The students of Jindal Global Law School have received opportunities to pursue global legal internships in the United States of America, United Kingdom, China, Australia and Abu Dhabi. They have been invited to work in international law firms, NGOs and government agencies besides being given an opportunity to work as judicial clerks with the Supreme Court of Hawaii.

The year 2017 has seen several international internships & clerkship opportunities added to an already impressive range of practical training opportunities that Jindal Global Law School (JGLS) offers to its students. The notable ones added this year included Australia's leading corporate & IP law firm Mitry Lawyers, and Attorney General's Department (AGD) of Australia. Two students have been selected to start their month-long internship at the Mitry Lawyer's offices in Sydney during the summer term break of 2017, while 4 JGLS students will be heading to the AGD's office in Sydney during the winter term break of 2017-18.

The Founding Vice-Chancellor of O.P. Jindal Global University, Prof. (Dr.) C. Raj kumar said: "This is a wonderful opportunity for practical learning of global regulatory practice for JGLS students. The international exposure will help provide our sudents with an in-depth understanding of international laws and justice framework."

The existing bouquet of international internships at JGLS include the leading US international law firm, White & Case at their London and Abu Dhabi offices, the Supreme Court of State of Hawaii in Honululu (US) and Zhicheng Public Interest Law Firm in Beijing, China.

Assistant Dean of Careers Prof. Anuranjan Sethi said: "We are committed to growing the international recruiter and internship organization base at JGLS, so that our students can learn and gain strong grounding for taking up global leadership roles within law and beyond."

In addition to the international internships at JGLS, the domestic recruiter and internship organization base has also grown quite significantly. Over 115 leading organizations have now signed up for recruitments through the University organized recruitment process.

The graduating batch of 2017 has found internship and employment opportunities with leading law firms, corporates, senior counsels, think-tanks, start-ups, and public policy organizations, among others.

Detailed list of organizations is below -

(Source: O.P. Jindal Global University)

1. Why is this Communication being proposed now?

Over the ten past years, the EU and Africa had already forged a more political partnership based on shared values and interests, enshrined in the Joint Africa-EU Strategy adopted in 2007.

A series of events in 2017 – from the G7 and G20 Summits in May and June respectively to the 5th Africa-EU Summit on 28-29^th November – have placed Africa high on the international agenda.

The 5^th Africa EU Summit provides a critical opportunity for African and European leaders to reshape and deepen their relationship in response to the evolving context.

In a rapidly changing global landscape, Africa is experiencing profound economic, political and societal changes, and its importance to Europe's security and prosperity – both internally and externally - is becoming ever more obvious.

Africa has seen impressive economic growth over the last two decades and an increasing number of African governments and regional organisations are taking a leading role in addressing the security, political and poverty reduction challenges within their borders and beyond.

Yet both European and African citizens are witnessing a more uncertain global order, increasing incidence of disasters and crisis, insecurity and the rise of terrorism, and the increased movements of people.

Against this background, the Communication comes at the right time to reflect on how Africa and the EU should take their relationship forward. This will be guided in particular by the Global Strategy for the EU's Foreign and Security Policy, the UN's 2030 Agenda and Africa's Agenda 2063, allowing sufficient time to engage with EU Member States and African partners in view of establishing joint priorities and actions for the Summit and beyond.

2. Why should Africa and the EU step up their engagement?

Europe is Africa's closest neighbour and main partner in foreign investments, trade, security, remittances and development and humanitarian assistance. What happens in Africa matters in Europe and vice versa.

In a more complex, more contested and more connected world as we see it today, this is more valid than ever. It is in Africa's and Europe's mutual interest to step up their engagement to face together the challenges and reap the benefits of the profound changes in Africa, in Europe and at global level.

Europe and Africa have much to gain from increased political and economic ties, but also a lot to lose if they fail to act.

3. How does the EU plan to strengthen political dialogue and cooperation with Africa?

A stronger political engagement with Africa shall serve first of all to deliver on the EU's ambitious strategic priorities with Africa.

In particular, it will allow for closer cooperation on global governance issues and support for developing agreements, norms and actions in response to global challenges such as terrorism and transnational crime, climate change, epidemics, pressure on natural resources, humanitarian crises, irregular migration.

The African Union (AU) and the African group in the UN are strategic partners and key allies to strengthen the role of the UN and the rule-based global order which is essential for future peace and prosperity.

Additionally, the EU aims to increase cooperation with Africa on interregional level based on frequent political interaction, using all existing cooperation frameworks. Political dialogue also needs to include other stakeholders. The EU strives to strengthen engagement and contacts with local authorities, the private sector and civil society.

4. Why is Youth the focus of the Africa-EU partnership in 2017?

The demographic dynamics on both continents combined with the challenges facing Africa put youth at the hearth of the relations between Africa and the European Union.

Africa is experiencing a growing youth population with 60% people across the continent under 30 years of age. Meanwhile, the population in the European Union is decreasing and aging. Economic progress in Africa has not been inclusive or sustainable enough to offer better prospects for a large part of the population, especially young people. In its cooperation with Africa, the European Union puts great emphasis on empowering and supporting youth. It does so by focusing both on economic inclusion through the generation of more and better jobs for young people as well as on democratic and political inclusion through fostering active participation in the decision-making bodies and political processes. The European Union also focuses on ensuring better intra-African youth mobility as well as equal access for all to quality education, including vocational education and training.

For example, the Commission proposes to launch an African Youth Facility, which will expand the scope of Erasmus+, or to support digital innovation in Africa. The Commission also presented its Digital4Development approach, outlining ideas on how to promote information and communication technologies in developing countries and mainstream digitalisation into EU development policy.

