Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
The 9th Federal Appeal Court’s decision regarding President Trump’s ban on travel is both interesting and simultaneously predictive of the future. The president issued several immigration-related presidential orders as soon as he took office and, although all controversial, the first one was just challenged. What the well-written ruling by the 9th Circuit demonstrates is not that the president cannot do what he is doing, but that he must do so with a finer brush stroke, states immigration expert Steven Riznyk.
Although President Trump’s heart may be in the right place, the method of execution is not one that will work over the long term. Immigration is multi-faceted and there are many special interests at stake. At any time, they are challenged in some way, there is no shortage of organizations that will take the issues to court for resolution. The more people and entities affected, the more likely a rapid onslaught of challenges will appear. This was the case here. On the other hand, his presidential order dealing with criminal offenders has had little publicity, despite the riskiness of the fact that one does not even have to be convicted to be removable.
Having practiced for 29 years, states Steven Riznyk, I believe the immigration problems cannot be repaired by only one entity, or representative. It requires multi-faceted input as there is a lot to incorporate and it is wired in the most complex of manners, sprinkled with landmines. No politician or member of the public who has not spent at least a couple of decades in this area can possibly understand it enough to clearly ascertain its strengths and weaknesses. This area, states Mr. Riznyk, requires a formidable brain trust of persons from different areas to carve out a viable solution for a functional system. An area so complex and with so many special interest groups cannot be addressed without a multitude of sub-parts addressing the different permutations possible.
The lesson to be learned here, is that if the president wants to issue presidential orders with immediate and holding effect, he will have to draft them in a manner that does not impair rights across the board and challenge constitutional issues. If he does not do that, he will find that half of his time could be spent reading appellate briefs challenging his jurisdiction. There are some aspects of the immigration system that do require immediate action and I am in favor of repairing the broken infrastructure. The challenge we face is that if the orders are drafted so broadly, they will have the opposite effect as nothing will get accomplished as the cases languish in the very busy court systems. If that happens, the negative aspects of the future orders will disappear, but so will any benefits as a result of the time these cases spend in the appellate system.
(Source: Steven Riznyk)
President Trump has a golden opportunity to reset US relations with Egypt making human rights a high priority while simultaneously supporting Egypt's fight against terrorism. Egyptian President El-Sisi was the first foreign leader to call and congratulate Mr. Trump on winning the presidential election, signalling Egypt's eagerness to form a strong relationship with the new president.
Coptic Solidarity applauds Mr. Trump's declared intentions to combat terrorism and provides some recommendations, summarized below, for the new US administration, urging it to formulate a comprehensive foreign policy approach towards Egypt, which incorporates US values and priorities without sacrificing human rights to trade or national security:
Coptic Solidarity urges the new administration to recognize that only an open-minded forward-looking Egypt can play a positive role in defeating terrorism and improving the stability of the region.
(Source: Coptic Solidarity)
KPMG LLP, the US audit, tax and advisory firm, has issued a new survey report on the international Common Reporting Standard (CRS), which reveals that financial institutions impacted by the regulations still have much work to do to meet with the initiative's significant compliance challenges.
The CRS, introduced by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) as part of an effort to address offshore tax evasion, requires financial institutions to report to their government certain information about financial accounts held by non-residents. Participating governments have agreed to exchange the information on an automatic basis.
"Given the potential reputational and financial risks of non-compliance, it's crucial that financial institutions place a high priority on meeting compliance deadlines in all jurisdictions in which they do business," said Michael Plowgian, a principal in the International Tax practice of KPMG LLP and former senior advisor at the OECD.
According to the survey of 146 high-level tax and compliance professionals, 40 percent of financial institutions worldwide have either taken only preliminary steps or are just beginning to focus on what needs to be done to comply with the requirements of the CRS. In total, almost 100 jurisdictions committed to implement the CRS on or before Jan. 1, 2017.
"While financial institutions around the world have ramped up their Common Reporting Standard implementation efforts, it's clear from our findings that there is still a lot of work to be done by financial institutions as well as governments," Plowgian added. "With many more jurisdictions implementing the CRS during 2017, meeting compliance deadlines in all jurisdictions will continue to be a major challenge."
