'Nepotism is on the rise, both in Washington and across the nation. After decades of decreases in nepotism under good government laws, there has not just been a resurgence in the practice, but also a new boldness, if not defiance, among government officials using their offices to benefit their family members'.
From CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA we have seen as the quote above states----unbridled FAMILY NEPOTISM throughout our corporate executive and government official positions and that includes who is being accepted into law schools. This is why today WE THE PEOPLE have absolutely no lawyer organization protecting this breakdown in our US Rule of Law and US Constitutional rights. A global corporation like Johns Hopkins having global campuses in most International Economic Zones overseas has its own corporation of international lawyers in each nation ready to fight and enforce ONLY international trade treaties and for protection of Hopkins' profits. These global law firms have been in place these few decades and they will be those global law firms coming to the US when US cities deemed International Economic Zones under Trans Pacific Trade Pact officially take Baltimore towards global corporations operating here as they do overseas. No new lawyers needed and no US legal rights of citizens need be protected. These global law firms are now gearing up to use Trans Pacific Trade Pact as their legal guidebook.
THIS IS WHY OUR US ELECTION ARE ALLOWED TO OPERATE WITH OPEN FRAUD AND RIGGING AS WALL STREET GLOBAL POLS DO NOT RECOGNIZE OUR FEDERAL ELECTION PROTECTIONS.
We see coming to the US law schools a type of law degree needed for global law firms and lawyers to work in the US in the capacity of market and trade law. This new degree category does not allow them to work in our courts as JUDGE JUDY----and I know they do not want to-----it allows them to operate in all US states doing the business of International Eco nomic Zones advocating and protecting global corporations and their 2% to the 1% from each nation. Meanwhile, the legal structure for WE THE PEOPLE is filling with all these fraudulent organizations selling professional certificates and subpriming the professional class of 99% of Americans. See how even the attempt to climb the economic ladder will be blocked allowing only the Wall Street players to attain those lower-tiered certificates. This is what has been Baltimore's economy these few decades under Wall Street Baltimore Development controlled by a very, very, very, very global neo--conservative Johns Hopkins.
ALL OF THIS IS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND CAN BE MADE NULL AND VOID IF WE THE PEOPLE GET RID OF THESE 1% WALL STREET GLOBAL CORPORATE POLS.
Keep in mind that US global corporations have had their lawyers overseas working in International Economic Zones under these same conditions---they are now simply installing laws to allow developing nation lawyers to operate in the US for their foreign corporations in US International Economic Zones.
Foreign lawyers could work in US as in-house counsel under model rule change
Posted Feb 11, 2013 08:35 pm CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
Foreign lawyers would have limited authority to serve as in-house counsel in the United States under a resolution approved on Monday by the ABA House of Delegates.
Resolution 107A is among a series of proposed amendments to the ABA model ethics rules that acknowledge the globalization of law practice. It amends Rule 5.5(d) of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct concerning unauthorized practice and multijurisdictional practice.
The amendment states that foreign lawyers may work as in-house counsel in the United States, but they may not give advice on U.S. law unless it is based on the advice of a lawyer who is licensed in the appropriate jurisdiction. A related resolution, 107B, requires registration for foreign lawyers working as in-house counsel.
Adding foreign lawyers to Rule 5.5 helps ensure that these lawyers are “identifiable, subject to monitoring, and accountable for their conduct,” according to a report accompanying the resolution by the ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20. Seven states already expressly permit foreign lawyers to work as in-house lawyers in the U.S. offices of their clients.
ABA Journal: “Closing Act: Ethics 20/20 Proposals Crack Open the Door for Foreign Lawyers”
___________________________________________
Then, there's this. The Law School Admissions Council, the group that oversees the administration of the LSAT, recently considered whether the University of Arizona could lose its membership for violating council bylaws.
Allowing the GRE to be used for admittance is kind of undermining the work that law school students have put in in the past.
Yesterday we saw how one state was allowing lawyers to practice BEFORE they took the bar exam with some leaders pushing the idea we don't need certification of our legal professional. This article shows further dismantling of our strong requirements eliminating the need for the LSAT altogether going with the GRE. These specialty tests like MCAT for medical school test for strengths in knowledge needed for that particular specialty and not having a LSAT will lead to more citizens in law schools unable to meet our law degree bar exam standards. At the same time our course work is being narrowed to STEM - based knowledge and that too is leading our law schools to teaching only what global corporations tied to STEM need legally.
'Deans from 149 other law schools (that's nearly as many deans as there are law schools the U.S.) didn't think that was a good idea. They wrote a letter in support of U of A, urging the council to reconsider. And it did'.
Is the diversity these global university law schools looking for aimed at an easier path for foreign lawyers practicing in the US because admittance to law school for US black and Latinos has fallen a great deal these few decades.
Many Americans hate these layers of higher education testing but we need to think what steadily lowering our education standards looks like when we seek to use any professional service. As we saw yesterday---a majority of law school grads cannot pass what has been through modern history our bar exam.
Forget The LSAT. This Law School Will Accept Your GRE Scores
May 16, 20166:00 AM ET
Heard on Morning EditionCarrie Jung
From
Stuart Kinlough/Getty Images/Ikon Images It's almost cram time for anyone taking that dreaded law school entrance exam next month: the LSAT. Simon Brick, who just graduated from the University of Arizona and has an interest in international law, says he's been studying for the test for months.
Brick hasn't ruled out the possibility of going to law school at Arizona, where he was in a pre-law fraternity.
"I know that it is a very good law program," he says. "Right now I'm keeping my options open."
For decades, the LSAT has been a requirement to get into any J.D. degree program, but that's no longer the case at Brick's alma mater. This year Arizona's law school decided it would also accept scores from the GRE, a more general graduate school admissions test.
That means Brick could spend that LSAT Saturday in June eating bonbons, but he won't. Instead he'll muscle through the four-plus-hour test because he's also interested in a handful of programs that do require the LSAT -- for now.
It allows us to build a class that will be more diverse in every respect.
Marc Miller, Dean of the University of Arizona College of Law
So, what's changed?
The American Bar Association says law schools must require a standardized test that's valid and reliably predicts student performance, "but it doesn't say that standardized test must be the LSAT," says Marc Miller, the Arizona law school dean.
He points to a recent study, commissioned by the school, which says the GRE is reliable. And for several reasons Miller also thinks the test is more accessible. For instance, prospective applicants can take it almost any day of the year. The LSAT is offered just four times a year.