5. How does the EU support peace and stability in Africa?

The EU is a strong supporter of the African Union and the African sub-regions to pursue the objective of "African solutions to African problems".

Currently, the EU funds 8 Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) civilian and military missions and operations across Africa in Somalia, Mali, Niger, Libya and the Central African Republic. The missions and operation aim at supporting partner countries, through for example training and capacity building in a number of fields, from rule of law to fighting terrorism and organised crime.

The EU is one of the main financial contributors to the African Union Mission to Somalia (AMISOM) having committed more than €1.3 billion between March 2007 and March 2017.

The EU has also been actively supporting the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA) with more than €150 million since 2004.

In the future, the EU aims to further intensify the cooperation with its African partners in all stages of conflict. This means strengthening coordination and dialogue to increase conflict resilience, to enhance conflict prevention capabilities by supporting the full operationalisation of the APSA and African capacity building as well as assisting the African Union, sub-regional organisations and countries in improving conflict management and peacebuilding efforts.

6. How can the EU contribute to strengthening democracy and good governance in Africa?

The EU is Africa's main partner in governance, democracy, rule of law and human rights.

The EU provides substantial support to the implementation of African governance commitments on national, regional and continental level, including efforts to strengthen local authorities and civil society participation. Notably, this includes the operationalisation of the African Governance Architecture as a holistic, Africa-owned framework for coordination and democracy-building.

The EU engages with its African partners in a number of human rights dialogues on bilateral and interregional level, including the annually held EU-AU Human Rights Dialogue. The EU also supports African countries in ensuring peaceful electoral processes: it regularly deploys Election Observation Missions and in this works closely with the African Union and Regional Economic Communities.

The EU will continue to support democratic consolidation, human rights and the rule of law through enhanced cooperation and dialogue, while advocating for the ratification and implementation of international and continental instruments. As good governance is essential for stable democracies, it will promote accountability, transparency and responsiveness of institutions on all levels, including efficient public finance management, empowerment and participation of all groups of society and strengthened resilience to humanitarian crises and environmental degradation.

7. What is the EU doing to boost investment and job creation in Africa?

Job creation and sustainable and inclusive development in Africa are among the EU's main strategic objectives. To this end, it supports Africa in attracting responsible and sustainable investments in value-adding and labour intensive sectors. Specific emphasis will be on the private sector, as it holds the largest potential for generating jobs.

The main tool will be the proposed European External Investment Plan, which focuses on leveraging additional private and public resources for investment, enabling it to mobilise up to €44 billion. Under its three integrated pillars, it will provide finance and guarantees for investments, technical support to local authorities and companies and strive to improve the investment climate through systemic reforms and good governance. Additionally, the EU will work to facilitate intra-African trade as well as European-African business relations by establishing private sector dialogues, using the stable framework of the Economic Partnership Agreements and promote preparations for an African Continental Free Trade Area.

8. What are the key sectors the EU aims to target in Africa?

The EU has identified agriculture and energy as key sectors to generate inclusive development in both rural and urban areas.

They provide abundant opportunities to create sustainable and adequate jobs, notably in view of climate change related challenges and adaptions. The EU supports Africa in meeting the energy demand of its growing economies by spurring public and private investment in renewable energy on all levels and cross-border. Both EU and Africa are set to benefit from deepened strategic alliances and collaboration between public and private stakeholders, notably local authorities, researchers and innovators. Agriculture is a vital source of income for many Africans, while at the same time the sector's full potential – in terms of climate resilience, food security, job creation and empowerment – remains underdeveloped. The EU as one of Africa's main partners for agriculture and blue economy development intends to support the development of responsible value chains, guided by a strong regulatory and policy framework that ensures the sustainable management of precious resources.

At the same time, it aims to foster skills, innovation and collaborative research to strengthen resilience and reduce the sector's vulnerability, while promoting entrepreneurship and productivity.

9. How does the EU cooperate with Africa on migration?

Both Africa and the EU have a shared interest to effectively and responsibly manage migration and mobility in view of its repercussions on economic, security and social factors. Africa and Europe therefore take on their shared responsibility, calling also for global solutions and international regulatory frameworks.

Migration first takes place inside Africa, with around 50% of African migration happening within the continent, between African countries [1]. The Communication proposes to further support Africa to address this situation, which can raise both opportunities and challenges. Intra-African migration is driven largely by a search for job opportunities in neighbouring countries and by waves of internal and cross-border conflicts. Half of the top-10 refugee hosting countries are now located in sub-Saharan Africa, namely Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Chad and Sudan.

At the same time, increasing numbers of migrants and asylum seekers are arriving in Europe from Africa. Both continents have recognised that more needs to be done in particular to prevent hazardous journeys, reduce deaths on the route, address the root causes of migration and step up practical cooperation.

On Africa-EU level, several instruments are already in place. The EU and Africa developed a number of dialogues related to migration issues such as the Africa-EU Migration and Mobility Dialogue, the Khartoum and Rabat processes with key countries and the Migration Partnership Framework. The Partnership Framework provides an umbrella for practical cooperation between the EU and third countries, taking into account all tools and policies at the EU's disposal, always fully in line with human rights obligations.

The EU also set up the Emergency Trust Fund for Africa as an important tool to deliver on the commitments made in the context of the Valletta Summit on Migration, and in the implementation of the Partnership Framework approach. Worth over €2.6 billion, the Trust Fund encompasses three windows, covering the Sahel region and Lake Chad, the Horn of Africa and North Africa. It addresses root causes of instability, forced displacement and irregular migration, as well as trafficking in human beings. The bulk of its resources are dedicated to supporting job creation and economic development, especially for young people and women in local communities, resilience, migration management, as well as stability and governance. A total of 112 programmes, worth over €1.7 billion were approved already under the three regional windows, and around €700 million have been contracted.

