Category: Interviews

As a macroeconomic preamble, Guatemala is a developing country highly dependent on agricultural products, textile manufacturing, remittances sent by expats and a strong informal economy (which represents 22% of the overall GDP). The country enjoys a stable currency without drastic inflation, even with the COVID-19 crisis, the cumulative inflation rate is at 2.16% and has inflationary rhythm of 2.39%. This strong currency has had a negative impact on exports’ revenue, another extremely relevant economic sector.

Interestingly, on May 2020, Guatemala reported a 2.2% increase in exports compared to May 2019. Guatemala’s main export products are: i) textiles and apparel (10%); ii) cardamom (8.2%); iii) coffee (8.1%); iv) sugar (7.7%); and v) bananas (7.6%). These five products accrue for 41.6% of overall exports. On the import side, on May 2020 Guatemala reported a -9.5% decrease on imports compared to May 2019. This is mainly due to a -35% decrease on the imports of fuel and lubricants and a -17.3% decrease on consumer products. Although exports play a critical role, from 2018 to 2020 Guatemala has maintained a trade deficit of an averaged US$3,93bn. From a trade in services perspective, Guatemala’s balance of payments reflects an overall reversion of the trade deficit with a significant increase in the export of manufacturing services. However, this trade surplus rhythm went from 2013 until 2018 and was interrupted in 2019, when Guatemala reported a trade deficit of US$46.8m.

Despite these not so negative numbers, due to the current COVID-19 economic crisis, the Guatemalan Central Bank has adjusted its economic yearly growth projection from 3.5% to 0.5%-1.5% for 2020. From a microeconomic perspective, both social distancing and transit limitation dispositions rendered by the government have significantly impacted the services sector. For example, projections show a negative impact in hotels and restaurants with an estimated reduction of -24.3%, transportation with -14.7%, basic services (water, electricity and gas) with -9.4% and real estate services with -8.4%. Even though it may seem that the supply chains have not been substantially strained, they reported a turnover decrease of 20%-40% in March 2020. Depending on the length of the crisis, Guatemala could be facing a loss of 97,000 to 177,000 formal jobs.

To mitigate this crisis, the Guatemalan government has increased the national budget on Q19bn quetzales (around US$2.5bn) in order to create public funds for social and economic purposes that will inject liquidity to the economy. 80% of the Q19bn was financed by the emission of treasury bonds and the remaining 20% was covered via institutional loans. These measures have increased the fiscal deficit by 5.7% in comparison with 2019. Surely, this will have an impact on the macroeconomic indicators of the country. Furthermore, the government has also suspended: i) certain tax obligations reducing collection by 3.3% (which will intensify this fiscal deficit); ii) the payment of Bono 14, a yearly mandatory bonus that employers pay to employees. Such provisions, along with the social distancing and transit limitations guidelines, have impacted the conducting of business of our clients; influencing their business projections in a short- and long-term perspective. They turn to their trusted legal advisors and appreciate a holistic approach in their everyday challenges.

Within this context, the Guatemalan legal market is going through a very pressing and critical time. COVID-19 has, not only disrupted the way legal services are rendered, but also drastically shaped our clients’ current needs. The new reality has forced law firms to migrate to a full home office model, challenging the in-office stereotype enshrined in the legal profession.

As many law firms have moved to a mandatory home office, it is important to closely monitor the working culture of their employees and substantially rely on their technological platforms to enable a smooth transition. Before the COVID-19 outbreak, the home office standard had a limited and informal presence within the law practice. Many law firms allowed lawyers to work half a day from home, but it was not formally stated as an internal policy. At EY, employees have always enjoyed a mandatory policy requiring them to work from home at least once a week. This has nourished the home office culture and facilitated the migration to a full home office model overnight without compromising efficiency.

Our clients have constantly relied on our services in order to help them better understand the impact changing COVID regulations could have on their daily operations. We have created multidisciplinary service packages where EY’s legal division works closely with other service lines within our multidisciplinary teams, advising our clients to tackle most of their COVID necessities from a legal, financial and tax perspective. Within the legal element of this full package, we have detected a strong need for advice in the labor, contractual, tax and regulatory areas.

The M&A market has also been impacted by the current situation. The buy side M&A practice has observed dynamism triggered by big companies. Certain groups are using this crisis as an opportunity to expand their operations by acquiring smaller companies in distress for a better price. This has generated several opportunities for our transactional practice.

The COVID-19 crisis has brought uncertainty. It is an ongoing crisis with unpredictable effects continuously unfolding without a clear projection, affecting all sectors of the economy – and the legal market is no exception. However, with change as the only constant, organizations are forced to keep up with this roller coaster by rapidly evolving their internal administration and the manner in which they are addressing their clients’ needs. Survival depends on resiliency and the ability to adapt.

See more from EY at: www.ey.com

Fraudsters, money launderers, and corrupt government officials in Latin America (LATAM) have been running rampant, capitalizing on the coronavirus emergency. COVID-19 is posing unprecedented challenges to compliance professionals in LATAM, both in-house and external, for preventing, detecting, and reacting appropriately to compliance risks, especially in a remote working environment replete with financial strains, and massive surges in alerts caused by changes in the behavior of clients, employees and third parties.

Against this unprecedented backdrop, we present the following summary of recent compliance trends for organizations doing business in LATAM.

Additional corruption risks

With governments in the region allocating significant resources via expedited public procurement processes, the risk of corruption has dramatically increased in LATAM. Further, as pressures grow on sales representatives, consultants, and distributors to keep businesses afloat, individuals are tempted to bribe government officials. Not surprisingly, law enforcement agencies in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina and Brazil are conducting criminal investigations against a number of senior officials for participating in schemes to misappropriate emergency COVID-19 funds, or for engaging in the fraudulent purchase of ventilators, masks and other medical supplies.

Critically, multinationals face heightened exposure to corruption allegations, because such enterprises can potentially, in the course of regular business operations, inadvertently assist, sponsor, or provide financial, material or technological support for forms of corruption such as the misappropriation of public funds, collusion, opaque contracts, and overpricing. The risk is even higher when organizations interact with government officials, especially in situations involving government procurement and inspections, customs clearance, licensing and permitting and donations.

Ramifications for multinationals operating in LATAM of being involved in, or associated with, corrupt practices is significant. For example, they can be the target of US enforcement actions, including criminal investigations under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) for suspected involvement with bribery of foreign officials, and/or under the US Money Laundering Control Act for engaging in monetary transactions in corruption proceeds. Additionally, foreign companies believed to be involved in corruption can have their assets blocked under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act.

