The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDAI) recently issued the IRDAI (Regulatory Sandbox) Regulations 2019, which aim to facilitate the creation of a regulatory sandbox in which to test new business models, processes, proposals and applications in order to strike a balance between the orderly development of the insurance sector and the protection of policyholders' interests. Although insurance players are calling the sandbox a game changer, it remains to be seen how much it will be used.
In China Medical Technologies Inc (In Liquidation) v Bank of East Asia Ltd, the court granted an ex parte order extending the validity of a writ, effectively giving the plaintiffs an additional year in which to effect service. The High Court has now discharged that order with the consequences that service was set aside and the action dismissed. This is the latest in a number of similar decisions and suggests that the courts will in future scrutinise extension applications much more closely.
Warranty and indemnity (W&I) insurance is widely used across the breadth of global M&A activity to provide protection to buyers for breaches of warranty. While W&I insurance policies govern how and what claims can be made by buyers, there is considerable case law relating to the measure of damages for breach of warranty. In particular, recent case law confirms that the normal measure for damages is the difference between the value of the shares 'as warranted' and the value of the shares 'as is'.
The Beirut Supreme Court has ruled that arbitration clauses in exclusive distribution agreements signed with Lebanese representatives are invalid. Thus, only Lebanese courts have jurisdiction to settle disputes between the parties to such agreements. By adopting this approach, the Beirut Supreme Court has enforced the traditional position which grants Lebanese exclusive distributors a high level of protection.
The High Court recently implied a term into a contract for the sale of government global depositary notes by Lehman Brothers International (Europe) in order to make the contract workable. The decision is of interest because it considers how the courts should address a situation where the subjective expectation of the parties at the time is clear, but the objective intention apparent from their bargain is more difficult to determine, particularly where the objective interpretation may lead to a contract being incapable of being performed.
A recent public procurement case brings into focus the circumstances in which a declaration of ineffectiveness (DoI) remedy may be available under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. The decision affirms the principles set out in Alstom and provides more certainty for contracting authorities and successful bidders as to the likelihood of a DoI being an available remedy should they face a procurement challenge after a contract has been entered into.
The Federal Supreme Court recently addressed the relationship between a contractual forfeiture clause under Article 46(2) of the Federal Insurance Contract Act and the statutory limitation period for insurance claims. Among other things, this decision reconfirms previous case law, according to which forfeiture clauses such as the one at issue are customary in the insurance industry. It also confirms that a contraction forfeiture clause may exist alongside the statutory limitation period.
The information assessed when preparing the latest Flexibility and Storage Market Report on the Austrian gas market suggests that the current competitive situation does not require regulated access to storage facilities. The sufficient availability of storage capacity, customer-oriented product development, market-oriented price formation and offered quantities form a market characterised by competitive pressure.
The Taiwan Intellectual Property Office recently announced a new measure to manage design patent application priority claims. Now, the examination of a design patent application priority claim will align with that of an invention patent application – namely, the priority claim will not be substantively examined first. Thus, applicants can claim multiple priorities.
AS 3101, the new auditing standard for the auditor's report that requires disclosure of critical audit matters (CAMs), is effective for audits of large accelerated filers for fiscal years ending on or after 30 June 2019. Deloitte has reported that an average of 1.8 CAMs were disclosed per audit report and that the most commonly disclosed related to goodwill and intangible assets.
The Supreme Court of Cassation recently held that the postponement of loan reimbursements to company partners or shareholders applies not only in cases of court-assessed insolvency, but also if a company experiences temporary financial difficulties. The court also found that company management must refuse to reimburse loans to partners or shareholders if the company was experiencing financial difficulties when the loan was granted or the reimbursement was requested.
What should a company do when its distributor terminates their supply and distribution contract stating that it is more economical for it to acquire the products from another company? If the first company has a registered patent for the products that the other company is manufacturing, it can institute infringement proceedings. However, the question then becomes against whom should it institute these proceedings: the distributor or the company infringing its patent?
Likelihood of confusion is a frequent argument in opposition or annulment proceedings and the case law in this respect is rich. This well-established case law may have motivated the opponent in a recent case to raise the argument of reputation. However, as demonstrated by this case, proving reputation with marketing and sales figures is difficult. Further, evidence of publicity is seldom sufficient.
Throughout August 2019 the Nigerian media heavily reported on the US government's actions against Nigerian nationals who have been accused of committing various acts of fraud. Of particular note is the arrest of a successful Nigerian entrepreneur and the US Department of Justice's recent federal grand jury indictment against 77 named and three unnamed individuals reported to be Nigerians.
Since the Trademark Law reserves the right to use a trademark for the mark's owner, legal scholars in Argentina have long debated whether the use of trademarks in comparative advertising is permitted. With the recent approval of Emergency Decree 274/2019, legislation has, for the first time, addressed comparative advertising in Argentina in a detailed and systematic manner and established when it is allowed.
From Facebook's 'thumbs up' to Reddit's 'upvote' and Instagram's and Tik-Tok's 'likes', so-called 'vanity metrics' used by social media platforms are ubiquitous. For these platforms, it is important to consider the impact that shifting engagement trends might have on user-generated content in the context of online harms. Platforms should therefore examine what can be done to improve self-regulation (eg, removing 'addictive' structures such as visual metrics) to ensure that the online world is a supportive place.
Throughout the past few months, the United States and China have levied new tariffs, increased existing tariffs and imposed ever-higher retaliatory tariffs. Now, nearly all of the two countries' enormous bilateral trade is subject to double-digit tariffs. In this era of uncertainty, company executives understand that due diligence must be based on a fulsome understanding of the threat that lies ahead. As such, corporate leaders must take proper pre-emptive action and enlist expert legal advice.
The Mexican courts have issued several precedents to eradicate the existence of usury, allowing judges to discretionally reduce interest rates agreed by the parties. However, some of these precedents contradict each other as to whether the usury prohibition applies to default interest. As such, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court recently issued a decision to clarify these inconsistencies.
The Competition Board recently published the results of its preliminary investigation into a gym franchise business following a complaint that its franchising agreements violated Law 4054 and the Block Exemption Communique on Vertical Agreements. The board ordered the franchiser to revise its non-compete and non-poaching clauses to comply with competition law in terms of duration, geographical area and written consent.
On 15 January 2019 the Supreme Court allowed the Competition Commission of India's (CCI's) appeal against a Delhi High Court order which had prohibited the CCI director general from acting on the evidence seized during a dawn raid of 19 September 2014. The dawn raid in question was the first to be conducted by the director general and formed part of the investigation into JCB India Limited's alleged abuse of its dominant position.