While migration is a transnational challenge, it also contains enormous potential as a driver for sustainable development in regard to diaspora engagement, remittances and knowledge transfer. This does not only concern migration movements between Africa and Europe, but equally and on a larger scale intra-African mobility.

10. How much development and humanitarian aid does the EU provide in Africa?

The EU is the world's largest donor, giving more than half of Official Development Assistance (ODA) worldwide. The EU's collective ODA amounted to €75.5 billion in 2016, with over €20 billion of ODA to Africa every year. The European Commission's total official development aid to Africa will amount to €31 billion between 2014 and 2020.

Furthermore, the EU, together with its Member states, is Africa's leading donor of emergency humanitarian aid with the Commission itself committing more than €800 million annually since 2015.

11. How important are remittances and foreign direct investment between the EU and Africa?

The EU is collectively Africa's main foreign investor and main source of remittances. In 2015, both the foreign direct investment flow, amounting to €32.2 billion, as well as the remittances flow from Europe to Africa, amounting to €21.1 billion, were at least on par with the total official development assistance of EU institutions and Member States.

[1] According to the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs statistics (2^nd May 2017).

(Source: European Commission)

Vacancies for private practice lawyers have fallen by 13% year-on-year according to new survey data from specialist recruiter, Clayton Legal. And the recruiter believes the fall in advertised positions can largely be attributed to lawyers being reticent to move roles in an environment of uncertainty.

The survey, which was compiled based on the recruiter’s comprehensive data on advertised roles, also reveals the regional variations in vacancy decline. London has experienced the most acute drop with available roles down 26% year-on-year, while the North East and the South East experienced the smallest decline (3% and 4% respectively). Other regions where advertised positions fell were the South West (11%) and the North West (18%). The only region which did not note a drop in advertised positions was the Midlands where vacancies levels remained static year-on-year.

Despite the overall picture looking somewhat gloomy, there were certain specialisms which experienced increases in vacancy numbers. Lawyers specialising in family law, for example, were in particular demand across the South and North East where vacancies were up 50% and 65% respectively. Personal Injury specialists have also been highly sought after with advertised roles up by 27% in the South West. The increased demand for specialist lawyers is indicative not only of increased workloads in these specialisms, but also a skills shortage attributed to lawyers remaining in their current positions for longer due to the uncertain environment Brexit has caused.

Commenting on the results of the data, Lynn Sedgwick, Managing Director at Clayton Legal said: “Almost a year has passed since the UK decided to leave the EU and while we have certainly seen lawyers being less committed to a career move, the hiring picture as a whole remains generally healthy.  And while there is clearly caution around Brexit, we are also seeing a change in the recruitment strategies of our clients.  Many firms are hiring lawyers for newly created positions due to increased workloads instead of replacement hires that are associated with specialists moving between firms.  And as Brexit becomes more of a ‘business as usual’ scenario, we’re confident the ‘wait and see’ approach will pass.”

(Source: Clayton legal)

The Trial is a brand new, ground-breaking five-part series to be stripped across one week on the popular UK TV channel, Channel 4. In it, a fictional crime will be authentically tried by a team including eminent practicing QCs, a genuine judge and a jury of 12 members of the public. The only actors include the accused – a man who is pleading not guilty for the murder of his wife - the deceased, and some of the witnesses.

A thrilling hybrid of drama and documentary, The Trial aims to both hook viewers with the real twists and turns of a criminal murder trial and reveal the inner workings of the justice system as never seen before. Secrets of what being a juror entails will be revealed when cameras follow them into the deliberation room as they try to reach their verdict.

The trial centres around the murder of 38-year-old Carla Davis, who was strangled to death in her own home. The accused is her estranged husband, Simon. The prosecution is led by Max Hill QC with junior barrister Michelle Nelson. Defendant Davis is represented by John Ryder QC and junior barrister Lucy Organ. Presiding is Judge Brian Barker CBE QC – formerly the most senior judge at the Old Bailey.

Giving evidence at the trial will be forensic experts, police officers and eye witnesses as well as friends and relatives of both the deceased and the accused.

The series is directed by Bafta winner Nick Holt, who scooped his second Bafta for the ground-breaking documentary The Murder Trial which aired on Channel 4 in 2013 and fellow BAFTA winner Kath Mattock (Murder).

Episode 1

In a pioneering new series blending documentary and drama, a fictional murder case is tried in a real court, by eminent legal professionals and a jury comprised of 12 randomly selected members of the public. Meet Simon Davis (played by actor Michael Gould), an academic accused of murdering his estranged wife. His defence team is led by renowned QC John Ryder, whose CV includes the Damilola Taylor murder trial; the prosecution is steered by the government’s new independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Max Hill QC. The format will provide unique insights into the how both sides conduct their cases, from strategic debates to conferences with clients. Presiding is Brian Barker, recently retired but formerly the most senior judge at the Old Bailey. As the trial begins, police officers and eye witnesses are called to give evidence and a picture is slowly painted of the day Carla Davis was killed, while Simon and the jury look on.

Episode 2

The trial continues with key evidence from those that know Carla and Simon best: their friends, colleagues and family. All are subjected to rigorous cross-examination from defence and prosecution teams. As details emerge of Simon and Carla’s personal histories and questionable past behaviour, the jurors begin to form a fuller picture of both why they separated and what their relationship was like at the time of Carla’s death. Will Simon be able to remain impassive as the emotional testimonies mount up.

