DOCSLIB.ORG

Cayman Islands

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cayman Islands Cayman Islands - Duties and Liabilities of Directors Introduction This Memorandum provides a summary of duties and liabilities of directors of companies incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands. It is not intended to be an exhaustive statement of the law in this area but merely to be of some guidance to persons who act as directors of such companies. Particular circumstances or transactions should be the subject of specific legal advice given on the relevant facts at the relevant time. Companies formed in the Cayman Islands and the duties and liabilities of their directors (both executive and non-executive) are governed by the Companies Law (2020 Revision) (as amended) of the Cayman Islands (the "Companies Law") and the common law so far as it has not been amended by statutory provisions. The Cayman Islands' courts would regard as highly persuasive the decisions of the English courts in relation to such matters. Statutory duties of directors Maintain registers The Companies Law requires each company incorporated under it to maintain certain registers. The Directors are responsible for ensuring that such registers are kept in the appropriate location and maintained in good order. The registers are: 1. The Register of Members. This must be kept at the registered office of the company in the Cayman Islands (except in the case of an exempted company when it can be kept at any other location, whether in the Cayman Islands or elsewhere). The register contains the names and addresses of and details of shares issued to the company's members. 2. The Register of Directors and Officers. This must be kept at the registered office of the company. The register contains the names and addresses of each of the company's directors and officers. 3. The Register of Mortgages and Charges. This must be kept at the registered office of the company. The register contains details of all mortgages and charges given by the company over any of its assets. Reporting obligations The directors are also responsible for ensuring that the company complies with all reporting requirements of the Companies Law. These are: 1. An annual return must be filed with the Registrar of Companies in January of each year accompanied by the payment of the annual government fee to keep the company in good standing. Failure to pay the fee and file the annual return by 31 March in any year will result in late payment or filing penalties as follows: Payment or filing made between Penalty 1 April and 30 June 33.33% of the annual fee 1 July and 30 September 66.66% of the annual fee 1 October and 31 December 100% of the annual fee Page 2 Failure to pay the fee or file the annual return by 31 December in the year in which it is due, will result in the company being liable to be struck off the Register. Should this happen, all assets owned by the company will be forfeited to the Financial Secretary of the Cayman Islands for credit to the general revenue. 2. Any change in the directors or officers of the company must be notified to the Registrar of Companies within 30 days. 3. Any change in the registered office of the company must be notified to the Registrar of Companies within 30 days. 4. Any special resolution adopted by the company (eg a resolution to change its name or its Memorandum or Articles of Association) must be notified to the Registrar of Companies within fifteen days. Books of account The directors are also responsible for ensuring that the company complies with the requirements of the Companies Law to maintain proper books of account, ie such books, contracts and invoices as are necessary to give a true and fair view of the state of the company's affairs and to explain its transactions. The books of account are to be retained for a minimum of five years from the date on which they were prepared. A company that knowingly and wilfully contravenes this requirement is liable to be fined. Registered office The directors are also responsible for ensuring that the company complies with the requirements of the Companies Law to maintain a registered office in the Cayman Islands, and to ensure that its name is properly displayed at its registered office, as well as on its stationery etc. Annual general meetings Directors of a Cayman company (but not an exempted company) must call a general meeting of the Company's shareholders at least once a year, although this meeting does not need to be held in the Cayman Islands. Failure to hold the annual general meeting will result in the company not being in a position to file its annual return and being subject to the penalties referred to above. Registration the Directors Registration and Licensing Law, 2014 (as amended) (the "DRL Law") requires that each director of a mutual fund registered with the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority ("CIMA") is either registered or licensed in accordance with the DRL Law. There is an annual fee to be paid to CIMA. Additional considerations might also apply where a company is regulated with CIMA upon which we can advise on a case by case basis. Automatic Exchange of Information ("AEOI") AEOI is a collective term encompassing certain legislation that imposes obligations on financial institutions to register with tax authorities, conduct due diligence to identify reportable accounts and report certain information on these accounts to tax authorities. We can advise on and assist with all aspects of AEOI compliance on a case-by-case basis. For further information, see the Walkers' memorandum AEOI Obligations - Guide for Financial Institutions. Other duties of directors Fiduciary duties Apart from the specific duties referred to above, the Companies Law does not (unlike the current English statute) specify the general or fiduciary duties of directors. However, in the case of Cayman Islands News Bureau Limited v Cohen and Page 3 Cohen Associates Limited [1988-89] CILR 195 it was held, per Harre J, that the fiduciary obligations of a senior manager with major responsibilities was the same as that of a director or trustee, and these duties were listed as "the observance of general standards of loyalty, good faith, and the avoidance of a conflict of duty and self interest". English case law is highly persuasive and the Cayman Islands Courts have adopted the English common law principles relating to directors' duties which can generally be summarised