – had argued for Brexit on the basis of scrapping EU employment regulations. The key will be whether, once we see how Brexit unfolds, this promise holds up in the long term.
The recent revelation by the Prime Minister that she intends to protect the rights of workers in the "gig" economy has suddenly seen employment status come to the fore in this General Election.
Robert Holland, Employment Partner, Balfour+Manson:
What has traditionally been the preserve of Labour policy making has seen a somewhat startling move by the Conservative Party to claim the mantle of protector of the rights of the million or so workers in the UK who are on irregular, temporary or freelance contracts.
Along with high profile cases such as Pimlico, and the GMB backed Uber case, where drivers won entitlement to holiday pay, it would seem that the courts are also backing the rights of those who don't work in the traditional manner.
Yet for many "Zero hours " contractors as the media like to label them, a court win or Political promise may seem small comfort. Without union backing or funding, they are reluctant to challenge multinational corporates who declare that no holiday pay is due, and feel helpless when their right to paid leave is denied.
But here is the rub. Unlike "gig" workers, if those on a zero-hours contract accept an assignment, for however long, they are automatically due holiday pay for the duration of that contract.
It is still a common misconception, perhaps propagated by large corporates, that the right to holiday pay needs to be won.
For millions, they have it already in the nature of their contract. Indeed, following Bear Scotland v Fulton UK EAT 47/13, the amount of pay should include variables like overtime and commission.
It seems that despite the spotlight, a certain ambiguity still prevails. It is time that the rights of our temporary workers are spelled out clearly and not swallowed up by political sound bites and forgotten once an election is over.
Suzanne Horne, Head of the international employment practice, Paul Hastings:
The latest set of pledges concerning workers' rights, whilst eye-catching and media-friendly, will only result in more red-tape for employers. For SME's in particular, more employment rights means more workforce planning at a time when employers are already juggling the challenges that come from existing statutory rights.
The keystone pledge of a statutory right to a year's unpaid leave to care for relatives could also be especially taxing. Employers already accommodate maternity, paternity, parental and adoption leaves, and soon will be required to accommodate grandparents on leave too, so it’s difficult to see how they can find more flexibility to cover further long leaves of absence - no matter how compelling.
Even from an employee perspective, a right to unpaid leave in these circumstances can only raise further questions, such as how carers will be able to afford the cost of living, and whether the government will have to extend the welfare system to help off-set this lack of income.
There is also a tendency to brush over the extent of worker's rights currently enjoyed in the UK. For example, workers already have the right to time off for dependants - including for bereavement - and for training as well. Moreover, employment tribunals have already held that those employed in the 'gig' economy' are entitled to worker protections.
Ashley Winton, Partner, Paul Hastings:
At the back of the new Conservative Manifesto, there is promise of a new digital charter that “balances freedom with protection for users, and offers opportunities alongside obligations for businesses and platforms”, alongside a new Data Use and Ethics Commission which will advise regulators, including the ICO, and Parliament on the nature of data use.
We are due a fundamental revision of data protection law in May 2018 with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and many commentators had assumed that upon Brexit the Great Repeal Bill would contain a cut and paste of the GDPR into English law so that we could maintain the same standards of data protection with our friends in on the continent. But is this what is being offered here? The Conservatives are offering to give people new rights to ensure they are in control of their own data, including the ability to require major social media platforms to delete information held about them at the age of 18, the ability to access and export personal data and an expectation that personal data held should be stored in a secure way.
These rights look more like the rights we currently have under UK data protection law rather than the more expansive rights under the GDPR, and the Data Use and Ethics Commission looks like a body that is taking over some of the future function of the European Data Protection Board. If the UK does not maintain the same standards of data protection as prescribed by the GDPR, the transfer of personal data between continental Europe and the UK will become more difficult, and this could have implications upon businesses and their service providers who need a free flow of personal data across Europe. As to the future of the GDPR in the UK, it looks like we will see more cut and less paste.
We would also love to hear more of Your Thoughts on this, so feel free to comment below and tell us what you think!
Jennifer Safavian, RILA Executive Vice President for Government Affairs, issued the following statement regarding the retail community's support for comprehensive tax reform following House Ways and Means Committee hearing "How Tax Reform Will Grow Our Economy and Create Jobs."
"Retailers have a significant impact on the daily lives of all Americans – from their customers to their employees to the communities and families they serve every day. While retailers are responsible for more American jobs than any other industry, we also pay among the highest effective tax rates of all US businesses. Pro-growth tax reform that simplifies and lowers rates, eliminates special preferences and restores America's global competitiveness is the top priority for retailers—provided it does not saddle American families with a higher tax bill."
