Structuring Renewable Energy Projects in Uzbekistan
PPPs and dual structures for projects financing in Uzbekistan
LMA publishes first of its kind model form of credit risk insurance policy
Overview of the new model form of credit risk insurance policy
Arbitration in Saudi Arabia
Why it's on the rise/key developments in recent years
Lorem Ipsum Dolor
Consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore.
Welcome.
We have been working in emerging markets for decades across multiple practices and regions, helping our clients to navigate the unique challenges and opportunities associated with doing business in different markets. Our work spans a wide range of jurisdictions, parties and products – one of the main reasons we enjoy the work so much. This edition is particularly interesting. It includes a summary of a recent UK Supreme Court decision relating to Ukraine’s sovereign debt as well as an analysis of the proposed amendments to India’s merger control and anti-trust regimes. In relation to Latin America, we discuss the recent trend of alternative investment structures capitalising on Mexico’s nearshoring trend, as well as whether AI can be an inventor for the purpose of patent applications in Brazil. And from an African perspective this quarter, we feature a jurisdiction-specific update from the Nigerian law firm Udo Udoma & Belo-Osagie (UUBO). Please reach out to any of us if you have any questions about any of the articles.
Eye on Emerging Markets
Q1 2023 Edition Five
Additional Insights
We have created a dedicated portal which showcases key spotlight issues providing coordinated global business and legal thought leadership, legal updates, videos, podcasts, and webcasts.
Our Eye on ESG blog provides insights and analysis to help navigate the ESG landscape on a global scale. We cover a range of timely ESG updates and issues, including regulatory, policy, political and industry-related developments, as well as judicial developments and case law.
Get in touch
For more information on Emerging Markets, or any of the topics in this newsletter, please contact one of our key contacts above or vist our website.
To replace an image, select the png or jpeg on the canvas or in the layers panel and click the "Replace image" button, which is next to the image thumbnail in the design panel. Any applied animation to the original image will carry over to the new one.
To make a video auto play in the background. Select the video in the layers panel or on the canvas. Next to the video thumbnail in the Design panel, select the setting gear icon to view the video settings.
Template - Landing Page Template
1280px x 5000px
The grid background is pinned which means it is fixed to a specific point in the viewport. Pinning an object allows you to keep the objects always visible on the canvas, regardless of where the user scrolls on the canvas. Note: Pinned objects do not currently work on full-height embedded experiences; only standalone experience and scrolling embedded experiences. To unpin select the group, next to the X,Y coordinates click the pin icon.
Hover interactions allow you to reveal or hide folders, objects, or groups when the user hovers their mouse over your specified trigger. To add a hover interaction, draw a hotspot over the area you want the user to hover. Select the hotspot and navigate to the Interaction tab in the Inspector Panel. Select “hover” as your trigger and specify the action, which can be: show, hide, show and stay visible, or hide and stay hidden. Finally, choose the folder, object, or group you want to reveal or hide.
Crowdfunding in Romania
What is the legal framework around crowdfunding in Romania?
Contractual risks
Ukraine Crisis – the contractual risks of withdrawing from Russia
Key Emerging Markets Team
Latest topics
Blog: Eye on ESG
Ash McDermott | Banking & Finance
Ed Parker | Capital Markets
Chris Arnold | Banking & Finance
Douglas Doetsch | Banking & Finance
Gonçalo Falcão | Corporate
Ian Coles | Africa & Mining
Jason Hungerford | Regulatory
Kirsti Massie | Projects & Infrastructure
Luiz Aboim | Litigation
Meredith Campanale | Projects & Infrastructure
Musonda Kapotwe | Banking & Finance
Hallam Chow | Structured Finance
Peter Pears | Banking & Finance
Rachel Speight | Banking & Finance
Robert Hamill | Corporate
Sam Eastwood | Litigation
Read full article
Visit Mayer Brown
Select one our experienced lawyers for more information
Scroll down
Read ESG Blog
Visit portal
Download PDF
Jim Patti | Banking & Finance
David Fraher | Banking & Finance
Barry Cosgrave | Restructuring
Kwadwo Sarkodie | Construction & Engineering
Brazil
Artificial intelligence cannot be inventors in patent applications before BPTO
India competition law
India looks to reform existing framework for competition law enforcement
Alternative Investment Structures
Foreign direct investment growth as nearshoring continues in Mexico
OECD Consensus update
OECD agree export credit rules to support the green transition
Nigerian Industry Update
Spotlight on the Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration (SCCA)
Sovereign Bonds
Recent UK Supreme Court decision relating to Ukraine’s sovereign debt
Industry update following recent Nigerian elections provided by UUBO
Eye on Emerging Markets | Q4 2022
Sovereign Bonds: Key questions on capacity, authority and duress addressed by UK Supreme Court
The UK Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in Law Debenture Trust Plc v Ukraine [2023] UKSC 11. The proceedings concerned non-payment by Ukraine in respect of USD3,000,000,000 5.00 per cent. notes due 2015 issued by it in 2013 (the “Notes”). The judgment contains a number of key findings about legal capacity and authority in relation to sovereign states and the defence of duress that will be of interest to those involved in sovereign debt transactions.
The World Bank provided $31.7 billion in climate finance in 2022, its highest annual total to date. This financing was primarily sourced from Sustainable Development Bonds and Green Bonds, which are debt securities for which a percentage of the bond proceeds are put to 'sustainable' or 'green' initiatives.
What is the background? In 2013, Ukraine issued the Notes with Russia as sole subscriber. The Notes were governed by English law and the courts of England and Wales had exclusive jurisdiction. Ukraine failed to repay the Notes at maturity and the Trustee originally issued proceedings in the High Court in 2016. The Supreme Court was considering whether the High Court’s granting of summary judgment in favour of the Trustee (on the basis that Ukraine’s defence had no real prospect of success) should be upheld. What were the key findings? Capacity The Supreme Court (agreeing with the Court of Appeal and High Court) rejected Ukraine's submission that it lacked capacity because of its inability to enter into contracts under Ukrainian domestic law. The Supreme Court confirmed that the capacity of a sovereign state in English law is not restricted in this way because the capacity of a sovereign state derives from the UK government’s recognition of that state (unlike the capacity of foreign corporates which is governed by the law of the place in which the corporate is registered). The court concluded: “Para 34 - ...that a foreign state which is recognised as such by the executive in the United Kingdom is considered, for the purposes of municipal law within the United Kingdom, to be a legal person with full capacity. In particular, a recognised foreign state does not lack capacity to make and perform a contract governed by a system of municipal law, irrespective of the provisions of its own domestic constitution and laws. In the present case, it is not arguable that Ukraine lacked the capacity to issue the Notes in the eyes of English law…” Authority For the purposes of considering whether summary judgment should have been given on this issue, the Supreme Court assumed that Ukraine's Minister of Finance did not have actual authority. However (again agreeing with the findings of the Court of Appeal and the High Court) the Supreme Court held that there had been ostensible authority to sign the contractual documents and to issue the Notes. By way of background, actual authority describes a legal relationship between principal and agent by which the principal grants to the agent the right to enter into legal relations with third parties on the principal’s behalf. Apparent or ostensible authority, on the other hand, describes a relationship between the principal and another party which arises from a representation (which may be made by conduct or implication) made by the principal to that party that an agent has authority to act. Importantly, the representation must be one upon which the other party could and did reasonably rely. Ukraine argued that breaches of constitutional process and its budgetary limits meant that the Minister of Finance did not have authority to bind the state. The Supreme Court held that, even assuming there was no actual authority, the combination of events leading up to the issuance of the Notes, which involved the President of Ukraine, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and the Minister of Finance, demonstrated a co-ordinated and consistent approach to the borrowing. It was reasonable for the Trustee to rely on such actions and accordingly there was ostensible authority.
