SEC accuses Lewis Wallach, former CEO of Professional Financial Investors, of handling Ponzi scheme

Lewis Wallach, the former Managing Director of Professional Financial Investors, Inc. (PFI) has been accused of setting up a fraudulent Ponzi scheme and embezzling investor funds.

PFI is a real estate investment and management firm based in Marin, California.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a lawsuit against Wallach in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Commission accused him of violating the anti-fraud provisions of federal securities laws.

In the lawsuit, the SEC alleged that Wallach and the now deceased founder of PFI raised about $ 330 million from more than 1,300 investors.

Wallach is said to have embezzled more than $ 26 million from their investors, many of whom are seniors, retired and relying on their investment income for their daily expenses.

Wallach, founder of PFI lured in investors by making false and misleading statements

Wallach and the now deceased founder of the company are said to have made false and misleading statements to attract investors. They falsely told investors that they would invest their money in multi-unit residential and commercial buildings that would be managed by PFI. In fact, they used a significant portion of investor funds in a Ponzi scheme to pay previous investors.

When investors raised concerns about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their investments, Wallach allegedly falsely told investors that they had nothing to fear. He told them that PFI was financially secure because it had huge cash reserves.

In reality, Wallach knew that PFI was a zombie company. It does not have sufficient reserves to meet its obligations, does not have a line of credit, and all of its properties have unpaid debts.

Additionally, the SEC alleged that Wallach used investor funds for his personal benefits, such as buying a vacation home, luxury cars, and coins, as well as paying for school fees. private schools.

Wallach admitted his role in the fraudulent Ponzi scheme

The Ponzi scheme began to unravel after the death of PFI’s founder on May 6, 2020. A review of the company’s financial records raised concerns about the short-term creditworthiness of PFI and its related entities. Wallach admitted his role in exploiting the fraudulent Ponzi scheme, including its misuse of investor funds.

Wallach accepted the entry of a judgment ordering a permanent injunction and bar of officer and director. He has also agreed to pay civil penalties, restitution, and prejudgment interest to be determined by the court at a later date at the request of the SEC. The proposed judgment is subject to court approval.

In a statement, the director of the SEC’s regional office in San Francisco, Erin Schneider, said: “As alleged in our complaint, Wallach has engaged in blatant fraud which has deprived many older investors of their funds. hard-earned savings and retirement. We will continue to fight fraud targeting our most vulnerable investors.

The Commission’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy Encourages Investors to Ask Questions Before Investing and to Review Investor Alerts on Fraud Targeting Seniors and Ponzi Schemes .

The U.S. District Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California has filed criminal charges against Wallach based on SEC charges that he exploited an illegal Ponzi scheme.

—————————————-

Got a story you want USA Herald to cover? Submit a tip here and if we think it’s newsworthy, we’ll act on it.

Want to contribute a story? We also accept article submissions – check out our writer’s guidelines here.


Source link

Merger control for funds and financial investors: varying risk profiles for VIE structures in China

In April 2020, and for the first time, the Chinese competition law authority (the State Administration for Market Regulation, or SAMR) accepted a merger control case involving a party incorporated under an “variable interest entity” (LIFE) structure.

While this case was not announced with fanfare by SAMR (indeed, it was only revealed through the standard public disclosure process applicable to all filings made under the simplified notification procedure), it is supposed to signify a significant change in the position of SAMR vis-à-vis the VIE structure.

For foreign investors who hold stakes in Chinese companies through VIE structures, or who seek to invest, this is an important development. In this e-newsletter, we explore what this means for funds and other foreign investors.

What is a VIE structure?

VIE structures and merger control in China

VIE structures now able (and expected?) To deposit

Increase in maximum penalties in consultation

What is a VIE structure?