Retail Works for our American Economy
More than 42 million jobs in the US are either a retail job or a job that relies on retail. Jobs in the retail industry span from designers and IT professionals to transportation and logistics service providers to customer service representatives. Outside of brick and mortar stores, millions of jobs in manufacturing, finance, insurance, real estate, transportation, warehousing, and services industries are supported by retailers. Millions of Americans get their first job in retail, including Members of Congress and their staff.
Retailers offer flexible schedules that enable individuals to spend more time with their families or complete a degree, and provide employees with extensive training at all job levels and skill sets that lay a core foundation for fundamental career development. Millions of high-tech and high-paying jobs are created by retailers as consumer demand and industry innovation continually advance and change.
(Source: Retail Industry Leaders Association)
The Legal Advice Centre at Nottingham Law School has launched a Business and Enterprise Law Service to provide affordable legal advice to small businesses, entrepreneurs and charities.
Supervising solicitors will guide law students in giving advice on a range of topics, such as choosing the right business structure; understanding how to comply with employment law; protecting intellectual property rights; and appropriate terms and conditions to manage customers’ expectations and rights.
A number of free events will also be held throughout 2017 to help for-profit and not-for-profit businesses and enterprises better understand their legal rights and obligations.
The Legal Advice Centre acts as a ‘teaching law firm’ and is fully regulated as an Alternative Business Structure by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. It works closely with local firms, advice agencies, voluntary sector organisations and schools to develop pro bono opportunities for Nottingham Law School students.
Director of the Legal Advice Centre, Nick Johnson, said: “The number of people in self-employment is growing, as is the number of small to medium sized businesses, and legal costs can take a significant amount out of what may only be a small budget. This new service offers affordable access to initial legal advice on a whole range of topics, while also giving our students valuable commercial skills and experience.”
Dean of Nottingham Law School, Professor Janine Griffiths-Baker, added: “The Legal Advice Centre has been involved in a number of commercial advice projects, including the publication of two books on intellectual property, and we’re keen to grow this side of our service. The acquisition of an ABS licence has allowed the Centre to expand and while our main focus is still pro bono, we’re now able to offer additional services for a small charge – with any profit going back into the work of the Centre.”
The Legal Advice Centre received the LawWorks Award for Best Contribution by a Law School and the Access to Justice Foundation Award 2016. It was also nominated for a Law Society award for Excellence in Pro Bono and senior supervising solicitor, Faye Deverell, has recently been named Solicitor of the Year by the Nottinghamshire Law Society. Nottingham Law School was named Legal Education Provider of the Year in the Solicitor's Journal Awards 2016.
(Source: Nottingham Trent University)
The implications of the impending General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which comes into effect in May 2018, are already catching UK corporates. In trying to ensure that they have consent for the customer information that they hold, both Flybe and Honda UK have been recently hit by fines for not following current laws correctly. As businesses look to obtain stronger consent for the use of data in preparation for the new regulations, your business needs to ask itself ‘have you done enough to avoid the costly consequences of failure to comply?’
Flybe and Honda UK were fined £70,000 and £13,000 respectively for breaching the current Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR) when they sent emails to their customers asking them to update their marketing preferences. These two recent enforcement decisions by the ICO demonstrate the importance of considering your current legal position before trying to prepare for the new rules.
The problem for both companies was that these emails were in themselves “direct marketing”. There is still a requirement to have some level of consent in order to send the emails, even though it is a lower standard than that which will come into effect next year. When Flybe sent emails to people who had previously opted out of marketing, and when Honda UK emailed people who had previously bought cars from Honda dealerships where there was no record that they had consented to marketing, they breached the existing laws. The fact that they were doing so with good intentions in order to prepare for GDPR was not itself a valid justification for the breach. This has made businesses reconsider their approach to refreshing consent.
The good news is that while the Flybe and Honda decisions underline the need to take care when planning any campaign of this nature, they do not completely shut the door on obtaining refreshed consent as long as it is done in line with existing rules. There is no one size fits all strategy and it is important to understand what consents (or refusals of consent) your business has currently before formulating a strategy to put better consents in place:
Each of these will require a different contact strategy taking into account the legal requirements, the costs of different methods of communication, and the likely response rate to different forms of request.