Written by Peter Pears, James Taylor, Ash McDermott and Stephen Moi
Reforms in the pipeline On 8 February 2023, India’s Central Government introduced the Competition (Amendment) Bill 2023 (Bill) in the Lok Sabha (i.e., the Lower House of Parliament), and proposed additional amendments to an earlier version proposed in 2022. The Bill was passed in the Lok Sabha on 29 March 2023 and awaits approval from the Upper House of Parliament as well as Presidential assent. If adopted into law, the Bill has the potential to reform the existing framework for competition law enforcement in India significantly in respect of merger control and behavioural aspects, both on substance as well as procedure. Key proposals include the following:
James Taylor Partner, London E: jtaylor@mayerbrown.com T: +44 20 3130 3136
View Profile
“
Back >
Ash McDermott Partner, London E: amcdermott@mayerbrown.com T: +44 20 3130 3120
Peter Pears Partner, London E: ppears@mayerbrown.com T: +44 20 3130 3297
Stephen Moi Partner, London E: smoi@mayerbrown.com T: +44 20 3130 3000
Eye on Emerging Markets | Q1 2023
Duress Duress is where a party's consent to a contract is induced by threats or pressure. The contract is voidable by the aggrieved party provided that: (i) the threat or pressure was illegitimate under English law; and (ii) there is a sufficient causal connection between the threat or pressure and the decision to enter into the contract. The Supreme Court held that the alleged threats to security and territorial integrity by Russia did arguably constitute duress and accordingly – as this is a question of fact - should be decided at trial. Doctrine of countermeasures The Supreme Court held that English law in this context does not recognise the defence Ukraine put forward as regards the rights of states to take countermeasures, and so such matters are generally not justiciable by the English courts. Conclusions The Court summarily rejected Ukraine’s defence on issues of capacity, authority and countermeasures, but held that the claim could not be decided without a trial because Ukraine had an arguable and justiciable defence of duress. The Supreme Court’s statements serve as helpful reminders on some first principles in sovereign debt transactions. First, that capacity in the context of a state is not the same as in relation to a private entity. The capacity of a sovereign state in English law derives from the state's recognition by the UK government, not from the state's internal law. Second, authority can be both actual or ostensible. Of course, those documenting transactions must always seek to diligence and demonstrate actual authority on a transaction, but the case serves as a reminder that it may not be the only source.
it lacked capacity to issue the Notes as a matter of Ukrainian law
1.
2.
3.
4.
...The Supreme Court held that, even assuming there was no actual authority, the combination of events leading up to the issuance of the Notes, which involved the President of Ukraine, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and the Minister of Finance, demonstrated a co-ordinated and consistent approach to the borrowing…
The Supreme Court held that English law in this context does not recognise the defence Ukraine put forward as regards the rights of states to take countermeasures, and so such matters are generally not justiciable by the English courts.
the Minister of Finance of Ukraine lacked authority to enter into the transaction on behalf of Ukraine
Ukraine was entitled to avoid the Notes because of duress arising from Russia's unlawful and illegitimate threats and pressure inducing it to issue the Notes
Ukraine was entitled to rely on the public international law doctrine of countermeasures to decline to make payment under the Notes
Ukraine’s appeal was based on four grounds:
India to introduce significant amendments to its merger control and antitrust regimes
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has, in a relatively short period of time, shown itself to be an important competition authority with respect to merger control and the regulation of corporate conduct, both in the domestic and international context. This is set to become even more noticeable when planned amendments to Indian competition law, which were approved by the Indian Parliament on 3 April 2023 and are currently awaiting assent by the President of India, become law.
Context Indian competition law is largely modelled on the EU and UK regimes and is enforced primarily by the CCI. Its key provisions will therefore be familiar to those in Europe. The following are some notable recent case trends and themes:
Written by David Harrison, Paul de Bernier, Nadia Dhorat and Sarah Wilks
Reforms On 8 February 2023, India’s Central Government introduced the Competition (Amendment) Bill 2023 (Bill) in the Lok Sabha (i.e., the Lower House of Parliament) and proposed additional amendments to an earlier version proposed in 2022. On 3 April 2023, the Indian Parliament passed the Bill and, on receiving assent by the President of India, the Bill will become law. The reforms will amend the existing framework for competition law enforcement in India significantly in respect of merger control and behavioural aspects, both on substance as well as procedure. Key changes include the following:
Paul de Bernier Partner, Los Angeles E: pdebernier@mayerbrown.com T: +1 213 229 9542
Nadia Dhorat Lawyer, London E: ndhorat@mayerbrown.com T: +44 20 3130 3846
David Harrison Partner, London E: dharrison@mayerbrown.com T: +44 20 3130 3050
Sarah Wilks PSL, London E: swilks@mayerbrown.com T: +44 20 3130 8330
2021 marked 10 years of the enforcement of India’s merger control law, and the CCI continues to review large numbers of mergers each year. Of particular note, the CCI is taking a hard-line against those who disregard the suspensory nature of the Indian merger control regime – last year, the CCI issued fines in 11 cases in relation to “gun-jumping” (i.e., completing a notifiable transaction without filing and receiving the required prior clearance). In relation to behavioural enforcement, several “dawn raids” were carried out by the CCI between 2019 and 2021 across a variety of sectors and the CCI has recently published decisions leading to multi-million dollar fines, making clear that it should not be seen as a "soft" enforcer. In more than half of the cartel cases in which the CCI issued a decision in 2022, a leniency applicant (or leniency applicants) received a penalty reduction, further enhancements to the regime are planned (see further below). The digital economy has expanded dramatically in India in the past few years: e-commerce is expected to grow to US$200 billion in 2026, from US$38.5 billion in 2017 and is being increasingly considered by the CCI in both merger assessments and enforcement cases. In this regard, the CCI has considered issues such as net neutrality, network effects and collection of data leading to accumulation of market power. In terms of enforcement, several large digital companies have come under CCI scrutiny, some more than once, as is the case in the US, EU and UK. In December 2022, an Indian parliamentary panel recommended the enactment of a Digital Competition Act to regulate anti-competitive business practices by “Big Tech” companies. Given trends in the development of regulation in Europe, including the EU Digital Markets Act, similar national laws in EU Member States, and proposed new UK competition legislation affecting the digital sector, there is an expectation that India will follow suit. The CCI is also considering how its existing rules and procedures might need modernising to meet the challenges of today's global and digital economies.