The report, which provides additional survey findings, also points out that some jurisdictions that committed to implement the CRS as of Jan. 1, 2016, have not issued comprehensive binding guidance. Others have issued guidance that differs somewhat from the OECD guidance or from other jurisdictions' guidance, making it difficult for financial institutions to apply a consistent approach across all jurisdictions.
The 2016 Common Reporting Standard survey, completed in fourth-quarter 2016, focuses on the views and behaviors of bank, asset management and insurance professionals working to bring their financial institutions into compliance with the CRS.
(Source: KPMG)
They may not have put out ads for the big game, but many law firms intend to make more of a splash this year. Nearly half (45%) of lawyers interviewed by Robert Half Legal anticipate their firms will boost marketing spending in the months ahead. Only 1% said marketing budgets would decrease.
The survey was developed by Robert Half Legal, a legal staffing and consulting solutions firm specializing in lawyers, paralegals and other highly skilled legal professionals. It was conducted by an independent research firm and is based on 175 telephone interviews with lawyers among the largest law firms in the US and Canada.
Lawyers were asked, "Does your law firm plan to increase or decrease its spending on marketing its services in the coming year?" Their responses:
Increase significantly - 4%
Increase somewhat - 41%
Neither increase nor decrease - 44%
Decrease somewhat - 1%
Decrease significantly - 0%
Not applicable/does not use marketing services - 4%
Don't know - 6%
"In an increasingly competitive environment for legal services, law firms are making a bigger effort to differentiate themselves," said Charles Volkert, senior district president of Robert Half Legal. "Managing partners are hiring marketing specialists and consultants to help distinguish their firm's brand and broaden its exposure to potential clients."
Volkert noted that some of the marketing strategies being implemented by law firms include expanding digital advertising, enhancing social media efforts and redesigning websites to improve their online presence.
"Law firms are placing greater emphasis on providing client-focused web content to showcase their practice area expertise, such as blogs, videos and podcasts," said Diane Domeyer, Executive Director of The Creative Group, a specialized staffing service for interactive design, marketing, advertising and public relations professionals. "There's high demand for web and mobile designers, content strategists and brand managers who can use the latest technologies to help firms deliver enhanced customer experiences via digital channels."
(Source: Robert Half Legal)
60 years after the market launch of Contergan (active ingredient: thalidomide), the greatest pharmaceutical scandal in the Federal Republic of Germany continues to boil. A lawsuit will be heard in the Bonn Regional Court at 12:00 hrs on the 15th February that is more explosive than appears at first sight.
The Contergan victim Andreas Meyer, who was born without arms or legs and is confined to a wheelchair, is suing the former member of the Management Board of the Contergan Foundation, Attorney Karl Schucht, for injunction and rectification.
In a letter to the members of the Family Affairs Committee of the German Federal Parliament, Schucht had asserted that Meyer, as an expert witness at a public hearing of the Committee, had publicly stated various untruths about events connected with the Contergan Foundation.
Meyer had said among other things that for 30 years the Contergan (thalidomide) manufacturer Grunenthal GmbH had had access to the medical files of the Contergan victims in the Contergan Foundation. In addition, Grünenthal had also paid the Foundation's medical experts.
In his letter, Schucht asserted to the contrary that Grunenthal had at no time had access to the medical files of the Contergan victims, but that the files were always kept by the Contergan Foundation. Further, he asserted that the experts of the Medical Commission were always paid from the funds of the Contergan Foundation.
Why so explosive? Because if Meyer wins the lawsuit it will mean that not only Schucht had told untruths to the members of Parliament. No, the Federal Government had also told untruths to Parliament.
Because the Federal Ministry of Family Affairs, which has been responsible for supervision of the Contergan Foundation since 1972, stated in a reply to a Minor Interpellation by the Parliamentary Group Die Linke that Schucht's letter also expressed the opinion of the Federal Government.
A pivotal question, according to Meyer, is the double role of Attorney Herbert Wartensleben who has also been invited as a witness by the Bonn Regional Court. From 1972 until the end of 2003, Wartensleben was not only Chairman of the Medical Commission of the Contergan Foundation, which judges whether a victim is or is not damaged by Contergan and also evaluates the degree of damage - on the basis of which the amount of the Contergan pension is assessed, for example. Since the Contergan trial, Wartensleben acted again and again as the legal representative of Grunenthal in cases relating to Contergan; most recently in 2007 in the lawsuits concerning the two-part ARD feature film "Eine einzige Tablette" (One single tablet).