In fact, the US Government has continued to aggressively fight corruption in LATAM this year through criminal and civil penalties, in addition to economic sanctions. Notably, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has criminally charged individuals and corporations for FCPA violations in connection with the bribery of foreign officials in or from countries such as Uruguay, Brazil, Panama and Venezuela.

The US Government also recently released new compliance guidance to enhance its FCPA-related enforcement efforts globally. On 1 June 2020, the DOJ released its revised Guidance on Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs to further explain its assessments of the design, implementation, and effective operation of corporate compliance programs in criminal cases. And, a month later, the DOJ and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) released a new edition of their FCPA Resource Guide, which advises on prosecutorial guidelines in FCPA matters.

Also, the US Government has expanded its economic sanctions related to countries that are believed to be under corrupt regimes, such as Venezuela. Specifically, the US Government has sanctioned several individuals, entities, and vessels for operating in designated sectors of the Venezuelan economy, or for their attempts to evade US sanctions related to Venezuela.

Coronavirus-Related Fraud

Law enforcement agencies from Panama to Argentina are investigating criminals impersonating government agencies, international organizations, and healthcare facilities to solicit donations, steal personal information, or distribute malware (imposter scams); fraudsters misrepresenting that the products or services of publicly traded companies can prevent, detect, or cure the coronavirus (investment scams); companies selling unapproved or misbranded products that make false claims pertaining to COVID-19 or fraudulently marketing COVID-19-related supplies (product scams); individuals and entities stockpiling items in high demand to sell them at extremely high prices online and in person (price gouging); and insiders conducting transactions based on, or tipping others with, material non-public information about the negative impacts of COVID-19 on the financial performance of shares (insider trading). Business email, telework, and social media scams, ransomware attacks, and phishing email schemes have also proliferated in regions such as Puerto Rico, Guatemala and Mexico.

Organizations should take great care to familiarize themselves with emerging trends associated with coronavirus-related fraud identified by regional law enforcement agencies, in order to promptly detect and report criminal activity. In addition, businesses applying for relief programs offered by governments in LATAM should track and understand the eligibility requirements under local statutes, to prevent future civil and/or criminal liability for sanctioning benefits fraud.

Increase in Money Laundering (ML) And Financing of Terrorism (FT)

On April 8, 2020, the Financial Action Task Force of Latin America (GAFILAT) issued its ‘Statement on COVID-19 and its associated Money Laundering ML and FT risks.’ In it, GAFILAT cautioned that controls aimed at preventing and combating ML and FT in the region have been compromised by the pandemic, due to a decrease in compliance staff at reporting entities. GAFILAT also warned that criminal organizations are stepping up recruitment to support ML-related activities, and that pawn shop services, lenders, as well as informal financing are being used for ML and FT in the region now more than ever.

In fact, a number of law enforcement agencies in LATAM are witnessing an increase in the recruitment of people, sometimes under the pretext of legitimate employment, to receive deposits of illegal money into personal bank accounts; as well as an increase in illicit financial flows, including trade misinvoicing, tax evasion and the criminal smuggling of cash, gold, diamonds, and illicit goods across borders.

There is also a growing concern among Governments in LATAM of criminals using cryptocurrency in the midst of the pandemic to hide the illicit origin of funds stemming from blackmail, extortions, imposter and investment scams, and charities fraud.

Recommendations

While most government agencies in the region have granted some measure of regulatory relief to organizations upon considering the current circumstances, there is no ‘pandemic defense’ for violating applicable laws. Organizations should make every effort to meet their compliance obligations, such as filing suspicious activity reports and conducting comprehensive, risk-based, and integrated customer and third-party due diligence.

Given the additional risks caused by COVID-19 in LATAM, organizations should also update their risk profile to determine where vulnerabilities exist and enhance their controls, including customer and third-party due diligence procedures, around those vulnerabilities. For example, organizations should design and implement digital identity systems under the on-point guidance issued by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) on 6 March 2020. In it, the FATF explains several factors for assessing whether a digital identity system is sufficiently reliable and independent to conduct customer due diligence.

Lastly, organizations should make the best of technological resources to provide employees, customers, and third parties with training programs, together with mentoring and capacity building support, so all stakeholders are familiar with the red flags of fraud, corruption, and money laundering, and can take timely and appropriate remedial action.

See more from Diaz Reus at: diazreus.com

The following article contains an overview on Honduras and the impact that COVID-19 has had in different regions country-wide.

Honduras has a population of approximately nine million, and, like most countries, is struggling in many areas due to the pandemic. Honduras has one of the highest rates of COVID-19 infections in the Central American region.

The Honduran government has approved a set of measures that benefit the many affected industries, for example by granting limited economic relief to employees in the tourism and ground transportation sectors.

Regarding tax matters, an extension was granted for the deadline for filing the Annual Transfer Pricing Information Affidavit for the fiscal year 2019, which must be filed no later than 31 July 2020.

All calendar days are declared as non-working days for the period in which the declaration of emergency originated by the COVID-19, except those days that are necessary in order to comply with the obligations.

The deadlines for filing returns and paying sales tax for the months affected by the emergency decreed by the COVID-19 are extended to all taxpayers who have not carried out operations within the same period of the emergency. These will now be filed no later than ten working days after the end of the state of emergency.

Taxpayers who keep all their employees within the period from the declaration of the state of emergency arising from COVID-19 until December 2020, in respect the payment of wages and labor rights and who have not suspended or terminated their employment contracts, will be granted an additional special deduction from their gross income. Such deduction is equivalent to 10% calculated on the payment of wages and salaries in the months during which the state of emergency is decreed, which may be accounted for as a deductible expense for income tax purposes in the 2020 fiscal period. This benefit will not apply in cases where the employer terminates or suspends employment contracts.

On the labor law practices, COVID-19 has changed the normal operations from the government and private entities. As in other regions, ‘the new normal’ is the work from home solution, known as ‘Home Office’. Even though Honduras has no specific laws for Home Office, unlike many other countries, the Honduran Government issued an emergency decree which authorizes Home Office as a possibility to deliver work. This not only applies to private companies, but also to public employees. Honduran Law defines Home Office as the activity that is developed outside the facilities of the employer, using the information and communication technologies for the development of the work. Employees of any public or private entity can perform their work totally or partially at a distance from their workplace.

The obligations of employers and employees remain the same according to the Honduran Labor Code.

The return to work in Honduras has been very slow. An economic and labor reactivation has been established for specific periods of time of 45, 60 and up to 75 days divided into three regions distributed according to the amount of contagion by COVID-19. However, this may vary depending on the amount of contagion in such areas. Every Sunday since mid-March 2020, the Honduran government has issued curfews for one or two weeks, allowing only specific companies to operate normally with the now customary protocols.