VIE is a concept commonly used by foreign-invested companies operating in industries where China has restricted foreign ownership. The VIE structure can be used to circumvent certain restrictions via: (1) an offshore holding company creating a wholly owned subsidiary (under a wholly foreign-owned company, or WFOE structure) in China; and (2) the WFOE would control and then receive all of the profits of the RPC business through a series of contractual arrangements. The shareholders of the Chinese company would remain Chinese nationals (according to regulations), while the offshore holding company would recognize the income and record the operations of the WFOE in its financial statements.

The VIE structure allows domestic Chinese companies in narrow sectors to seek foreign venture capital funding, as well as register in offshore jurisdictions. Many tech giants listed on China’s stock exchanges have adopted this structure, including Alibaba, Baidu and Tudou.

VIE structures and merger control in China

Although VIE structures have been widely used for some time, until recently they were not formally recognized by the Chinese government. In particular, it is common practice for SAMR (and its predecessor, the Ministry of Commerce) not to formally accept merger review cases involving companies operating under a VIE structure.

This has led to significant uncertainty as to the risk of non-compliance for EDV structures. Despite widespread practice, there is no clear legal basis for SAMR not to accept deposits involving VIE structures, nor an explicit exemption under anti-monopoly law (AMLA) on which companies adopting such structures could rely not to notify triggering transactions.

However, this has now changed following the recent acceptance by SAMR of a filing involving a VIE structure. On April 20, 2020, SAMR officially accepted a dossier submitted by Huansheng Information Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (“Huansheng“) and Shanghai Mingcha Zhegang Management Consulting Co., Ltd. (“Mingcha“). Huansheng is said to be a subsidiary of Yum China, the operator of restaurant chains such as KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell in China.

According to the public disclosure form of this file, Mingcha is controlled by a Caymanian company “via related entities on the basis of a series of contractual arrangements”, which shows that this company is incorporated via a VIE structure. According to recent reports, consideration of this transaction has been hampered due to competition law complaints raised by third parties, which appear to be unrelated to the fact that Mingcha is organized under a VIE structure.

VIE structures now able (and expected?) To deposit

Following this case, it is clear that SAMR will accept deposits regarding transactions involving VIE structures. More importantly, this likely means that SAMR will now expect such deposits, and the involvement of a VIE structure will no longer serve as a reason not to file.

In turn, SAMR may begin to sue VIEs for failing to file transactions. While we cannot rule out the possibility that SAMR will pursue historical transactions involving VIE structures that were not filed due to the previous policy position, attention should certainly be turned to future transactions. In particular, for funds and other investors in Chinese companies organized under a VIE structure, and who have previously ignored the need to make merger review filings in China due to SAMR’s approach, this may mean that a fundamental shift towards merger control strategy is needed in relation to future transactions. Going forward, it will be essential to consider Chinese merger control even when the transaction involves a VIE entity.

Increase in maximum penalties in consultation

In addition to SAMR’s change of approach to VIE structures, the potential risk of non-reporting is also likely to increase in the near future. Currently, the maximum fines that can be imposed by SAMR are capped at RMB 500,000. However, SAMR is currently consulting on various AML changes, including a substantial change to its fine powers.

According to the SAMR’s AML amendment proposals (published for public consultation in January 2020), it is proposed to significantly increase the maximum fines for failure to notify a transaction in violation of merger control rules, passing from RMB 500,000 to 10% of total enterprise revenue in the previous fiscal year.

This increased cap also applies to other breaches of merger control rules, including the completion of transactions notified before authorization (i.e. the jump of weapon) or the completion of a transaction prohibited by SAMR. The proposed increase in fine powers aligns the PRC regime with that of other key merger control jurisdictions, such as the EU. However, it should be noted that merger review requests are triggered more frequently under the PRC for a variety of reasons, including significantly lower turnover thresholds and the lack of “full functionality” criteria in the PRC. valuation of joint ventures that exist in the EU regime.

These changes are likely to put merger control compliance in the PRC even further into the spotlight, especially as jump-arms has long been an enforcement priority of SAMR (and its predecessor, MOFCOM). .