Miller hopes that'll expand the pool of applications to Arizona's law school, and with it, the school's racial and ethnic diversity. It's no secret the legal field lacks diversity. According to the last U.S. census, about 88 percent of working lawyers are white.
"It allows us to build a class that will be more diverse in every respect," says Miller.
It's also no secret many fewer people, in general, are interested in being lawyers. That fact has some people skeptical that Arizona's move to the GRE is just about diversity.
"The number of applications and applicants has gone down a lot and law schools right now are looking at ways to fill their seats," says Staci Zaretsky an editor at Above The Law, a blog covering news and issues in the legal industry. She points out that between 2004 and 2014 the number of law school applicants dropped from about 100,000 to roughly 55,000.
Then, there's this. The Law School Admissions Council, the group that oversees the administration of the LSAT, recently considered whether the University of Arizona could lose its membership for violating council bylaws.
Allowing the GRE to be used for admittance is kind of undermining the work that law school students have put in in the past.
Simon Brick, law school hopeful
Deans from 149 other law schools (that's nearly as many deans as there are law schools the U.S.) didn't think that was a good idea. They wrote a letter in support of U of A, urging the council to reconsider. And it did.
Miller, Arizona's law school dean, has always maintained the move to the GRE is more about innovation. "Has the downturn led us to think about the different ways we can broaden the base? Absolutely. We don't view this as a bad thing," he says.
Brick, the law school hopeful, agrees that the move to the GRE could be a step in the right direction, "I think it's good because it fosters a more diverse environment."
But he says he can't ignore the idea that the LSAT tests for a very specific skill set that students will use in law school. "Allowing the GRE to be used for admittance is kind of undermining the work that law school students have put in in the past to get into law school," he says.
The University of Hawaii and Wake Forest University in North Carolina are also studying the possibility of switching. GRE officials say about a dozen other schools are showing interest, too.
___________________________________________
This is to where all this deregulation in academic requirements for practicing law in the US is going-----the LLM. This degree does not require any specific educational track and it is geared towards international lawyers having worked in their field gaining experience at these law firms-----allowing them to simply take this LLM bar exam. As you can see the course work to taking this exam is minimal. The broad legal requirements of our US Justice system including all the WE THE PEOPLE WITH RIGHTS ----all the small business owners with rights-----all the communities and states with sovereign rights----NONE OF THAT IS NECESSARY IN US CITIES DEEMED INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ZONES so all these foreign lawyers need to know----is what they already do overseas.
If you remember that TWITTER FEED from our well-heeled white 5% of citizens concerned about a corrupt bar exam occurring in Washington DC-----an investigative journalist like myself would immediately look to these degree exams and maybe this program in the DC area as a pipeline for foreign lawyers to operate in US cities for their 2% of the 1% global corporations and global rich moving to International Economic Zones like Baltimore.
Every time the 5% to the 1% say these global structures are to allow diversity----they mean the diversity of rich from all nations.....not our US citizens and their diversity. The anti-trust law is global free market----making sure these International Economic Zones allow for 1% billionaire competition in these ONE WORLD ECONOMIC ZONES.
George Mason University School of Law
is one of the nation’s leading centers for the study of law and economics. During the past 15 years, George Mason has assembled a distinctive, interdisciplinary faculty, many of whom hold doctorates in economics, philosophy, political science or related fields. The LLM Degree in Law & Economics is designed to provide law graduates the opportunity to develop an expertise in the skills of economic analysis as they are applied to a variety of legal areas. Economics touches private law, intellectual property law, international business law, regulatory law and other areas that students may explore. Additionally, students may choose to pursue their LLM in Law and Economics with an antitrust focus.
Degree Requirements
To earn an LLM in Law and Economics, students must complete 24 - 26 credit hours of coursework. These hours will be made up of required courses, restricted electives, and a thesis, seminar or writing course to fulfill the LLM writing requirement. Students may elect to complete our standard LLM in Law and Economics or the LLM in Law and Economics with an Antitrust Focus.
Conservative Republican voters who swept Reagan and Clinton into office thinking this deregulation and ignoring of anti-trust and monopoly would allow them wealth and power are the ones shouting loudest as this complete disgarding of our US Constitution with a NEW IDEA OF WHAT CONSTITUTES FREE-MARKET AND ANTI-TRUST AND MONOPOLY-----the global rich and their global corporations operating anyway they want. THE NEW CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES.
Taking the New York Bar as a Foreign Lawyer
To practice law in the United States, any and all lawyers – foreign or domestic – must be admitted to the bar association of the state in which they wish to practice. As a result of this fragmented system, each US state (and the nation’s capital, Washington D.C.) establishes its own rules for bar admission.
Because of this patchwork system, some states have made the process easier than others and taking the New York bar as a foreign lawyer is easier that most. While some 23 state bar associations require all bar applicants, regardless of their origin, to earn a law degree from a school accredited by the American Bar Association, New York – one of the nation’s most attractive legal markets – is not one of them. In fact, as compared to some of the nation’s other large markets, taking the New York Bar as a foreign lawyer can be a straightforward process.
Straightforward does not, however, mean easy. The New York State Board of Law Examiners* (BOLE) takes its state’s role as the United States’ most prominent legal market seriously and has established very definite requirements that all would-be applicants must meet. According to Section 520.6 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals for the Admission of Attorneys and Counselors at Law, foreign lawyers must satisfy four requirements:
- Applicants must have a "qualifying degree" that satisfies the educational requirements to practice law in a foreign country. This degree must be a degree in law.
- The qualifying degree must be from a law school accredited by the government of the foreign country and must be deemed qualified and approved
- The applicant’s must have successfully completed a legal program of equivalent length to the Juris Doctor legal education provided by American Bar Association (ABA) accredited schools in the United States. Legal education in the US is traditionally a full-time, three year course of study – foreign lawyers, accordingly, need similar credentials.
- Similarly, the program and course of study successfully completed by the applicant must be the substantially equivalent to that of the Common Law education provided by an ABA-approved law school in the United States. Other examples of countries that practice common law include The United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Israel.
If a foreign-educated lawyer thinks that he or she meets these standards they must begin their application to sit for the New York bar examination by completing the online Foreign Evaluation Form at the NYSBOLE website. Although the Foreign Evaluation form is a necessary first step in the process it is not the same thing as an application to sit for the bar exam. After it is approved, applicants must complete the (appropriately named) Online Bar Exam Application and pay the $750 application fee.