•
In relation to merger control, the Bill provides for the introduction of new jurisdictional criteria and thresholds. In particular, where parties to the transaction have "substantial business operations in India", a new "global deal value" threshold will also apply – an approach seen as being better adapted to reviewing consolidation in digital markets and which is similar to other regimes around the world in capturing so-called "killer acquisitions". The current notification thresholds are based on asset and turnover values of parties to the transaction. The proposed "deal value" threshold will require any acquisition or merger that exceeds a global transaction value of INR 2000 crores (approximately USD 244 million as of the time of writing) to receive CCI approval. Further clarity is required on how the "global deal value" will be calculated and what will constitute "substantial business operations in India" (although local nexus will be evaluated with reference to the target enterprise). For instance, substantial operations might be defined by reference to market-facing factors such as the number of users or the existence of contracts in, or similar connections with, India. The Bill also envisages reducing the length of CCI merger reviews, amendments to the definition of "control", and the introduction of a limited exemption from the standstill obligation under the Competition Act in relation to stock market purchases. In relation to antitrust, the Bill provides for:
Higher fines for antitrust violations, including fines of up to 10% of total global turnover rather than fines based on turnover from sales of relevant goods or services in India; A new framework for settlements and commitments regarding contraventions relating to vertical agreements and/or abuse of dominance (although the ultimate scope of the framework remains to be determined). If experience in Europe is any guide, the introduction of a regime for settlements and commitments in Indian antitrust cases is likely to have a significant impact on enforcement practice, allowing complex cases to be resolved earlier by means of behavioural undertakings; Buyers’ cartels and “hub-and-spoke” cartels to be brought within the scope of the prohibition of restrictive agreements, and expansion of the kinds of behaviour which could be found to constitute abuse of a dominant position – again, this largely follows the approach taken by many other competition authorities; and A strengthening of the leniency regime by introducing a "leniency plus" policy. This will allow a leniency applicant in respect of one cartel to disclose another cartel in respect of a separate product and gain a penalty reduction in respect of both cartels. This follows the approach taken by US and UK authorities on this matter (there is no leniency plus option under EU law).
The amendments to the Competition Act will be the subject of implementing regulations, to be adopted following a consultation process. It will be very much a case of staying tuned.
1. i.e. the Indian merger control regime requires clearance of a notifiable merger to be obtained from the CCI before the merger is completed. 2. See India E-Commerce Report. IBEF. June 2021 (accessible at: https://www.ibef.org/industry/ecommerce.aspx). 3. Certain transactions, with the potential to impact competition, are currently able to avoid merger control review because the relevant asset and turnover values are not met. 4. The acquirer will therefore be permitted to file a notice for stock market purchases but will be prevented from exercising any rights in the acquired shares until CCI approval is obtained.
1
2
3
4
The passing of the Bill in the Lok Sabha indicates that overhauling the Competition Act is a priority of the Indian government. It will be very much a case of staying tuned.
2021 marked 10 years of the enforcement of India’s merger control law, and the CCI continues to review large numbers of mergers each year. Of particular note, the CCI is taking a hard-line against those who disregard the suspensory nature of the Indian merger control regime – last year, the CCI issued fines in 11 cases in relation to “gun-jumping” (i.e., completing a merger/acquisition without filing and/or receiving the required prior clearance). In relation to behavioural enforcement, several “dawn raids” were carried out by the CCI between 2019 and 2021 across a variety of sectors and the CCI has recently published decisions leading to multi-million dollar fines, making clear that it should not be seen as a "soft" enforcer. In more than half of the cartel cases in which the CCI issued a decision in 2022, a leniency applicant (or leniency applicants) received a penalty reduction, and updates in this area are being considered (see further below). The digital economy has expanded dramatically in India in the past few years: e-commerce is expected to grow to US$200 billion in 2026, from US$38.5 billion in 2017 and is being increasingly considered by the CCI in both merger assessments and enforcement cases. In this regard, the CCI has considered issues such as net neutrality, network effects and collection of data leading to accumulation of market power. In terms of enforcement, several digital giants have come under CCI scrutiny, some more than once, as is the case in the US, EU and UK. In December 2022, an Indian parliamentary panel recommended the enactment of a Digital Competition Act to regulate anti-competitive business practices by “Big Tech” companies. Given trends in the development of regulation in Europe, including the EU Digital Markets Act, similar national laws in EU Member States, and proposed new UK competition legislation affecting the digital sector, there is an expectation that India will follow suit. The CCI is also considering how its existing rules and procedures might need modernising to meet the challenges of today's global and digital economies. This is discussed in the next section.
In relation to merger control, the Bill contemplates the introduction of new criteria and thresholds. In particular, where parties to the transaction have "substantial business operations in India", a new "global deal value" threshold will also apply – an approach seen as being better adapted to reviewing consolidation in digital markets and similar to other regimes around the world capturing so-called "killer acquisitions". The current notification thresholds are based on asset and turnover values of parties to the transaction. The proposed "deal value" threshold will require any acquisition or merger that exceeds a global transaction value of INR 2000 crores (approximately USD 252250 million as of the date of writing) to receive CCI approval. Further clarity is required on how the "global deal value" will be calculated and what will constitute "substantial business operations in India" (although local nexus will be evaluated with reference to the target enterprise). For instance, substantial operations could be defined by reference to market-facing factors such as the number of users or the existence of contracts in, or similar connections with, India. The Bill also envisages reducing the length of CCI merger reviews and the introduction of a limited exemption from the standstill obligation under the Competition Act in relation to stock market purchases. In relation to antirust, the Bill envisages:
Higher fines for antitrust violations, with fines of up to 10% of total global turnover rather than fines based on turnover from sales of relevant goods or services in India; A new framework for settlements and commitments regarding contraventions relating to vertical agreements and/or abuse of dominance (although the ultimate scope of the framework remains to be determined). If experience in Europe is any guide, the introduction of a regime for settlements and commitments in Indian antitrust cases, is likely to have a significant impact on enforcement practice, allowing complex cases to be resolved earlier by means of behavioural undertakings; Explicitly bringing buyers’ cartels and “hub-and-spoke” cartels within the scope of the rules, and expanding the kinds of behaviour which could be found to constitute abuse of a dominant position – again, this largely follows the approach taken by many other competition authorities; and A strengthening of the leniency regime by introducing a "leniency plus" policy. This will allow a leniency applicant in respect of one cartel to disclose another cartel in respect of a separate product and gain an additional penalty reduction in respect of the first cartel as well as immunity from fines in respect of the second. This follows the approach taken by US and UK authorities on this matter. Note that there is no leniency plus option available under EU law.