It is also important to ensure that, if you do refresh consents, you keep accurate records of the new consent received in line with ICO guidance. This needs to go further than simply recording yes or no against a customer’s name and needs to be sufficiently specific and granular to demonstrate exactly what the consent covers. Carrying out a consent refreshing exercise without having record keeping systems meeting GDPR standards in place would be a foolish exercise.
In taking enforcement action against Flybe and Honda, the ICO has given a timely reminder that GDPR preparations cannot be seen in isolation nor as starting from a blank sheet of paper – you need to take account of your current state of DPA compliance and develop a tailored plan that keeps your business protected from unwanted fines and sanctions.
(Source: Shulmans LLP)
Irwin Mitchell has revealed how 424 of its lawyers based in offices across the country have pledged to help the national law firm become one of the most dementia-friendly businesses in the UK, after they took part in training to become ‘Dementia Friends’.
That means that around 15.5% of employees at the law firm have received information about how to help people live well with dementia - more than one in six employees across the country.
To mark Dementia Awareness Week, (15th-21st May) the law firm encouraged employees across all of its offices to get involved with the Alzheimer’s Society’s Dementia Friends programme, which is based on changing the public’s perception of the condition.
The firm held a series of 60-minute sessions in 12 of its offices to promote the scheme, with Group Chief Executive Officer, Andrew Tucker, lending a hand to introduce the first seminar held at Irwin Mitchell’s Sheffield site.
Those who attended were then encouraged to go home and spread the word to friends and family on what they learned about dementia and the many challenges that those with the condition face.
Ben Saunders, a solicitor from the Elderly & Vulnerable Client team (E&VC) at Irwin Mitchell’s Newbury office, hosted the sessions alongside Chichester-based senior associate Catherine Diamond. Both are Dementia Friends Champions and have trained more than 170 ‘friends’ in the past.
Ben said: “These were informal sessions run by volunteers which explained simply the ways in which dementia can change people's lives.
"The key focus of the sessions, however, is that there is always more to the person than the dementia and that, with an early diagnosis and appropriate support from family, friends and professionals, it is possible for people to live well with dementia for many years."
Catherine, also a specialist in EC&V, added: “Our experience shows us the impact that dementia has on those who live with the condition and their loved ones. We want to help improve life for these people by helping to create as many new Dementia Friends as possible.
"Not only so our employees have a better understanding of the clients they are working with, but so they can spread the word to their own families and friends and help the wider communities we operate in become more inclusive by giving them a greater understanding of dementia and ways to help people living with the condition.”
Dementia Awareness Week took place from May 15th to 21st. There are an estimated 850,000 people with dementia in the UK, with the figure expected to reach over two million by 2051.
(Source: Irwin Mitchell)
The UK government triggered Article 50 on 29th March 2017. However, there is still little clarity on the repercussions of Brexit for European Union trade marks (EUTMs), including the issue of non-use.
One practical issue that is likely to arise is the unexpected risk of possible revocation claims. EUTMs are vulnerable to revocation if they are not used to a sufficient extent within a 5 year period from registration.
Extent of use
Until recently, the position had been widely understood to be that use in one Member State was enough, so long as it satisfied the criteria for genuine use. However, a 2015 decision in the UK Intellectual Property Enterprise Court1 cast doubt on this, the Court holding that in general, use in more than one Member State was required.
However, this has not been the approach taken by the EU IPO, or indeed the UK IPO or English High Court2, which have preferred the multifactorial analysis approach taken in the 2012 CJEU decision of Leno3 where the CJEU stated that “territorial borders of the Member States should be disregarded in the assessment of whether a trade mark has been put to ‘genuine use in the Community’…taking account of all the relevant facts and circumstances, including the characteristics of the market concerned, the nature of the goods or services protected by the trade mark and the territorial extent and the scale of the use as well as its frequency and regularity”. Taking this approach means that use of a trade mark in one Member State can be sufficient for genuine use if the particular facts and circumstances show the use is genuine.
Given the recent decisions of the English High Court and the UK IPO, it seems that the multifactorial approach taken in the Leno decision represents the position on genuine use.
Post-Brexit use
The issue post-Brexit is whether use in the UK will count at all. At the moment, a brand owner may only be making genuine use of their EUTM in the UK which is likely to be sufficient to maintain their trade mark (depending on the circumstances of the use). However, once the UK leaves the EU, it is not known whether or not use in the UK would be taken into account. If a very strict approach is taken and UK use is not taken into account at all, the EUTM owner would not be able to demonstrate genuine use and the trade mark would be liable to revocation. It is anticipated that use in the UK during the period in which the UK was a member of the EU would count but use after the date of Brexit would not. This gives a 5 year window from the date of Brexit for use of the trade mark to be made elsewhere in the EU.
