Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
A landmark legal ruling has been secured by UK200Group member firm Virtuoso Legal in a case between retail giant Argos and Virtuoso’s client, a relatively small US-based software company, Argos Systems Inc.
The case concerns the domain name www.argos.com, which was registered by Argos Systems in 1992, and the decision has wider implications for the future of the operation of Google advertising.
Argos UK brought the lawsuit after noticing that a significant number of customers were accidentally visiting the .com domain rather than the .co.uk domain, and that Virtuoso Legal-represented Argos Systems’ website at argos.com had begun to display advertisement banners, which were powered by Google’s AdSense programme.
Since Google’s algorithms track the browsing history of the potential Argos UK customers, those browsers who came to the website at argos.com were likely to see adverts for Argos UK itself and/or for Argos UK competitors, such as John Lewis.
Virtuoso Legal, a Leeds and London-based intellectual property specialist law firm, defended Argos Systems in the High Court and Deputy Judge Spearman found that Argos Systems was not infringing the trademark or passing off rights of Argos UK.
Liz Ward, Principal at Virtuoso Legal, said: “This case underlines the value of domain names and the internet as a marketplace as a whole. The fact that the retailer Argos was willing to put so much time and resource into prohibiting Argos Systems from using Google’s advertising banners is testament to how fierce the fight for online territory has become.
“Firms used to compete for real estate in areas where they could attract most customers and clients, but that fight is now about clicks, not bricks.
“With this online land-grab heating up, we are likely to see more small firms targeted by the giants, and it’s imperative that business owners understand the value of intangible assets such as domain names. For example, the fact that Argos Systems registered its domain early has meant that it has successfully defended its right to keep it.”
Peter Duff, Partner at Morisons Solicitors and member of the Executive Committee of the UK200Group, the UK’s leading membership association of chartered accountancy and law firms, said: “We’re very proud that Virtuoso Legal has won this ‘David and Goliath’ case, which sets a precedent for digital marketers for years to come.
“It also represents an important win for businesses at the smaller end of the scale, and helps to preserve the web as a place where small firms can compete with bigger firms on a more even basis.”
(Source: UK200Group)
Competition compliance programmes must take account of the FCA’s rules for mandatory self-reporting of existing or potential competition law infringements. Here Lawyer Monthly benefits from exclusive insight, written by James Marshall and Marieke Datema of Berwin Leighton Paisner (BLP), who take a look at the powerful toolkit at the FCA’s disposal and explain what it means for firms in the year ahead.
A heavy use of market studies
Since acquiring a competition mandate in April 2013, the FCA has conducted several market studies. These allow the regulator to ‘peer behind the curtain’ in any given market to identify structural competition, consumer or market integrity concerns. In just over three years, the FCA reviewed insurance add-ons, cash savings, credit cards, retirement income, investment and corporate banking, asset management and residential mortgages.
The FCA has a uniquely powerful toolkit; it can use either sectoral (Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA)) or competition (Enterprise Act 2002) powers to conduct market reviews.
To date, all FCA market studies, including those launched after the FCA acquired concurrent competition law enforcement powers in April 2015, have been carried out using FSMA powers, rather than pure competition powers under the Enterprise Act. The FCA chooses the most appropriate power on a case-by-case basis. In practice, the FCA enjoys the ‘best of both worlds’, in that it can pursue competition-focused investigations using extensive data-gathering powers under FSMA without being bound by tight timetables under the Enterprise Act.
If, following a market study, the FCA concludes that a market is not functioning well, it may seek regulatory changes to fix the issues identified. Potential remedies include structural reforms (e.g. rule-making, guidance and/or proposing enhanced self-regulation), or firm-specific changes (e.g. varying regulatory permissions, public censure and/or financial penalties). The FCA can also “name and shame” firms by publishing data – one of the remedies imposed in the cash savings market study, for example, was the publication of interest rates made available by over 30 banks and building societies on certain types of savings accounts and ISAs. The FCA furthermore has the power to refer a market to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) for a detailed “phase 2” market investigation, the outcome of which could include forced divestments or other major interventions.
A market study offers the opportunity for quite considerable change. We would therefore encourage firms affected by market studies to consider what features of the market they may wish to change or defend and then consider how to engage with the FCA on those fronts.