Even if a foreign-educated lawyer does not that he or she meets these standards taking the New York Bar as a foreign lawyer is still an option. Individuals with, for example, a two-year common law degree or even a three-year degree in civil law should still apply with the NYSBOLE to see if they are eligible to take the bar exam after completing a Master of Laws (LLM) program in the US. Because the LLM programs typically take one year they are significantly less expensive and time consuming that a further three years of legal study in the US and proof that taking the New York Bar as a foreign lawyer is an attainable goal.
* The NYSBOLE is the formal name of the organization which is responsible for administering the bar examination to candidates seeking admission to practice law in the State of New York.
______________________________________
Congress has been busy these several years of Obama passing laws dismantling all that is US legal structure and installing all that ONE WORLD legal structure-----and our state bar and US Justice/Maryland Attorney General/State's Attorneys know this. There job as the 5% to the 1% is making sure WE THE PEOPLE don't know what these laws being passed mean. Here in Baltimore we have LOTS OF WALL STREET BALTIMORE DEVELOPMENT 'LABOR AND JUSTICE' LEADERS AND ORGANIZATIONS ALL KNOWING WHERE THESE LAWS ARE GOING AND MAKING SURE THEY FOCUS ON ONLY SMALLER LOCAL ISSUES.
This is why all the focus for black citizens has been on police brutality and jobs-----all the focus for immigrant citizens has been deportation and workplace abuse----all the focus for the middle/working class has been the looting of all wealth and professional employment----
WHILE THE GORILLA IN THE ROOM IS THE MAKING OF AMERICA INTO A GLOBAL ECONOMIC ZONE WITH NO RIGHTS FOR ANY OF THESE GROUPS. THE INJUSTICES IN EACH AREA WILL SOAR.
Talking continually about TIF CORPORATE TAX BREAKS knowing International Economic Zones around the world do not allow any loss of profit from taxation? REALLY?????
'GOING GLOBALThe commission’s recommendations to the House relating to “inbound” foreign lawyers reflect the growing impact of globalization.
“One important practical effect of globalization is that clients regularly expect lawyers in firms of all sizes to handle matters that involve multiple jurisdictions, domestic and international,” states the commission in its overview report. This pattern is occurring in cases involving individuals as well as businesses, states the commission, which notes that its recommendations reflect policies that already have been adopted by a number of jurisdictions in the United States'.
There are no real nepotism laws in developing nations---any laws on the books are ignored and nepotism is rampant so the 2% to the 1% are ALL IN THE GLOBAL 1% FAMILY. This is why as well all we see in our US cities are young people running as Democrats simply to be that pol working for these ONE WORLD Wall Street 1%......they have no connection to serving the citizens in their communities and are mostly connected to family of today's 5%.
Ethics
Closing Act: Ethics 20/20 Proposals Crack Open the Door for Foreign Lawyers
Posted Jan 01, 2013 09:00 am CST
By James Podgers
Illustration by Tim Marrs
The ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 has submitted recommendations to the association’s policymaking House of Delegates that would make it easier for foreign lawyers to obtain limited authority to practice in U.S. jurisdictions.
The commission also has decided that it will not submit a recommendation on a question at the fringes of the topic of nonlawyer ownership of law firms—a potential hot-button issue for some members of the House.
Specifically, that proposal would have revised a comment to Rule 1.5 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct to assert that—subject to provisions in Rule 5.4 (Professional Independence of a Lawyer)--it is permissible for a lawyer in a jurisdiction that prohibits nonlawyer ownership of law firms or sharing fees with nonlawyers to divide a fee with a lawyer at a firm in another jurisdiction that does permit law firms to have nonlawyer owners or that allows them to share fees with nonlawyers.
Instead, the commission is referring the fee division issue to the Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, which is empowered to write formal ethics opinions for the ABA that interpret the Model Rules. In September, the commission referred to the ethics committee the question of whether fee-sharing among lawyers in a single firm is permissible under Model Rule 8.5 when the rules applicable to one of the firm’s offices permit nonlawyer owners and the rules applicable to another of the firm’s offices do not. In April, the commission decided not to develop a proposal on whether nonlawyers should be allowed to have some form of limited ownership interest in U.S. law firms.
After the House approved a series of its recommendations in August during the 2012 ABA Annual Meeting in Chicago, the commission settled on its final set of recommendations in late October during a two-day meeting in Washington, D.C. The commission submitted those resolutions and supporting reports on Nov. 14, the filing deadline for resolutions to be considered as part of the House’s regular agenda when it convenes in February during the association’s 2013 midyear meeting in Dallas.
SETTING PRIORITIES
The authority to divide fees between lawyers in two independent firms currently exists in Model Rule 1.5, the commission concluded. “We noted, however, that there would be very few occasions for lawyers to make use of that authority, as two firms can send separate invoices to the client for their work in the matter in most instances,” the commission states in its overview report to the House.
The commission is co-chaired by Jamie S. Gorelick, a partner at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr in Washington, D.C., and Michael Traynor of Berkeley, Calif., a past president of the American Law Institute. The commission has been working since 2009 to study the impact of technology and globalization on the legal profession, and to propose possible revisions to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct and related standards for lawyers where appropriate.
“We have used our best judgment as to which issues are worthy of debate and consideration in the House and capable of making a difference for the profession,” states the commission’s report to the House. “Given the time and energy that will be appropriate for the House and for commissioners to spend on the important issues before the House in February 2013, the commission decided not to proceed with the proposed change to Rule 1.5.”
In a lengthy discussion about those priorities during the meeting in Washington, commission members took into account the possibility that opposition in the House to even narrow measures that might be viewed as an effort to endorse nonlawyer ownership could dominate consideration of other measures that the commission considers more important. The commission got a dose of that in August, when the House engaged in a lengthy and contentious debate before voting to postpone indefinitely a resolution co-sponsored by the Illinois State Bar Association and the ABA Senior Lawyers Division, which called for the House to reaffirm policy originally adopted in 2000 stating that nonlawyers should not have an ownership role in law firms and should not share legal fees with lawyers, and to oppose any proposals to revise those prohibitions. The sponsors made it clear that their resolution was aimed at the work of the commission.
“We set our priorities in the decisions we made today,” said Gorelick in an interview with the ABA Journal after the commission adjourned its meeting in October. Emphasizing that the fee division issue is a narrow one that can be addressed in other ways, she said, “We did not feel it was worth spending time and energy on that because it’s a distraction from our most important remaining proposals” relating to foreign lawyers practicing in the United States.