Episode 3

The end of the trial draws near, with two key players yet to speak. First up is Lewis Skinner (Kevin Harvey), Carla’s boyfriend at the time of her death and someone with a few secrets of his own. While the prosecution position him as a man bereaved, the defence argue that, as a potential alternative suspect for the murder, both his presence and actions present sufficient reasonable doubt for Simon to be acquitted. How will he fare on the stand? Meanwhile, a critical decision looms for the accused. Will John and Lucy advise Simon to take the stand, or might they feel that his testimony could count against him if he’s not up to the task? With juries now allowed to draw inferences from a defendant’s decision not to give evidence, everything now hangs in the balance. The final decision, however, rests with Simon himself.

Episode 4

The final evidence is heard, John Ryder and Max Hill offer their closing speeches and Judge Brian Barker gives his summing-up address, before the jurors are sent down to begin their deliberations. Offering an unprecedented insight into a jury’s decision process, cameras will capture every highly charged debate and dilemma, from the selection of a chairperson to the fate of the defendant himself.

Episode 5

The jury concludes its deliberations, while Simon Davis (Michael Gould) and both legal teams await their verdict. Will it prove to have been the right one? The truth will finally out, as a dramatized segment depicts the last tragic moments of the life of Carla Davis (Emma Lowndes) and the real events of 24^thSeptember 2015 are revealed once and for all.

(Source: Channel 4)

Thales recently announced the results of its 2017 Thales Data Threat Report, Federal Edition, issued in conjunction with analyst firm 451 Research. When it comes to data breaches, 34% of federal respondents experienced a data breach in the last year and 65% experienced a data breach in the past. Almost all (96%) consider themselves "vulnerable," with half (48%) stating they are "very" or "extremely" vulnerable. This number is higher than any other US vertical polled for the 2017 report.

IT security staffing and spending playing a role
Sixty-one% of US federal respondents are increasing security spending this year – up from last year's 58% figure. But when compared to other industries this number is markedly lower (81% of healthcare respondents, 77% of retail respondents and 78% of financial services respondents claim to have increased spending). The federal spending figure may explain why 53% of federal respondents cite lack of budget and lack of staff (also 53%) as the top reasons for data insecurity.

Garrett Bekker, principal analyst for Information Security at 451 Research says: "The US federal government is racing to boost data security against odds not generally faced in the private sector today. A major challenge in securing the far-flung systems in the US federal government is the plethora of aging legacy systems still in place, with one example being a 53 year-old Strategic Automated Command and Control System at the Department of Defense that coordinates US nuclear forces and uses 8-inch floppy disks. In short, this 'perfect storm' of very old systems, tight budgets and being a prime cyber-crime target has created a stressful environment."

Advanced technologies – and the role of encryption in protecting them
Pressures to use advanced technologies (cloud, Big Data, IoT, and containers) are only making the problem worse. While 92% of federal respondents will use sensitive data in an advanced technology environment this year, 71% of federal respondents believe this will occur without proper security in place.

On a positive note, encryption is cited as the top data security control (60%) for ensuring data privacy and enabling digital transformation through the use of advanced technologies. Additionally, 73% of respondents would increase their cloud-service deployments if offered data encryption in the cloud (with federal agencies maintaining control of the keys). Sixty-three% of respondents also list data encryption as the first choice for enabling further IoT deployments, and 55% cite encryption as the top security control for increasing container adoption.

Peter Galvin, VP of strategy, Thales e-Security says: "US federal agencies are fighting an uphill data-security battle. In addition to the issues cited, the federal sector has one of the most hopeful views of compliance, with 64% of respondents viewing it as 'very' or 'extremely' effective in preventing data breaches. As the breach count rises, it's fair to question whether meeting compliance mandates are enough. There is encouraging news, however. Like their private sector peers, public sector IT employees are clearly interested in digital transformation through the use of new technologies. This innovation is admirable, but it must be paired with increased data security."

Federal government agencies looking to existing legacy data sources while also taking advantage of advanced technologies should strongly consider:

• deploying security tool sets that offer services-based deployments, platforms and automation;
• discovering and classifying the location of sensitive data within cloud, SaaS, big data, IoT and container environments; and
• leveraging encryption and Bring Your Own Key (BYOK) technologies for all advanced technologies.

(Source: Thales)

Ben Davies, Partner in the civil litigation team at Byrne and Partners, discusses with Lawyer Monthly the latest on tax havens, their role, precedents courts have set in recent years, and the risks that are possible.

So-called ‘offshore’ jurisdictions can offer legitimate tax efficiencies and confidentiality to investors. However, those same qualities leave them open to abuse, by those seeking to disguise ownership of their assets and frustrate the enforcement efforts of their creditors.

As the legal systems of such jurisdictions – many of which are based on English law – evolve to meet this challenge, a trend towards interpreting trustee duties widely and extending asset recovery powers is emerging. In such circumstances those operating lawfully offshore need to keep a careful eye on the changes – to ensure both compliance with their obligations and the effectiveness of the asset holding structures they employ.

It was at one point possible for nominees and trustees in many offshore jurisdictions to sit back and leave their clients to run things – but that is no longer the case. Such service providers now need to ensure that they are aware of and can justify any dealings with the assets for which they are responsible, or risk personal liability themselves.

By way of example, in hearing the case of Nolan v Minerva Trust the Royal Court of Jersey took the opportunity to set out the standards expected of trustees, which include a duty to bring “independent judgment to bear” when approving transactions. The case demonstrates that dishonesty findings can be made against a Jersey trustee who ‘turns a blind eye’ to dealings with trust assets, irrespective of his actual knowledge of any wrongdoing.