Zeroing-in on individual firms – ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ enforcement measures
Investigations of individual firms are common outcomes of market studies in other sectors. Early in 2016, the FCA launched its first antitrust investigation. Details of the behaviour and the firms under investigation remain confidential. The FCA Director of Competition stated that she hoped the investigation “sends a signal that we take competition law seriously alongside other regulatory enforcement” and noted that the FCA is “well placed” to detect and take action in relation to breaches of competition law. It is certainly true that the FCA is ‘well placed’ – it has a team of around 100 competition specialists, a number of whom used to work for the CMA.
We anticipate an uptick in antitrust investigations in 2017. The CMA publishes an annual report assessing the operation of the concurrent powers by the FCA and other sector regulators. In its April 2016 report the CMA stated that it hoped to see a greater number of cases opened by the concurrent sector regulators (including the FCA) in the year ahead. The FCA, like its peer concurrent regulators, has been given its competition law powers on a ‘use it or lose it’ basis. This may be a real spur for greater enforcement action in future. The competition between sector regulators and the FCA’s desire to be regarded as ‘first among equals’ may also motivate further competition enforcement. Finally, following Brexit, cases involving possible anti-competitive conduct in the financial sector that previously may have been investigated by the European Commission are likely fall to the FCA or CMA.
Despite little ‘hard’ antitrust enforcement, the FCA has been astute in its use of ‘soft’ enforcement methods and we expect this trend to continue in 2017. The FCA has made use of “on notice” letters which notify a firm that the FCA has information about a suspected breach of competition law. The firm must conduct an internal review and report back to the FCA on the scale of any competition breach identified, and what measures the firm will take to address the problem. “On notice” letters transfer the burden of investigating and remedying competition problems to individual firms. This can free-up FCA resource for higher priority matters, whilst also solving potential competition concerns - a regulatory ‘win-win’.
To date, the FCA has publicly confirmed the use of several “on notice” letters prompted by information gathered during the retirement income market study. The FCA met with the relevant firms to better understand their proposed solutions and the firms have since undertaken a number of initiatives to strengthen their compliance.
The FCA has also sent three advisory letters – intended to raise competition law awareness and promote compliance amongst targeted firms.
Self-reporting competition issues – a significant question
Both market studies and “on-notice” letters can place considerable burdens on individual firms to provide evidence in response to an FCA information request. Responding to such requests can also cause firms to ‘flush out’ potential issues which may require self-notification under the FCA’s handbook. SUP 15.3.32R (1) requires firms to notify the FCA of any significant infringement (or potential infringement) of any applicable competition law. The reference to “any applicable competition law” means that the notification obligation extends to infringements of competition law outside the UK. Despite the extensive scope of the notification obligation, only limited guidance has been provided by the FCA, in particular in relation to how firms can determine whether an infringement is “significant”.
The position adopted by the FCA is in stark contrast with the standard application of competition law. Leniency programmes generally provide that companies can choose whether or not to self-report competition infringements and there are, in many cases, incentives for companies to do so. If the relevant conduct identified by a firm is sufficiently serious, the FCA’s mandatory self-reporting obligation can effectively force a firm to apply for leniency. Moreover, the same conduct could prove problematic under both the FCA’s conduct rules and competition law. It is therefore more important than ever that regulated firms bring their competition compliance programmes in line with the self-reporting obligation and think through the wider implications of any notifications to the FCA.
As technology, software and creative medias take the world by storm, intellectual property remains at the centre of many ever-evolving spheres, developing therein and increasingly affected by change. Below Lawyer Monthly gains expert insight from Mark O’Halloran, Partner at Coffin Mew, on the IP developments to look out for this year, which will undoubtedly take IP progress to the next level.
It’s easy to imagine, with all the political noise and uncertainty since the start of the year, that world affairs and global business are in a state of suspense, wondering about the next steps. The truth, of course, is that major developments already in play continue to unfold and, for the most part, are unlikely to be disrupted. This is certainly the case in the sphere of intellectual property which underlies so much of the modern economy.
Two big cases which continue their stately progress through the legal system on both sides of the Atlantic may well come to a conclusion in 2017 and establish new parameters for the design-savvy and content-hungry consumer sectors.
Apple’s long-running complaint that Samsung infringed its design patent for the iPhone originally went Apple’s way with a jury award of $399 million in damages. However, Samsung appealed to the US Supreme Court on the basis that, even if it had infringed the outer design, it should only pay damages on the profit value of the infringing component, not the entire device. The Supreme Court has agreed this is arguable and instructed the initial Federal Court to have a re-think. The final decision will be significant. If the initial jury award is confirmed, we may see device manufacturers more cautious in following design trends set by market leaders.