GOING GLOBAL
The commission’s recommendations to the House relating to “inbound” foreign lawyers reflect the growing impact of globalization.
“One important practical effect of globalization is that clients regularly expect lawyers in firms of all sizes to handle matters that involve multiple jurisdictions, domestic and international,” states the commission in its overview report. This pattern is occurring in cases involving individuals as well as businesses, states the commission, which notes that its recommendations reflect policies that already have been adopted by a number of jurisdictions in the United States.
One of the proposals (PDF) would apply Model Rule 5.5(d) to qualified foreign lawyers. In its current version, the rule permits a lawyer admitted in one U.S. jurisdiction to provide legal services in another jurisdiction where the lawyer is not admitted to practice if those services are provided to the lawyer’s employer or its organizational affiliates, and are not services for which the second jurisdiction requires pro hac vice admission. The amendments essentially would extend the application of Model Rule 5.5(d) to a foreign lawyer who is a member in good standing of a recognized legal profession in a foreign jurisdiction whose members are admitted to practice. In addition, the foreign lawyer would be allowed to advise a client on U.S. law only in consultation with an American lawyer.
A second proposal (PDF) would amend the ABA Model Rule for Registration of In-House Counsel to include foreign lawyers working in the United States, subject to certain restrictions.
A third proposal would add a new section to the ABA Model Rule on Pro Hac Vice Admission to allow state courts or agencies to, at their discretion, admit a foreign lawyer in a particular proceeding as co-counsel with an in-state lawyer, or to serve in an advisory or consultative role in that proceeding. But the in-state lawyer would be responsible for the conduct of the proceeding and for independently advising the client on substantive law in the U.S. jurisdiction as well as procedural issues. The current version of the rule applies only to lawyers admitted to practice in U.S. jurisdictions.
“Lawyers can no longer assume that their practices will be contained by national borders,” states the commission’s summary report. “Lawyers in all practice settings, from solo practitioners handling divorces for foreign-born clients to law firms handling international business transactions, may encounter work that involves or relates to the law of other nations.” More clients expect lawyers to advise them on both domestic and foreign issues.
__________________________________________
The diversity Roosevelt Institute and these articles refer is again the rights of global 1% families to come to US International Economic Zones to profit----this is what created the extreme wealth inequity in each nation tied to International Economic Zones these several decades and we know the 99% of citizens in all developing nations with these 1% do not have an avenue to escape what is ENSLAVEMENT ----wages of $3 a day or $20-30 a day so the profits of their 2% to the 1% grow extremely large. That is what bringing the designation of International Economic Zone to US cities like Baltimore will mean.
I read journalism around the nation on what is being told citizens in each state regarding these Foreign Economic Zones and in almost all states there is no journalism ----there is silence. A few cases has the journalist telling citizens the opposite of what is true. They are saying -----there will be no foreign ownership of real estate---there will be no bringing of foreign corporations ----it is only about foreign trade and tax tariffs bringing products to our Foreign Economic Zone in Colorado for example. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE AS WE SEE EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD----FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES ARE ABOUT BRINGING THE GLOBAL 1% FOREIGN CORPORATIONS TO THESE ZONES. There is almost no presence of a sovereign nation's businesses inside these zones and that will be the same in our US cities.
So, UnderArmour in Baltimore is headquartered in PANAMA-----so officially operates under PANAMA'S economic zone laws. PANAMA without coincidence has some of the world's FRIENDLIEST TERMS FOR GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUSES AND GLOBAL FACTORIES. UnderArmour's legal teams are those foreign lawyers working in all International Economic Zones for the right of this global corporation to maximize profit----and will be able to do the same in Baltimore.
OBAMA INSTALLED AS US JUSTICE DEPARTMENT LEADERS TWO GLOBAL CORPORATE LAWYERS----ERIC HOLDER AND LORETTA LYNCH calling them civil rights leaders----under the terms of Roosevelt Institution they think building International Economic Zones all over the world to create a 2% to the1% of people of color and women while 99% of those nation's citizens are enslaved in the worst of conditions is civil rights and civil liberties.
WONDER IF HOLDER AND LYNCH AND THEIR FAMILIES WILL MAKE IT INTO THAT 2% FROM BEING THE US 5% SELLING OUT AMERICANS? HIGHLY UNLIKELY----
Report: Full foreign ownership to be allowed in...
dohanews.co/report-full-foreign-ownership-to-be-allow...
Legislation is in the works to allow businesses that set up shop in Manateq’s new special economic zones...
Report: Full foreign ownership to be allowed in Qatar’s new economic zones - Doha News
dohanews.co
Wholly foreign owned enterprise formation in China
Last Updated: June 21, 2016
[Since March 1, 2014] No. minimum registered capital is required for WFOEs with scope of business of consulting, Trading, retailing, information technology etc. in China. There are minimum registered capital still required for some industries for instance: Banking, Forwarding etc. You may find detailed information about registered capital, required documents and procedures to establish a WFOE in below cities:
firstFirst tier cities: SHANGHAI BEIJING SHENZHEN GUANGZHOU
2nd 2nd tier cities: HANGZHOU CHENGDU CHONGQING TIANJIN WUHAN
3rd 3rd tier cities: NINGBO SUZHOU XI'AN
Since China still maintains foreign currency control policy, it's still advisable to choose registered capital within RMB 100,000 ~ RMB 500,000 as the minimum registered capital for Consulting WFOE, Service WFOE, Hi-Tech WFOE registration in Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, Tianjin, Guangzhou, Hangzhou, Ningbo, Suzhou, Chengdu, Chongqing, Wuhan, Xi'an and many other cities of China. (Investor could inject the above capital within 2-10 years) Information provided below will guide you to:
Introduction of wholly foreign owned enterprise (WFOE)
Documents Required & Registration Procedures of WFOE
Fees for WOFE Registration (Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, Tianjin, Hangzhou, Ningbo etc.)
iconPart time accounting services after WFOE incorporated in China
new1 Year All inclusive Package (Company formation, accounting and audit all included)
Deregistration of a company (WFOE) in China (Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, Tianjin, Ningbo)
In Mainland China, there are 4 modes of business presences for foreign investors: WFOE(65%), Representative Office(20%), FIPE(10%), Joint Venture(5%). About 65% of PtC's clients chose WFOE as their China business entity since a WFOE could freely conduct it's business in China like anyone Chinese domestic companies, a roughly comparison between these 4 modes, check the Comparison Chart.
