What you need to know regarding the ICSID third draft of rule changes
On 16 August 2019, ICSID released its latest proposals for amendment of its procedural rules for the resolution of international investment disputes. The key changes are:
- Expanding the requirements as to what should be included in a Request for ICSID Arbitration (including an estimate of the damages sought, an indication that the requesting party has complied with the conditions of the instrument of consent for submissions of the dispute). This may require a party to state whether, for example, any provisions regarding limitation periods or cooling-off periods have been complied with.
- A move towards the electronic filing of documents, rather than paper filing.
- More comprehensive provisions regarding the disclosure of the details of third-party funding (which now includes a donation or a grant).
- Document discovery is not automatic the Tribunal should consider whether to have discovery and its scope in the first session.
- A provision on security for costs, requiring tribunals to consider all relevant circumstances before deciding whether to order security for costs including the partys ability and willingness to comply with an adverse decision on costs, any effect of providing security for costs on the partys ability to pursue a claim and its conduct. The involvement of a funder may be raised as a relevant circumstance but is not enough in and of itself to warrant an order for security for costs.
- A provision that consent to publish the Award shall be deemed to have been given if no party objects in writing to such publication within 60 days after the dispatch.
- New guidelines for determining confidential and protected information.
ICSID Member States are meeting in November 2019 to consult on the latest draft proposals. Amendments to the ICSID Convention Rules require the approval of two-thirds of Member States, and a simple majority in the case of the Additional Facility Rules, Fact-Finding, and Mediation Rules.
The DBKAG & K (CJEU) decision: an opportunity for investment funds?
On 17 June 2021, the European Court decided the joint cases K (C-58/20) and DBKAG (C-59/20) regarding whether the supply of certain services constituted the “management of special investment funds”, benefiting from the VAT exemption enshrined in Article 135(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC.
Raising the bar: UK Supreme Court clarifies the requirements for HMRC to issue Follower Notices
On 2 July 2021, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in R (on the application of Haworth) v HMRC  UKSC 25, finding unanimously in favour of the taxpayer and upholding the Court of Appeal’s decision to quash the follower notice issued to him.
The Danish Supreme Court decides the Fidelity case
The Fidelity case concerned claims brough by three undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) for the repayment of Danish withholding tax on dividends received from companies resident in Denmark between 2000 and 2009. The Supreme Court rejected the claims on the grounds that the Fidelity UCITS did not fulfil the conditions for the exemption provided by Danish law.
A yellow card for footballers and their agents……let’s bring in another match official
There has been long running tension between HMRC and the way that footballers and their agents are remunerated. As the Professional Footballers’ Association wade into the debate, Helen McGhee discusses the problems arising from agents’ fees and image rights.