Soon, Honduras will – on a provisional basis – apply a model that allows a percentage of employees to work from home and others to continue working from the office to protect the general population and promote savings in the operating expenses of employees, such as office supplies and utilities.

We also expect an increasing number of labor disputes in the Labor Administrative Offices due to the loss of jobs, which will likely generate direct intervention by the Supreme Court. Also, an increasing number of civil procedures is expected in relation to contractual breaches, especially in the real estate sector.

Even though this will be the biggest recession in Honduran history and it will definitely have strong effects on private entities, this will be an opportunity for the country and for foreign investors to navigate into more modern and improved industries and technologies such as telecommunications, digital marketplaces, cybersecurity, programming and technology, education, medical services, product distribution, convenience stores/supermarkets and a more modern agro-business sector. With local or foreign companies investing in these areas, Honduras will generate more job opportunities, and government incentives are expected to this effect.

Work related to debt restructuring has also increased in Honduras due to the resulting economic implications of the current situation. We expect a substantial number of companies to file insolvency and liquidation procedures. We have been advising clients in strategies that can support business continuity at all levels, on an integrated basis, with our other service lines covering all aspects of a business operation.

EY Law has not stopped working amid the devastating impact of the pandemic in Honduras. Our firm has applied Home Office for many years in this country and our timely implementation of the best technology has been a key issue to the success of our business and our clients in this difficult time.

See more from EY at: www.ey.com

Sanitary and economic crises are challenging Chile’s modernization. Great leadership to guide Chile in combining the right experiences from the past and adapting the country to new demands and reality will be needed to overcome social and economic difficulties Chile is currently facing.

Chile is generally regarded as South America’s most stable and prosperous country, renowned for competitiveness, political stability, economic freedom, and low perception of corruption. Its market-oriented economy, based on a neo-liberal model implemented in the 70’s, is characterized by a high level of foreign trade, open market policy and sound financial institutions and policy. Chile is member of the OECD, being the only South American member (together with Brazil) with a GDP worth USD$282.3bn, and a GNI of USD$15,010, similar to countries like Poland or Croatia. It has the second-lowest tax burden in the OECD and the government maintains a tight rein on fiscal spending, ensuring the highest credit rating among the major economies of Latin America. It is an active member of the Pacific Alliance, the principal regional multilateral trade platforms, and has bilateral free trade agreements with basically all of the major economies in the world.

Being primarily a mining-based economy, Chile enjoyed for several years high economic growth figures of about 5%. Growth rates were, pre-COVID-19 , between a more modest 2% and 4% and similar rates are expected for 2021.

Chilean economic policies favor foreign investments. FDI increased by 63% from USD$7bn to USD$11bn in 2019, sustained by investment in utilities, mining and services. FDI stocks reached USD$268bn, a rise of more than USD$100bn if compared to 2010. Investments are mainly oriented towards mining, finance and assurance, transportation, energy and manufacturing.

The coronavirus crisis and simmering discontent over inequality in a neo-liberal economic model have forced the conservative government under President Sebastian Pinera to adopt measures that both allow for political reforms and stimulate the economy. It announced a constitutional referendum which will be held in October, which may lead to a new model that minimizes social disparities and equalizes the distribution of wealth, and is in the process of implementing a fiscal stimulus package worth USD$11.8bn (4.7% of GDP) to increase productivity and innovation in key sectors.

The stimulus package covers, among other things, increased investment in infrastructure, implementing protective measures to protect workers against a loss of income, providing support through tax measures and the creation of social funds and state backed credits. In parallel, the parliament just adopted a controversial reform, not backed by the government, allowing citizens to have 10% of their pensions savings paid out as emergency coronavirus aid and is discussing legislation prohibiting utilities companies to cut basic services (water, gas, electricity and internet) in case of non-payment by their clients. The Central Bank of Chile, for its part, reduced the fiscal policy interest rate to 0.5% and announced an increase of its bond purchase program of USD$4bn as well as measures loosening regulatory credit requirements.

An injection of over USD$8bn is projected into water and other infrastructure, including short-term projects worth USD$150m starting in 2020. The projects include road maintenance, the building of irrigation systems, drinking water facilities, hospitals, ports, airports, and inland water management systems. Most of these projects will be carried out through private or public concessions and the Ministry of Public Works has already initiated the first tenders in the public health care sector worth USD$2.5bn.

The temporary tax measures, loosened credit requirements and government reliefs include, amongst others: 0% stamp tax rate for credit, financial and refinancing transactions (until October 2020); expenses incurred in Covid-19 related measures will be deductible for income tax purposes; deferral of VAT payable with 0% interest; deferral of annual income tax payment for small and medium sized companies; early return on income tax; deferral of payment of real estate tax; deferral of mortgage backed loans; flexibilization of loan maturities for small and medium-sized companies; increase of the credit capacity of the National Bank to mainly support citizens and micro businesses; creation of a social fund for micro businesses; state support to finance credits for micro businesses; and subsidies and socials fund for citizens without formal employment and unemployment insurance.

In addition, and in order to generate additional resources to the State, opposition deputies of the opposition presented a draft constitutional reform that would allow to establish a capital tax, a project currently under discussion in Congress and which has received strong criticism from experts, taking into account the lack of clarity of the tax to be established, lack of clarity in the determination of the associated tax base and the effects that taxes of this kind have generated in legislation, and that are associated with wealth and capital flight.

Employment and security related measures adopted or underway include: temporary unemployment insurance; the possibility for an employer and employee to agree on a suspension of the labor relationship or reduction of the work hours with a proportional reduction of the salary, cases in which the affected employees access to the benefits of their unemployment insurance; suspension of working contracts in case of a mandate by the competent authority with access to the same benefits; safety obligations to assure the health and wellbeing of the employees. New regulation on ‘teleworking’ (Law N° 21.220) was adopted regulating remote work and work by technological means, establishing rights and duties for workers and employers. The adopted measures have been a relief for employers and employees, as they intend to prevent the termination of the labor contracts and the increase of unemployment, and numerous companies has applied those measures. However, projections show that the companies will not be able to reintegrate all the suspended employees, and will have to dismiss them, in which case their unemployment insurances will be depleted, as they already make use of them during the suspensions.     

On the other hand, aid to large corporations has been difficult. Latam Airlines Group, Latin America’s largest air carrier, sought bankruptcy court protection in New York after the COVID-19 pandemic grounded flights across the region. The government has been reluctant to come to the rescue, very much like other governments in the region, although discussions are ongoing. These discussions seem to stall government support to other large corporations as well.