Source link

Reliance Industries Relieves Debt After 11 Financial Investors Purchased Jio Platforms Shares, 1.59 Times Subscribed Rights Issue

RIL raised over Rs 168,818 crore in just 58 days thanks to Rs 115,693.95 crore collected from investors at Jio and another Rs 53,124.20 crore from a rights issue.

As the Jio platforms, owned by Reliance Industries, secured record investments from 11 of the world’s largest financial investors in the space of nine weeks, the telecommunications energy major announced on Friday that it was became net debt free well ahead of its March 2021 target.

RIL raised over Rs 168,818 crore in just 58 days thanks to Rs 115,693.95 crore collected from investors at Jio and another Rs 53,124.20 crore from a rights issue. Along with the sale of BP’s stake in the petro-retail joint venture, the total fundraising exceeds 1.75 lakh crore, the company said in a statement.

“Our net debt was Rs 161,035 crore, as of March 31, 2020. With these investments, RIL has become net debt free.”

RIL raised Rs 115,693.95 crore in exchange for 24.7% stake in Jio through the largest uninterrupted fundraiser of any company in the world. The agreements, led by a strategic investment of Rs 43,574 crore on April 22 by Facebook for 9.99%, followed each other in the space of just nine weeks and during a global lockdown.

The rights issue, which was subscribed 1.59 times, was not only the largest ever in India, but also the largest in the world by a non-financial entity in the past ten years, RIL said.

“Today, I am both delighted and honored to announce that we have delivered on our promise to shareholders by releasing Reliance’s net debt well ahead of our initial timeline of March 31, 2021,” said Mukesh Ambani, Chairman and Managing Director of RIL.

“Exceeding the expectations of our shareholders and all other stakeholders, time and time again, is in Reliance’s very DNA. Therefore, on the proud opportunity to become a Net Debt Free Company, I want to assure them that Reliance in its Golden Decade will set even more ambitious growth targets and achieve them, in line with the vision of our founder, Dhirubhai Ambani, of constantly increase our contribution to India’s prosperity and inclusive development.

Disclosure: Reliance Industries Ltd. is the sole beneficiary of Independent Media Trust which controls Network18 Media and Investments Ltd.


Source link

Essel Group sells 16.5% of its stake in Zee Entertainment to financial investors

In a new effort to raise funds, the Essel group led by Subhash Chandra, the promoter of Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., will sell up to 16.5% of the company’s capital to financial investors.

“The Essel group plans to sell 16.5% stake in ZEE Entertainment Enterprises Limited (ZEEL) to financial investors,” the media company said on Wednesday in a filing on the Bombay Stock Exchange.

Essel Group’s flagship media company said its promoters were seeking to sell their stake in ZEEL to financial investors, “in order to repay loan obligations to certain group lenders on whom these shares are currently encumbered (and who have agreed to such a share sale by the group) “.

On 16.5%, the group will sell 2.3% of the capital of ZEEL to OFI Global China Fund, LLC or to its subsidiaries. OFI Global is a subsidiary of Invesco Oppenheimer Developing Markets Fund, which already held 8.7% of the company’s capital. Earlier in August, the US-based fund agreed to acquire 11% stake in Zee Entertainment for a total consideration value of up to Rs 4,224 crore. She has been a financial investor in Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd since 2002.

Also Read: Essel Group Responds To Share Selling Rumors, Says No Lender Sells Shares

After the transactions, the promoters’ overall assets will fall to 5%, of which the group’s collateral will be reduced to 1.1% of ZEEL, he said.

“This development reaffirms the positive progress of the Group in its global approach to asset disposal, undertaken to generate adequate liquidity for the reimbursement process,” ZEEL said in the regulatory dossier.

Also Read: Zee Entertainment Q2 Profits Up 7% to Rs 413 Crore

As of September 30, the promoters of ZEE held 22.37% of the capital of ZEE Entertainment, of which 96% is pledged to lenders.