"The case deals with the question of whether the Contergan Foundation was, or perhaps still is, an undercover subsidiary of Grunenthal under the eyes of the Federal Government," said Meyer.
Meyer will be represented by Prof. Dr. Jan Hegemann from the law firm Raue Rechtsanwalte LLP in Berlin. Attorney Prof. Dr. Jan Hegemann already successfully represented Meyer in 2009 in the case of Meyer's call to boycott the products of Dalli-Werke, Maurer & Wirtz and 4711 - companies belonging to Grunenthal's owner. Attorney Karl Schucht will be represented by Attorneys Gernot Lehr and Tobias Würkert LLM from the Bonn office of the law firm Redeker Sellner Dahs. For Meyer, this is significant. The founder of that law firm, Prof. Dr. Hans Dahs senior who died in 1972, represented the late owner of Grunenthal, Dr. Hermann Wirtz senior, in the Contergan trial.
Place and date of the court hearing
Date: 15.2.2017
Time: 12:00 hrs
Place: Bonn Regional Court, Wilhelmstraße 21, 53111 Bonn
Room: Courtroom S. 0.15 (Saalbau)
(Source: Grünenthal Opfer)
Over half (52%) of SME owners in the UK would not class their businesses as ‘gender diverse’, despite 65% feeling that enough is being done to encourage women into their sector. The results were obtained from the Close Brothers Business Barometer, a quarterly survey that questions over 900 UK SME owners and senior management across a range of sectors and regions.
“It’s encouraging that businesses are honest enough to admit that, from a gender perspective, they aren’t currently diverse enough,” said Neil Davies, CEO, Close Brothers Asset Finance and Leasing. “Encouragingly, nearly two thirds of businesses feel steps are being taken to bring more balance to the workforce.”
Regionally, 62% of Northwest England SMEs said they would class themselves as ‘gender diverse’, while in the East Midlands, the positive result was only 32%.
There was also a direct correlation between a business’s turnover and their likelihood to have a higher proportion of female workers.
Question: Would you class your business as being 'gender diverse'?
| Turnover | Yes | No |
| £250k - £500k | 44% | 56% |
| £501k - £1m | 44% | 56% |
| £1.1m - £5m | 47% | 53% |
| £5.1m - £10m | 52% | 48% |
| >£10m | 55% | 45% |
Recruitment of women
When asked the question ‘does your company actively strive to recruit more women?’ the results were less positive, with only 32% answering ‘yes’ and the remainder ‘no’.
“An important caveat to this finding is that the smaller the company’s size, the less likely they were to answer ‘yes’,” continued Neil. “Given the sectors we surveyed, this should come as no surprise because industries like engineering have long struggled to become more diverse, and not through a lack of trying.”
Regional analysis
Full list of regional responses to ‘would you class your business as being 'gender diverse'?’.
| Yes | No | |
| North West England | 62% | 38% |
| Wales | 57% | 43% |
| Yorkshire/Humberside | 55% | 45% |
| South East England | 50% | 51% |
| Greater London | 49% | 51% |
| North East England | 48% | 53% |
| South West England | 47% | 53% |
| East Anglia | 47% | 53% |
| Scotland | 47% | 53% |
| West Midlands | 36% | 64% |
| East Midlands | 32% | 68% |
Sector results
The sector that saw themselves most diverse was Print at 53%, followed by Manufacturing at 48%; Engineering 45%; Transport 37% and Construction at 33%.
(Source: Close Brothers Asset Finance)
In light of the EU’s fourth anti-money laundering directive kicking in, Lawyer Monthly hears from Tom Orange, a solicitor at Byrne and Partners LLP, who outlines everything you need to know about the new rules and how to prepare your business for compliance.
The new Directive as of the European Commission proposal
On 26th June 2015, the Fourth European Anti-Money Laundering Directive (EU 2015/849) (the Directive) came into force. Member States will have until 26th June 2017 to implement the Directive into national law. The Directive replaces the Third Anti-Money Laundering Directive (2005/60/EC), which was implemented in the UK by way of the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/2157). The Directive aims to prevent the European Union’s financial system from being used for tax evasion, terrorist financing and money laundering.
