Posts

Joint Venture Guidelines under the Competition Act No. 12 of 2010

The Competition Authority of Kenya to Clarify the Rules and Filing Requirements of Joint Venture Arrangements

The Competition Authority of Kenya (the CAK) has published draft joint venture guidelines (the Guidelines). The Guidelines aim to provide clarity, transparency and predictability about joint venture arrangements that require CAK approval. The Guidelines specifically clarify the CAK’s position on what consists of a Full Function Joint Venture, a Greenfield Joint Venture; and lays out the process for notifying and filing a joint venture with the CAK, as well as how the CAK reviews a joint venture’s impact on competition.

The Guidelines are still open to review and amendment, with the CAK inviting comments by Friday, March 5th, 2021. However, the following are the main implications of the proposed Guidelines:

Full Function Joint Venture

The Guidelines define a Full Function Joint Venture as a joint venture undertaking that performs all the functions of an autonomous economic entity for ten (10) years or more including:

i. operating on a market and performing the functions normally carried on by undertakings operating in the same market; and

ii. having a management dedicated to its day-to-day operations and access to sufficient resources including finance, staff and assets in order to conduct for a long duration its business activities within the area provided for in the joint-venture agreement.

Full Function Joint Ventures constitute a merger under the Competition Act and will require notification and filing with the CAK. However, it should be noted that a joint venture established for a purposefully finite period (e.g. a ten (10) year construction project) will not be viewed as having a long duration and will not qualify as a Full Function Joint Venture.

Greenfield Joint Venture

The Guidelines set out Greenfield Joint Ventures as joint venture undertakings in which local or foreign entities collaborate with other locally domiciled entities to develop a new product separate from the products and services provided by the parent entities. Typical distinguishing features of a Greenfield Joint Venture include: a new joint venture vehicle formed by the parties for the purpose of the transaction, undertakings in new areas for the parties in the joint venture, and the transaction entailing entry into a new business area or enhancement of an existing business.

The Guidelines recommend that parties potentially entering into a Greenfield Joint Venture should seek the advisory opinion of the CAK as Greenfield Joint Ventures are reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Process for Filing a Joint Venture With CAK

The Guidelines set out the registration requirements for a Full Function Joint Venture. The CAK requires the parent entities to separately submit documents relating to the transaction by filling the Merger Notification Forms (MNF) as Joint Venture Parents, and if a joint venture vehicle exists as a part of the undertaking it will also be required to file the MNF. In situations where the joint venture parties have no separate joint venture vehicle, (e.g. a contractual relationship or have acquired existing shares in an existing undertaking that results in a joint venture) the parent entities will only need to separately submit documents by filling the MNF as Joint Venture Parents.

Determination of Impact on Competition

The Guidelines specify how the CAK determines the competition impact a Full Function Joint Venture transaction is likely to have in a market. The CAK considers the turnover and asset figures of all the parents to a joint venture, including the entities directly or indirectly in the control of the joint venture parents and the joint venture vehicle where applicable. In addition, the CAK looks at the terms of the joint venture agreement(s), public interest factors (e.g. the effect of the joint venture on the labour market) and whether the efficiency benefit of the joint venture brings more economic gains compared to the competition detriment. If the CAK makes a finding that a joint venture transaction has negative competition and public interest impacts, it may engage the joint venture parties to come up with remedies to mitigate against the harm. Additionally, the CAK will direct on which of the joint venture parties as well as the joint venture vehicle will be impacted by the mitigating factors.

The draft joint venture guidelines aim to further clarify the rules and reduce the confusion surrounding the competition regulations on joint ventures. Pursuant to the Guidelines, the CAK is committed to further its mandate on fostering competitive markets through transparency.

For further information please contact Walid Khan or Benedict Nzioki.

Brazil – Cost Sharing with Company Domiciled Abroad

1. Characterisation of shared services as reimbursement

The payment of costs and expenses shared between companies of the same economic group, with headquarters in different countries, may be treated as a mere reimbursement without the incidence of a high tax burden on payment or receipt. However, in order for such costs and expenses to be characterised in Brazil as a reimbursement, certain requirements must be complied with.

First of all, to be treated as a reimbursement the costs and expenses must relate to supporting activities rather than core activities of the service provider. Thus, services that are included in the corporate purpose of the service provider may not be shared, and consequently the costs and expenses thereof cannot be treated as a reimbursement.

For this reason, it is only possible to recognise as a reimbursement of shared costs and expenses those actually incurred by the service provider. It is therefore not permitted to add any amount or profit margin to the costs or expenses shared and reimbursed.