A good-looking device is one thing, but consumers also continue to want ready access to content without having to pay for it. Peer-2-Peer website, The Pirate Bay, has been the flagship for years in providing a platform through which users can share content, whether it’s their own or someone else’s. It has even inspired the Pirate Party which took Iceland’s election by storm late last year and was asked to form a government. But the tide has been relentless against The Pirate Bay itself with multiple shutdowns and even criminal convictions. The hole below the waterline may have been struck in early February this year in Stichting Brein v Ziggo BV and another before the CJEU.
An initial opinion by the Advocate-General determined that, once Pirate Bay were aware that users were sharing infringing material, the continued provision of the platform constituted a “communication to the public” for the purposes of copyright law, entitling the complaining rights holders to obtain injunctions against the platform itself. The final decision will be taken by the Court of Justice although, as usual, it is expected to follow the Advocate-General’s line.
Design and copyright protection isn’t just a concern in Europe and North America. Economies from Asia to Africa are also taking huge strides to develop the legal infrastructure necessary to encourage investment in home-grown IP and discourage abuse of overseas IP.
In January this year, Beijing launched the China Internet Enterprises IPR Protection Strategic Alliance with a mission statement reading “Communication and Promotion, Utilization and Protection, Innovation and Development.” The primary aim of the Alliance is to implement the government’s National IPR Strategy by helping develop laws to protect intellectual property whilst educating businesses about the importance of respecting other companies’ IPR. This will be welcome to many UK businesses which currently outsource manufacturing to China and encouraging to those businesses looking to do so.
Emerging economies continue to gear up to compete better in an IP-driven global market. The African Regional Intellectual Property Office (ARICO) will gain three new members this year (Mozambique, Zambia and Gambia) and has also joined forces with the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (ICSAC), to launch joint projects to bolster copyright protection, education and training to ensure rights holders benefit from growing demand for their content. The Brazilian National Institute of Industrial Property meanwhile expects to start reaping the benefit of recent investment in staff and procedures with a greatly accelerated process for innovators to obtain trademark and patent protection.
So, with all this activity, what’s going on with the UK and what are the implications of Brexit?
First thing to note is that the UK has announced it will ratify the Unified Patent Court Agreement following Italy’s ratification this month and possibly before German ratification later in the year. There have been rumours that Germany would refuse to ratify as a bargaining chip in the Brexit negotiation but these have been downplayed.
The government’s recent White Paper - 'The UK’s exit from and new partnership with the European Union' - gave few clues as to the direction of IP law after Brexit although indications late last year from Baroness Neville-Rolfe (then UK IP Minister) were that the UK would seek to remain a member of the system after Brexit. It may be that the government thinks the subject is too dry and technical to be of much immediate interest to the general public so there was no need to go into detail.
Many businesses will hope this is the case and, indeed, that the UK will negotiate continued participation in the EU Intellectual Property Office to protect UK participation in the system which enables EU Trade Mark and Community Registered Design systems. Some others, particularly in the biotech sector, may be less eager.
Late last year, the PM Theresa May announced an additional £2bn of government funding each year for biotech research and development and it has certainly been the aim of successive governments to make the UK a global centre for the industry. But a recent decision by the current European Patent Court that animals and plants obtained from bio-engineering cannot themselves be patented may give our Brexit negotiators pause for thought. In such a contentious and cutting-edge area, the UK may find its best bet is to go it alone. Whether that is cherry-picking too far remains to be seen.
Communicating for America (CA) recently sent Tom Price, the newly named Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, a clear message – the enforcement of a new regulations on short term insurance plans needs to be delayed until a there is legislative clarity about how to replace Obamacare. The letter, written by CA chief executive officer, Jeff Smedsrud, outlines why delaying the enforcement of the new short term insurance regulation will benefit Americans who in a variety of circumstances might otherwise become uninsured.
Beginning April 1st 2017, the Health and Human Services short term regulation (81 FR 75316), which was approved in 2016 by the Obama administration to restrict all short term medical insurance plans to a 90-day duration, is scheduled to be enforced. Prior to this regulation, short term medical plans have been solely governed by state insurance regulations. In 36 states consumers were able to buy short term medical plans for up to 364 days.