The new Directive follows concerns that the Third Directive did not do enough to achieve consistency across Member States. It takes into account the 40 new recommendations adopted by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) in February 2012, extending the scope of the current framework and strengthening obligations in several areas.
On 5th July 2016, in response to terror attacks in Europe in 2015 and 2016, and the leak of the Panama Papers, the European Commission published proposals to amend the Directive, with the goal of further strengthening measures against the financing of terrorism and improving the transparency of financial transactions and corporate entities.
This article considers the changes introduced in the Directive in light of the July proposals, the likely impact and the challenges that will be faced by financial institutions.
What are the changes?
Ultimate Beneficial Owners (UBOs)
The Panama Papers revealed the extent to which complex ownership structures are used to hide tax obligations and links to organised crime. The Directive sets out the framework for establishing the beneficial ownership of companies as well as the collection, maintaining and provision of this information.
Further clarification is provided in relation to ownership of companies and trusts. The previous threshold for beneficial ownership remains the same; a shareholding of 25% plus one share or an ownership interest of more than 25%. The July proposal reduces this to 10% with respect to non-financial entities which are considered high risk.
If there is any doubt, the Directive then defines a UBO as a person exercising control over the management of the entity through other means. If it is still unclear who the beneficial owner is, the Directive states that the UBO will be the person(s) holding the position of a senior managing official.
Additional obligations are introduced through the necessity for companies to maintain and make available “adequate, accurate and current” records on who their beneficial owners are to competent authorities, organisations and individuals who can demonstrate a “legitimate interest”. It remains unclear how this will be interpreted by each Member State, but it seems likely that this provision to increase transparency will be accompanied by significant administrative hurdles.
The July proposal extends this right, allowing public access to certain essential beneficial ownership information. This proposal has the potential to cause a great deal of concern with regard to privacy and data protection.
This provision has already been partially implemented in the UK through the introduction of the register of people with significant control (the ‘PSC register’). From 30th June 2016, companies have been required to declare who owns or controls them to Companies House when issuing their annual confirmation statement. The PSC register is designed to ensure that the ultimate owners or controllers of companies are identified and their interests made public in order to deter and impose sanctions on those who hide their interests.
Senior management responsibilities
Although the Directive advises that senior management need not be a member of the board of directors, it indicates in strong terms that this would be a wise idea given the knowledge required. Senior management will need to have “sufficient knowledge of the institution’s money laundering and terrorist financing risk exposure and sufficient seniority to take decisions affecting its risk exposure”, and will be responsible for approving the policies, controls and procedures put in place.
Increased Sanctions
The Directive favours the stick over the carrot, deterring continued breaches by increasing the level of sanctions available. For serious, repeated, systematic (or a combination thereof) breaches, obliged entities face penalties that include naming and shaming, withdrawal of authorisation (where appropriate) and penalties of up to 10% of the annual turnover in the preceding year. In the case of a subsidiary, this is the turnover of the parent company in the preceding year. Individuals face fines of up to €5,000,000 or twice the benefit of the breach.
Simplified Due Diligence (SDD)
The Third Directive enabled Member States to exempt certain entities from Customer Due Diligence (CDD) where there was a low risk of money laundering or terrorist financing. The Fourth Directive enables obliged entities to adapt their measures to low risk situations.
Before applying these simplified measures, the obliged entity must be certain that the business relationship or transaction presents a lower degree risk, as set out in Appendix II. This approach should allow regulated entities to focus their resources on transactions that pose higher risks, such as those involving third countries with ineffective anti-money laundering systems or high levels of corruption.
Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD)
EDD is now required when transacting with entities in high-risk countries. When assessing risks, obliged entities are required to consider the factors detailed in Annex II which include potentially higher-risk situations.
Politically Exposed Persons (PEP)
Foreign PEPs are already considered higher risk. The Directive extends this to domestic PEPs and expands the category to include members of the governing bodies of political parties.
Obliged entities will be required to have appropriate measures in place to determine whether the customer or UBO of the customer is a PEP. If the transaction involves a PEP, senior management approval is required in order to continue or maintain the business relationship. In addition, EDD will continue to be applied for 18 months after the PEP leaves their position. This has been increased from 12 months.
As this change slightly shifts the boundaries, businesses will need to revisit their procedures for identifying and dealing with domestic PEPs before reviewing relationships with existing customers and updating their lists, as EDD may well apply.