The implementation of these measures and the direct effects of the economic slowdown on businesses are providing legal practices with a vast stream of advisory work. Additional work comes from significant legislation or legal modifications. Most noteworthy, on a fiscal level, is the adoption in February of law N° 21.210, modernizing the tax legislation. It is aimed to grant certainty to taxpayers regarding audit processes, the possibility of conducting out-of-court transactions in respect of ongoing litigation, and the digitization of processes, among other things. Moreover, it introduced a new tax on digital services provided by suppliers residing abroad, so that depending on the tax quality of the local beneficiary of the service, these will be affected by either VAT (at a rate of 19%) or withholding tax. At the income tax level, a number of amendments are being made, the most relevant being the following: corporate tax of 27% for large companies and 25% for small and medium-sized companies under a simplified income determination system;  the is the possibility for small companies of opting for a ‘pass-through’ system, so that the rents generated by the company are taxed directly at the level of its owners. Other modifications relate to changes to the concept of accepted expenditure for tax purposes; incorporation of legal definitions for the determination of the possible establishment of a permanent establishment in Chile; the establishment of a new entity to support and guide taxpayers; and incorporation of a new tax or contribution applicable at the regional level for certain investment projects.

Other recent or upcoming modifications include a recent update of banking regulations, modernization of the criminal code, and strengthening of anti-trust and anti-corruption regulation, amongst others. In parallel, there is a growing emphasis on compliance, corporate governance, data protection and data privacy, stimulating companies and the business community to adopt higher standards of corporate governance and business ethics. 

See more from Schwencke & Cia at: www.schwenckecia.com

According to official figures, Nicaragua has maintained a growth rate of 4.7% and 4.5% in 2016 and 2017 respectively. However, due to the social and political unrest that the country has experienced since April 2018, the economy has slowed down. According to the Central Bank of Nicaragua, for 2018 the economy contracted by 5.016%.

Despite this, Nicaragua offers significant tax incentives in many industries, including import duty exemptions, property tax incentives and income tax relief. The country has a well-established free trade zone regime with significant foreign investments in textiles, car harnesses, medical equipment, call centers and back-office services. The construction sector has also attracted significant investments, driven by large infrastructure and housing projects, as well as by the telecoms sector, resulting in increased coverage of mobile telephony and broadband.

In reference to the current crisis derived from the arrival of COVID-19, the State of Nicaragua has not issued pronouncements or decreed the application of labor measures. For this reason, the employment sector has been implementing the tools or measures established by the Labor Code for events of force majeure and that affect the survival of workplaces. The main measures are:

1. Collective suspension of employment contracts.
2. Individual suspension by mutual agreement for a specified period.
3. Cancellation of employment contracts as a result of the company’s request for definitive cease.
4. Partial hiring to continue operations with a minimum of workers.
5. Bilateral vacation enjoyment agreement between employer and worker.
6. Reduction of shifts. The employer may decide on a shorter working day without a salary reduction.

Additionally, telecommuting is largely being applied despite the fact that it is not regulated by current labor legislation. Telecommuting can be implemented taking into consideration the same minimum rules and rights and guarantees for the benefit of workers established in local laws.

When it comes to the post-pandemic job market opportunities, it is very difficult to be able to predetermine Nicaragua’s short-term future. Many companies have been reducing operations. Despite this, the Government of Nicaragua has not decreed any special regulation, nor has it been made known if there is a plan to alleviate the situation in the short or medium term.

There are companies that, having access to information technologies, have been able to adapt and face new challenges. E-commerce platforms are in high growth due to their legal possibilities to operate in the local market.

In the financial sphere, the board of directors of the Superintendency of Banks and other Financial Institutions (SIBOIF), issued a statement in June establishing temporary conditions that financial Institutions can grant to debtors of all types of credits in all sectors of the economy.

The temporary conditions range from:

• The deferral of payments.
• Extending the original payment term.
• Granting grace periods of up to 6 months for principal and interest.
• Conducting an assessment of an individual case based on the institution’s internal policies.

This is subject to certain classification criteria of the portfolio or debt. All requests for temporary conditions have to be made before 31 December 2020.

Additionally, the crisis has forced the business sector to adopt e-commerce modalities and measures, which are not particularly regulated in local legislation. However, the legal basis of e-commerce is found in the political constitution on the principles of the right to protection and respect for privacy and freedom of business, that serve as a basis for contractual parties to freely agree on their contracts, provided that they do not contravene express law, morality or good customs.

In this sense, despite the fact that Nicaragua does not have legislation related to e-commerce, anyone who wishes to undertake contracting and activities related to e-commerce will have this possibility with public limitations, such as those related to consumer rights and data privacy.

The rights of consumers are regulated in Law No. 842 ‘Law for the Protection of the Rights of Consumers and Users’ and its regulations, contained in Executive Decree No. 36-2013. The protection of personal data is regulated in Law No. 787 ‘Law on Protection of Personal Data’ and its regulations, contained in Executive Decree No. 36-2012.

In the current circumstances, from the contractual standpoint, it is favorable to incorporate and apply the ‘rebus sic stantibus’ principle within the clause of the contracts in force and those that will be formalized in the future, since the crisis has had a direct impact on economic stability and compliance of contractual obligations. This leads to reviews of the repercussions and effects that the pandemic may cause to each of the contractual parties, with the objective of avoiding breach of contracts and finding healthy alternatives to face contractual obligations, particularly in service and lease contracts.

At EY LAW Nicaragua, we are currently advising all those companies and investors to adjust to changes in the current times and providing our support in advising and accompanying them in all legal and regulatory processes related to the above aspects.

See more from EY at: www.ey.com

Though not exactly a household name, Sergei Magnitsky has come to symbolize the American and Western efforts to combat foreign corruption and money laundering across the globe. Understanding these recent efforts is critical for general counsel operating in international markets.

Sergei Magnitsky was a Russian tax accountant who worked closely with one of Russia’s largest foreign investment firms. Magnitsky eventually uncovered a highly complex $230m fraud, whereby Russian officials used forged documents to claim ownership in the foreign fund and then sued the Russian government for millions in ‘overpaid taxes’, upon which the Russian courts speedily agreed and ‘repaid’. Magnitsky sued the Russian state and paid dearly: he was arrested at home in front of his children, imprisoned, contracted gall stones and pancreatitis, and was eventually beaten to death. What followed was an aggressive series of anti-corruption measures by the United States, the first of which included the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012. Commonly referred to as the Magnitsky Act, the law imposed economic sanctions on Russian officials thought to be responsible for his assassination.