Similarly, an EUTM holder can currently maintain protection covering the UK even if it is only using the trade mark in, say, Portugal and Spain. Post-Brexit this may not be the case as any continued rights in the UK (assuming EU rights are somehow converted or maintained in the UK as is expected) may be vulnerable to revocation if there is no use in the UK.
This could pose a problem sooner rather than later depending on if and how EUTMs are converted into UK rights. Several methods of conversion have been suggested including:
Although it is widely expected that some method of conversion will be negotiated, it is possible that EUTM holders may have to make fresh UKTM applications. If so, EUTM holders will have to make a declaration either that the mark is in use in the UK or that the applicant has a bona fide intention to use the mark applied for in the UK, which is not the case for an EUTM application. Applications for conversion are treated by the UK IPO as a new application, so even conversion applicants are required to make this declaration. For EUTMs which have never been put to use in the UK, this could be problematic, particularly if the grace period of 5 years to commence use has expired.
Points to note
Non-use periods in both the EU and UK are 5 years but businesses need to already be considering the possibility of making new filings to maintain registered protection in what is likely to be two jurisdictions and two markets rather than one. Conducting an IP audit to establish where the business’ registered rights are and the scope of their usage would be helpful.
(Source: Dechert LLP)
Last Friday's cyberattack on tens of thousands of computers around the world revealed businesses' and other organizations' vulnerability to ransomware and extortion. Elliptic is a Bitcoin intelligence firm that guides banks and corporations through the ransomware process and work with law enforcement to identify the attackers.
“Most ransomware attacks follow the same general pattern,” explains Elliptic co-founder and lead investigator Dr. Tom Robinson. “The victim is given a Bitcoin (or other cryptocurrency) payment address, and a deadline to make payment. Most people incorrectly assume there is nothing that can be done to identify the perpetrator after payment is made.”
Here it lists 4 steps for ransomware readiness and response, including measures to identify the attacker.
Not all ransomware is worth paying. Elliptic's team of experts may be able to decrypt the ransomware; or there may be indications that the attacker will not decrypt your machine even after payment. In the case of last week’s WannaCry attack, there is no evidence at the time of writing that the attacker will ever decrypt the compromised machines.
Based on its deep experience and extensive network in ransomware investigations, Elliptic provides clients with an expert recommendation on whether to proceed with the ransomware payment.
Ransomware operations usually demand payment quickly, sometimes in as little as 24 hours. It can be difficult for a company to secure large quantities of Bitcoins at short notice. “Most Bitcoin exchanges have Know Your Customer (KYC) policies that prohibit them from selling new clients a significant amount of Bitcoins," explains Dr. Robinson. "Often a company will have the cash ready to purchase Bitcoins, but the exchange cannot legally open an account and complete the transaction before the ransom is due.
Elliptic helps its clients draw up a plan to rapidly access large volumes of Bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies in case of a ransomware attack. Elliptic can help clients obtain Bitcoins through its network of exchanges and liquidity providers.
Large Bitcoin payments can be confusing for companies that are not used to dealing in cryptocurrencies. “Constructing a large Bitcoin transaction is a technical process. You need to define the right transaction fee, verify the destination, and sign the transaction appropriately.”, explains Dr. Robinson. “Too low a fee and your transaction might never clear; send it to the wrong address and your Bitcoins are gone forever. It’s also important that the ransomer knows which of their victims is making the payment.”
Elliptic will prepare and execute your transaction, or we can also dispatch one of our experts to your location to perform the transaction on the premises.
Bitcoin transactions are difficult but not impossible to trace. Elliptic has developed advanced Bitcoin investigation software and employs a team of investigators with advanced degrees in computer science and decades of experience in the world’s top law enforcement agencies. Elliptic’s software and investigators have delivered actionable intelligence to identify ransomware and cyber-extortion attackers in the US, UK, and EU. “We are able to connect the dots between Bitcoin activity and real world actors,” says Dr. Smith. “We only provide our forensic investigation services in collaboration with law enforcement, and we have a very high success rate in delivering actionable intelligence on complex Bitcoin investigations.”
Dr. Robinson adds: “We actively trace proceeds of ransomware and cyber extortion, and we alert our Bitcoin exchange customers if they receive illegal funds. Our goal is to defeat ransomware by making it extremely difficult to launder the proceeds of these crimes.”