Virtual Currencies
Virtual currencies, such as Bitcoin, represent a relatively small market. The European Central Bank reported in 2015 that they do not pose a threat to financial stability due to their size – approximately 70,000 daily transactions worth around €40,000,000.
Though virtual currencies were initially not included in the scope of the Directive, the Commission has changed its view in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris. The Commission believes that there is a risk that virtual currencies could be used by terrorist organisations to circumvent checks and conceal transactions as they can be carried out anonymously.
Virtual currency exchange platforms, where virtual currencies can be exchanged for real currencies, and custodian wallet providers, holding virtual funds for customers, are to become obliged entities. This proposal aims to ensure better controls and enhanced due diligence for an unregulated sector, though to some extent virtual currencies already provide a strong digital footprint of transactions.
Pre paid cards
The Commission believes that the anonymous use of pre-paid cards presents a risk of terror financing. The proposal is to reduce the use of anonymous payments through these pre-paid cards by lowering the threshold for identification from €250 (£213) to €150 (£128). Tougher restrictions on their use will apply online.
Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs)
In order to aid the fight against terrorism financing, the Commission proposes new powers and resources for FIUs across the EU.
Member States are to set up centralised bank and payment account registers, allowing FIUs to quickly retrieve necessary information. The Commission has also clarified that FIUs are given a power in the Directive to request information concerning money laundering or terrorist financing from an obliged entity, even if a Suspicious Transaction Report has not been filed. Again, this raises several concerns about safeguards, data protection and conditions of access.
Conclusion
Although much of the aim of the Directive is focussed on preventing terrorism financing, the financial sector will take some collateral damage in the form of increased sanctions and due diligence requirements.
The Directive follows the legislative trend of a stronger compliance culture with a focus on top-down awareness and approval of procedures. It implements harsher requirements for both SDD and EDD and pushes greater responsibility on senior managers. The increased Sanctions further highlight the need to involve compliance teams and solicitors at an early stage in order to ensure that procedures and practices are up to date.
There are questions over how far the duty to provide information on the beneficial owners will extend, and to whom. It is almost inevitable that we will see several challenges to the provision of this information and of its use by investigating or prosecuting authorities.
Despite its inevitable departure from the EU, it seems likely that the UK will want to honour the Directive and maintain its international standing. Notwithstanding perhaps obvious pressures for the UK to attract foreign investment and reduce strain on UK businesses, the strong focus of the Directive on reporting and cooperation between Member States would be significantly undermined if one of the key players in its implementation were to introduce weaker controls. Similarly, it is also unthinkable that the EU would want the UK to withdraw from its obligations; the July proposal makes it quite clear that the effectiveness of achieving transparency and fighting terrorism financing can only be achieved through strong cross-border collaboration and robust, consistent standards.
A study of 3,000 companies in the UK, US and Germany, conducted for specialist insurer Hiscox, reveals that more than half (53%) of businesses in the three countries are ill-prepared to deal with cyber-attacks. The Hiscox Cyber Readiness Report 2017 assessed firms according to their readiness in four key areas – strategy, resourcing, technology and process – and ranked them accordingly. While most companies scored well for technology, fewer than a third (30%) qualified as ‘expert’ in their overall cyber readiness.
Among the key findings:
Steve Langan, Chief Executive, Hiscox Insurance, commented: “With fewer than a third (30%) of businesses qualified as ‘expert’, our study reveals a worrying absence of cyber security readiness among business consumers.
“By surveying those directly involved in the business battle against cyber crime, this study provides new perspective on the challenges they face and the steps they are taking to protect themselves. But it also offers a series of practical recommendations for those businesses that still have work to do in tackling cyber risk. We hope it will contribute to a better understanding of what is needed to be fully cyber ready.”
The way forward - steps for improving cyber readiness
The study draws on the example of the ‘expert’ companies to construct a blueprint for cyber readiness. There are six areas highlighted in the report where firms should focus their efforts to make up ground – including more employee training, the tightening up of technology and the transfer of risk by way of cyber insurance.
(Source: Hiscox)
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) have released the 2017 Roadmap of State Highway Safety Laws. The 14th annual report rates all 50 states and the District of Columbia (DC) on adoption of 15 basic traffic safety laws. This "report card" exposes deadly gaps in these essential laws and should serve as both a wake-up call and call to action for state legislatures.