So why is this so important for general counsel?  First, the scope. The original iteration of the Magnitsky Act froze Western assets of specific Russian oligarchs and officials, including finances and real estate, and also barred entry into the United States. But the Magnitsky Act has since evolved far beyond the borders of Russia. On 23 December 2016, the United States passed the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act (Global Magnitsky Act), which authorizes the president to impose economic sanctions on human rights abusers and corrupt government officials anywhere in the world.

Second, the Magnitsky Act and its global successor are about money, which is enforced on the international stage through economic sanctions. Economic sanctions are used by the United States to accomplish foreign policy and national security goals. The administration and enforcement of these sanctions are delegated to the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), a financial intelligence agency that operates under the US Department of the Treasury. Basically, economic sanctions are imposed on countries, governments or individuals that are hostile to US interests. The Cuban embargo and the Iran nuclear-related sanctions are probably the most famous examples of these sanctions. OFAC regulates activity within the Global Magnitsky Act and Magnitsky Act under 31 C.F.R. Parts 583 and 584, respectively.

General Counsel must therefore maintain a basic understanding as to how these laws operate in practice. An individual or entity sanctioned under the Magnitsky Act or the Global Magnitsky Act is summarily included in the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) List, a ‘blacklist’ maintained by OFAC. This occurs after an administrative investigatory process where the subject individual or entity has very limited opportunities, if any, to intervene in order to avoid being sanctioned.

Once an individual or entity is blacklisted by OFAC, all of its assets in the United States, or in possession or control of US persons, are blocked and cannot be dealt with in any way. A Magnitsky sanction is the equivalent of a blanket prohibition to engage in any transactions with the sanctioned individual or entity. These sanctions can be seen already, for example, in Latin America. In 2018, the United States used these sanctions to target government officials in Latin America, most recently against Nicaraguan officials of the Ortega regime (including Ortega’s wife, Vice President and First Lady Rosario Murillo) accused of committing serious human rights violations during the recent anti-government protests where hundreds of Nicaraguans where killed. And in 2017, the parent company for famed jeweler Cartier reached a $334,800 civil settlement with the United States after it shipped jewelry to Shuen Wai Holding Limited, an entity in Hong Kong that had been added to the SDN list in 2008. In 2018, OFAC added 17 Saudis to the SDN list following the killing of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

In light of these enforcement frameworks, here are some of the things that general counsel for companies involved in international business need to be aware of:

Companies engaged in international transactions must exercise great care to refrain from doing business with any individual or entity subject to Magnitsky sanctions. To complicate things further, OFAC has said that, pursuant to its so-called ‘50 Percent Rule’, the sanctions are also applicable to any entities directly or indirectly owned 50% or more in the aggregate by a sanctioned individual or entity. Even if the blacklisted individual or entity does not have an ownership interest in another entity, OFAC has warned that the mere fact that a sanctioned person is representing a non-sanctioned entity (albeit in a non-personal capacity) may lead to a violation.

Companies are strictly liable for violating these sanctions. ‘We did not know’ no matter how sincere, is not a defense. The penalties could be very harsh, including significant fines and imprisonment. Civil penalties of $295,141 or twice the amount of the transaction could be imposed under the Magnitsky Act. The Global Magnitsky Act proscribes penalties of up to 20 years in prison and a $1m fine. The Magnitsky sanctions make for risky business in many areas of the world.

Particular industries could be more susceptible to being identified under the Global Magnitsky Act. One general rule of thumb for identifying at-risk industries is FCPA compliance. Industries susceptible to Global Magnitsky Act violations often mirror those FCPA violations, such as energy, oil and gas, pharmaceuticals, and telecommunications.

Countries with a history of public corruption and human rights abuses warrant heightened scrutiny.

Strong compliance measures ensure adequate prevention and a swift reaction when a violation occurs. Like FCPA compliance, GCs should oversee a risk-based approach tailored to the business operations. And strong compliance begins with comprehensive screening.

Use experienced third-parties. Commercially available screening tools can aid effective screening. Some entities, particularly those owned or represented by a sanctioned individual or entity, can be harder to trace, because their names may not be included in OFAC’s SDN List.

These laws leave little room for error (and zero excuses). Significant investments in a robust compliance program that can conduct the most comprehensive due diligence available, while timely and expensive, will often pale in comparison to the price of violations that could have been avoided. 

See more from Polsinelli at: www.polsinelli.com

I am a lawyer with a master’s degree in Economic Law and have been working in the telecommunications sector for over 22 years. During these years I have witnessed innumerable modifications and changes in the telecommunications sector, and, at the same time, I have had the privilege of leading Telefónica’s legal team in Colombia from 2004 until today. Telefónica is a Spanish multinational with operations across Latin America in places such as Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, Ecuador,  Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay.

When it comes to the impact of COVID-19 in Telefónica´s legal team, I have to say that has not been as shocking as you might think at first glance. Indeed, before the COVID-19 outbreak, Telefonica had already implemented mechanisms to reconcile personal and professional life enabling tools such as teleworking one day a week. The COVID-19 pandemic has allowed us to expand such tools and to continue with the day-to-day business in a comprehensive teleworking environment.

Despite finance playing a role, legal also played a massive role with providing support and advice during this time. The finance and legal teams worked together to obtain the required approvals. We did a merger as well. We experienced a lot of challenges during this period. The legal team has done a great job. We have been very cohesive and have been working together, showing a high level of commitment, producing very high quality work.

To monitor the effectiveness of our employees we have set up weekly meetings. Every Monday we have a meeting and divide up the responsibilities we have for that week. At the end of the week we review everything and check in on our work developments and duties. I think communication is the main thing at this time. Not only with our immediate reports, but also checking in with our whole team. Meetings also help us keep in touch on a personal level. It gives everybody the space to explain what they are doing and how concerned they are on a personal level. We try and do some activities to check in on the emotional wellbeing of the team.

However, when doing huge amounts of work, the fact is you cannot be at every meeting all the time, so, you have to relinquish control and empower employees. You have to give them space. We want everybody to be part of the operations of the company. For example, we have adopted different procedures to make us more flexible with reviewing contracts, signing agreements, negotiating, and have adjusted procedures to obtain approvals inside the company. As a result, we became more agile and effective as a team without losing quality. We have improved the way we work from long distance.

I have engaged my team in activities that focus on personal wellbeing. I have tried to strike a balance between focusing on work, without losing focus on life as it is, we are mothers, wives and so on. So, it is important to promote a balanced approach where everything is not just about work. I believe this has emotionally helped our team.

At the beginning of lockdown, we had to do very long hours, but at some point, it became evident that we could not continue that way. At the very beginning we were all committed to supporting all company needs to adjust the operational continuity. Eventually, we realized it was not possible to sustain those working hours. We started to set boundaries and set work times, it was important to respect weekends and lunchtimes.