(Source: Elliptic)
The recent ransomware attack on the NHS and over 30,000 companies globally has brought cybercrime to the top of the risk and news agenda.
Patrick Keady, CFIRM, IRM Board member and Chair of the IRM Health and Care Sector Interest Group says: “The NHS is unusual because it has so few people with the skills to fundamentally understand risk across the enterprise. While the NHS in England employs 1,300,000 workers, it has just 27 partially/fully trained and experienced enterprise risk managers.
At the same time, it is reassuring that most of the NHS organisations affected by Wanna Decryptor, say they have plans in place to react to the impact of the malware.
However, we have known for years that increasing amounts of IT software and hardware used in the NHS are simply out-of-date and no longer supported by their manufacturers. NHS bosses really do need to take major steps now, to prevent similar episodes and the accompanying disruption to patient services.”
Patrick Keady undertook some research into current risk registers of the 34 NHS Trusts and Clinical Commissioning Groups reported to have been affected by the cyber-attack.
He undertook a deep-dive of 8,500+ pages of Board papers at the 34 organisations affected. In his view, the 34 NHS Board papers are over-crowded with information – with one set of Board papers exceeding 400 pages.
His main findings from the 34 organisations were that:
Patrick singled out Mid-Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust, the only Trust to mention Cyber-Security in their Board Assurance Framework. (Page 20, risk number 949).
He commented: “Risks in almost all of the 34 organisations affected on Friday, are generally ill-defined and do not relate to the organisations’ strategic objectives. Instead they tend to refer to operational programmes and targets will be achieved or not.”
Nicola Crawford, CFIRM, Chair of the IRM goes on to comment: “This cyber-attack has affected more than just the health sector and has impacted on companies globally.
*A 2016 survey of IRM members showed that cyber risk and the insight into the changing nature of cyber and IT related risks, including data breach, hacking, theft of IP, cyber fraud and commercial sabotage was one of their most pressing concerns.
We live in an increasingly networked world, from personal banking to government infrastructure. Protecting those networks is no longer optional – the internet of things means enterprise wide risk management, including cyber security policy, has never been more important.
Cyber risk is now firmly at the top of the business agenda globally as high-profile breaches raise fears that hack attacks and other security failures could endanger the global economy. Ransomware and data breach can have catastrophic consequences including loss of life”.
Alexander Larsen, CFIRM, President of Baldwin Consulting and IRM expert on cyber said: “Cyber risk has been a growing threat in the last few years. A recent report claimed that the risk in 2016 was four times higher than in 2015. 2017 was expected to be worse and this recent incident only highlights the frequency and severity of these attacks. The speed at which this virus has affected companies around the world shows the impact these hackers can have. Patient’s records may be at risk of being leaked, operations have had to be rescheduled, ultimately putting lives at risk.
Going forward we can only expect hackers to become more organised and well-funded, which, alongside advances in AI and technology, will lead to more sophistication in their attacks. Some organisations are already spending hundreds of millions of pounds on cyber security, whilst governments are spending billions in order to prevent these attacks, but experts warn that it is impossible to stop these attacks and that organisation's should also be focusing on business continuity & recovery whilst also safeguarding their reputation which could be severely damaged if the incident is not managed correctly.”
The latest:
(Source: The Institute of Risk Management)
The total number of petition filings across offshore jurisdictions fell 10% in 2016 when compared to the previous year, reflecting a continued levelling off since the high-point of 2013, according to a report released by leading offshore law firm Appleby.
This was among the findings of the firm’s Snapshot: Review of 2016 Offshore Petition Filings & Court Orders, which examines company petition filings and the resulting court orders in Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Guernsey, the Isle of Man and Mauritius.
“Although the number of petitions was down in 2016, numerous complex restructuring negotiations were underway during the year – particularly in the oil and gas sector – without having reached the point of petition filing,” said Tony Heaver-Wren, a dispute resolution partner in Appleby’s Cayman office.
“The general fall in petition filings in offshore jurisdictions recorded in 2016 to some degree reflects this movement toward restructuring over the course of the year and is expected to be reflected in the 2017 petitions profile.”
Some of the lowest numbers of filings occurred in the BVI and the Isle of Man where alternative processes to petitions exist for creditors or shareholders, while Mauritius returned a disproportionately high number of filings, fuelled by a significantly larger population and domestic economy.
(Source: Appleby)