1. i.e. the Indian merger control regime requires parties to a notifiable merger to obtain CCI clearance before the merger is completed. 2. See India E-Commerce Report. IBEF. June 2021 (accessible at: https://www.ibef.org/industry/ecommerce.aspx). 3. Certain transactions, with the potential to impact competition, are currently able to avoid merger control review because the relevant asset and turnover values are not met. 4. The acquirer will therefore be permitted to file a notice for stock market purchases but will be prevented from exercising any rights in the acquired shares until CCI approval is obtained.
Sarah Wilks Professional Support Lawyer, London E: swilks@mayerbrown.com T: +44 20 3130 8330
Changes to the Indian merger control rules will include the introduction of new thresholds relating to deal value, new rules on the jurisdictional nexus with India of relevant transactions, and a reduced timetable for merger review. All of these will be relevant to US, European and other foreign buyers who are investing, or have operations, in India. Changes in relation to antitrust will make possible the imposition of higher fines for anti-competitive conduct and align the Indian regime more closely with other key jurisdictions internationally.
Eye on Emerging Markets | Q1 2022
OECD Consensus update to expand export credit support for climate-friendly and green projects
We need some sort of intr here??
Doing business in Africa means the collection of personal information, which increasingly, as in the rest of the world, is becoming regulated.
I. Global Companies Have Identified Africa as One of the Areas of Growth Recent developments in the region reflect that global companies should be focusing attention on data protection developments in Africa. Tech companies, consumer packaged goods manufacturers, and retailers have focused on Africa as a growth market for their products and services as user adoption in the United States and European Union has flattened. As a result, and in the wake of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), many African countries have heeded the call for data protection laws. Africa is now the largest region with countries that have some sort of data protection law. And doing business in Africa means the collection of personal information, which increasingly, as in the rest of the world, is becoming regulated. While recent attention in data protection has focused on the United States, the European Union, the Asia-Pacific region, and Latin America, focus now needs to be directed toward the African continent, which is becoming a burgeoning hotspot for data protection laws and enforcement. II. At Least 33 Countries in Africa Have Data Protection Laws While the recent activity in 2022 is important, it reflects an overall trend. As of the end of 2021, at least 33 African countries have adopted comprehensive data protection laws in the wake of the EU’s adoption of the GDPR. This represents over 60 percent of the countries in the second-largest continent in the world (with some 1.3 billion residents). The increased attention to data in Africa has also been accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, South Africa’s Information Regulator announced that it would begin monitoring the Department of Health’s use and disclosure of COVID-19 information in April 2022. A. The Majority of Data Protection Laws in Africa Have Data Subject Rights and Enforcement Mechanisms Similar to the Rest of the World’s The comprehensive data protection laws in Africa share many features that exist in other regimes such as the GDPR, China’s Personal Information Protection Law, and California’s California Consumer Privacy Protection Act and its successor, the California Privacy Rights Act. For example, with respect to the most common rights of data subjects, 33 African countries provide the right to access, 29 provide the right to rectification; 27 provide the right to object; 21 provide the right to be forgotten and the right to information; 14 provide the right not to be subject to automated decision-making; 13 provide the right to restrict marketing; five provide the right to obtain personal data in an understandable form; and three provide the right to data portability, to submit complaints, to obtain compensation from data controllers, and to withdraw consent. In addition to the above data subject rights, roughly 19 African countries require data controllers to notify the relevant data protection authority, and at least 30 require data controllers to have a legal basis for processing personal data and cross-border transfer. III. Data Protection Developments in Africa in 2022 Signal That Requirements and Enforcement Are Underway A. Kenya Required Data Controllers and Processors to Register with the Data Protection Commissioner, Effective July 14, 2022 Earlier last month, on July 14, 2022, Kenya’s registration requirement for data controllers and processors went into effect. Companies doing business in Kenya and processing personal information should review the Office of Data Protection Commissioner’s (“ODPC”) Guidance Note on Registration of Data Controllers and Data Processors to understand their obligations. The Kenyan Data Protection Act, No 24. of 2019 (the “Act”) provides a statutory obligation for all Entities (defined below) that process Personal Data (defined below) to register with the Data Protection Commissioner, subject to the thresholds set in place by the Data Protection Commissioner on mandatory registration. The Data Protection (Registration of Data Controllers and Data Processors) Regulations, 2021 (the “Regulations”) went into effect on July 14, 2022. The Regulations define “Entities” that are required to register as “mean[ing] a natural (individual) or legal person, public authority, agency or other body that processes (handles) Personal Data.” The term “Personal Data” is defined broadly to include “any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person.” The Regulations detail the registration requirements, including the Entities that must register and meet their mandatory registration obligations and those that are exempt due to being found to be below the threshold. On July 13, 2022, the Data Protection Commissioner issued a guidance to assist Entities in ascertaining if they are data controllers or data processors and understanding their obligations with respect to mandatory registration. Data controllers must create an account, pay the required registration fee, and electronically submit, through the ODPC’s website, the online form. The new guidance requires registration for Entities that (1) process personal data, (2) have an annual turnover/revenue of more than 5 million Kenyan shillings, and (3) have more than 10 employees. B. On June 15, 2022, the Uganda Data Protection Authority Held Trainings Regarding Enforcement of Its Data Protection Law On June 14, 2022, the Uganda Data Protection Authority held a training titled “Enforcement of the Data Protection Act.” In the training, the Ugandan Data Protection Authority provided tips regarding enforcement, including: Adopting strong governance procedures Identifying the information that needs protection Protecting the information Using strong detection systems Being ready to respond and recover Testing and refining information defenses
Written by Ash McDermott, Kirsti Massie, David Fraher and Erica Arcudi
Data Privacy Regulation Data Subject Rights and Privacy Opt-Outs Data Policies/Fly-Outs (i.e. drop-down menus) Legal Bases/Legal Bases Fly-Outs (i.e. drop-down menus) Consent Flow Sensitive Personal Youth Data Data-In (Ads) Opt-In
Unlike private companies, sovereigns and SOEs have to take into account political considerations as well as ESG-related and economic considerations.