It is important to acknowledge everything has now gone virtual. As a telecommunication company, we have access to technology to support our work: technological tools for contracts, signing documents, litigation proceedings, virtual hearings. When it comes to legal tech we are not hesitant, we want to keep working and delivering high standards and are committed to moving in the way the company needs.

Specifically for us, Microsoft Teams has been very useful. It is so easy to use, this application allowed us to do our meetings, review documents and share presentations in a simple way. In addition, we have also introduced a contract software called Webdox. This software helps us keep track of all the negotiations and approvals inside the company. It helps us identify the legal areas that we are involved in. Our work as lawyers has a lot to do with negotiations and meetings. We can keep track of the different areas of the company – these are the clients we serve. We have implemented this software to streamline business operations, so we can deliver contracts and services to different parts of the business faster.

When looking at alternate dispute resolution, mediation is always preferred, if that is not possible, we always prefer arbitration over litigation. During this quarantine period, all litigation proceedings were suspended, but arbitration continued virtually, as well as mediation. During this period we reviewed all our litigation and we tried to mediate some of our litigation cases. As a result of this process, we were able to find mediation solutions to some of our litigation cases. As of 1 July, courts opened again.

Basically, all of our contracts have an arbitration clause. In Colombia we have confidence in arbitration and the way justice is provided. Arbitrators tend to be specialised in a particular area and can have more knowledge in a specific field. In contrast, litigation in Colombia can take years. When using arbitration, we are basically fast-tracking cases to get an end result.

Overall, in-house legal teams need to be more business minded and present across all business’ operations. They need to be working hand in hand with different areas of the company. They have to be aware of the legal issues and, also understand the practical business implications of legal decisions. In the future, we have to be more present in the groundwork, be more agile and flexible. We have to be open to redefining the way we work and the way we approach our internal clients.

Nowadays, it is not just about having legal knowledge, it is also about how to approach people and how to achieve goals as a team. It is extremely important to become more business minded – you have to know your company in order to serve them.

Introduction

As the COVID-19 pandemic creates significant uncertainty and unique challenges in the global investment environment, its impact on Latin America presents several opportunities for private equity funds. In navigating the new investment landscape with respect to their Latin American investment programs, there are number of corporate, finance and tax issues PE funds should consider before proceeding with Latin American acquisitions or increasing investment in existing portfolio assets. This article discusses certain tax structuring, transfer pricing, and tax compliance considerations relevant for PE funds holding Latin American portfolio assets or expanding their investment in Latin America.

Tax Structuring Considerations

Acquisition of Distressed Latin American Companies

PE funds are seeking acquisitions of distressed Latin American companies or those requiring capital infusions to survive the economic downturn. For example, targets include, among others, family-held companies with shareholders seeking liquidity or diversification, companies unable to restructure their debt or continue with an existing IPO plan, and real estate holding companies with immediate cash needs but steady revenue flows.

In structuring acquisitions of Latin American targets, PE funds must identify the appropriate vehicles through which to invest. For example, a PE fund might analyze whether it should establish a tax treaty structure to effect an acquisition. In a private equity context, the primary tax consideration for most fund managers is taxation on exit (ie capital gains tax). For example, among others, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Mexico generally impose, with some exceptions, tax upon the sale of shares by nonresident investors. Accordingly, funds might establish a Spanish or Dutch investment structure because of Spain and the Netherlands’ significant tax treaty network in Latin America, or structures with transparent investment vehicles such as Canadian limited partnerships (eg Alberta or Ontario) and certain Luxembourg entities. Funds might also consider establishing local investment vehicles to mitigate taxation on exit, such as Brazilian Fundos de Investimento em Participações (FIPs), which can eliminate Brazilian capital gains tax on exit (although such structure has been scrutinized by the Brazilian tax authorities in recent years). Fund sponsors are rightly concerned that exit taxes in Latin America can reduce a fund’s IRR, especially if some taxes are not creditable against taxes of fund investors.

Tax due diligence is as important as ever. Among other things, deal teams should carefully examine items such as operating loss carryovers, permanent establishment risk for multinational targets, tax compliance, accrued and outstanding income, payroll, and VAT tax liabilities etc. Also, a target’s receipt of government subsidies, credits, or other assistance in response to the global pandemic could restrict its ability to pay dividends or even alter the timing of a future exit. If indeed a target has received such assistance, funds must consider whether the proposed acquisition will jeopardize continued assistance or if a sale or change of control will require immediate repayment of such assistance.

Debt Restructuring and Acquisition of Portfolio Company Debt

Dealing with portfolio company debt is another area that has recently received significant attention. In order to preserve cash to meet operational needs, leveraged portfolio companies have developed strategies for managing their debt service, including working with lenders to obtain a combination of additional borrowings, forbearance and standstill agreements, and debt covenant waivers.

In order to ease the process with lenders, some PE funds have chosen to request capital calls to fund their struggling portfolio companies, while others have lent to their Latin American portfolio companies. Other PE fund groups have instead opted to acquire their portfolio companies’ third party debt. In certain cases, funds seek to acquire the debt at a discounted price and sell it at a premium when market conditions improve, while in other cases, the motivation is simply to maintain some modicum of control over a portfolio company’s debt service. Some funds have considered raising credit funds and/or establishing a special structure for that purpose, such as an Irish intermediation structure.

PE funds must address the Latin American tax consequences arising from each alternative for both the fund and the portfolio company. Some key considerations include:

• Cancellation of debt considerations. As part of a debt restructuring, portfolio companies must consider whether income or other taxes are imposed on any amount of cancelled debt.
• Deductibility of interest payments. To the extent a PE fund lends to a portfolio company or acquires its third party debt, the fund should consider whether the interest paid by the portfolio company is a tax deductible expense, particularly if the fund and the portfolio company are considered to be related or if the fund is organized in a low-tax jurisdiction as determined by local law.
• Withholding taxes. Withholding taxes imposed on interest payments must also be analyzed. Most Latin American jurisdictions, including Argentina, Colombia, and Mexico, impose withholding tax on interest paid to nonresident lenders. An income tax treaty may reduce the withholding tax rate for PE funds using a treaty platform for their Latin American investments. Spain and the Netherlands, for example, are jurisdictions commonly used by PE funds (and other investors) for investing in Latin America.

In addition to the considerations listed above, PE funds must also address transfer pricing concerns, particularly as it relates to whether the terms and conditions of related party debt is arm’s-length and otherwise compliant with local transfer pricing rules.