Wholly Foreign Owned Enterprise (WFOE)
Introduction of WFOE
The Wholly Foreign Owned Enterprise (WFOE) is a limited liability company wholly owned by the foreign investor(s). In China, WFOEs were originally conceived for encouraged manufacturing activities that were either export orientated or introduced advanced technology. However, with China's entry into the WTO, these conditions were gradually abolished and the WFOE is increasingly being used for service providers such as a variety of consulting and management services, software development and trading as well.
The registered capital of a Wholly Foreign Owned Enterprise (WFOE) should be subscribed and contributed solely by the foreign investor(s). A WFOE does not include branches established in China by foreign enterprises and other foreign economic organizations. The Chinese Laws on WFOE do not have a clear definition of the term of "branches". The term of "branches" should include both the branch companies engaged in operational activities and representative offices, which are generally not engaged in direct business activities. Therefore, branches and representative offices set up by foreign enterprises are not WFOE.
Different types of WFOE
There are many businesses for WFOEs. The following are frequently chosen by our clients:
If the WFOE manufacture here, we call it a it's Manufacturing WFOE.
If the WFOE is allowed to do Consultancy or Service, we call it Consultancy (or Service) WFOE.
If the WFOE is allowed to do trading, wholesale, retail or franchising in China, we call it a Trading WFOE or Foreign-Invested Commercial Enterprise (FICE). (You can check "FICE Registration" on the right menu for more information and details about the FICE)
Advantages of WFOE
The advantages of establishing a WFOE include, but are not limited to:
Independence and freedom to implement the worldwide strategies of its parent company without having to consider the involvement of the Chinese partner;
Ability to formally carry out business rather than just function as a representative office and being able to issue invoices to customers in RMB and receive revenues in RMB;
Capability of converting RMB profits to US dollars for remittance to its parent company outside of China;
Protection of intellectual know-how and technology;
Full control of human resources
Greater efficiency in operations, management and future development.
newInvestor's parent company does not have to be established for more than 2 years while for Representative Office, it's parent company is required to have been established for more than 2 years.
Business scope
One of the most important issues in WFOE application is business scope. Business scope needs to be defined and the WFOE can only conduct business within its approved business scope, which ultimately appears on the business license. Any amendments to the business scope require further application and approval. Inevitably, there is a negotiation with the approval authorities to approve as broad a business scope as is permitted. Generally business scope includes investment consulting, international economic consulting, trade information consulting, marketing and promotion consulting, corporate management consulting, technology consulting, manufacturing, etc. With China's entry into WTO, more and more business is open to WFOE especially in Trading, Wholesale and Retail business.
Registered and paid up capital
Registered Capital: USD$140,000 is a decent investment capital for many types of WFOE. (with USD$ 140,000 investment it's easy to get approved). RMB 100,000 ~ RMB 500,000 (Approx. USD$15,000- 75,000) is the advisable as minimum investment capital to be approved for Consulting WFOE, Service WFOE, Hi-Tech WFOE registration in China. After the approval, initial paid-up capital should be injected within 3 months which could be 20% of the registered capital, the balance should be remitted within 2 years.
Registered capital is the amount that its required to run the business until it can break even - the 'minimum registered capital' is a guideline only. If you do looking for a minimum registered capital, for instance RMB 30,000 (which is impossible to run a WFOE in China) this means you will run out of money pretty soon, which leads to increased costs in reapplying for permission to increase capital, additional licensing fees and renewals of business licenses and so on. The WFOE needs funding via it's registered capital until it's able to support itself from its own cash flow.
However the amount of registered capital needed is also dependent upon factors like scope of business and location. In reality, local authorities will review the feasibility study report (and check the lease contract) approve the investment on a case-by-case basis; reduced registered capital can be negotiated in some cases.
The minimum registered capital guides for various industries according to our practice in China, for instance Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Ningbo & Hangzhou are given below:
Consulting WFOE* RMB 100,000 ~ RMB 300,000 (Approx. USD$ 15,000- 50,000)
Service WFOE RMB 100,000 ~ RMB 300,000 (Approx. USD$ 15,000- 50,000)
Hi-Tech WFOE RMB 100,000 ~ RMB 300,000 (Approx. USD$ 15,000- 50,000)
Trading WFOE / FICE RMB 300,000 ~ RMB 1 million (Approx. USD$ 75,000- 140,000)
Food & Beverage WFOE RMB 500,000 ~ RMB 1 million (Approx. USD$ 75,000- 140,000)
Manufacturing WFOE RMB 500,000+ (Approx. USD$ 75,000+)
SOCIAL SECURITY IN CHINAnew
A new rule on foreign employees’ social security in effect starting October 15, 2011. It is said that if a company hires a foreign employee, the company shall register this employee with the local social security authority within 30 days of the employee receiving their work permit.
GENERAL TAX INFORMATION
Since Jan. 2008, China's new corporate tax rates range from15% to 25%. (the rate depends on the places where the company is registered and the industry that a company engaged). Please check the latest Corporate Income Tax Law of China, ( 193KB: Corporate Income Tax Law of China ) All enterprises are required to report to the Tax Administration Department monthly, quarterly and annually. Path To China provides part time accounting services for our clients, you are welcome to contact us for more information.
ANNUAL AUDIT REPORT
Any limited companies in China should summit annual audit report to the relevant authorities. The annual audit cost is about RMB 6,000. Any company will be subject be to a fine if the Annual Audit Report is not submitted in a timely manner.
PROFIT REPATRIATION
China Government allows Foreign Invested Enterprises remit their profits out of the country and such remittances do not require the prior approval of the State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE). Dividends cannot be distributed and repatriated overseas if the losses of previous years have not been covered while dividends not distributed in previous years may be distributed together with those of the current year. Repatriating the registered capital to home countries is forbidden during the term of business operation.
TERMS AND TERMINATION
In China, terms of 15 to 30 years are typical for a manufacturing WFOE (although some may have a longer term). It is also possible to obtain extensions of the WFOE's duration. For projects in which the amount of investment is large, or the construction period is long and the return on investment low, projects producing sophisticated products using advanced or key technology provided by the foreign partner, or for projects producing internationally competitive products, the term of WFOE may be extended to 50 years. With special approval from the State Council, the term may be even longer than 50 years.
The WFOE may be terminated under certain conditions. For example, the inability of the WFOE to operate due to heavy losses, or in the occurrence of an event of force majeure, etc.
