By Cindy Valentine and Ravi Chopra King & Wood Mallesons’ London office
In our last issue of Made in Africa (Issue 14), we discussed increasing interest in permanent capital vehicles (PCVs), covering an overview of the key drivers for PCVs, limitations in respect of investor appetite and a high level comparison of PCV structures and
By Tim Taylor QC Chiz Nwokonkor King & Wood Mallesons
F
rom Abidjan to Tunis, arbitration centres are on the rise in Africa. This upward trend has mirrored the growth and gradual diversification of many African economies. The growth can be seen to be driven along sector lines, with the vast majority of disputes coming
作者：Ian Hargreaves Robert Bolgar-Smith 金杜律师事务所伦敦办公室
在
多个司法管辖区经营的公司长期面临遵守各国监管制度的重担，这些监管制度差异巨大、日新月异。然而监管机构还一直在扩大监管内容和管辖范围。
英国《2010年反贿赂法》和美国《1977年反海外腐败法》等法规在领土范围之外也广泛适用，因此，涉足英美的外国公司可能面临巨额罚款，其雇员和董事也可能面临刑事处罚。
监管制度适用范围的扩大带来了更为透明的合规文化。我们发现在交易工作的尽职调查阶段，对于反贿赂和合规要求（以下简称“反贿赂和合规尽职调查”）的重视度大幅上升。
全文阅读，请点击此处。
By Cameron Firth and Rahul Saha, King & Wood Mallesons
The Common Market of Eastern and Southern Africa (“COMESA”) is a supra-national organisation with 19 Member States, which are Burundi, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Namibia, Rwanda, Seychelles, Sudan, Swaziland, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
The COMESA Competition Commission (the “CCC”) commenced operations on 14 January 2013 and implements a supra-national merger control regime under the COMESA Competition Rules and COMESA Competition Regulations 2004 (the “Regulations”). In response to calls for greater clarity and legal certainty, COMESA published the Draft Merger Assessment Guidelines in April 2013 (the “Draft Guidelines”). While the Draft Guidelines provided some clarification on certain ambiguities in the Regulations, a number of issues remained unresolved.
Continue Reading Recent developments in COMESA merger control
By Stuart Bruce and Juliette Huard-Bourgois, King & Wood Mallesons’ London Office
Large-scale investments made in foreign jurisdictions face many risks, particularly when the investments are in countries with high levels of political and regulatory risk or developing judicial systems, as is often a concern for international investors entering certain African states. In such\ circumstances, investors are particularly concerned about the legal protections that are available to them during the life of their investments. Bilateral and multilateral investment treaties (“BITs”, “MITs”) have become the principle vehicle to overcome these challenges and mitigate the risks of government intervention.
BITs are international law instruments – treaties – agreed between two states. MITs are treaties agreed between more than two states. The purpose of BITs and MITs is to create a stable legal environment that fosters foreign direct investment. This is achieved by the “host state” (i.e. the state in which the investment is made) agreeing to provide certain guarantees and standards of protection to the investments of private foreign investors (i.e. those with the nationality of, or incorporation in, the “home state”). The investor is also provided with the opportunity to enforce its rights under the investment treaty against the host state through independent international investment arbitration. This is the major innovation of investment treaties, as traditionally it was only states that had standing to bring claims against one another.
Continue Reading Maximising Investment Protection in Africa: the Role of Investment Treaties and Investment Arbitration