CA along with other consumers groups, insurance agents and state regulators all strongly disagreed with the proposed rule during the comment period in 2016. CA believes the regulation is unnecessary, harmful to consumers and adds further instability to an already fragile individual insurance market. Although the law technically started on January 1st 2017, The Obama administration chose to delay enforcement until April 1st 2017. CA is asking Secretary Tom Price to use his administrative authority to further extend the non-enforcement to no sooner than July 1st 2017.
"Health insurance premiums have soared, and the number of options for consumers has declined. Consumers are scared and confused. Further limiting choices until there is some clarity and a viable legislative timeline for an ACA replacement is not in the best interest of individuals and families," wrote Smedsrud.
(Source: Communicating for America)
The Finance Act 2015 had proposed to amend the test of residence for foreign companies to provide that a company would be treated as resident in India if its place of effective management in the previous year is in India. Earlier, section 6 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) referred that, a company is considered to be an Indian resident company, only if it is incorporated in India or the control and management of its affairs is situated wholly in India.
As per the amendment, a company shall be considered an Indian resident company if:
- It is incorporated in India; or
- Place of effective management, in that year, is in India.
"Place of effective management" has been defined to mean a place where key management and commercial decisions that are necessary for the conduct of the business of an entity as a whole are, in substance, made. In the recent budget 2017 announced on February 1st 2017, the Government said it aims to target the shell companies that are created to evade taxes through the place of effective management (POEM) rules, but excluded firms with an annual turnover of less than Rs 500 million from its purview. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) made public the long-pending "guiding principles" to determine place of effective management of a company, which have been effective April 1st 2016.
The PoEM rules with an aim to assess the tax liability was to come into effect in the current fiscal. The final guidelines have now been issued. The main objective of introducing PoEM, was to ensure that the companies incorporated outside India, but controlled and managed from India do not escape taxation in India. It also brings in the concept of residency of corporates in line with internationally-accepted principles said Neeraj Bhagat, founder of Neeraj Bhagat & Co, an Indian Chartered Accountancy firm serving various MNC'S from across the globe.
"The final guidelines on POEM contain some unique features. Active Business Outside India (ABOI) test has been provided so as not to cover companies outside India which are engaged in active business," CBDT said in a statement. The guidelines prescribed to determine PoEM of a non-resident is indeed welcome as it ushers in certainty for foreign investors in terms of applicability and the procedure to be followed by the revenue authorities. The final guidelines address some of the issues highlighted by the stakeholders, such as determination of PoEM in case of back-office/support services, existence of PE, meaning of certain terms, methods used in the active/passive business tests, shareholders’ activity, etc.
Tax payers likely to be affected by PoEM are:
Activities likely to trigger PoEM are:
Draft PoEM guidelines:
The place of effective management of a company conducting active business outside India shall be considered to be outside if majority of board of directors meetings of the company are held outside India or it its assets, employees, income, and employee expenses are from outside India. For a company whose directors are not involved in decision making and such decision making powers are exercised by a holding company or a person resident of India, then the company is considered as a resident under the place of effective management rules.
In case of use of technology such as telephone or video conferencing by the board members in conducting meetings, the location of head-office is considered as place of effective management. It is not necessary for the person taking decisions to be physically present at a particular location.
Further, Support function is an important part of the business, but is not the decisive part of the conduct of business and hence presence of support function in India shall not tantamount to effective management in India. Also, the concept of separate legal entity shall prevail and the corporate veil shall not be lifted.
A permanent establishment (PE) of a foreign company is a separate legal entity and shall not be considered as place of effective management of the foreign company in India.
It is imperative to note that having a PE in India is vastly different from having PoEM in India, since having a PE shall mean the income related to the PE is taxable in India; however, having PoEM in India means that the worldwide income of the foreign company is taxable in India.
However, overseas-incorporated entities held to have PoEM in India would face some of the following challenges:
(Source: Neeraj Bhagat, at the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India)
In a landmark case the Court of Appeal has ruled on the side of patient choice versus medical paternalism.
Hearing Sebastian Webster v. Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2017], a case brought by Heather Butler after her son Sebastian suffered serious disabilities following his birth at Burton Hospital, the Court decided his mother’s wish to be induced should have been followed.
This was in preference to the instruction of the consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist, under whose care she was under, that she should have a normal delivery.
Following the precedent set by the decision of the Supreme Court in Montgomery v. Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UK SC 11, the case constitutes the first appellate decision where the Court of Appeal has emphatically ruled in favour of patient choice.