DE-REGISTRATION
To closing down or de-registration a WFOE in China would be much more complicated than establish a New WFOE. It could be stuck there if the liquidation report can't be approved by local tax authority, thereafter, investor has to spend great amount of time on the closure of a WFOE. Find it here about required documents, procedures and cost to deregistration a WFOE in China. Contact our offices below to get a free review of your WFOE.
More information about WFOEs:
Introduction of wholly foreign owned enterprise (WFOE)
Documents Required & Registration Procedures of WFOE
Fees for WOFE Registration (Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, Tianjin, Hangzhou, Ningbo etc.)
iconPart time accounting services after WFOE incorporated in China
new1 Year All inclusive Package (Company formation, accounting and audit all included)
Deregistration of a company (WFOE) in China (Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, Tianjin, Ningbo)
Contact Our Regional Partners in Beijing, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Shanghai, Ningbo, Hangzhou or Hong Kong for more details:
Office Time: Monday To Friday 0900AM-1730PM (GMT+8)
E.U. Representative:
Regional Manager: Ms. Nancy Liu [-BIO of Nancy-]
E-mail: nancy.liu@pathtochina.com [or Request For Proposal]
-Request For Proposal-
Mobile: (86) 139.1772.5080 (24H)
Beijing & Northern China Office:
-Request For Proposal-
E-mail: gifty@pathtochina.com or [Request For Proposal]
5/F CBD International Mansion, 16 Yong'An Dong Li, Chao Yang District, Beijing 100022[-MAP-]
Tel: (86-10) 5166.4212 GMT+8 (English and Mandarin)
Tel: (86-10) 6563.7624
Regional Manager: Ms. Gifty Jia
Shanghai & Eastern China Office:
-Request For Proposal-
E-mail: wendy@pathtochina.com[or Request For Proposal]
1038 West Nanjing Road, Suite 2508, 25 Floor, Westgate Tower, Shanghai 200040, China [-MAP-]
Tel: (86-21) 5108.8535 GMT+8 (English and Mandarin)
Regional Manager: Ms. Wendy Wang
Ningbo Office:
-Request For Proposal-
E-mail: info@pathtochina.com [or Request For Proposal]
396 KaiMing Street, Suite 1420, Haishu, Ningbo, 315010
Regional Consultant: Mr. Dean Dong
Tel: (86 574) 8716.4655 GMT+8 ( English and Mandarin)
Hangzhou Office:
E-mail: grace.lim@pathtochina.com [or Request For Proposal]
Hangzhou Liaison Office: Suite 4202, 4/F, Euro America Center[-MAP-]
18 Jiao Gong Rd., Hangzhou 310007, China
Regional Consultant: Ms. Grace Lim
Tel: (8621) 6218-9991 GMT+8 ( English and Mandarin)
Shenzhen & Southern China Office:
-Request For Proposal-
E-mail: emily.lin@pathtochina.com [or Request For Proposal]
6009 Yi Tian Road, Suite 2306, New World Tower,Shenzhen 518035
Tel: (86-755) 6128.6800 GMT+8 (English and Mandarin)
Regional Consultant: Ms. Emily Lin
Guangzhou Office:
161 West Lin He Rd., 23F, Tower A, Center Plaza, Guangzhou, 510620
-Request For Proposal-
Tel: (86.20) 6113.5690 GMT+8
Consultant: Mr. Forest Liang (English & Mandarin)
info@pathtochina.com
Hong Kong Office:
-Request For Proposal-
E-mail: simon@pathtochina.com [or Request For Proposal]
Suite 1701, HeNan Building, 92 Jaffe Road, Wanchai, Hong Kong[-MAP-]
Tel: (852) 6877.8862 GMT+8 (English)
Regional Partner: Simon Lee
Fax: (852) 8198.0080
Other Cities of China:
-Request For Proposal-
E-mail: info@pathtochina.com
Regional Manager: Mr. Stuart Firestein (You can inquire in English)
[Click for more details...]
Public Holidays of 2016 in China: Jan. 1-3, Feb.7-13, Apr.2-4, Apr. 30-May 2, June 9-11, Sep.15-17, October 1-7
______________________________________________
For those Bernie Sanders social Democratic supporters not knowing how US black and brown citizens can support Hillary -----this is why! Here we have the US International Economic Zone in Prince Georges County---home of what is called the black affluent class controlled by the Washington beltway global corporate headquarters around our national capitol-----and they are that 5% to the 1% killing their 99% of black citizens found mostly in Prince Georges and Baltimore. They really think they will become a 1% or 2% from all these US cities as International Economic Zones and these are the 1% WALL STREET LIBERTARIAN CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES they have supported just as all other population group 5%. Here we see our US real estate in Prince Georges County offered up just as those in Myanmar, Vietnam, Cambodia, China----to the world's 1% billionaire global corporations under the same economic and legal structure. No US law will happen in Prince Georges just as no Chinese or Cambodian law or sovereign rights will happen in those nations. See from where SOVEREIGN CITIZENS MOVEMENTS are coming? They hate that these SHOW ME THE MONEY PLAYERS handed a billion or million to sell out the rest of citizens in all these nations are capturing all power in governments. This is what these 2016 elections in the US were about.
So, in Maryland all citizens are rushing to be those international corporate lawyers steeped in trade policy and PRETENDING there is no US Constitutional rights or Federal, state, or local laws protecting citizens, small businesses, and communities AND IT IS A FAMILY AFFAIR!
One can look at these foreign trade zones and see the same policies being installed by nations especially those nations signing Trans Pacific Trade Pact. ONE WORLD, ONE GLOBAL CORPORATE TRIBUNAL, ONE GLOBAL TRIBUNAL COURT.....no need for local courts and lawyers. Well, they always need a JUDGE JUDY for petty civil and criminal cases.
America's 5% are not understanding that the Wall Street 1% do not have to buy American citizens to operate as they want inside US---they already control our government. Other nations required Wall Street to make that 1% billionaire and 2% millionaire class so those nations would pass laws allowing Wall Street inside. The current goal of US 1% Wall Street next decade is claw back all that wealth it handed out breaking down all US government structures and US Rule of Law. They do not want anymore billionaires or millionaires in the US---and they are now positioning to go after the global 1% and 2% wealth.
This is why any foreign corporation or rich bringing their wealth to the US as a corporation or buying residential real estate are CRAZY. You can bet it will be those smaller developing nations in Africa or Asia new to this global economy that bring their corporations to the US where Wall Street will take that wealth.
IS THAT GLOBAL WEALTH EQUITY FOR PEOPLE OF COLOR AND WOMEN? Of course not.....