Bob Palmer Partner, London E: bpalmer@mayerbrown.com T: +44 20 3130 3363
The package also provides more generous and more flexible financing terms and conditions for all projects eligible for the CCSU, as well as for all other transactions supported according to the Arrangement by:
The OECD Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits (known as the OECD Arrangement or the OECD Consensus) is the key source for regulating the terms and conditions upon which export credit agencies (ECAs) in participating countries can provide support to their exporters. The Participants to the Arrangement are Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Türkiye, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
On 31 March (so just in time in terms of being eligible for inclusion in our Eye on Emerging Markets newsletter for Q1 2023!), OECD countries finally reached an agreement in principle on an EU initiative to modernise export credit rules to better support the green transition. This long-awaited development could have far reaching consequences for the ability of ECA-supported financings to continue to assist to power the energy transition in both developed and developing markets. The reforms have been discussed and considered for several years and are expected to come into force later this year. The deal to update the OECD Arrangement will provide streamlined terms and conditions so that government-backed export finance can better meet the needs of exporters in an increasingly competitive landscape. It widens the scope of green and climate-friendly transactions benefitting from extra incentives in the form of more flexible financial terms and conditions and reflects the reality that many green projects, or projects that would otherwise have a positive impact on the environment, need export and agency finance or other government support to be commercially viable. Within the package of reforms, the Participants agreed to expand the scope of green or climate-friendly projects eligible for longer repayment terms, as permitted under the Climate Change Sector Understanding (CCSU) to include those related to:
• environmentally sustainable energy production; • CO2 capture storage and transportation; • transmission, distribution and storage of energy; • clean hydrogen and ammonia; • low-emissions manufacturing; • zero and low-emissions transport; and • clean energy minerals and ores.
increasing the maximum repayment term from 18 years to up to 22 years for CCSU-eligible (i.e. green or climate friendly) projects, and from 10 years to 15 years for most other projects;
adjusting the minimum premium rates for credit risk for longer repayment terms and obligors with a higher credit risk rating.
more flexibility for repayment terms; and
David Fraher Senior Associate, London E: dfraher@mayerbrown.com T: +44 20 3130 3248
Kirsti Massie Partner, London E: kmassie@mayerbrown.com T: +44 20 3130 3555
Ashley McDermott Partner, London E: amcdermott@mayerbrown.com T: +44 20 3130 3120
Erica Arcudi Associate, London E: earcudi@mayerbrown.com T: +44 20 3130 3263
This long-awaited development could have far reaching consequences for the ability of ECA-supported financings to continue to assist to power the energy transition in both developed and developing markets.
We expect these developments to have a positive impact on the ability of borrowers in developing markets to raise finance for certain projects, although we would have liked to have seen the updates to the OECD Arrangement go further and also incorporate social projects such as hospitals, housing and schools, and we also eagerly await the full text of the updates to be able to assess them fully
Alternative Investment Structures to Capitalize on Mexico’s Nearshoring Trend
Nearshoring is expected to boom in Mexico. COVID-19, the Ukraine war and geopolitical tensions around the world have led to a global trend of companies to move their production and supply lines closer to their end markets, also known as “nearshoring.” With its extensive border with the United States, its proximity to Canada, its membership in NAFTA, and its large, young and educated workforce, Mexico stands to be one of the leading beneficiaries of nearshoring. As a result, foreign direct investment (“FDI”) from both the private and public sectors is expected to grow in Mexico as nearshoring continues to unfold.
Depending on the characteristics of the loan in question, a margin "penalty" may also be assigned for falling below a predetermined minimum SPT, whereby any previously achieved incentive is lost.
This has been particularly highlighted over the past two years, during which sovereign debtors have been experiencing increased levels of financial distress further to (amongst other things) the pandemic, the Ukraine-Russia crisis and commodity price rises. On 1 November 2022, various industry bodies (including the APLMA, ICMA, IIF and the LMA) published a guidance and explanatory note titled "Guidance and Explanatory Note relating to new specimen clauses for inclusion in Commercial Loan Agreements for Sovereign Borrowers" (the Guidance). The Guidance recommends that lender unanimity for payment term amendments be replaced by a 75% majority lender voting threshold (by value measured by reference to principal) to decrease minority creditor holdout risk and minimise undue delays in sovereign loan restructurings. It considers that this will be particularly useful for scenarios such as extension of due dates for payments, reduction in payment amounts, interest deferrals and/or interest capitalisations arising as a result of a natural disaster or as a consequence of a pandemic and replacements of bullet repayment mechanisms with instalment repayment schedules. Annexes 1 to 8 to the Guidance contain the specimen clauses for English law governed loans closely aligned to the LMA form (although there is no LMA recommended form of sovereign loan agreement, the LMA recommended form of Single Currency Term and Revolving Facilities Agreement for use in developing market jurisdictions is often used as the starting point). The specimen clauses are voluntary and are to be used as a guide and be considered and amended as applicable on a case by case basis (for example, where there is a sovereign guarantee, the ability to amend payment terms by a majority action needs to extend to the payment terms of that sovereign guarantee and so the majority voting provisions will also need to be incorporated into the guarantee). The specimen clauses to effect the majority lender vote for payment term amendments are set out in Annex 1 to the Guidance. In a typical sovereign loan agreement, the parties will need to: 1. Remove the payment term amendment sub-clauses (which usually relate to reducing the margin or payment of principal, interest or fees and to extending the due date for payments) from the all lender consent list in the amendments and waivers clause; and 2. Amend the definition of "Majority Lender" (usually defined as a lender/lenders whose commitment(s) aggregate more than 66⅔% of the total commitment) so that for the purposes of the payment term amendments, "Majority Lender" shall mean a lender/lenders whose commitment(s) aggregate more than 75% of the total commitments.
