Hardening foreign corporate accountability through mandatory due diligence in the European Union? New trends and persisting challenges

This article assesses the efficiency of non-judicial grievance mechanisms in providing victims of corporate human rights violations with improved access to remedy. As no such mechanism is currently available, this article formulates a proposal for a new mechanism in the form of a corporate responsibility ombudsman, which would offer a great deal of flexibility as well as being an inexpensive, expeditious and informal manner of dealing with such issues. The article argues in favour of utilizing states’ regulatory arsenal to improve victims’ access to remedy extraterritorially. Based on recent international developments, I elaborate approaches to human rights due diligence regulation and export credit financing by means of two corporate responsibility ombudsman proposals. In relation to these proposals, I divide the effectiveness criteria of Principle 31 of the United Nations Guiding Principles into three main categories: empowerment, investigation and enforcement. Since obtaining sufficient evidence is of paramount to those seeking remedies for violations of corporate responsibility, states should bestow quasi-judicial powers on corporate responsibility ombudsmen to achieve efficiency, which could also create legitimacy. This article provides decision-makers and scholars with insights into how access to remedy could be synchronized with the momentum of human rights due diligence legislation in the European Union and beyond.

Download Full-text

A moveable feast—economic substance and holding entities

Trusts & Trustees ◽

10.1093/tandt/ttz097 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 25 (10) ◽

pp. 969-977

Author(s):

Ashley Fife

Keyword(s):

European Union ◽

International Business ◽

Due Diligence ◽

The European Union ◽

Exchange Of Information ◽

The Impact ◽

The Way

Abstract The economic substance requirements that the European Union insisted that a number of international financial centres introduce may be the most complex and far-reaching of international initiatives to impact on those jurisdictions in recent years. The requirements extend beyond due diligence, reporting and exchange of information to potentially impact on the way in which entities resource and carry on business in or from those jurisdictions. However, not all sectors of international business are impacted in the same way or to the same extent. This article considers certain aspects of the economic substance requirements relevant to private client structures, with a particular focus on the impact on holding entities. The treatment of holding entities under economic substance legislation in a number of C.2.2 jurisdictions may not be settled and this article explores how it may evolve.

Download Full-text

Due Diligence Driving the Success of Mergers and Acquisitions in Macedonia

International Journal of Accounting and Financial Reporting ◽

10.5296/ijafr.v6i2.9618 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 6 (2) ◽

pp. 1

Author(s):

Dushica Stevchevska Srbinoska

Keyword(s):

European Union ◽

Mergers And Acquisitions ◽

Due Diligence ◽

The European Union ◽

Public And Private ◽

Republic Of Macedonia ◽

Communications Industry ◽

Potential Risks ◽

The Republic ◽

Set Up

The act of due diligence is of vital importance when considering the possibility to enter the Macedonian market through merger and/or acquisition transactions. In this paper, I discuss that due diligence helps reduce potential risks or even results with curtailing the transaction as most of the Letters of intent never come to life. Many Macedonian entities, both public and private, operate in an environment considerably different to the European Union economies, a fact that inspires many questions with potential investors, especially in those who come from the European Union. If proper preparation takes place, and the expectations and processes are duly taken into account, successful merger and/or acquisition can be conducted in the Republic of Macedonia in spite of facing numerous difficulties. Finally, I discuss that several suggestions/factors can maximize the chances of success, demonstrated with the example of due diligence process set-up prior to the one.Vip merger that marked the Macedonian communications industry in 2015.

Download Full-text

Simple, Transparent and Standardised Securitisation (STS Securitisation) as a Specific Type of Securitisation under the Regulation 2017/2402

Studia Iuridica Lublinensia ◽

10.17951/sil.2020.29.5.103-116 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 29 (5) ◽

pp. 103

Author(s):

Przemysław Katner

Keyword(s):

European Union ◽

Financial Crisis ◽

General Framework ◽

European Parliament ◽

Due Diligence ◽

The European Union ◽

Member States ◽

Economic Sphere ◽

Risk Retention

<p>The securitisation market worth trillions of dollars collapsed during the financial crisis of 2007–2009 and for many years its volume remained quite low in the European Union, i.a. due to lack of confidence in securitisation products. The purpose of this article is to draw attention to simple, transparent and standardised securitisation (STS securitisation), almost unnoticed in Polish doctrine, being a specific type of securitisation that has appeared lately and develops in the European Union, including Poland, as a way to revive the securitisation. In the course of considerations, after a brief presentation of securitisation, its development and collapse, attention is turned to the Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2017 laying down a general framework for securitisation and creating a specific framework for simple, transparent and standardised securitisation, and amending Directives 2009/65/EC, 2009/138/EC and 2011/61/EU and Regulations (EC) no. 1060/2009 and (EU) no. 648/2012 (OJ EU L 347/35) and the premises it contains that must be met so that the securitisation could be designated as “STS” or “simple, transparent and standardised”. The remarks are especially focused on requirements of due diligence, transparency, risk-retention, simplicity and standardisation. The article ends with conclusions on the effectiveness of the adopted solutions in the economic sphere as well as with respect to the unification of securitisation law in the Member States and the restoration of credibility for securitisation in the European Union.</p>