Subhash Chandra and his family owe around Rs 7,000 crore to domestic lenders, including mutual funds, and Russian state-backed lender VTB. The money from the sale of equity will go directly to the lenders. Apart from this, developers also sell solar energy infrastructure and assets to raise funds to pay off debts.

Ahead of the announcement, Zee Entertainment’s stock price ended up 7.49% at Rs 307.15 each on BSE.

Edited by Chitranjan Kumar


Source link

Asset quality worries come back to haunt M&M Financial investors

Although provisioning costs more than double, NPA levels may remain high until loan growth recovers

The subjects
M&M

When a company has consistently increased its bottom line quarter after quarter for almost two years and has worked just as hard to control nonperforming assets (NPAs or bad debts), even the failure of a quarter could significantly influence sentiment. , especially when the general mood is low. This is exactly what happened with Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services (M&M Finance).

The stock fell more than 10% on Wednesday, reacting to June quarter (Q1) results that fell short of expectations. However, since M&M Finance is often viewed as an indicator of rural demand, …

MONTHLY STAR

Digital business standard

Business Standard Digital monthly subscription

Full access to premium product

Convenient – Pay as you go

Pay using Amex / Master / VISA credit cards and VISA debit cards only

Automatically renewed (subject to authorization from your card issuer)

Cancel any time in the future

Requires personal information

What do you get?

ON STANDARD COMMERCIAL DIGITAL

  • Unlimited access to all content on any device via browser or app.
  • Exclusive content, features, opinions and reviews – handpicked by our editors, just for you.
  • Choose 5 of your favorite companies. Receive a daily email with all updates on them.
  • Follow the industry of your choice with a daily industry-specific newsletter.
  • Stay on top of your investments. Track the prices of stocks in your portfolio.
  • 18 years of archival data.

REMARK :

  • The product is a monthly automatic renewal product.
  • Cancellation policy: You can cancel at any time in the future without giving a reason, but 48 hours before your card is charged for renewal. We do not offer refunds.
  • To cancel, communicate from your registered email id and send the email with the cancellation request to assist@bsmail.in. Include your contact number for quick action. Requests sent by post to any other identifier will not be recognized or processed.

ANNUAL SMART

Digital business standard
Subscribe now and get 12 months free

Business Standard Premium Digital – 12 Months + 12 Months Free

Subscribe for 12 months and get 12 months free.

Unique and transparent registration to Business Standard Digital

Convenient – Payment once a year

Pay using an instrument of your choice – all credit and debit cards, Net Banking, payment wallets and UPI

Exclusive invitation to certain Business Standard events

What you get

ON STANDARD COMMERCIAL DIGITAL

  • Unlimited access to all content on any device via browser or app.
  • Exclusive content, features, opinions and reviews – handpicked by our editors, just for you.
  • Choose 5 of your favorite companies. Receive a daily email with all updates on them.
  • Follow the industry of your choice with a daily industry-specific newsletter.
  • Stay on top of your investments. Track the prices of stocks in your portfolio.

REMARK :

  • The monthly term product is an automatic renewal based product. Once subscribed, subject to the authorization of your card issuer, we will automatically debit your card / payment instrument each month and renew your subscription.
  • In the annual term product, we offer both a product based on automatic renewal and a product not based on automatic renewal.
  • We do not reimburse.
  • No questions asked Cancellation policy.
  • You can cancel future renewals at any time, including immediately after subscription, but 48 hours before your next renewal date.
  • Subject to the above, cancel yourself by visiting the “Manage my account” section after logging in OR Send an email request to assist@bsmail.in from your registered email address and quoting your cell phone number.


Dear reader,

Business Standard has always strived to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that matter to you and have broader political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering has only strengthened our resolve and commitment to these ideals. Even in these difficult times resulting from Covid-19, we remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and cutting-edge commentary on relevant current issues.
However, we have a demand.