Transfer Pricing

Reviewing, updating and, if needed, revising transfer pricing arrangements is a method by which portfolio companies may preserve cash and otherwise manage tax positions. For instance, adherence to the arm’s-length principal, in conjunction with contractual provisions in intercompany agreements (e.g., force majeure), permits related parties to adjust their intercompany arrangements to reflect economic reality. For example, in the absence of an advantageous income tax treaty, many Latin American jurisdictions impose significant withholding taxes on service payments, royalties, and management/monitoring fees paid abroad. Analyzing existing arrangements may yield opportunities to mitigate or otherwise restructure the payments, resulting in potential tax savings.

In any case, as Latin American governments seek to raise revenue through taxes and increased tax audits, portfolio companies should ensure their transfer pricing documentation and cost-sharing policies are compliant with local country transfer pricing requirements and of course, reality. They should examine whether their transfer pricing has reacted to supply chain and operational changes brought on by the pandemic, and whether such changes require remedial changes to internal pricing of goods and services. While Chile, Colombia, and Mexico are the only Latin American members of the OECD, the domestic legislation of a number of Latin American jurisdictions contain many of the same or similar principles set forth in OECD transfer pricing guidance. For those Latin American jurisdictions that do not explicitly adopt OECD transfer pricing principles, such principles may serve as secondary or supplemental guidance in interpreting domestic transfer pricing legislation (eg Brazil).

In assessing transfer pricing risk, portfolio companies should examine their current intercompany transaction flow and supply chain and corresponding intercompany agreements. Mature portfolio companies with older transfer pricing policies may discover their intercompany transaction flow and supply chain has evolved over time, such that their intercompany agreements do not accurately reflect current reality. For example, the method of compensation (eg profit split, cost-plus etc) originally provided for in an agreement may no longer be appropriate. Similarly, an intercompany agreement may not describe services actually provided between related parties. Because it is common for government auditors to request intercompany agreements in connection with a transfer pricing audit, such auditors can seize on the fact that intercompany agreements are not being followed, are otherwise inconsistent with reality, or do not even exist.

Tax Compliance

As Latin American governments continue developing strategies for battling the pandemic, they are also developing strategies for an economic recovery. While the pandemic’s true cumulative economic impact is still very much unknown, past economic downturns show us that PE funds can expect to see increased audit activity within their portfolio of Latin American companies.

Accordingly, PE funds should work closely with the management of their Latin American portfolio companies to ensure they have a robust tax compliance program in place such that they are well positioned to defend against potential tax audits or avoid potential penalties of lax internal pricing and arm’s-length documentation. They should consider and reassess material uncertain tax positions that, if successfully challenged, could result in significant tax liability and substantial penalties.

Conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic will continue to generate significant challenges for many Latin American businesses, some of which sought additional funding and credit facilities from their shareholders and lenders, while others concluded filing for reorganization or bankruptcy is their only viable alternative. PE sponsors with Latin American investment programs face substantial challenges, but many others find investment opportunities notwithstanding the current economic environment. Addressing tax structuring, transfer pricing, and tax compliance considerations in Latin America is an important part of overcoming inevitable obstacles and seizing on new investment opportunities.

During COVID-19, the Peruvian government has approved transitory regulations that, by making the management of labor relations more flexible, have allowed the continuity of labor relationships. For example, the Emergency Decree extraordinarily allows employers to apply leave without payment to its employees, provided that it is approved by the Ministry of Labor. In addition, regulations for remote work have been issued, which have allowed employers to vary form face-to-face provision of services to home office, with a less rigid regulation than that of telework, which already existed in our legislation.

In any case, this flexibility has a temporary scope. Labor relations in Peru are mainly ruled by the provisions contained in the Labor Productivity and Competitiveness Law and by the labor case law. Peruvian labor laws and, above all, labor case law, have quite a protectionist slant toward employees. For example, according to Peruvian legislation, temporary hiring is an exception and, as such, it has various requirements for its validity, which are also strictly controlled by the authorities. In addition, the constitutional case law has determined that an employee can request his or her replacement in the event of an unjustified dismissal.

In fact, this is confirmed by the results of the World Economic Forum. The Global Competitiveness Report 2019, in which, of the 141 countries analyzed worldwide, Peru is in position 134 in terms of job placement and employees’ dismissal.

In addition, during the employment relationship, Peruvian legislation has provided several benefits to which employees in private activity are entitled:

(i) Remuneration: Employees shall receive a minimum wage of S/ 930.00 (Nine Hundred and Thirty and 00/100 Soles) if rendering services for an ordinary working day, (not exceeding of eight daily hours or 48 monthly hours). Reduced working hours shall be proportionally paid.

(ii) Family allowance: Family allowance shall be paid to employees having children under 18 years old or until the age of 24 if they are studying at college or university. The employees are entitled to receive an amount equivalent to 10% of the minimum wage (currently S/ 93.00), irrespective of the number of children the employee has).

(iii) Compensation for length of services: The purpose of this benefit is to serve as coverage in case of termination of employment. It is equivalent to 9.72% of the monthly remuneration approximately. It shall be paid in May and November by the employer in a bank account in the name of the employee.

(iv) Legal bonuses in July and December: Employees are entitled to the payment of two bonuses during the year, each one equal to one monthly salary. The bonuses are paid one in July and one in December, proportionally to the full months worked during the period.

(v) Extraordinary bonuses: Employees are entitled to the payment of two extraordinary bonuses each year, payable on July and December, equivalent to 9% of the monthly salary.

(vi) Profit sharing: This benefit is mandatory for employers with twenty employees or more.

Employees have the right to receive a percentage of the annual income before taxes of the employer.

Depending on the economic activity of each employer the percentage to be distributed among the employees of a company varies between 5% and 10%. The annual amount to be received by each employee may not exceed 18 monthly remunerations.

(vii) Mandatory life insurance: A life insurance policy must be hired by the employer at its cost and expense in favor of all its employees.

Employees are also entitled to paid leave such as weekly rest, maternity leave, paternity leave, sick leave, and vacations. Regarding vacations, employees are entitled to 30 calendar days of paid vacations per year. Once a complete year of service is achieved, the employee must use his or her 30 days of vacations within the subsequent year of accruing the right.

Otherwise, if this does not occur, the employee will earn the right to an additional remuneration and a severance as a compensation for not having taken vacations on time, equal to a monthly remuneration for each one.

On the other hand, employers also have important obligations regarding safety and health at work. Indeed, employers have a legal prevention duty and therefore must devote all their efforts to preventing occupational accidents or diseases, complying with obligations such as training of employees, establishment of a committee on safety and health at work, and risk assessment, among others. Safety and Health at Work is a fundamental aspect for organizations in Peru.