Download Full-text

Mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence in Germany and Norway: Stepping, or Striding, in the Same Direction?

Business and Human Rights Journal ◽

10.1017/bhj.2021.43 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-9

Author(s):

Markus KRAJEWSKI ◽

Kristel TONSTAD ◽

Franziska WOHLTMANN

Keyword(s):

European Union ◽

Human Rights ◽

Supply Chain ◽

German Law ◽

International Standards ◽

Due Diligence ◽

The European Union ◽

Decent Work ◽

Dutch Child ◽

Human Rights Due Diligence

Germany and Norway are the two latest states to adopt laws mandating human rights due diligence by companies. Germany adopted a Law on Supply Chain Due Diligence (German Law) on 10 June 2021. 1 The same day, the Norwegian parliament passed a Transparency Act (Norwegian Act) requiring human rights and decent work due diligence. 2 Like the French Loi de Vigilance and the Dutch Child Labour Due Diligence Law, these laws provide further momentum for mandatory measures to promote corporate respect for human rights, including future regulations in the European Union (EU). While the aims are similar, the German and Norwegian laws contain certain important differences when it comes to the substance and scope of the due diligence requirement. In this context, adherence to international standards remains the way forward to ensure compliance with divergent requirements in different jurisdictions.

Download Full-text

Brak zainteresowania źródłem pochodzenia towaru jako przesłanka podważająca należytą staranność podatnika — glosa do wyroku Wojewódzkiego Sądu Administracyjnego z siedzibą w Opolu, z dnia 27 stycznia 2017 r., o sygnaturze I SA/Op 428/16

Studenckie Prace Prawnicze, Administratywistyczne i Ekonomiczne ◽

10.19195/1733-5779.27.7 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 27 ◽

pp. 103-111

Author(s):

Dominika Maśkiewicz

Keyword(s):

European Union ◽

Good Faith ◽

Level Of Detail ◽

Due Diligence ◽

The European Union ◽

National Courts ◽

Court Of Justice

Lack of interest in the origin of the goods as a premise undermining the due diligence of the taxpayer — commentary on the verdict of the Provincial Administrative Court, seat in Opole, of 27th January 2017, on the signature I SA/Op 428/16Commented judgement concerns the conditions for granting good faith to a taxpayer participation in transactions where there is a likelihood of VAT fraud and the level of detail of control that a taxpayer must submit to his contractor. Doubts arouse the court’s motive of not being interested in the origin of the goods, as well as the thesis that it is in the taxpayer’s interest to verify the contractor as accurately as possible. Both issues are reconsidered in this opinion with the citation of the doctrine and the jurisprudence of national courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Download Full-text

Due Diligence in Verifying Counterparties in Order to Deduct VAT

10.36250/00749.26 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 275-284

Author(s):

Marek Kopyściański

Keyword(s):

European Union ◽

Fundamental Rights ◽

Good Faith ◽

Tax Law ◽

Due Diligence ◽

The European Union ◽

Business Operations ◽

Council Directive ◽

European Union Legislation ◽

Specific Assessment

Considerations on exercising due diligence while verif ying their counterparties by taxable persons for the purposes of settling VAT should be, as a matter of priority, related to one of the fundamental rights pertaining to VAT. The primary right arising from the Council Directive 2006/112/EC is a right to deduct the input tax which may be limited by member states only in exceptional situations. Neither Polish nor the European Union legislation define the concepts of “due diligence” and “good faith”. While making a specific assessment of facts, they ensure so called interpretation margin that makes it possible to take non-legal criteria significant for business operations into account. Defining the concepts of due diligence or good faith in a precise manner without evoking controversy seems to be impossible in the process of the application of the law. Due diligence should be suggested to be understood as the regular merchant’s commonly adopted diligence that is related to, inter alia, the conviction that goods are not provided or a service is not performed by a person intending to “bypass” tax law provisions.

Download Full-text