As we fight the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more so that we can continue to provide you with more quality content. Our subscription model has received an encouraging response from many of you who have subscribed to our online content. More subscriptions to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of providing you with even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practice the journalism to which we are committed.

Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard.

Digital editor

First published: Wed 24 July 2019. 19:11 IST


Source link

A Game Changer for Financial Investors in the German Healthcare Industry – Food, Medicines, Healthcare, Life Sciences

Germany: A game changer for financial investors in the German healthcare industry

To print this article, simply register or connect to Mondaq.com.

The Schedule Service and Supply Act aims to improve service levels within the compulsory health insurance system.

On March 14, 2019, the German Bundestag passed the Services and Procurement Act (“Terminservice- und Versorgungsgesetz, TSVG”), generally aimed at improving service levels within the compulsory health insurance system. In addition to these regulations, the TSVG contains a set of rules which are of great interest to private investors active in the German healthcare sector.

Rules and regulations now approved affect investment in medical supply centers (“Medizinische Versorgungszentren, MVZ”), through hospitals and non-medical dialysis providers who are the only forays into the legal health supply system available for – and, in fact, widely used by – sponsors (the others being nonprofits and municipalities which by definition are not viable options for investors).

The new law states that the incorporation of an MVZ through a non-medical dialysis provider will only apply to an MVZ providing subject-related medical care (i.e. medical care in connection with dialysis services or general care for renal patients), thus making these investment vehicles unavailable for the establishment of MVZ in other disciplines, such as ophthalmology or radiology.

The incorporation of MVZ through hospitals has not been restricted for any discipline of human medicine, but the creation of dental MVZs will be affected by a new quota system: in general, one hospital (including all MVZ owned and operated by him) may not exceed a 10 percent share in the dental service offer in the respective planning area (Planungsbereich) of the Association of Dentists of Statutory Health Insurance (Kassenzahnärztliche Vereinigung) where the MVZ is located. In planning areas where the dental supply is insufficient, the quota is 20%; in planning areas with a surplus dental supply, the quota is 5 percent. The quota system will not be applied retroactively to already established MVZs, but it comes into force in the event of an extension of these MVZs.

On April 12, 2019, the TSVG bill was approved by the Federal Council (Bundesrat) and should enter into force during the month of April 2019.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide on the subject. Specialist advice should be sought regarding your particular situation.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Food, Medicines, Healthcare, Life Sciences from Germany

Orphan drugs in the EU / EEA and UK

JA Kemp srl

An orphan drug, or orphan drug, is a drug developed to treat a rare disease, defined as a disease affecting a relatively small number of people compared to the population.

Life Sciences and Law – September 2021

Dickinson Hill

Welcome to our September newsletter in which we highlight the legal implications and support we can provide to your business across all areas of life science practice covered by our legal teams.


Source link

Besana opens up to industrial and financial investors

The Besana group has launched a process of further growth through acquisitions in Asia, Eastern Europe and North America. The group, specializing in the processing and distribution of Nuts and Dried Fruits, has announced its intention to acquire local companies in its areas of interest, in order to further accelerate its pace of international expansion.

Four years ago, Besana launched an ambitious supply chain project for agricultural development in Central Asia and Central Europe, with the aim of promoting the cultivation of walnuts, hazelnuts, almonds and pistachios in areas with pedoclimatic conditions. optimal. Two group companies, one in Kazakhstan and one in Ukraine, are currently focused on securing raw materials that meet the quality standards required by industry.

From field to fork, the Besana Group’s business model is based on the creation of a state-of-the-art agricultural network and processing plants, designed to build a production chain in line with best practices, farmer to consumer, ensuring food safety and healthy eating.

Besana’s management team. From left to right: Riccardo Calcagni, CEO; Marcella Netti, Chief Financial Officer; Pino Calcagni, president; Vittoria Calcagni, Public Affairs

Today, Besana, wishing to extend this project, announced its desire to open up to industrial and financial partners interested in supporting it in this development process.