Foreign Trade Zone
WHAT IS A FOREIGN-TRADE ZONE? The Foreign-Trade Zone is a unique tool that the EDC leverages to achieve the stated mission. A Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) is a specially designated area, in or adjacent to a U.S. Customs Port of Entry, which is considered to be outside the Customs Territory of the U.S.
According to the FTZ Board’s 2013 Annual Report, over 3,000 companies operate in U.S. FTZs, employing approximately 390,000 people. The value of shipments into zones exceeded $835 billion. Warehouse/distribution operations received $264 billion in merchandise.Production operations generated $571 billion.
Prince George’s County’s FTZ #63 is now County-wide. Companies can access FTZ benefits from anywhere in Prince George’s County, Maryland.
FTZ #63 Strengths: Location, Location, Location
- 10-minutes from Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States
- Access to a consumer market of 5.8 million people
- Exceptional access to 2 international airports, the deep sea Port of Baltimore and major rail lines
- Major Interstate highways, including I-95 (from Maine to Miami), Rt. 1, 301, 50 and I-295
- Significant office, warehouse, industrial and manufacturing/distribution space
- Most competitive lease/purchase rates per SF in DC/Maryland/Virginia
- Highly skilled and diverse workforce, median household income of $73K
- EDC funding and direct assistance to companies
- Workforce development, recruitment and training services for employers
- Deferred for products admitted into the FTZ, which improves cash flow
- Eliminated on products imported, and then re-exported from the FTZ to international markets
- Reduced by taking advantage of the inverted tariff rule that states if you bring in parts that are manufactured into a whole, you can pay the duty of the whole instead of the parts
- Eliminated on value added transformations
- Eliminated on damaged goods that are destroyed in FTZ
- Deferred for Zone-to-Zone Transfers
- Eliminate individual entry filings by filing one consolidated entry per week, and thus reduce fees
- Run more efficient inventory control systems
- Participate in special Customs procedures, such as direct delivery, to expedite the movement of cargo
- Save money and create good jobs
Bottom Line When a company’s goods are trucked from the port/airport to its warehouse designated as a FTZ, the goods are considered still outside U.S. commerce. Therefore, duties are not paid until those goods leave the company warehouse for their customers’ stores or facilities.
NEXT STEPS …
Wondering if your company is a good fit for FTZ program?
Step 1 : Invite EDC to your business for a discussion.
Step 2: Be open to a Cost-Benefit analysis to determine whether program will benefit you.
Step 3: Submit a Letter of Intent to express interest in FTZ participation.
Step 4: Select consultant to ensure company’s compliance with FTZ Board, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection regulations.
Step 5: Submit application to EDC.
Step 6: EDC submits application to FTZ Board.
Step 7: Start importing as a FTZ company within 30-days of submitting your completed and approved application!
Links:
FTZ Board: www.ftzb.gov
Nat’l Assoc. FTZs: www.naftz.org
_____________________________________________
If WE THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA WITH RIGHTS AS CITIZENS AND A NATIONAL CONSTITUTION GIVING US NATIONAL, STATE, AND LOCAL SOVEREIGNTY AND RIGHTS AS CITIZENS lose all of that in MOVING FORWARD to install these US International Economic Zone policies---who will be watching out for our protection? Not these international lawyers----there is no public justice ---it has all been outsourced to private lawyers-----the US Justice Department and our state attorneys are all tied to reporting to a GLOBAL CORPORATE TRIBUNAL AND TRIBUNAL COURT-----
Well, there is the United Nations and its trade tribunals that MORPHED from the original Eleanor Roosevelt United Nations installed to rebuild war-torn Europe and its economies. Today, the UN is simply the global neo-liberal arm of World Bank, IMF, and global 1% enforcing their global trade policies and yes, they will be enforcing Trans Pacific Trade Pact and will see any citizen fighting against government to change this----as terrorists. This is the march towards US citizens being labelled terrorists for being anti-this-kind-of-government.
'WASHINGTON — An ambitious 12-nation trade accord pushed by President Obama would allow foreign corporations to sue the United States government for actions that undermine their investment “expectations” and hurt their business, according to a classified document'.
'Conservatives are likely to be incensed that even local policy changes could send the government to a United Nations-sanctioned tribunal'.
Congressional pols calling themselves conservatives are posing conservative just as are Clinton/Obama neo-liberals posing socially progressive. All these Congressional pols these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA have committed themselves to dismantling the US and making the US a colonial entity and the American people with no rights as citizens---just to be that 2% to the 1% in America. Those 2% are always VERY DYNAMIC as it is ruthless at the global top. See how we started with the history of the United Nations and now we will bring them back these next few days as the only legal recourse the American people will have if these International Economic Zones under Trans Pacific Trade Pact are allowed to be installed.
Trans-Pacific Partnership Seen as Door for Foreign Suits Against U.S.
By JONATHAN WEISMANMARCH 25, 2015
President Obama with members of his cabinet speaking to the Democratic Governors Association. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a cornerstone of Mr. Obama’s remaining economic agenda. Credit Jabin Botsford/The New York Times
WASHINGTON — An ambitious 12-nation trade accord pushed by President Obama would allow foreign corporations to sue the United States government for actions that undermine their investment “expectations” and hurt their business, according to a classified document.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership — a cornerstone of Mr. Obama’s remaining economic agenda — would grant broad powers to multinational companies operating in North America, South America and Asia. Under the accord, still under negotiation but nearing completion, companies and investors would be empowered to challenge regulations, rules, government actions and court rulings — federal, state or local — before tribunals organized under the World Bank or the United Nations.
Backers of the emerging trade accord, which is supported by a wide variety of business groups and favored by most Republicans, say that it is in line with previous agreements that contain similar provisions. But critics, including many Democrats in Congress, argue that the planned deal widens the opening for multinationals to sue in the United States and elsewhere, giving greater priority to protecting corporate interests than promoting free trade and competition that benefits consumers.
The chapter in the draft of the trade deal, dated Jan. 20, 2015, and obtained by The New York Times in collaboration with the group WikiLeaks, is certain to kindle opposition from both the political left and the right. The sensitivity of the issue is reflected in the fact that the cover mandates that the chapter not be declassified until four years after the Trans-Pacific Partnership comes into force or trade negotiations end, should the agreement fail.
Conservatives are likely to be incensed that even local policy changes could send the government to a United Nations-sanctioned tribunal. On the left, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, law professors and a host of liberal activists have expressed fears the provisions would infringe on United States sovereignty and impinge on government regulation involving businesses in banking, tobacco, pharmaceuticals and other sectors.