Written by Javier Fierro and Jorge Escalante
Governance Local-listed Mexican vehicles (i.e., CERPIs, FIBRAs and CKDs) have strict governance structures set out by statute. Limited partnerships, such as Ontario limited partnerships, on the other hand, are quite flexible. The corporate governance of limited partnerships can be structured in a variety of ways without running afoul of applicable laws. For instance, certain general partner minimum liability-related provisions are prescribed by statute in Mexico. Additionally, CKDs, FIBRAs and CERPIs require a technical committee (comite técnico). Technical committees function like investment committees in offshore vehicle; however, unlike in limited partnerships, such committees are required by statute and are prescribed certain inalienable functions. Given this difference, care and planning must be taken when agreeing to any governance term in an offshore vehicle that may be simply incompatible with a local vehicle. Currency A Mexican vehicle being denominated in pesos may present a set of challenges when drafting the governing documents for both the onshore and offshore platforms. For example, the distribution waterfall for the two parallel vehicles will be returning cash at different rates for investors because the preferred return rates, or hurdle rates, will be different. Local investors typically expect higher hurdle rates than their offshore counterparts because their capital contributions are made in the local currency, namely in pesos. Second, because drawdowns are generally based on investor commitments or available commitments, discrepancies may arise in the drawable amounts for each parallel vehicle if the exchange rates for the parallel vehicles diverge. For instance, if the US dollar appreciates over the Mexican peso, the drawable amount from the Mexican vehicle will be less than what was originally determined at the initial closing. Furthermore, to the extent the vehicles admit investors over a certain period of time after the initial closing, the difference in currencies and their corresponding fluctuations could create additional structural issues for fund sponsors when attempting to rebalance the entire fund complex following each closing or each investment. Therefore, mechanisms need to be put in place to address these issues or to at least disclose these issues to both investor bases to avoid misunderstandings. Market Terms In addition to facing governance and currency issues, market terms can be quite different between the offshore and onshore markets. For example, local investors generally expect rather simple investor-friendly indemnification terms; meanwhile, offshore investors expect rather broad indemnification provisions benefitting the sponsor given the relatively litigious environment in offshore jurisdictions. Another point of contention is expense caps. Local investors expect expense caps for the entire fund, while expense caps are not market in offshore vehicles. Lastly, to align interests, offshore investors typically expect fund sponsor commitments to be made within the same vehicle in which they are investing and not outside the fund. However, in Mexico, it is quite common for fund sponsors to make their commitments outside fund complexes. Conclusion These incompatibilities, among many others, require experienced counsel to assist fund sponsors navigate these cross-border issues.
Jorge Escalante Counsel, Mexico City E: jescalante@mayerbrown.com T: +52 55 9156 3611
Javier Fierro Partner, New York E: jfierro@mayerbrown.com T: +1 212 506 2444
Alternative Investment Structures Fund sponsors looking to invest in Mexico have several investment structure options to capitalize on this growing trend. Generally, sponsors rely on parallel fund or master-feeder fund structures to source capital from a global and diverse investor base and deploy it, all in a cost- and tax-efficient manner. In Mexico, parallel fund structures are typically used to source capital from both inside and outside the country. In particular, fund sponsors targeting investments in Mexico have a few vehicle options for the onshore sleeve to source local institutional capital. These options are based on the fund’s intended liquidity terms and investment strategy and are mainly:
1. “Nearshoring set to boom in Mexico,” BNA Americas, July 13, 2022. 2. “IDB Joins Forces with Mexico to Promote Nearshoring,” IDB, July 6, 2022. “Mexico’s Industrial Hubs Grow as Part of Trade Shift Toward Nearshoring,” The Wall Street Journal, February 1, 2023. “What’s behind the Mexican wave of optimism?,” Schroders, January 10, 2023. 3. CERPIs are permitted to use up to 90% of their raised capital to invest outside of Mexico. 4. Under Mexican law, AFORES are not permitted to invest directly in private Mexican trusts.
CKDs (Certificados Bursátiles Fiduciarios de Desarrollo) are securities issued and publicly placed (i.e., listed on a Mexican stock exchange) by closed-ended investment vehicles designed for real estate, venture capital, growth and late-stage equity-style investments. CKDs are generally suitable for institutional investors but may also target retail investors. FIBRAs (Fideicomisos de Inversión en Bienes Raíces) are open-ended structures designed for real estate investments through the listing of CBFIs (Certificados Bursátiles Fiduciarios Inmobiliarios). FIBRAs are generally suitable for both retail and institutional investors. CERPIs (Certificados Bursátiles Fiduciarios de Proyectos de Inversión) are closed-ended structures similar to CKDs but with greater flexibility. However, CERPIs are only suitable for institutional investors (or other qualified persons). CERPIs have generally been used in the past as feeder funds to make investments outside of Mexico. Private funds, generally set up in the form of Mexican private trusts , are generally used as co-investing vehicles alongside listed vehicles—CKDs, FIBRAs and CERPIs. Private funds have the benefit of being offered through private placements; thus, their corporate governance and reporting obligations are generally more investor-friendly compared to listed vehicles. However, certain local institutional investors are not permitted to invest directly in private trusts, in particular, Mexican pension funds (Administradoras de Fondos para el Retiro (“AFORES”)).
From a legal perspective, all of these listed local vehicles are trusts (fideicomisos), and their issuances are akin to capital market transactions in which the interests of the trusts are listed on a Mexican stock exchange—either the Bolsa Mexicana de Valores (“BMV”) or the Bolsa Institucional de Valores. (“BIVA”). Mexican pension funds (AFORES) are the main institutional investors that purchase these interests. Meanwhile, fund sponsors looking to invest in Mexico generally use limited partnerships for their offshore capital sourcing platforms. Ontario, Canada, is typically the jurisdiction of choice for these limited partnerships for a variety of reasons. The challenge in raising both local and offshore capital is that limited partnerships and the local Mexican vehicles may be somewhat incompatible with each other. The parallel vehicles may also be denominated in different currencies. Furthermore, certain terms that are market for offshore vehicles (i.e., the US and Europe) may not be market for local vehicles (or vice versa). However, the opportunity to market the fund to a larger investor base may far outweigh these challenges. Additionally, fund complexes with a local institutional investor base may offer certain competitive advantages given their local knowledge and economic and political influence in Mexico, which may prove useful when executing the fund’s investment strategy.
...fund sponsors looking to invest in Mexico generally use limited partnerships for their offshore capital sourcing platforms.
Brazil: Artificial intelligence can be an inventor in patent application?
According to an unprecedented BPTO’s opinion issued in the Industrial Property Gazette (RPI) nº 2696 in September, last year, in connection with invention patent application BR 11 2021 008931, technologies equipped with artificial intelligence ("AI") cannot be indicated as inventors in patent applications before the BPTO.
The Opinion INPI/PGF/AGU remarks the Brazilian understanding on the subject to date – as the BPTO must abide by such orientation in any other patent application, results from a patent application autonomously invented by an artificial intelligence, called "DABUS", specialized in brainstorming new discoveries without any human intervention. This patent, which lists the AI as inventor has been filed in 17 countries, resulting on an international debate on the topic. Following other worldwide jurisdictions, e.g UK and USA, for instance, the same patent application was filed and rejected and the Patent Trademark Office reinforced the rights of the human inventor. In other words, the BPTO’s opinion ensures that only natural persons can be credited with authorship of inventions, since only natural persons have a legal nature based on a personality right. Thus, the BPTO Attorney General's Office concluded that the inventor must necessarily be a natural person with civil capacity, as defined by the Brazilian Civil Code, based on the Brazilian Industrial Property Law (Law No. 9,279 of 1996), particularly Articles 6 and 4, which establish that the inventor has the right to be named and identified as such in relation to its patented invention. The European Patent Office (EPO) understood similarly: the designation of an inventor is mandatory, primarily to ensure that the designated inventor is legitimate and can benefit from rights associated with the status of patent inventor – and such rights would only be exercisable if the inventor has personality, as a natural person, which AI does not possess (to date). It should be noted that there is a significant international debate on the subject. As mentioned, the EPO3, the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UKPTO), among other bodies from different countries, decided to reject the same application, with arguments similar to those raised by the BPTO. In counterpoint, the German Patent Court found a common ground, allowing "DABUS AI" to be included as a co-inventor, thus requiring the human inventor to be jointly named. The Australian Office concluded, in the first instance, that there is "no specific provision expressly excluding the possibility of AI being named as inventor" – however, the application was rejected in the second instance.