This report is released at a critical time in traffic safety nationwide. Recent data reveal sharp increases in motor vehicle crash fatalities in 2015 with the upward trend continuing in 2016. More than 35,000 people were killed in 2015 and over 2.4 million injured, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). This represents a 7.2% increase in fatalities from the previous year and the largest percentage uptick in nearly 50 years. Further, preliminary data for the first nine months of 2016 show an 8% increase over the same time period in 2015.
This alarming two year jump in motor vehicle crash deaths also corresponds with a significant decrease in state legislative progress to pass lifesaving safety laws. In 2016, only four states and DC passed an optimal law as defined by this Report. This sets a new record low for state legislative advances.
"The problem is clear - too many lives are lost, serious injuries sustained and needless costs incurred due to motor vehicle crashes. And so is the solution. Today, every state has dangerous gaps and loopholes in their traffic safety laws that needlessly make our roads dangerous and put families at risk. The Report's title, "Have We Forgotten What Saves Lives?" raises a pressing question. And, unfortunately, the answer is "yes". This public health crisis demands legislative action and not legislative amnesia about what works and what is needed," said Jackie Gillan, President of Advocates.
The report recommends and rates 15 optimal laws that are based on decades of real world experience, as well as numerous scientific studies and data analysis. Each state is given a rating in the five categories as well as an overall grade of: Green (Good); Yellow (Caution); and Red (Danger). States earning the top rating of green were: RI, DE, WA, LA, OR and the District of Columbia. Those states that were assigned a red rating are: SD, WY, AZ, MO, MT, FL, IA, NE, VA, ID, MS, NV, NH, ND, OH, PA and VT.
The report reveals that across the nation, 376 state laws are needed:
(Source: Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety)
Russia, Slovakia, India and Pakistan, according to the BSI Trafficking & Supply Chain Slavery Patterns Index, are all ‘severe risk’ source countries of ‘modern day slaves’ to the UK. Of the G7 nations, Italy is identified as a ‘high risk’ nation – partly due to the conflict in Syria. Greece and Turkey are additionally categorized as ‘high risk’ countries.
BSI’s Trafficking & Supply Chain Slavery Patterns Index is unique in cross-referencing source countries of displaced people, and their likelihood of being exploited in destination countries.
The Index’s lead developer, Michiko Shima, BSI, said: “The Index is unique in that it looks at the intersection and relationship between source countries of displaced people, and the likelihood of being exploited upon arrival in destination countries. Other methods are one dimensional – looking only at source or destination countries.”
The presentation of tens of thousands of pairings of source/destination countries and their relative risk provides a broad understanding of the breadth of threats to global supply chains. These include human rights abuses, security threats and business continuity risks.
In the UK, the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (MSA) is highlighting the issue of modern slavery and human trafficking, and the risk to business of finding examples of it in global supply chains. Several high-profile court cases have highlighted the irresponsible practices that are occurring in full view across Britain.
Kevin Hyland, OBE, The UK Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner has said: “Evidence suggests labour exploitation is rife in the UK. Construction, agriculture, hospitality and seafood are core sectors in my work against modern slavery. Along with statutory agencies, government departments and NGOs, it is incumbent on companies to drive out any forms of exploitation.”
BSI’s unique Trafficking & Supply Chain Slavery Patterns Index shines a critical light for business, government, and civil society to understand the risk associated with the movement and exploitation of people between 191 source countries and 193 destination countries. Each combination of countries has been ranked from low to severe based on the risk score.
The Index’s inputs include BSI’s proprietary SCREEN Forced Labour Intelligence along with independent trafficking and exploitation data, economic disparity, and countries’ geographical proximity information. The data has been verified against the citations made by credible sources# to provide a holistic understanding of the probability of these types of abuses, threats and risks as well as real-world documented cases.
Chris McCann, Principal Consultant, Supply Chain Services and Solutions at BSI, said: “The Index, along with BSI’s risk management services and solutions, empowers organizations to focus their efforts on identifying and assessing ‘at-risk’ suppliers and to manage the risks proactively. In doing so, progressive organizations will lessen their exposure to operational disruption, reputational damage, financial – including share price volatility – and potential legal consequences.”
(Source: BSI)