The recent decision of the Privy Council (on appeal from the Jersey Court of Appeal) in Brazil v Durant International Corporation further demonstrates the need for trustees and nominees to properly understand both the source of the monies which they hold and the purpose of any transactions entered into, and the consequences of failing to do so. There the court permitted the claimant to trace the proceeds of bribes into mixed funds, on the basis that a “camouflage of interconnected transactions” should not be allowed to obscure their real purpose.

The wrongdoing in the Durant International case appears to have been unambiguous – but it raises the possibility that mixed funds could also be at risk in a less clear cut situation, if a trustee or nominee is unable to properly explain where they came from.

The need to be able to explain the purpose of transfers into offshore holding structures was further emphasised by the English Supreme Court in the case of Prest v Petrodel Resources (which will be influential in the many offshore jurisdictions whose legal systems are based on English common law). In that case the court found that, while there were no grounds for piercing the corporate veil as between the defendant companies and their ultimate beneficial owner, the companies’ assets were held on resulting trust for him.

Such a finding might arguably have been avoided, had the original owner been able to conclusively demonstrate a contemporaneous intention to transfer equitable ownership of the assets, beyond his general tax planning objectives.

All of the above demonstrates a move towards interpreting trustee and nominees’ duties widely and a willingness to look through asset holding structures which have any appearance of artificiality. In such circumstances providers of offshore services need to ensure that the purpose behind the structures they set up is clearly evidenced and that they are properly engaged with any dealings with the assets which they hold – or they risk personal liability themselves.

At the same time the courts’ powers to freeze, trace into and recover against assets are becoming increasingly wide-ranging.

For example, in Khrapunov v JSC BTA Bank the English Court of Appeal confirmed that an individual in Switzerland who participated in breaches of a worldwide freezing order was susceptible to a claim for unlawful means conspiracy – notwithstanding that he was outside the jurisdiction of the English court (and therefore not bound by the freezing order or susceptible to an order finding him in contempt) and that the actions he took (moving monies on instructions from their owner) were otherwise lawful.

In addition, in the Durant International case the court allowed the claimant to depart from the usual first-in-first-out or last-in-first-out tracing rules and instead permitting what was effectively “reverse tracing” through mixed funds – prioritising the larger purpose of a series of transactions over the ability to identify the precise funds to which the claim attached.

Both cases illustrate the courts’ willingness to be increasingly inventive in ensuring that traditional barriers to enforcement are not used to frustrate valid claims. They are a further reminder that those operating offshore are increasingly susceptible to both cross-border enforcement and personal claims, and should therefore exercise an abundance of caution in meeting all potentially applicable legal obligations.

Finally, service providers seeking to mitigate their risk through client indemnities should proceed with care. Offshore courts keen to protect their local financial services industries may well be willing to uphold such measures (as was the case in Emerald Bay Worldwide v Barclays Wealth Directors – where the Guernsey Court of Appeal allowed nominee directors to rely on an indemnity, notwithstanding their breaches of fiduciary duty). However, with the law developing fast such measures will need to be kept under constant review, if they are to remain effective.

A global study from Veritas Technologies, the leader in information management, has revealed that 86% of organizations worldwide are concerned that a failure to adhere to the upcoming General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) could have a major negative impact on their business. Nearly 20% said they fear that non-compliance could put them out of business. This is in the face of potential fines for non-compliance as high as $21 million or four per cent of annual turnover – whichever is greater.

Intended to harmonize the governance of information that relates to individuals (personal data) across European Union (EU) member states, the GDPR requires greater oversight of where and how personal data—including credit card, banking and health information—is stored and transferred, and how access to it is policed and audited by organizations. GDPR, which takes effect on May 25^th 2018, will not only affect companies within the EU, but extend globally, impacting any company that offers goods or services to EU residents, or monitors their behavior, for example, by tracking their buying habits. The study indicates that a whopping 47% of organizations globally have major doubts that they will meet this impending compliance deadline.

The research findings from The Veritas 2017 GDPR Report, which surveyed more than 900 senior business decision makers in 2017 across Europe, the U.S. and Asia Pacific, also found that more than 20 per cent (21%) are very worried about potential layoffs, fearing that staff reductions may be an inevitable outcome as a result of financial penalties incurred as a result of GDPR compliance failures.

Companies are also worried about the impact non-compliance could have on their brand image, especially if and when a compliance failure is made public, potentially as a result of the new obligations to notify data breaches to those affected. 19% of those surveyed, fear that negative media or social coverage could cause their organization to lose customers. An additional one in ten (12%) are very concerned that their brand would be de-valued as a result of negative coverage.

Lack of Technology Hindering GDPR Compliance

The research also shows that many companies appear to be facing serious challenges in understanding what data they have, where that data is located, and its relevance to the business – a critical first step in the GDPR compliance journey. Key findings reveal that many companies are struggling to solve these challenges because they lack the proper technology to address compliance regulations.

Almost one third (32%) of respondents are fearful their current technology stack is unable to manage their data effectively, something that could hinder their ability to search, discover and review data – all essential criteria for GDPR compliance.

In addition, 39% of respondents say their organization cannot accurately identify and locate relevant data. This is another critical competency as the regulation mandates that, when requested, businesses must be able to provide individuals with a copy of their data, or delete it, within a 30 day time frame.

There is also widespread concern about data retention. More than 40% (42%) of organizations admitted that there is no mechanism in place to determine which data should be saved or deleted based on its value. Under GDPR, companies can retain personal data if it is still being used for the purpose that was notified to the individual concerned when the data was collected, but must delete personal data when it is no longer needed for that purpose.

Investing in GDPR Compliance

Veritas' research found that less than one third (31%) of respondents believe their organization is GDPR ready. For those working towards compliance, seven figure investments are the norm. On average, firms are forecasting spending in excess of $1.4m on GDPR readiness initiatives.