Moreover, in order for the costs and expenses to be recognised as a reimbursement, it must be shown unequivocally that the services shared are of mutual benefit to the companies that participate in the agreement. Accordingly, all the companies must benefit from the services shared, including those performing the services.

With a view to proving compliance with the minimum conditions required, it is necessary to have, apart from other documents, a formal contract between the companies of the group, showing the total costs of each service incurred and shared, and also the reasonable and objective criteria used for the division.

The minimum requirements of the said contract were set out in Cosit Answer to Consultation no. 8/12 of which, in spite of its technicality, it is worth citing the following:

  • a) the division of the costs and risks inherent to the development, production or obtaining of goods, services or rights must be detailed;
  • b) the contribution of each company must be consistent with the individual benefits expected or actually received;
  • c) the identification of the specific benefit to each company of the group must be clear;
  • d) there must be an agreement for reimbursement, meaning the refund of costs relating to the effort or sacrifice incurred in the carrying out of an activity, without any additional profit;
  • e) the collective nature of the advantage offered to all the companies of the group must be express;
  • f) there must be a provision for remuneration of the activities, irrespective of their actual use, it being sufficient to “put the activities at the disposal” of the other companies of the group;
  • g) the conditions must be such that any company, in the same circumstances, would be interested in contracting.

In short, the contract must state the total cost or expense that benefits the signatory companies; the criteria for its division, each company necessarily defraying only the benefits actually expected or gained, with the possibility of their identification; and further it must state the manner in which reimbursement of the cost or expense will be made, with the supposition that it will be attractive even for independent companies.

Although the amounts classified as reimbursement of costs and expenses do not reflect any financial gain, which is sufficient to justify the non-incidence of taxation, the Brazilian Federal Revenue has still not adopted a firm position to this effect.

2.1. Payments abroad

Generally speaking, payments, credits or remittances abroad relating to the provision of services are subject to Withholding Income Tax (IRRF) of 15%, the Contribution on Economic Activities (CIDE) of 10%, the Contribution for the Financing of Social Security payable by the Importer of Foreign Goods or Services from Abroad (COFINS-Importation) of 7.6% and the Contribution for the Social Integration Programme and Civil Servants’ Investment Programme due on the Importation of Foreign Products or Services (PIS/PASEP-Importation) of 1.65%. The Tax on Financial Operations (IOF) of 0.38% is due in any case. The Tax on Services (ISS), with the maximum rate of 5%, may also be demanded by the municipality.

The IRRF paid in Brazil may be taken as a credit abroad if there exists a double taxation convention with the country in question, or, at least, reciprocity of treatment.

It is worth mentioning that, in the event of a remittance of funds abroad in payment of services, the financial institutions involved are also responsible for the operation, for which reason they tend to confirm the need to pay the taxes due on the operation in order to avoid any risks.

2.2. Cash receipts from abroad

Payments received by the Brazilian company for services shared may be regarded as corresponding to services exported. In this case, the funds received from companies abroad, in the form of foreign currency, would not be subject to PIS and COFINS on the amount invoiced. In any case, if they are recognised as remuneration for services rendered, they would be subject to IRPJ and CSLL. The ISS on the services may also be demanded by the municipality in question.

3. Possible risks and means for their reduction/elimination

As already stated, the Brazilian Federal Revenue has not confirmed its attitude regarding the non-taxation of payments relating to costs and expenses shared and reimbursed. As a result, in operations involving remittances abroad, the financial institutions normally require to see proof of payment of taxes.

If it is intended to avoid paying tax, and with a view to reducing, and even eliminating, possible risks, it is important that the operations be properly formalised. It must be possible to show, by producing solid evidence, that the funds received from, or paid to, the related party refer to the recovery of expenses incurred for the benefit of another, so as not to generate income/earnings for the recipient.

The contracts signed must contain details sufficient to prove compliance with the requirements necessary for characterisation of the reimbursement, with the resulting non-taxation, and all the supporting documentation must be retained.

An alternative, in order to guarantee the position of the Brazilian Federal Revenue, in principle and preferably in favour of the non-incidence of tax, is the submission of a formal consultation with a view to confirming the interpretation applicable to the case.

Specifically for operations involving remittances abroad of sums relating to the costs and expenses shared, it is possible that, even on production of the contract signed between the companies of the group, together with all supporting documentation, and further even presenting the formal consultation to the public authorities, the financial institution may not agree to make the remittance without payment of the tax.

In this event, a declaration may also be produced to the financial institution, in which the company making the remittance assumes the obligation to inform the institution immediately of the result of the formal consultation, as soon as a reply is received from the Federal Revenue, and also to comply with the result thereof, if necessary, with payment of tax on the operation.