With a consolidated turnover of 200 million euros, the Besana group, founded by grandfather Emilio in 1921 and today led by the fourth generation of the Calcagni family, is the world leader in processing and the distribution of Nuts and Dried Fruits. Globalization and innovation have always been at the forefront of the group’s fundamental principles.


Source link

The General Court of the EU clarifies the parental responsibility of financial investors in the event of infringements of competition – Antitrust / competition law

To print this article, simply register or connect to Mondaq.com.

On July 12, 2018, the General Court of the EU issued an important judgment which clarified the basis on which the European Commission can impose antitrust fines on financial investors for the activities of their subsidiaries, even if the investment is largely passive in nature.

Background

The case concerned a cartel in the electric cables market. From February 1999 to January 2009, European, Japanese and South Korean producers of submarine and underground power cables participated in a network of multilateral and bilateral meetings and established contacts aimed at restricting competition for their products in specific territories. , by awarding contracts and customers, which distorts the normal competitive process.

The European Commission has fined Prysmian, the world’s largest cable manufacturer, € 104.6 million for its participation in the cartel. At the material time, a fund managed by Goldman Sachs, GS Capital Partners, held a significant controlling interest in Prysmian, through a number of managed funds. During the counterfeiting period, Goldman Sachs’ stake in Prysmian fluctuated between 84% and 91%. Apart from 41 days when its stake was 100%, Goldman Sachs’ stake in Prysmian was only between 84.4% and 91.1% until May 3, 2007, when the shares of Prysmian were offered to the public as part of an initial public offering on the Milan Stock Exchange.

Although the investment bank did not own 100% of the shares, it indirectly controlled all of the voting rights associated with the shares of Prysmian until the date of the IPO. After this date, although Goldman Sachs no longer had absolute control over the voting rights, it continued to exercise control over the board of directors (as evidenced by the fact that this board continued to have the same composition) . Despite its substantial equity stake, Goldman Sachs argued that its investment in Prysmian was primarily financial in nature and that Goldman Sachs was in no business sense the “parent” of Prysmian.

The European Commission found that because of its involvement, Goldman Sachs had “decisive influence” over Prysmian for a substantial period in which the infringement occurred. Applying the long-established principle that one firm can be held jointly and severally liable for the anti-competitive behavior of another when those firms are part of a “single economic unit”, the Commission found that Goldman Sachs’ was jointly liable for Prysmian’s behavior and fined Goldman Sachs € 37.3 million. The Commission based this decision on two grounds: (i) a presumption arising from EU case law that Goldman Sachs exercised material influence over Prysmian by virtue of its participation; and (ii) an analysis of the economic, organizational and legal ties of Goldman Sachs with its subsidiaries demonstrating that it indeed exercised a decisive influence on Prysmian’s behavior in the market. Goldman Sachs appealed the Commission’s decision to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal’s decision

The General Court upheld the Commission’s decision and dismissed Goldman Sachs’ appeal. At the heart of the dismissed appeal was the level of general influence that the Court and the Commission found Goldman Sachs to exercise over Prysmian.

The General Court referred to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Akzo Nobel v Commission, and noted that the behavior of a subsidiary can be attributed to the parent company or to the investment company when, although having a separate legal personality, the subsidiary does not decide on its own behavior in the market, but follows the instructions of the parent company with all material respects. In this case, the parent company and its subsidiary form a single company within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU. On this basis, the Commission can impose fines on the parent company without having to establish its personal involvement in the conduct in question or the infringement. When a parent company has a 100% interest in a subsidiary, this is sufficient to presume that the parent company has decisive influence over the subsidiary. When a company owns almost all the capital of a subsidiary of its group, there is a rebuttable presumption that the company exercises a decisive influence on the behavior of the subsidiary. In order to be able to attribute the conduct of a subsidiary to the parent company, it must also be established that the decisive influence was in fact exercised over the subsidiary, and not only that the parent company was simply in a position to do so.