Potential Compliance Challenges Globally

Many businesses around the world have a long way to go towards GDPR compliance.

• Lack of GDPR Readiness: The research highlights that several countries are way behind their global counterparts in terms of GDPR readiness. Singapore, Japan and the Republic of Korea came in last place in the survey on this topic. Fifty-six% of respondents in Singapore fear they will be unable to meet the regulatory deadlines. The situation is worse in Japan and the Republic of Korea, where that%age is greater than 60%.
• Fear of Going Out of Business: When it comes to fears of going out of business as a result of compliance issues, the concerns are greatest in the U.S. and Australia. Nearly 25% of respondents in both countries fear that non-compliance could threaten the very existence of their organizations.
• Concerns About Layoffs: Likewise, respondents in the United States and Australia are also the most concerned that penalties from GDPR non-compliance could lead to layoffs. 26% of respondents in the US expressed concern about potential workforce reductions, and that number climbs to nearly 30% in Australia. This was also the number one concern in the Republic of Korea, where 23% of respondents stated they fear layoffs are a distinct possibility.
• Worry of Brand Damage: In Asia Pacific, businesses appear to be very worried about the impact a compliance failure could have on their brand reputation. 20% of respondents in Singapore fear they could lose customers because of negative media and social coverage. The number increases in 21% in Japan and the Republic of Korea.

"There is just over a year to go before GDPR comes into force, yet the 'out of sight, out of mind' mentality still exists in organizations around the world. It doesn't matter if you're based in the EU or not, if your organization does business in the region, the regulation applies to you," said Mike Palmer, executive vice president and chief product officer at Veritas. "A sensible next step would be to seek an advisory service that can check the level of readiness and build a strategy that ensures compliance. A failure to react now puts jobs, brand reputation and the livelihood of businesses in jeopardy."

(Source: Veritas Technologies)

The Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) recently published for comment National Instrument 91-102 Prohibition of Binary Options. The proposed instrument would prohibit advertising, offering, selling or otherwise trading a binary option to an individual.

"We are deeply concerned by the increasing number of investor losses and complaints resulting from binary options," said Louis Morisset, Chair of the CSA and President and Chief Executive Officer of the Autorité des marchés financiers." The proposed ban is critical to our efforts to help stop binary options fraud in Canada."

Binary options take the form of a wager in which investors bet on the performance of an underlying asset, often a currency, commodity, stock index, or share. The timeframe on this bet is typically very short, sometimes hours or even minutes. When the time is up, the investor either receives a predetermined payout or loses the entire amount. In many instances, no actual trading occurs and the transaction takes place for the sole purpose of stealing money.  In addition, those who have provided credit or personal information to binary options sites frequently fall victim to identity theft.

Binary options are sometimes marketed under other names, including "all-or-nothing options," "asset-or-nothing options," "bet options," "cash-or-nothing options," "digital options," "fixed-return options" and "one-touch options."

The firms and individuals involved in binary options trading platforms are often located overseas. Investing offshore is a common red flag of fraud, as it may be impossible to get your money back if something goes wrong.

Any firm or individual selling investments or offering advice must be registered in the province where they do business. Before making a decision to invest, investors should visit aretheyregistered.ca to check the registration of a person or company offering the investment. Registration helps protect investors because regulators will only register firms and individuals that are properly qualified. There are no registered individuals or firms permitted to trade binary options in Canada.

The proposed instrument can be found on CSA members' websites. The comment period is open until May 29^th 2017 in Alberta and Québec, until June 28^th 2017 in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and until July 28^th 2017 in all other participating jurisdictions. The CSA encourages comments by May 29^th 2017.

The British Columbia Securities Commission did not publish the proposed instrument for comment, although staff anticipates doing so in the near future, after obtaining necessary approval.

(Source: Canadian Securities Administrators)

No credits, no deductions and a flat income tax rate describes the ideal tax regime ranked first by corporate tax professionals, according to EY's yearly survey recently announced at Ernst & Young LLP's 12^th Annual Domestic Tax Conference in New York.

In this year of potential tax reform and changes to economic policy, 34% of survey respondents names the flat tax as their top preference among five different hypothetical regimes. The second favorite, chosen by 22% of respondents, was a value-added tax (VAT) to balance lower income or fewer indirect taxes.

The divisive border adjustment tax came in third as an ideal regime, very closely behind VAT. That said, it was also a regime that frequently ranked lowest among the options. Twenty-nine percent of respondents ranked border adjustments fifth out of five options. By comparison, VAT was only ranked last by 11% of respondents.

"Regardless of the fate and style of comprehensive tax reform, tax professionals do anticipate tremendous change in tax credits and incentives," said Kate Barton, EY Americas Vice Chair of Tax Services. "Among survey respondents, only 39% believe jobs-related incentives will be continued throughout the Trump term and just 29% expect repatriation and research benefits to last through his term."

State Forecasts
Survey respondents forecast state-by-state confusion following federal tax reform, with more than half (58%) expecting a patchwork of changes to adjust. Another 27% believe states will leave their policies as status quo until new federal policies have started affecting them and 15% expect states to follow with wholesale tax reform.

"Once federal tax reform is enacted, be ready for the state-tax rebound," said Barton. "They will at least need to patch and adjust according to the effect on their coffers."

Preparation and Expectations
Tax professionals are divided into three buckets when it comes to staff and technology needed in the face of tax reform.