We consider that, provided the above requirements are met, the risks may be reduced or even eliminated.

We are available to assist persons interested in any issues involving this matter.

Patrícia Giacomin Pádua
Partner in the Tax Area – São Paulo
[email protected]

Chambers Global 2021 highlights our cross-border strengths

Norton Rose Fulbright ranked first among all law firms with 18 ranked lawyers in the Chambers Global 2021 global-wide practice rankings, as well as standing in the top 10 for total number of global-wide departmental practice rankings, practice rankings across all categories and lawyers ranked overall.

The firm earned 22 global-wide practice rankings, and was ranked in 185 practice areas across all categories, including global-wide and country-specific. The 185 practice area rankings include 16 top tier rankings in China, Greece, Malaysia, Morocco, Myanmar, the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates and the United States.

A total of 234 Norton Rose Fulbright lawyers were individually ranked as leaders in their field. The firm also picked up six new departmental rankings in Africa, Latin America, Russia, the United Kingdom and United States.

In its analysis, Chambers cited clients who provided feedback on the firm’s work, praising its extensive global reach.

“The (Norton Rose Fulbright) international network has become an increasingly important component of their service delivery as cross-border business grows,” one client told Chambers. Another praised the firm’s “ability to function seamlessly with team members in different offices and across time zones.”

A full list of our rankings is available online.

The LGPD and labour relations in Brazil

Non-observance of the LGPD (General Data Protection Law) will give rise to administrative sanctions imposed by the National Data Protection Authority as from August 2021, as determined by article 20 of Law 14.010, which modified the text of article 65 of Law 13.079.

In spite of this, many authorities are already imposing or seeking to impose penalties for failure to comply with the LGPD and are taking court action in this respect. Moreover, there is nothing to prevent data subjects from claiming compensation in court, as well as coercive measures to enforce compliance with the LGPD.

In the context of labour relations, the LGPD is firmly present in the three stages (pre-contractual, contractual and post-contractual), although there are no specific regulations in this respect. Apart from the direct relationship between the company, the candidates for job vacancies offered and its own employees, the LGPD is also present in relations with the employees of outsourced companies.

For the reasons set out in the preceding paragraph, companies must adapt as soon as possible, creating procedures and policies, adjusting their work contracts and agreements for services with independent contractors, training and instructing their work force regarding the law and the care necessary in the treatment of data, thereby avoiding the formation of administrative and judicial liability and the exposure of their name, brand and reputation.

At the pre-contract stage, companies will have to adjust their recruitment and selection processes, deciding whether resumes not used are to be discarded or kept in their database for future vacancies, obtaining, in the latter case, the express consent of the candidate to do so. The companies must also consider that the recruitment and selection processes may be subject to investigation by the competent authorities and/or judicial discussion by these same persons or by the candidate himself, and, in this respect, the treatment of candidates’ data may constitute evidence for their defence, the regular exercise of rights.

In the course of the employment relationship, the applicability of the LGPD is vast, since the employer is obliged to provide personal as well as sensitive data of its employees in order to comply with legal obligations, such as for the E-social, for the DCTFWeb, for the CAT, for the obligatory Occupational Health and Safety Programmes, for the labour inspectors of the Special Secretariat of Social Security and Labour and of the Federal Revenue, unions and class entities, among others.

The employer uses the data of its employees, also, in order to comply with contractual obligations, such as for the provision of benefits, health and life insurance, agreements in general with other companies etc., constituting, therefore, the regular exercise of rights, which strictly exempts it from obtaining the express consent of the employee, provided of course that such benefits are in the latter’s interests or result from a regulatory provision.

The employer may also be obliged to use such data in administrative or judicial proceedings, as determined by the supervisory body or judge, in which case authorisation to supply such information from the employee is not required, since this undoubtedly constitutes a regular exercise of a right.

In the event of an occupational accident or health problems that justify the adoption of measures by the employer for the protection of the life and physical safety of the data subject, in this case, the employee, the company will also have to use his data.

It is essential to mention, if only briefly, the matter of the employee’s consent, since a trend of opinion has already been formed on this point, not only in Brazil, but also abroad, to the effect that it is inapplicable, as a rule, to employment relationships, given the worker’s situation of “hypo-sufficiency” (the weaker party). On this subject, we will express our views in further detail in a future article.