Speaking about the ruling, Satinder Hunjan QC of Kings Chambers, who represented Ms Butler said: “The Court has established that we are in a modern era of age and consent – these cases have application in all areas of medical and related advice and consent.
“They set out the standards of advice which medical practitioners must give to patients to enable them to make appropriate choices.
“The advice which is given must be clear, comprehensible, it must deal with the alternatives which are available to the patient and, importantly, the advice must be given dispassionately and without seeking to pressurise the patient to a particular course of medical treatment.”
During the case the Court heard how Heather Butler’s child Sebastian was left with disabilities and profound damage to his brain after his umbilical cord was compressed, starving him of oxygen in the days prior to his delivery.
The Court heard that if the wishes of his mother had been followed this would have been avoided and that Mr Hollingworth had been negligent in failing to monitor the pregnancy with repeat ultrasound scanning.
An ultrasound scan had shown that the foetus was small and that there was disproportion between the head and abdominal circumferences.
Mr Hollingworth contended that even if these features had been identified with further examinations he would have been reassured about the health of the foetus and would not have carried out an induction.
However, the Court heard there was some emerging evidence, although the statistical base was extremely small, that there were additional risks in delaying labour.
Mr Hunjan QC argued that Ms Butler would have wished to have been induced if there was any suggestion of increased risks in delaying labour as it was her estimated delivery date.
The Court of Appeal found that the decision of the patient may be based upon many factors, which included the patient herself and that it was for the patient to decide the risks they wished to take concerning their body – including the risks posed to a foetus.
The role of the doctor, it ruled, was as a medical advisor and not the decision maker.
It was not a defence for the doctor to say there were other doctors who would have acted in the same way and that such a defence was not supportable when it comes to the question of the advice and consent of a patient.
Karen Reynolds, partner at Freeths who has been representing Ms Butler for over a decade during the course of the legal action and has more than 20 years’ experience dealing with cerebral palsy claims, said:
“The claimant’s mother has fought a long and difficult battle to show that patients have a right to be informed about the risks involved in their treatment and make decisions accordingly.”
(Source: Kings Chambers)
Uber have missed a golden opportunity to start complying with the law says GMB.
GMB, the union for professional drivers, are disappointed with a series of changes and initiatives introduced for Uber drivers that was announced last week.
The initiatives include financial advice, English lessons and updated community guidelines to inform drivers what is expected of them.
GMB brought two lead test cases to the Central London Employment Tribunal on 20th July 2016 and it has decided that Uber drivers are employed workers entitled to receive holiday pay, a guaranteed minimum wage and an entitlement to breaks.
Maria Ludkin, GMB Legal Director, said: "GMB note that Uber have come up with a package of cosmetic measures which they claim address drivers concerns. The measures do not address the concerns of the hundreds of drivers contacting GMB who are focussed on getting basic workers rights.
Uber missed a golden opportunity to start complying with the law. They continue to ignore the decision of the courts that drivers are employed workers with rights to receive holiday pay, a guaranteed minimum wage and an entitlement to breaks.
Free English lessons and updated community guidelines are not going to address the issue of paying workers below the minimum wage."
(Source: GMB Union)
(Source: Bar Council)
The Association of American Educators (AAE), the largest national, non-union teachers' association, and eight of its California member educators recently filed a lawsuit against the California Teachers Association challenging the constitutionality of California's "agency shop" law. "Agency shop" arrangements violate educators' First Amendment guarantee to free speech and free association by forcing public school teachers to support powerful teachers' union efforts to advance their political agenda through collective bargaining.
The lawsuit, Yohn v. California Teachers Association, asks the courts to respect the teachers' First Amendment right to choose without fear or coercion whether or not to join or fund a labor union. The hundreds of dollars non-members are forced to pay to the union as a condition of employment in California schools is a clear violation of educators First Amendment rights, since the unions used those coerced payments to advance their policy agenda when bargaining with the government.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of AAE and eight California public school teachers by The Center for Individual Rights (CIR), the same non-profit public interest law firm that represented Rebecca Friedrichs and other California teachers in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which was heard by the United States Supreme Court last year. That lawsuit ended in a tied, non-binding opinion following the sudden passing of Justice Antonin Scalia, leaving the matter unresolved, but drawing significant attention to this important issue.
