Financial Institutions and Markets (J)
Contact: Travieso Evans Arria Rengel & Paz (Venezuela)
Decree No. 2.179 of December 30, 2015 was published in Official Gazette No. 6.211 Extraordinary of even date therewith. Through said Decree, the President of the Republic issued the Decree with the Staus, Value, and Force of Organic Law of Amendment to the Law of the Venezuelan Central Bank (the “Decree-Law”).
In today’s financial markets, derivative instruments comprises an essential part of capital market activities, both for banks and intermediary institutions, as well as the companies aiming to manage their portfolio risk. Furthermore, almost 90% of such derivative transactions are being carried out over the counter (OTC), meaning that the derivative instruments are traded in a context other than through a formal exchange (e.g. Borsa İstanbul). The new Capital Markets Law numbered 6362 (“CML”) and the regulations issued thereunder, while setting out the framework in which derivative transactions can be carried out over the counter without any intermediation, also introduce new rules so as to allow intermediary institutions to take part as dealers in this market.
To perform as a trader (broker) of commodities in the UAE the company (a legal entity incorporated according to the UAE law or foreign company incorporated outside the UAE) needs to carry out the necessary procedures to obtain a membership from DGCX (Dubai Gold and Commodities Exchange).
An order for security for costs is never made lightly by the courts, notwithstanding that they have a broad discretion to do so. That discretion extends to an application to vary a security for costs order already in place. The recent case of Austcorp Project No. 20 Pty Limited v The Trust Co (PTAL) Limited, in the matter of Bellpac Pty Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (in liq) (No 4)  FCA 850, highlights the issues to be considered when seeking to vary a security for costs order.
Contact: Monica Clarke Platt; Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP (Delaware & Pennsylvania, USA)
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) last week issued two proposals aimed at weakening and discouraging arbitration clauses in contracts for consumer financial products. First, the CFPB proposes prohibiting the application of arbitration clauses to class actions proceeding in court. Specifically, the Bureau is considering a requirement that arbitration clauses in covered consumer financial contracts provide that the arbitration agreement is inapplicable to putative class actions filed in court unless and until class certification is denied or the class claims are dismissed. This proposal could significantly increase putative class claims in the consumer finance sector (indeed, increasing access to class litigation appears to be the Bureau’s goal). Second, the Bureau seeks to require entities that use arbitration agreements in their contracts to submit to the Bureau notice of claims filed in arbitration proceedings and arbitration awards, potentially for publication.
Please click here to read the full Alert.