Members of Congress have been reviewing the secret document in secure reading rooms, but this is the first disclosure to the public since an early version leaked in 2012.
“This is really troubling,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the Senate’s No. 3 Democrat. “It seems to indicate that savvy, deep-pocketed foreign conglomerates could challenge a broad range of laws we pass at every level of government, such as made-in-America laws or anti-tobacco laws. I think people on both sides of the aisle will have trouble with this.”
SENATOR SCHUMER IS THAT CLINTON NEO-LIBERAL TOP 1% WALL STREET GLOBAL POL POSING PROGRESSIVE IN HIS CONCERN----HE LOVES ALL THIS!
The United States Trade Representative’s Office dismissed such concerns as overblown. Administration officials said opponents were using hypothetical cases to stoke irrational fear when an actual record exists that should soothe worries.
Such “Investor-State Dispute Settlement” accords exist already in more than 3,000 trade agreements across the globe. The United States is party to 51, including the North American Free Trade Agreement. Administration officials say they level the playing field for American companies doing business abroad, protect property from government seizure and ensure access to international justice.
But the limited use of trade tribunals, critics argue, is because companies in those countries do not have the size, legal budgets and market power to come after governments in the United States. The Trans-Pacific Partnership could change all that, they say. The agreement would expand that authority to investors in countries as wealthy as Japan and Australia, with sophisticated companies deeply invested in the United States.
“U.S.T.R. will say the U.S. has never lost a case, but you’re going to see a lot more challenges in the future,” said Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio. “There’s a huge pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for these companies.”
One 1999 case gives ammunition to both sides of the debate. Back then, California banned the chemical MTBE from the state’s gasoline, citing the damage it was doing to its water supply. The Canadian company Methanex Corporation sued for $970 million under Nafta, claiming damages on future profits. The case stretched to 2005, when the tribunal finally dismissed all claims.
To supporters of the TPP, the Methanex case was proof that regulation for the “public good” would win out. For opponents, it showed what could happen when far larger companies from countries like Japan have access to the same extrajudicial tribunals.
But as long as a government treats foreign and domestic companies in the same way, defenders say, it should not run afoul of the trade provisions. “A government that conducts itself in an unbiased and nondiscriminatory fashion has nothing to worry about,” said Scott Miller, an international business expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who has studied past cases. “That’s the record.”
Similar chapters exist in the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Central American Free Trade Agreement, but their use has been limited against the United States. Over 25 years, according to the trade representative’s office, the United States has faced only 17 investor-state cases, 13 of which went before tribunals. The United States has lost none.
Protesters in Miami against the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Critics argue that the planned deal widens the opening for multinationals to sue in the United States and elsewhere.
Civil courts in the United States are already open to action by foreign investors and companies. Since 1993, while the federal government was defending itself against those 17 cases brought through extrajudicial trade tribunals, it was sued 700,000 times in domestic courts.
THIS IS WHY WE NO LONGER HAVE A US JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WORKING TO PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THEIR RIGHTS!
In all, according to Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, about 9,000 foreign-owned firms operating in the United States would be empowered to bring cases against governments here. Those are as diverse as timber and mining companies in Australia and investment conglomerates from China whose subsidiaries in Trans-Pacific Partnership countries like Vietnam and New Zealand also have ventures in the United States.
More than 18,000 companies based in the United States would gain new powers to go after the other 11 countries in the accord.
A similar accord under negotiation with Europe has already provoked an outcry there.
Senator Brown contended that the overall accord, not just the investment provisions, was troubling. “This continues the great American tradition of corporations writing trade agreements, sharing them with almost nobody, so often at the expense of consumers, public health and workers,” he said.
IS THAT REALLY A GREAT AMERICAN TRADITION MR BROWN? SHERROD BROWN IS A CLINTON NEO-LIBERAL POSING PROGRESSIVE.
Under the terms of the Pacific trade chapter, foreign investors could demand cash compensation if member nations “expropriate or nationalize a covered investment either directly or indirectly.” Opponents fear “indirect expropriation” will be interpreted broadly, especially by deep-pocketed multinational companies opposing regulatory or legal changes that diminish the value of their investments.
Included in the definition of “indirect expropriation” is government action that “interferes with distinct, reasonable investment-backed expectations,” according to the leaked document.
The cost can be high. In 2012, one such tribunal, under the auspices of the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, ordered Ecuador to pay Occidental Petroleum a record $2.3 billion for expropriating oil drilling rights.
Under the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a member nation would be forbidden from favoring “goods produced in its territory.”
Critics say the text’s definition of an investment is so broad that it could open enormous avenues of legal challenge. An investment includes “every asset that an investor owns or controls, directly or indirectly, that has the characteristic of an investment,” including “regulatory permits; intellectual property rights; financial instruments such as stocks and derivatives”; construction, management, production, concession, revenue-sharing and other similar contracts; and “licenses, authorizations, permits and similar rights conferred pursuant to domestic law.”
“This is not about expropriation; it’s about regulatory changes,” said Lori Wallach, director of Global Trade Watch and a fierce opponent of the Pacific accord. “You now have specialized law firms being set up. You go to them, tell them what country you’re in, what regulation you want to go after, and they say ‘We’ll do it on contingency.’”
In 2013, Eli Lilly took advantage of a similar provision under Nafta to sue Canada for $500 million, accusing Ottawa of violating its obligations to foreign investors by allowing its courts to invalidate patents for two of its drugs.
All of those disputes would be adjudicated under rules set by either the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes or the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law.
The Obama administration pressed for — and won — clear transparency rules mandating that tribunals be open to the public and arbitration documents be available online. Outside parties would also be allowed to file briefs.
“Here’s what I can tell you as these negotiations proceed,” President Obama told reporters in Brussels last year when questioned on the trade deals in the works. “I have fought my entire political career and as president to strengthen consumer protections. I have no intention of signing legislation that would weaken those protections.”
There are other mitigating provisions, but many have catches. For instance, one article states that “nothing in this chapter” should prevent a member country from regulating investment activity for “environmental, health or other regulatory objectives.” But that safety valve says such regulation must be “consistent” with the other strictures of the chapter, a provision even administration officials said rendered the clause more political than legal.
One of the chapter’s annexes states that regulatory actions meant “to protect legitimate public welfare objectives, such as public health, safety and the environment” do not constitute indirect expropriation, “except in rare circumstances.” That final exception could open such regulations to legal second-guessing, critics say.
RSS Feed