Following the case filing, AAE Chairman and President Gary Beckner issued the following statement:
"This is an historic moment for the Association of American Educators and freedom of choice for educators in California¬ and beyond. Founded as alternative to the partisan politics and collective bargaining of the teacher labor unions, AAE has provided a professional option for teachers seeking a voice that puts students first for over two decades. This lawsuit is a monumental next step for those educators seeking true freedom of association.
Our member educators have been vocal about the injustices of agency shop laws for years. Teachers are diverse individuals who deserve the right to select an association that matches their budget and beliefs. For far too long, the political activity of the teachers' unions has been prioritized over the rights of universally-respected professionals.
AAE was proud to rally our members for this worthy cause. Mr. Ryan Yohn and the other longtime AAE member plaintiffs are champions for the rights of all California educators. We are honored to stand together and we look forward to this case progressing in the months ahead."
Ryan Yohn et al. v. California Teachers Association et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division.
(Source: Association of American Educators)
In the years since the global financial crisis, Africa has witnessed a rapid expansion of cross-border banking, led by banking groups based in Africa that are spurring financial and economic integration and transforming the continent's financial landscape. These institutions are occupying a space created by the retreat of several global bank groups from Africa in the wake of the crisis.
The expansion is evident across the region. African banks headquartered from Morocco to South Africa have each established business operations in at least 10 countries. Ecobank, headquartered in Togo—is present in more than 30 countries on the continent.
The banks have facilitated many positive changes—providing customers with new and better products and services, operating improved IT and management systems, and observing more advanced regulatory and accounting standards. But these groups also pose new challenges for African regulators and supervisors, with potential implications for economic and financial stability. Many of these challenges have been felt worldwide, particularly in Europe, necessitating a strengthening of banking regulation and a tightening of oversight.
It falls to African financial sector regulators and supervisors to rapidly address these new challenges. They are moving to upgrade supervisory procedures and practices by embarking upon unprecedented cooperation with peers across Africa—and with international supervisors, who are facing the same issues.
This complicated set of challenges was the topic of a conference on Cross-Border Banking and Regulatory Reforms: Implications for Africa from International Experience, held in Mauritius on February 1-2. The conference brought together more than 80 officials from Africa and Europe—including 12 African central bank governors—and bank chief executives, along with an IMF team led by Managing Director Christine Lagarde.
In opening remarks, the Managing Director spoke of the key need to ensure that supervision of bank holding companies takes place on a consolidated basis. This places an important burden on supervisors. It is also essential that supervisors in countries hosting systemically important bank subsidiaries are involved in the process by attending meetings of supervisory colleges and exchanging information.
“You face a delicate balancing act,” Lagarde said. “You need to enhance regulation and supervision but, in implementing global standards, you also must take into account local circumstances. Fortunately, you are not alone. The IMF and other bodies recognize the challenges you face and are committed to drawing on our global experience to assist you.”
The closed-door conference addressed the supervisory challenges of pan-African banking in detail, particularly the task of coordinating among economies that are at widely varying stages of financial sector development—and where bank subsidiaries are much more important—even highly systemic—to the local economies where they operate.
It is clear that these issues are not unique to Africa. In fact, many of the challenges—ranging from data-sharing to cross-border bank resolution—are common to advanced and emerging market economies.
So an important feature of the Mauritius conference was the participation of European supervisors who are grappling with the same challenges. The group was led by Stefan Ingves, Governor of the Swedish Central Bank and Chairman of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. In his speech on cross-border bank resolution, Ingves spoke to the issues that supervisors in the Nordic and Baltic countries have faced, particularly during and after the global financial crisis.
The IMF has played an important role in providing technical expertise to assist the efforts to develop effective cross-border regulation and supervision, including through the Fund's capacity development work. The conference was held at the Africa Training Institute, which along with the Mauritius-based AFRITAC South regional technical assistance centre and other regional centres, is deeply involved in this effort.
In his remarks, Ingves spoke to another role for the IMF in the cross-border banking work. “Besides being able to bring its expertise, let alone its financial muscles, to the table, the Fund often also plays an important role as a neutral third party,” he said.
Managing Director Lagarde, in her speech, spoke of the broader purpose of a stronger financial sector in Africa. “At the end of the day, a strong regulatory and supervisory setting can help ensure that healthy banks are able to provide the lifeblood of Africa's economic resurgence. This will be a long-term effort, and we will be with you every step of the way,” Lagarde said.
(Source: International Monetary Fund)
