Banks: Know Your Customer’s ESG Risk
Nonfinancial Risk for Banks: Know Your Customer’s Environmental, Social and Governance Risk Occasional Note| April 11, 2017 | Author Hdeel Abdelhady | PDF It goes without saying that banks’ legal,…
Nonfinancial Risk for Banks: Environmental Social and Governance (ESG)
As banks continue to manage regulatory and risk complexity, they should add Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) and general business conduct issues to their nonfinancial risk matrices. ESG and business conduct issues—whether or not the subject to legal prescriptions— are no longer ancillary to risk and reputation management. Nor can ESG and business conduct awareness be regarded as merely ornamentation to enhance corporate appearance (or conceal corporate blemishes).
Senate Bill to Combat ISIS Targets “Jurisdictions of Terrorism Financing Concern”
On February 13, 2017, Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) introduced in the Senate the “Stop Terrorist Operational Resources and Money Act” (the “STORM Act”). The purpose of the STORM Act is to “establish a designation for jurisdictions permissive to terrorism financing, to build the capacity of partner nations to investigate, prosecute, and hold accountable terrorist financiers, to impose restrictions on foreign financial institutions that provide financial services for terrorist organizations, and for other purposes.” The STORM Act would permit the President to designate a country as a “Jurisdiction of Terrorism Financing Concern” upon determining that “government officials know, or should know, that activities are taking place within the country that substantially finance the operations of, or acts of international terrorism by, foreign terrorist organizations.”
Trump’s Foreign Policy May Further Strain Foreign Correspondent Banking (Derisking)
The Trump Administration’s positions on countering the financing of terrorism were articulated by Treasury Secretary nominee Steven Mnuchin during his confirmation hearings, where he expressed his commitment to working unilaterally and multilaterally to combat terrorism financing (see, for example, hearing segment starting at 55:18). The Administration’s interest in strengthening CFT is shared on the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue, where the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Financial Services recently released the results of a 2-year investigation of terrorism financing and, among other measures, recommended that the United States adopt a “whole-of-government” strategy to combat terrorism financing.
After Election 2016: 5 Legal Issues to Watch in 2017
The dismantling of Obama-era laws and regulations, broader deregulation, and economic and political nationalism were and remain themes of the 2016 U.S. Election and presidential transition period. Donald Trump and members of the incoming Republican-controlled Congress have singled out for repeal or significant modification the Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”) and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, along with trade, immigration, foreign affairs, and environmental laws, regulations, and policies. If taken, these actions will not only effect legal changes in specific areas, they will create legal and policy voids that may be filled by U.S. states and localities, foreign governments and multilateral and non-governmental organizations, and the private sector. Five legal and business issues and dynamics to watch in 2017 are highlighted here.
5 Legal and Business Issues to Watch in 2017
Published on January 2, 2016, MassPoint Legal and Strategy Advisory’s 5 legal and business issues to watch in 2017, from administrative law (and the Congressional Review Act) to the treatment of foreign investment in the United States to the role of the private sector on environmental, social, and governance issues in light of shifting U.S. policy and legal stances after the 2016 Election.
Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA)
Summary JASTA is politically and legally significant. Some of JASTA’s practical implications are foreseeable—both for U.S. plaintiffs and foreign state defendants—but a fuller picture of JASTA’s ramifications…
Proposals to Curb Foreign Investment in the United States Gaining Steam After the U.S. Election
Proposals to Curb Foreign Investment in the United States Gain Steam After the U.S. Election November 18, 2016 | Download Full Publication Pre- and Post-Election Scrutiny of…
Proposals to Curb Foreign Investment in the United States Gain Steam After Election
Acquisitions of U.S. businesses by SOEs, particularly Chinese SOEs, have been a key focus of concern about foreign investment in the United States. Chinese and other SOEs would be well-advised to acquaint themselves with the gathering focus in Washington on their U.S. investments, commercial activities (post-acquisition), and sovereign immunity under U.S. law and in U.S. litigation—non-Chinese SOEs should not assume that they will not be subjected to the same or similar scrutiny. At minimum, SOEs—Chinese and non-Chinese—may be well-served by understanding the origins of some Trump transition team (and later administration) proposals and/or their linkages to prior proposals. Privately-owned foreign enterprises should also take note, as sentiments about foreign investment in the United States may also directly or indirectly affect their planned or future investments (including, perhaps, favorably, if SOEs are (to an extent) taken out of competition for U.S. assets as a result of legal, policy, or political measures adopted in the United States).
Senate Bill Makes it Easier to Litigate Against State-Owned Enterprises in U.S. Courts
To deprive SOEs of the tactical advantage of asserting sovereign immunity in U.S. courts, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) introduced on September 14 the State-Owned Entity Transparency and Accountability Reform (STAR) Act of 2016, “a bill to improve the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, and for other purposes.” Specifically, the STAR Act would remove a level of specificity required to link a specific legal entity to commercial activity by amending the FSIA to make “commercial activity . . . attributable to any corporate affiliate of the agency or instrumentality that (A) directly or indirectly owns a majority of shares . . . and (B) is also an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state.”