Decisive influence

In the present case, the application of the presumption of effective exercise of decisive influence was not based on the level of Goldman’s ownership, but on the fact that it controlled 100% of the voting rights attached to the shares. of the company, giving it a capacity comparable to that which it would have enjoyed as sole owner. The Court recognized other factors relating to the economic, organizational and legal relationship between Goldman Sachs and Prysmian to support the finding of determining influence, including the power to appoint the members of the various boards of directors of Prysmian, the power to call meetings of shareholders and propose the removal of directors or entire boards of directors, the actual level of representation of Goldman Sachs on the board of directors of Prysmian, the managerial powers of the representatives of Goldman Sachs on the board of directors administration, receipt of regular updates and monthly reports, measures to ensure that decisive control is maintained after the IPO date and evidence of typical industrial owner behavior.

The Court noted that it is possible to rebut the presumption that a parent company had a decisive interest by providing proof that the subsidiary acted independently of the parent company. However, the Court concluded that the presumption had not been rebutted in this case.

Analysis

The Prysmien This case reaffirms the principle well established in EU case law that parent companies can be held liable for the anti-competitive behavior of their subsidiaries. However, the Commission’s decision, confirmed by the General Court, has shown that institutional investors can also be held responsible for the behavior of the companies in which they have invested, in the event that this investment is relatively passive or when the investor has limited direct involvement in the effective functioning of the subsidiary in question. As the European Commission noted in its response welcoming the judgment of the General Court, the case recognizes that institutional investors are treated “like other parent companies, giving them parental responsibility in exactly the same way“and the legal and factual analysis will focus on the ability of the parent company / investor to exercise a decisive influence over the subsidiary. The nature of the investment, whether financial or more strategic, is not relevant to this respect.

Conclusion

The case underscores the importance for investors and parent companies in general to ensure that their subsidiaries comply with applicable competition law rules and that subsidiaries have strong policies in place to minimize risk. offense. In addition, the case provides additional impetus for acquirers to perform due diligence with respect to competition law risks and obtain appropriate protection from suppliers in transaction agreements (through guarantees / allowances, etc.).

For more information, please contact a member of the Competition and Regulated Markets group.

This article contains a general summary of developments and is not a complete or definitive statement of the law. Specific legal advice should be obtained where appropriate.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: European Union Antitrust / Competition Law

Epic Games vs. Apple: A $ 85 Billion Judgment?

Bristows

We have already published several articles on this dispute (on the original filing, the UK version and the EC antitrust complaint). Now, with the California judgment finally delivered, what’s the verdict?

Modernization of Austrian cartel law

Preslmayr Rechtsanwälte OG

The 2021 amendment aims to adapt the Austrian cartel and competition law to the requirements of this. In addition to the changes for mergers and market power …


Source link

With most of the negatives taken into account, the worst seems over for Max Financial investors

Max Financial Services (MFS) shares have fallen by a quarter in 2018 so far. Fears of a possible interruption of the merger between Max Life Insurance and Axis Bank to distribute the life insurance products of the first (the bank seeking to enter directly into the insurance sector) and a fundraising for the MFS ‘potential acquisition of IDBI Federal Life Insurance Company weighed on investor sentiment.

The worst seems to be over for MFS, however, as most of the negative news is tied to the stock price, analysts believe instead there could be gains from here. To consider …

MONTHLY STAR

Digital business standard

Business Standard Digital monthly subscription

Full access to premium product

Convenient – Pay as you go

Pay using Amex / Master / VISA credit cards and VISA debit cards only

Automatically renewed (subject to authorization from your card issuer)

Cancel any time in the future

Requires personal information

What do you get?

ON STANDARD COMMERCIAL DIGITAL

  • Unlimited access to all content on any device via browser or app.
  • Exclusive content, features, opinions and reviews – handpicked by our editors, just for you.
  • Choose 5 of your favorite companies. Receive a daily email with all updates on them.
  • Follow the industry of your choice with a daily newsletter specific to that industry.
  • Stay on top of your investments. Track the prices of stocks in your portfolio.
  • 18 years of archival data.