Written by Cristiane Manzueto and Gabriela Tostes
Process for project evaluation and selection For the purposes of undertaking project evaluation and selection, the Framework has constituted an inter-ministerial Green Finance Working Committee (GFWC) to make the final decision on whether or not a project is eligible for financing through the proceeds of SGBs. The relevant ministries / departments will conduct an internal evaluation and prepare a list of eligible projects and the GFWC will thereafter prepare the final list of projects in alignment with inter-alia, the ICMA Green Bond Principles, UN Sustainable Development Goals, the Framework, as well as the various national environmental policies. Management of Proceeds The proceeds from the issuance of the bonds will be deposited to the Consolidated Fund of India (CFI) and then funds from the CFI will be made available for eligible green projects. For the purposes of ensuring that the proceeds’ allocation and accounting is transparent, a distinct account will be set up by the GoI. The Public Debt Management Cell will monitor the allocation of funds towards eligible expenditures. Unallocated proceeds, if any, will be carried forward to successive years for investment in eligible green projects. Reporting Until the complete allocation of proceeds and thereafter in case of any material changes, the GFWC will prepare and release an annual report setting out inter-alia, (i) information about the issuance; (ii) list of allocated proceeds to eligible projects and the type of expenditure; (iii) total quantum of proceeds generated, allocated and remaining unallocated; and (iv) expected impact of the projects in quantitative indicators (to the extent possible) indicating the reduction in carbon intensity, other environmental benefits and, where possible, social co-benefits. The allocation and utilisation of proceeds will also be within the purview of audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. Given that India is a major contributor to green house gas emissions, not just Indian, but global stakeholders are rooting for India to achieve its climate goals and while the Framework is not the equivalent of a green taxonomy, it does give insight into what India’s Green Taxonomy could look like. It can be said that the adherence to ICMA’s green bond principles and emphasis on alignment with the UN SGDs are definitely a step in the right direction of what is sure to be a long and winding road.
The first patent office to accept the “DABUS” patent application was the South African Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (“CIPC”), based on two main arguments in favor of the possibility of conferring inventor status to AIs: it would be the most appropriate way to stimulate innovation and provide an adequate framework for technological development, which would need to be supported by sectoral regulation. It would thus be a legal delay to interpret the old laws in a static manner, not adapting them to new developments and challenges, so creating a regulatory gap. An interesting fact is that countries that rejected such patent applications have similarities on their legal frameworks – for example, not having specific laws involving AI and indirectly classifying the inventor as an individual in their respective industrial property laws, despite not openly forbidding otherwise, which enables debate and supervening regulation to settle the issue. As stated in the Report, the dilemma poses a challenge to the current system of intellectual property rights protection, and there is a need for the development of regulation that disciplines AI-conceived inventions, as well as international treaties to standardize such premises, in order to enable the recognition of intellectual property rights that are the product of agents other than humans. Although Bill 21/2020, called the Legal Landmark of AI, is already under discussion in the Brazilian parliament, establishing principles, rights and duties for the use of AI in Brazil, it does not include the matter of authorship of assets subject to intellectual property (in particular copyrights and patent-protectable inventions) . In this sense, the debate on the positions of public officials is still ongoing. Nonetheless, despite the aforementioned decisions determining the offices' current standpoint on the topic, divergences on the subject and different lines of argument remain in all cases, particularly in light of the new regulatory and technological horizons that are to come.
1. Inteligência Artificial não pode ser indicada como inventora em pedido de patente. Disponível em: https://www.gov.br/inpi/pt-br/central-de-conteudo/noticias%202022/inteligencia-artificial-nao-pode-ser-indicada-como-inventora-em-pedido-de-patente. 2. Parecer No. 00024/2022/CGPI/PFE- INPI/PGF/AGU. Disponível em: https://www.gov.br/inpi/pt-br/central-de-conteudo/noticias%202022/inteligencia-artificial-nao-pode-ser-indicada-como-inventora-em-pedido-de-patente/ParecerCGPIPROCsobreInteligenciaartificial.pdf. 3. Dissertação. Disponível em: https://tede.ufam.edu.br/bitstream/tede/8760/2/Disserta%c3%a7%c3%a3o_Juliane Maia_PROFNIT.pdf 4. EPO publishes grounds for its decision to refuse two patent applications naming a machine as inventor. Disponível em: https://www.epo.org/news-events/news/2020/20200128.html. 5. Decision. Issue: Whether the requirements of section 7 and 13 concerning the naming of inventor and the right to apply for a patent have been satisfied in respect of GB1816909.4 and GB1818161.0. Disponível em : https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-challenge-decision-results/o74119.pdf. 6. Nos tribunais: Um tribunal australiano considera que os sistemas de IA podem ser "inventores". Disponível em: https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/pt/2021/03/article_0006.html. 7. Projeto de Lei n° 21, de 2020. Disponível em: https://www25.senado.leg.br/web/atividade/materias/-/materia/151547.
Cristiane Manzueto Partner, Rio de Janeiro (T&C) E: cmanzueto@mayerbrown.com T: + 55 21 2127 4235
An interesting fact is that countries that rejected such patent applications have similarities on their legal frameworks – for example, not having specific laws involving AI and indirectly classifying the inventor as an individual in their respective industrial property law...
5
6
7
Gabriela Tostes Law Clerk, Rio de Janeiro (T&C) E: gtostes@mayerbrown.com T: +55 21 21271665
Udo Udoma & Belo-Osagie’s Nigerian Industry Update
Having explained, in Part 1, why arbitration in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (the "KSA") is on the rise, in Part 2 we focus on the Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration ("SCCA"), the first institutional arbitration centre in the KSA which administers civil and commercial disputes.