• More than one third (36%) anticipates needing all hands on deck if/when comprehensive tax reform policies are enacted, as they will need to rethink and manage the impact on the entire organization's structure.
• The same sized group says it is prepared with modeling and has the staff and technology to manage changes.
• The last 27% is not ready: 13% say they will not be able to revamp systems without at least 2-year rollouts of any new tax policies. The remaining 14% expects to have a team in place to update systems and technology by 2018.

In preparation for tax reform, 29% of respondents are already investing as much or more time than last year on activities such as modeling and educating policymakers. Almost 40% of organizations are investing in new tax management technology (18%) or new enterprise-wide systems that make the tax function more efficient (22%), but the majority (61%) has not invested significantly in technology yet.

"One of the most valuable reasons to gather for this year's conference is to hear the latest in technological advances by businesses and tax authorities," said Kate Barton. "We discuss the advantages of new technology – despite the disruption – with clients every day, whether we talk about blockchain, robotics or artificial intelligence. Our interactive Tax Tech Tank session features several entrepreneurs who will pitch a panel of EY judges on the latest and greatest technology being used to solve today's tax problems."

Ties to the Economy
Because tax reform decisions can impact other economic indicators, the survey asked about preferences of tax professionals on the economy. More than three quarters (79%) would prefer that the underlying economy grow through 2017 rather than the stock market continue to strengthen.

The conference guest speaker, Dr. Susan Athey, Economics of Technology Professor at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, highlighted the connection of tax and the economy to innovation and disruptive technology in business.

(Source: EY)

Last week Governor of the Bank of England and Chairman of the G20's Financial Stability Board, Mark Carney said London is “effectively, the investment banker for Europe.”

Many believe companies and financial institutions should move their trading to the continent, while others believe this is non-sensical given London’s capital position globally and in the markets. Some companies, such as Goldman Sachs, HSBC and UBS, have already confirmed the eventual moving of staff and trade abroad, once the UK leaves the EU.

At the same time, the UK is faced with a lack of skilled labour, and due to the uncertainty surrounding changes in immigration law and the movement of employees or recruitment across the continent, bosses of big companies such as Barclays are calling for the freedom to recruit freely outside of the UK.

This week Lawyer Monthly hears Your Thoughts on the moving of business to the EU post-Brexit, and below are some comments from reputable sources within the business sphere.

Bertrand Lavayssiere, Managing Partner, zeb:

For those institutions with EU clients in their roster, it is more than likely that they will have to move to the EU post Brexit. However, there are a few buts…

One of the critical aspects is ‘passporting’. At present, banks can operate within the EU under UK regulations with relatively light approvals required from local regulators. This is of key importance for large sectors of the industry, such as asset management, where more than a trillion GBP is under management for EU-based investors, corporate lending, reinsurance and securities trading platforms, to name just a few. If this is maintained - which seems unlikely today - then the need to move is not crucial.

The long-standing cooperation between EU and UK regulators could ease some of the pain if governments agree that joint efforts to maintain alignment will help the overall goal of financial stability. Furthermore, many of the pertinent regulations are global anyway - those from the Basel Committee or the IASB, for example.

With regards to the London market, there are a number of platforms for specific product lines (foreign exchanges, swap contracts, equity derivatives, etc.) to facilitate compensation, settlements of trades among market players, and volumes to ensure liquidity. In simple terms: London is the place for such platforms. Disagreements have already taken place with regards to whether those platforms could remain in London. If the decision is yes, it will be business as usual. If, however, the answer is no (the most probable outcome), then the trading platforms and back offices of stakeholders have to move. This includes the day traders and market makers who are crucial for the liquidity of the market.

There is a whole list of further variations on this issue. But all in all, it is essential that a financial institution with clients based within the EU considers its strategic options as of now. Establishing a presence in the EU needs at least 18 months from a regulatory stand point. As many EU regulators require a fully-fledged decision making unit through proper governance, the analysis of the changes in delegation of authority schemes and the assessment of potential human resources impacts must be considered early on in the process.

Paramount in the decision-making process should be the institution’s business potential, to follow their customers, and ongoing requirements, rather than solely the regulatory aspects.

Ben Martin, Founder, The Brexit Tracker:

Moving your business away from the UK is a major undertaking. Perhaps you were considering this prior to the Brexit referendum or more likely, you believe leaving the EU will make your business operations untenable. But before taking action, we suggest you calculate and monitor the financial impact of Brexit on your firm and compare this to the emotional ‘pull’ of moving to the EU.

Here’s our 5-point plan:

1. Calculate how Brexit has already impacted your firm. From over 390 economic indicators we’ve reviewed, the biggest market-related change has been GBP Sterling dropping 15% (now 12% weaker.)  How has this impacted your business?
2. Continually assess and record how new facts surrounding the UK/EU relationship will impact your £ calculations
3. On relocation – consider how you will continue to serve your UK customers.  With a weaker GBP, your UK sales are likely to be worth 12% less
4. A move will impact your business banking.  UK banks/lenders will need convincing of the merits of a move (and the enforceability of their security) to continual their financing
5. Consider your existing and new competitors – will a move provide an advantage to you or them?

In summary, firms need the full “Brexit facts” before undertaking a move to the EU – as the facts are in short supply, they should start their own Brexit monitoring system.

Oliver Watson, Executive Board Director for the UK and North America, PageGroup:

As is to be expected, multinational businesses are more cautious than UK SMEs when it comes to hiring in post-Brexit Britain – and, as I see it, there are two reasons for this.

With a variety of other investment opportunities elsewhere across the globe, large international businesses – who are under no obligation to invest in the UK – have the ready option to divert investment to other more certain markets. As a result, their talent acquisition will naturally become focused in a different direction or geographical location.