Accordingly, an employee can only be dismissed if there is a cause established by law, related to his/her conduct or capacity, and duly proved. In addition, a formal procedure provided by law must be carried out. In that sense, if a dismissal without a proven cause is carried out, according to our labor case law, the employee could claim: (i) his/her reinstatement to his/her job position; or, (ii) the payment of the mandatory severance for arbitrary dismissal, at their sole discretion.

The authorities in charge of verifying that employers comply with their obligations are SUNAFIL (for its acronym in Spanish) and the judiciary. Indeed, SUNAFIL, through an inspection procedure verifies whether there was a breach and, if applicable, can impose a fine on the employer. Also, employees can pursue a claim to the judiciary to assert any right that has been violated. It is important to note that both are independent routes and it is not necessary to go to one before the other; however, it is usual for employees to request an inspection from SUNAFIL before going to court, since SUNAFIL’s final resolution could serve as a means of proof with important institutional support.

According to our migratory and labor regulations, in order for a foreigner to provide services in Peruvian territory, he or she requires a work visa issued by the migratory authority and an employment contract duly registered before the Ministry of Labor. For this, prior to the effective provision of services in Peru, an immigration procedure must be initiated before the immigration authority (either from Peru or from abroad). It is important to mention that there are certain countries with multilateral agreements with Peru (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia and Ecuador) and, therefore, there are particular rules for obtaining a work visa.

Finally, in Peru, unionization and the right to strike are constitutionally recognized rights. In this sense, labor unions activity has special protection and is increasingly active in Peru. Unions are representative, especially in sectors such as mining or the industrial sector, and increasingly, they are affiliated with federations that seek to act as interlocutors.

See more from Vinatea & Toyama at: www.vinateatoyama.com

Funding Landscape in Latin America

A lot is different in Latin America, compared to the Anglo-American world. This is also the case as regards litigation or arbitration funding. The language to start with, civil law v common law, duration of court proceedings, popularity of arbitration, the price of legal advice and much more. Whereas litigation funding has a long history in the UK and in the United States, its twin brother – arbitration finance – is still in its infancy in Latin America.

However, the trend in many (not all) Latin American jurisdictions is obvious. Arbitration has become more interesting as proceedings appear to be more reliable, duration more predictable and international enforceability – relatively –easy. The legal skillset is also at hand.

All this led to the establishment of local third party funders in the past years like Leste in Brazil, Lexfinance in Peru or specialised Carpentum Capital operating out of Switzerland but with lawyers on the ground in LatAm. Most recent Hakamana was set up in Chile. These funders are perfectly suited to serve growing local demand and complement or replace bigger Anglo-American investors, usually only funding investor state disputes or other very pricy cases.

Whereas demand is increasing, awareness of arbitration finance in Latin America is still very low. And even if the very basics are known, there are a couple of misconceptions around.

The biggest being that arbitration funding would only be required by clients, lacking of resources to finance a legal proceeding. This is a very traditional view of third party funding and may indeed be the case in jurisdictions who have a very young market in that respect. In the US according to a study on litigation funding from 2019, less than 30% of clients revert to litigation funding for that reason. The vast majority makes use of it as a financing tool in order to hedge litigation risks, outsource legal costs or free up working capital.

Another common misunderstanding is that a funder would acquire the litigation rights, which is not the rule (but it is possible under certain circumstances, eg by way of monetizing an award). Funders usually assume the cost risk. All expenses relating to arbitrators, arbitral institution, experts or law firms are borne by the funding partner up to an amount of committed capital, which is agreed beforehand. In case of a successful outcome, the result is shared – it could be a percentage of the result, or a multiple of the investment or a combination. If the case is lost, investment is also gone. Hence the risk is high, which is why only a fraction of cases will pass the scrutiny.

The Process

In order to survive this process, you should first know, how it works. Each investor may break its process in to various stages, but it always comes down to three crucial steps:

At the outset confidentiality will be agreed, conflicts must be cleared and the funder will check whether a potential investment would be in line with internal guidelines or appetite. Specific proceedings may be ruled out, minimum or maximum investments set and ethical standards applied. That’s the easy part.

In a second round essential documentation is shared, such as basic contracts, correspondence, legal opinions, financial information of counterparty, expert valuations etc. Also important: the budget of the case with an anticipated cash-flow. This phase is the internal due diligence or ‘first level’ review. The funder will decide, if it can invest in the case and calculate on what terms it would do so potentially. If positive, a non-binding offer is made and the client signs a term sheet. At this stage the investor gains exclusivity to pursue the investigations for a certain time frame. Most cases won’t pass this stage either because the probability of success is not high enough, realistic outcome is lower than expected, the counterparty not sufficiently solvent or the case may take too long.

If terms are agreed in principle and no smoking gun detected, the funder will spend even more time and money on an external due diligence or ‘second level’ review. Another lawyer than the client’s one will opine on various aspects of the case. If claim evaluation is an issue, an additional expert may be required to review damage reports, or arbitrators for a specific industry may be asked to share their view on custom and practise in that industry. All this should happen in a speedy and transparent fashion, as the client will be eager to get the final approval for his arbitration finance.

In theory the whole process should take a couple of weeks only, but depending on the complexity and value of the case it may easily take months. Don’t be shy to ask your funder for transparency and commitment to timelines.

The Funder’s View and How to avoid Pitfalls

On the other hand, you can also accelerate the process of arbitration finance in Latin America, if you know what the investor will look at.

You may be surprised, but the merits of the case are not the core issue. It will just be assumed that you don’t come around with a hopeless case, invented stories or a useless lawyer.

It’s the economy of the case. Starting with the collectability and ending with the cost-to-demand ratio. Your case may be as good as it gets on paper, but if you pursue this against a soon to become insolvent party, it does not really help. The quantification of a realistic outcome, rarely equalling the demand, comes next.

The funder will also look at a worst case budget and how it will be paid out. Worst case in our world not being a lost arbitration or litigation, but a proceeding going through annulment and up to execution. Too many lawyers or general counsels omit to think beyond the first award.

Therefore and in order to shorten the time up to a positive funding decision, you should:

• target the right investor. Ideally someone with the appetite for your arbitration in terms of size and jurisdiction as well as understanding for the local legal culture;
• think twice (at least) about the economics of the case. Potential outcomes, realistic result, duration and cash-flows are to be considered;
• work with a capable lawyer having a good track record in the legal sector at stake;
• have crucial documentation at hand and avoid piecemeal production of documents;
• be transparent and disclose the good, the bad and the ugly. Rest assured that the investor will find the weak spots anyway.

If you understand the process and know that the investor tackles a claim from a slightly different angle, arbitration finance in Latin America or elsewhere will be no secret science, but an accessible tool of dispute resolution. 

See more from Carpentum Capital at: carpentum-capital.com