Energy: Electric Power and Renewables Written by Adeola Sunmola and Godson Iwuozo On March 17, 2023, Nigeria’s President assented to a constitutional amendment that confers individual states with the power - previously restricted to areas outside the national grid - to generate, distribute, and transmit electricity to national grid areas falling within each state’s geographical boundaries. Coming hot on the heels of the Nigeria Energy Transition Plan and the recent Nigerian Renewable Energy Roadmap, which respectively outline multi-pronged strategies for limiting climate change impact, achieving net zero, and analysing renewable energy utilisation, these sectoral initiatives are expected to catalyse socio-economic development. Post-elections, we expect these significant developments to boost investor and lender appetite for renewable energy projects and position the sector for unprecedented exponential growth if supported by appropriate fiscal incentivisation and the resolution of current FX illiquidity challenges. Energy: Oil & Gas Written by Folake Elias-Adebowale and Aide Omo-Eboh Analysts predict a positive outlook for oil and gas, building on trends of increased onshore volume recovery, drilling activity, and shallow water projects that help offset production dips and security concerns. The Petroleum Industry Act and various regulations implementing it prescribe significant governance framework clarifications, structural changes, licences, administrative processes, and incentives. The new NNPC Limited is making strong plays to acquire significant assets as IOCs seek to divest onshore assets to refocus strategies offshore. Following the successful disposal of 57 marginal fields, other post-election opportunities are expected to arise from downstream gas deregulation, gas policy implementation, gas infrastructure incentives, bid rounds to commercialise flare gas and the recent announcement of an upcoming deep offshore mini-bid round for 7 offshore blocks. Dealmaking: Private Equity, Venture Capital, and M&A Written by Folake Elias-Adebowale and Toluwalope Adedokun A post-Covid recovery proliferation of 320 reported Nigerian venture capital, private equity, and M&A deals in 2022 (with 196 of 320 involving startups and 80 FinTechs) - illustrates the investment trajectories that we expect to continue in 2023, particularly in the financial services, technology, consumer discretionary, industrials, health, and agricultural sectors. They will be buoyed by various reforms, including the Startups Act, the Business Facilitation(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2023 (which amends 21 business laws to facilitate ease of doing business and best practices); the Pension Commission’s Operational Framework for Co-Investment by Pension Funds Administrators, consumer protection for digital lending, SEC rules regulating digital and virtual assets, and new money laundering legislation. Notwithstanding strong macroeconomic tailwinds and fiscal pressures, there is optimism that post-elections, dealmaking and investment trends will resume their upward trajectory. Tax Written by Lolade Ososami and Itoro Etim With challenging macroeconomics and external debt, revenue generation will continue to remain a primary focus for the Nigerian government, fuelled by an all-time annual revenue collection record exceeding NGN10.1 trillion (approximately $22 billion) in 2022: boosted by increased fiscal regulation and technological optimisations in tax administration processes. The Finance Bill 2022 is expected to be enacted. It introduces new tax regimes for gas flaring, lottery, and gaming businesses, capital gains tax on digital assets and cryptocurrency disposals, and withdrawal of certain investment tax incentives. From an International perspective , Nigeria has not signed the OECD Pillars 1 & 2 Statement but is expected to make concerted efforts to implement the BEPS 1.0 agenda for transfer pricing and indirect taxes on digital products and services.
Written by Folake Elias-Adebowale, Adeola Sunmola, Lolade Ososami, Festus Onyia, Michael Ugah, Godson Iwuozo, Aidelohi Omo Eboh, Toluwalope Adedokun, Itoro Etim and Oluwatobi Akintayo
Some of the SCCA's other recent noteworthy activities include: 1. Its public confirmation that under the KSA's 2012 arbitration law (the "Arbitration Law") and the SCCA's Arbitration Rules, the concept of party autonomy is paramount and accordingly, non-Saudi nationals and non-lawyers may act as legal representatives for parties to a KSA-seated arbitration. 2. A partnership with CIArb implementing the "SCCA-CIArb Pathways to Fellowship" (an arbitrator and mediator accreditation programme). Those achieving Fellowship status may apply to be admitted to the SCCA's Roster of Arbitrators. 3. Launching an online interactive costs calculator to help assess, at the outset, the likely arbitration costs. 4. Signing the Equal Representation in Arbitration ("ERA") Pledge in April 2021, thereby signalling its commitment to gender diversity in international arbitration. 5. Commencing educational webinars and seminars on topics of interest to the arbitration community, such as the November 2022 Seminar with Gary Born on Developments in International Arbitration. 6. Partnering with Jus Mundi to make non-confidential SCCA arbitration materials freely available to users of Jus Mundi's international law and arbitration database. The SCCA Arbitration Rules Based largely on the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, the SCCA Arbitration Rules (the "Rules"), effective on Shawwal 1437 corresponding to May 2016, were created to provide parties with "a clear, concise and efficient dispute resolution procedure" and are consistent with the Arbitration Law. The Rules apply without prejudice to the rules of Sharia (Article 31(4)). As foreshadowed above, the Rules were amended in 2018 and 2021 to keep abreast of important developments in the arbitration sphere. The 2018 revisions introduced:
Alain Farhad Partner, Dubai E: afarhad@mayerbrown.com T: +971 4 568 4950
Lolade Ososami Partner, Nigeria E: Lolade.Ososami@uubo.org T: +234 1 2774920
Festus Onyia Partner, Nigeria T: +234 1 2774920
Adeola Sunmola Partner, Nigeria T: +234 1 2774920
Folake Elias-Adebowale Partner, Nigeria E: Folake.Adebowale@uubo.org T: +234 1 2774920
Michael Ugah Senior Associate, Nigeria T: +234 1 2774920
Toluwalope Adedokun Associate, Nigeria
Godson Iwuozo Associate, Nigeria T: +234 1 2774920
Itoro Etim Associate, Nigeria T: +234 1 2774920
Mining Written by Lolade Ososami and Oluwatobi Akintayo The Nigerian government’s projected revenue for the mining sector is about NGN3.46 billion (approximately $75,15,708,200) in the wake of the recent launch of the Electronic Mining Cadastre System (eMC+) to facilitate end-to-end real-time online mineral title administration from application to submission, fee payment, and issuance of certificates and the World Bank’s launching of the Mineral Sector Support for Economic Diversification Project (MinDiver) to improve available information infrastructure, strengthen relevant government institutions, and foster domestic investment in the sector. Post-elections, increased activities in the industry,particularly relating to gold, lithium, iron ore, and other strategic minerals, are anticipated. Arbitration Written by Festus Onyia and Michael Ugah Following the 2023 General Elections in Nigeria aggrieved candidates are approaching election tribunals and courts to seek redress, which may delay the resolution of regular commercial and other disputes due to judicial adjournments and other delays that prioritise timebound electoral matters. A side effect of this is that to avoid such delays, disputants may resort to arbitration and other ADR mechanisms.
Oluwatobi Akintayo Associate, Nigeria T: +234 1 2774920
Post-elections, increased activities in the industry, particularly relating to gold, lithium, iron ore, and other strategic minerals, are anticipated.
Following the successful disposal of 57 marginal fields, other post-election opportunities are expected to arise from downstream gas deregulation, gas policy implementation, gas infrastructure incentives...