However, where SMEs generate the bulk of their revenues in the UK don’t have that option – they just have to get on with it. This means while multinationals are feeling cautious about UK hiring, for SMEs it is often business as usual. This is a pattern we’ve seen time and time again in the face of uncertainty.

Mary Wathen, Partner and Head of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Harrison Clark Rickerbys:

The Agricultural sector relies heavily on EU workers. Around 15% of the total workforce is from outside the UK. The uncertainty around the status of EU workers threatens to hit the agricultural sector hard if the status of EU workers isn’t clarified.

Despite the uncertainty, there are steps which savvy agricultural employers can take now to minimise the disruption. Taking action ahead of time will help maintain the flow of workers for each harvest, protecting both the business and the livelihoods it supports.

Employers need to ask themselves some key questions about their workforce:

• how many migrant EU permanent or seasonal workers do you have?
• how many are key staff, responsible for driving production, harvest or sales?
• how many have been in the UK long enough to acquire permanent residence?
• How many of your workforce are committed to remaining in the UK?

For smart agricultural employers, the so-called crisis provides an opportunity to build their employer brand.  Employers are enhancing their working relationships with key employees who meet the requirements for permanent residency and want to remain – introducing them to specialist agricultural immigration advisers and supporting employees through the application process.

But this isn’t the solution for the seasonal workforce shortage. The fruit-farming industry employs 29,000 seasonal workers, who go back to their home countries after six to nine months in the UK. They won’t be eligible to apply for permanent residency. Virtually all of them come from the EU, mainly Romania and Bulgaria, but also Poland and Hungary. If the Government ends freedom of movement, a return to the old-style permit scheme seems the only option to protect the harvest and UK agriculture.

Richard Thomas, Employment Partner, Capital Law:

One key issue for the forthcoming Brexit negotiations will be the issue of EU Immigration following our exit from the UK. There is no doubt that the UK Government will seek to put in place some form of “controls” on EU immigration after the UK leaves the EU but it is entirely unclear as to what form these controls will take and/or who they will apply to. Will the controls apply to unskilled, semi-skilled or skilled EU migrants? Who makes the decision as to what constitutes a semi-skilled or skilled role? Is there any appeal against this decision?

It has also been suggested that the UK will allow all current EU nationals working in the UK to remain in the UK after the UK leaves the EU but it is not clear whether this will be indefinitely and whether it will apply to non-working spouses and/or children. Ultimately no promises have been given and it is a matter for negotiation between the EU and the UK, although it is hoped that the issue will be resolved quickly.

In addition, in April 2017 the UK Government introduced the Immigration Skills Charge imposing a charge of £1,000 per year for employers sponsoring a worker from outside the EU. It is quite possible that the UK Government will extend this charge to EU workers who do not have rights of permanent residence once the UK leaves the EU.

Given the current uncertainty and potential cost the best advice to SME’s with EU workers who have been working in the UK for at least 5 years is to get them to make an application for Permanent Residence as this should provide a guarantee of an individual’s continuing right to work in the UK.

However, individuals making the application will have to complete an 85-page form and provide huge amounts of supporting documentation confirming what they have been doing in the UK for the last 5 years. This is an arduous process to say the least but there appears to be little alternative as (unlike some EU countries such as Germany) the UK has no central register of the identities or even the numbers of EU citizens currently working in the UK. The Home Office has stated that it is looking to use an online application process but there does not appear to be any additional funding for this.

Katherine Dennis, Associate in the Employment, Pensions and Immigration team, Charles Russell Speechlys LLP:

The EU referendum has caused a lot of uncertainty for EU nationals and their employers as to what their position is in the UK and what will happen when the UK exits the EU.  This is clearly an important issue for many SMEs, especially as sponsorship of overseas workers through the UK’s points-based system becomes increasingly expensive.

Importantly, free movement will continue to apply until the UK formally leaves the EU. This process was started on 29^th March 2017 by the UK government giving notice under Article 50 of the EU treaty. There will now follow a two-year negotiation period, which could be extended by agreement of all member states. The earliest the UK would leave the EU is therefore the end of March 2019. Until then, EU nationals are still free to work in the UK.

The UK government has clearly stated that it wishes to control migration from the EU, while still attracting those whom it considers have the most to offer the UK. It is highly likely therefore that the UK will introduce measures to restrict free movement. It is also therefore likely that it will be harder for employers to recruit EU nationals and it may be difficult for EU nationals to work in the UK on a self-employed basis.

At the moment, there is no firm indication as to the type of system which might be put in place and much depends on what the UK government is able to negotiate with the EU.

Possibilities include a new work visa system for EU nationals or expansion of the current points based system, which enables employers to sponsor skilled workers in the UK (although it is currently limited to professional roles at a certain salary). It is unlikely visas will be required for short business trips. Other possibilities include retaining limited free movement with measures to cap numbers, such as quotas or temporary ‘cooling-off periods’. Concessions may be made for sectors where there is a recognised labour shortage.

The UK government has stated that it intends to consult with businesses and communities to obtain the views of various sectors of the economy and the labour market. It is therefore crucial that employers and business-owners who are concerned about the impact of Brexit on their workforce respond to the government’s consultation when it is issued.

In the meantime, EU nationals who are eligible to apply for permanent residence (i.e. those who have been resident in the UK for five years or more) or British citizenship should do so now to ensure their continued right to work in the UK.  EU nationals who have not reached the five year point when the UK exits the EU are in a more vulnerable position.  It is sensible for those EU nationals to apply now for an EEA Registration Certificate, which confirms that they are currently living and working lawfully in the UK under EU provisions, in case this fact becomes important in any future transitional arrangements.

We would also love to hear more of Your Thoughts on this, so feel free to comment below and tell us what you think!