REMARK :

  • The product is a monthly automatic renewal product.
  • Cancellation policy: You can cancel at any time in the future without giving a reason, but 48 hours before your card is charged for renewal. We do not offer refunds.
  • To cancel, communicate from your registered email id and send the email with the cancellation request to assist@bsmail.in. Include your contact number for quick action. Requests sent by post to any other identifier will not be recognized or processed.

ANNUAL SMART

Digital business standard
Subscribe now and get 12 months free

Business Standard Premium Digital – 12 Months + 12 Months Free

Subscribe for 12 months and get 12 months free.

Unique and transparent registration to Business Standard Digital

Convenient – Payment once a year

Pay using an instrument of your choice – all credit and debit cards, Net Banking, payment wallets and UPI

Exclusive invitation to certain Business Standard events

What you get

ON STANDARD COMMERCIAL DIGITAL

  • Unlimited access to all content on any device via browser or app.
  • Exclusive content, features, opinions and reviews – handpicked by our editors, just for you.
  • Choose 5 of your favorite companies. Receive a daily email with all updates on them.
  • Follow the industry of your choice with a daily newsletter specific to that industry.
  • Stay on top of your investments. Track the prices of stocks in your portfolio.

REMARK :

  • The monthly term product is an automatic renewal based product. Once subscribed, subject to the authorization of your card issuer, we will automatically debit your card / payment instrument each month and renew your subscription.
  • In the annual term product, we offer both a product based on automatic renewal and a product not based on automatic renewal.
  • We do not reimburse.
  • No questions asked Cancellation policy.
  • You can cancel future renewals at any time, including immediately after subscription, but 48 hours before the next renewal date.
  • Subject to the above, cancel yourself by visiting the “Manage my account” section after logging in OR Send an email request to assist@bsmail.in from your registered email address and quoting your cell phone number.


Dear reader,

Business Standard has always strived to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that matter to you and have broader political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering has only strengthened our resolve and commitment to these ideals. Even in these difficult times resulting from Covid-19, we remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and cutting edge commentary on relevant current issues.
However, we have a demand.

As we fight the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more so that we can continue to provide you with more quality content. Our subscription model has received an encouraging response from many of you who have subscribed to our online content. More subscriptions to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of providing you with even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practice the journalism to which we are committed.

Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard.

Digital editor

First published: Mon March 26, 2018. 23:56 IST


Source link

Hyperion seeks financial investors – reports

The international group of insurance intermediaries Hyperion is said to be in preliminary talks for a sale of a minority stake.

According to Reuters sources, the london-based company called on investment bank goliath morgan stanley in its search for growth capital. The report states that a quarter of the shares will potentially be sold to a long-term investor such as a sovereign wealth fund.

Celebrate excellence in insurance. Join us at the Insurance Business Awards in Chicago.

A deal, which could value Hyperion at over £ 1 billion (over US $ 1.32 billion), would see all existing investors cut their stake. These include New York-based private equity firm General Atlantic, which has a stake of around 35%.

Morgan Stanley, Hyperion and General Atlantic have neither confirmed nor denied the report.

Hyperion CEO David Howden spoke to the Managing General Agents’ Association in London last July and spoke about the importance of product distribution.

“It’s all about distribution. If you fail to market your product, then don’t bother, ”Howden said. “We have to see how we can deliver value to the customer. What we see now is a delineation. Old things devalue and a new space opens up.

Hyperion – whose main brands are DUAL and Howden, as well as RKH Specialty and RKH Reinsurance – employs approximately 3,800 people and has offices in Europe, the Middle East, Asia-Pacific and the Americas.

Related stories:
DUAL North America Appoints New CEO, Passes GWP Milestone
DUAL Partners with Aspen Insurance to Expand Management Responsibility Products


Source link