On termination of the employment, the employer should, strictly speaking, eliminate the personal data of its employee, since their purpose has been achieved or they are no longer necessary. However, considering that many of these data may be subject to analysis by the Brazilian authorities and/or constitute evidence in legal proceedings that may be brought against the company, including by the employee himself, they may be stored, for compliance with legal obligations or the regular exercise of rights, for the period in which they may be required; these are situations that, we repeat, do not require consent of the data subject.

The retention period could, in principle, be standardised according to the two-year and five-year limitation periods that apply to the employment relationship. However, there are situations that may exceed these periods, such as cases of accidents at work (including professional and occupational diseases) and death of a worker leaving minor heirs, matters which should be considered when the employer sets the parameters for the storage and destruction of data.

These are the initial observations of our labour team regarding the impact of the LGPD on labour relations. We will continue to produce material on the subject, as there will be many challenges to be faced in the near future.

Maria Lúcia Menezes Gadotti
Partner in Labour Law Area – São Paulo
[email protected]

Chicago Partners Again Honoured as Notable Minorities in Law

For the second consecutive year, Crain’s Chicago Business has named partners Zulf Bokhari, Roderick Branch, and Robert Fernandez to its Notable Minorities in Accounting, Consulting, and Law 2020 list. The honourees are recognised for having “overcome challenges and bias to rise to the top of their professions” through both their practice work and efforts to advance diversity and inclusion.

Bokhari, a member of Latham’s Banking Practice, represents leading commercial and investment banks in the syndicated loan markets, often advising on cross-border financings for working capital, acquisitions, and other purposes. A profile published by Crain’s highlighted his recent representation of a major US bank on multiple transactions, including as lead agent/arranger and lender in US$2 billion revolving credit facilities for a global health care company and related financings for its European operations. Crain’s also noted his role on the advisory board of the Kellogg Institute for International Studies at the University of Notre Dame.

Branch, a member of Latham’s Capital Markets and Latin America Practices, advises on capital markets transactions, with a focus on securities offerings by non-U.S. issuers. His published profile featured Branch’s recent representations of IEnova, Mexico’s largest private-sector energy company, in an US$800 million bond offering, Aon in a US$1 billion senior note financing, Hyatt Hotels in bond financings of US$1.65 billion, and Cars.com in its debut US$400 million high-yield financing. Branch is the immediate past Chicago office leader of Latham’s Hispanic/Latin American Lawyers Group, and he leads the firm’s International Visiting Associate program, through which law firm associates join Latham full time for a year. In 2020, Branch was also named to the Chicago Symphony Orchestra board of trustees.

Fernandez, a member of Latham’s Real Estate Practice, specialises in financings, acquisitions, dispositions, joint ventures, commercial leasing, and real estate development. His profile in Crain’s noted his recent advise to institutional investors on joint ventures in connection with multifamily, student housing, industrial, and large mixed use developments. For example, he advised a hedge fund in connection with a large office tower lease in Chicago, and a real estate investment and hospitality management company on a joint venture to acquire a Las Vegas hotel and casino. Fernandez is a member of Latham’s Global Diversity Leadership committee and is Chicago office leader of the firm’s Hispanic/Latin American Lawyers Group. He also serves on the Civic Federation board in Chicago.

In addition to the trio being selected among the 2019 Notable Minorities in Accounting, Consulting, and Law honourees, Bokhari and Branch were also previously included in Crain’s predecessor lists of the Most Influential Minority Lawyers in Chicago in 2017 and 2018.

DLA Piper helps build pro bono culture in Colombia

New Perimeter, DLA Piper’s non-profit affiliate that provides long-term pro bono legal assistance in under-served regions around the world, recently taught an online seminar on pro bono to more than 30 undergraduate law students at the Universidad del Rosario in Bogotá, Colombia.

During the course, which was held on November 18, Lisa Dewey, DLA Piper’s pro bono partner and director of New Perimeter, and Sara Andrews, senior international pro bono counsel and assistant director of New Perimeter, spoke to the participating students about the importance of pro bono legal work and how they can get involved in pro bono over the course of their legal careers.

The project is part of an eight-year relationship between New Perimeter, the Universidad del Rosario and Fundación Pro Bono Colombia to encourage and help create a culture of pro bono in Colombia. Over the course of the collaboration, New Perimeter has sent lawyers to Colombia to teach law students and practicing lawyers about legal social responsibility, the use of pro bono to address unmet legal needs and increase access to justice, and the history of pro bono in the United States and around the world. This is the first time New Perimeter connected virtually with Colombian students.

“It is always a pleasure to speak to Colombian law students about pro bono,” Dewey said. “Even though we weren’t able to be there in person this year, it was exciting to connect virtually to hear about the important issues the students are passionate about and how they plan to use their legal degrees to make a difference in Colombia.”