Search results for

As the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision announces its final major Basel III reform, IFLR's poll asks whether the capital requirements will prevent another crisis

John Marciano and Keith Martin of Chadbourne & Parke explain how sponsors and financiers are shaping a new, more balanced project finance industry

Shamali F De Silva, senior counsel at MIGA, discusses measures to mitigate the risks associated with investing in projects in developing economies

www.angolalegalcircle.com

Welcome to IFLR's Project finance report, in association with Chadbourne & Parke. The report features exclusive interviews with Citi's Nasser Malik, Miga's Shamali F De Silva, and Macquarie Capital's Nicolas Gole

What will trigger a write-down in Korea? Clarifications of the write-down requirements for Korean banks' Basel III-compliant bonds are expected to encourage deals and appeal to investors. Korean regulators recently clarified the terms and conditions of Basel III-compliant bonds from banks in the jurisdiction. Previously either a management improvement order (MIO) by the relevant regulators or regulator's designation of the financial institution as insolvent would trigger a write-down.

Gabriela Vásquez Through Law 131(Law) of December 2013, Panama amended the arbitral process for both domestic and international commercial arbitration. The newly enacted law replaces previous regulation on the matter, developing new guidelines that respond to the increasing popularity of arbitration as a fast method for the alternative resolution of conflicts. Law 131 sets out, among other things, new terms and deadlines for all parties involved in the arbitration process (plaintiff, defendant, arbitral tribunal, judicial tribunals, and the Fourth Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice), to act or proceed. As a prime example, the new law reduces the timeframe for the Arbitral Tribunal to issue the arbitral award which settles the dispute.

Sanjay Mohanasundram The July/August briefing covered the introduction of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) which came into operation on April 15 2014. The purpose of CIPAA is to facilitate regular and timely payment and provide a mechanism for speedy dispute resolution through adjudication. CIPAA is regulated by the Kuala Lumpur Regional Arbitration Centre (KLRCA). In the first of the KLRCA circulars on the administration of CIPAA, it is provided that CIPAA will apply to construction contracts that were entered into before April 15 2014 but the dispute in issue must have arisen after this date. The intent of this circular is clear: to ensure CIPAA has an immediate impact on the construction industry. Regretfully, questions have been raised about the validity of this KLRCA circular and it has been suggested by some parties that CIPAA can only apply prospectively to construction contracts that were entered into after April 15 2014. It is being argued in court that this would defeat the very intent of CIPAA. Therefore, it is suggested that even though CIPAA may have an impact on parties' contractual rights, it would still be necessary for CIPAA to apply to contracts that were entered into before April 15 2014.

The lighter side of the past month in financial law

Until AIFMD is fully transposed, can AIFMs be confident that they can use the marketing and management passports as seamlessly as they are intended?