as follows: 1. a duty to act in what the directors bona fide consider to be the best interests of the company (and in this regard it should be noted that the duty is owed to the company and not to associate companies, subsidiaries or holding companies; what is in the best interests of the group (if any) of companies to which the company belongs is not necessarily in the best interests of the company); 2. a duty to exercise their powers for the purposes for which they are conferred; 3. a duty of trusteeship of the company's assets; 4. a duty to avoid conflicts of interest and of duty; 5. a duty to disclose personal interest in contracts involving the company; 6. a duty not to make secret profits from the directors' office; and 7. a duty to act with skill, care and diligence. Of these the duties of loyalty, honesty and fidelity are considered to be the core fiduciary duties. (followed in Renova Resources Private Equity Limited v Gilbertson [2009] CILR 268). Standard of skill and care: objective test In recent years the English and Commonwealth authorities have moved towards a primarily-objective test for the standard of skill, care and diligence. Recent cases in the Grand Court make it clear that the Cayman Islands Courts follow these authorities: 1. In Re D'Jan of London Limited [1994] 1BCLC 561, Hoffmann J (now Lord Hoffmann) held that the common law duty of care owed by a director was accurately stated in section 214 of the English Insolvency Act 1986. 2. Consequently the conduct required of a director in the Cayman Islands (whether executive or non-executive) is the conduct of: "A reasonably diligent person having both – (a) the general knowledge, skill and experience that may reasonably be expected of a person carrying out the same functions as are carried out by that director in relation to the company, and (b) the general knowledge, skill and experience that that director has". 3. Therefore, there is a minimum objective standard based upon the functions given to the director in question but the standard can be raised where the director in question has more knowledge, skill and experience than would normally be expected. 4. Given the way that the modern test is framed it would be wise whenever a director is appointed to define his functions specifically. 5. In Re Barings Plc (No 5) [2000] BCLC 523 the English Court of Appeal approved the summary given by Jonathan Parker J at first instance in that case in the following terms: Page 4 (a) "Directors have, both collectively and individually, a continuing duty to acquire and maintain a sufficient knowledge and understanding of the company's business to enable them properly to discharge their duties as directors. (b) Whilst directors are entitled (subject to the articles of association of the company) to delegate particular functions to those below them in the management chain, and to trust their competence and integrity to a reasonable extent, the exercise of the power of delegation does not absolve a director from the duty to supervise the discharge of the delegated functions.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Due Diligence
    Getting to Know You: Due Diligence Cannabis Law Institute Lauren Rudick (Moderator) (Hiller, PC) Sept. 7-8, 2018 Matt Lapple (Lapple Ubell) Avis Bulbulyan (Siva) Andrea Hill (Skylaw) Daniel Straga (Venable) DUE DILIGENCE -- OVERVIEW • Due Diligence is the investigation of a person or business • Frequently used in M&A transactions, the process is used to gather information about the business that is for sale or raising capital • Information enables the buyer to: (i) negotiate price and other contractual provisions; or (ii) decide whether to abandon the transaction According to Black’s Law Dictionary, Due Diligence is: Such a measure of prudence, activity, or assiduity, as is properly to be expected from, and ordinarily exercised by, a reasonable and prudent man under the particular circumstances; not measured by any absolute standard, but depending on the relative facts of the special case. DUE DILIGENCE -- GOALS 1. Confirm title to assets and stock that are for sale 2. Investigate risks and liabilities 3. Confirm value of the target 4. Identify steps necessary to integrate the target business 5. Learn about the operations of the target business 6. Identify potential impediments to the transaction (i.e., corporate formalities) 7. Determine ancillary documents (e.g., disclosure schedules) DUE DILIGENCE – PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS 1. Establish Budget 2. Assemble the Team: legal, accounting, business, and tax specialists 3. Determine Scope of Review - asset sale vs. stock sale - public vs. private - global considerations - need for confidentiality - time constraints - deal breakers - engage outside consultants - type of industry -Is the target in compliance with applicable regulations? THE INVESTIGATORY PROCESS -- CHECKLISTS Categories of Diligence (cannabis-specific): 1.
    [Show full text]
  • “Municipal Purposes”: the Return of Vires Litigation
    KEY POINTS Feature Thevires of a local authority in connection with commercial transactions remains a potential pitfall for commercial lenders. When entering into transactions with local authorities, commercial lenders will be well- LITIGATION advised to ensure that their due diligence includes consideration of the powers pursuant to which the local authority is purporting to act. Parties cannot rely on courts adopting a broad, purposive approach to construction of VIRES legislation granting local authorities the power to act. Ambiguity in such legislation may not be resolved in favour of an intra vires construction. Author Joseph Sullivan “Municipal purposes”: the return of vires litigation In this article, Joseph Sullivan considers a recent Privy Council decision which PRIVY COUNCIL serves as an important reminder of the need for pre-contractual checks as to local authorities’ vires before seeking financial assistance from them. Argument In the appeal before the Privy Council, MIF “MUNICIPAL PURPOSES”: THE RETURN OF OF RETURN THE PURPOSES”: “MUNICIPAL argued that the phrase “municipal purposes, INTRODUCTION on the guarantee. The Corporation refused being purposes of an extraordinary nature” In Mexico Infrastructure Finance payment, arguing that the guarantee was ultra must be given a broad construction. n LLC v The Corporation of Hamilton, vires and unenforceable. This defence was It submitted that: the Privy Council held, 3-2, that the grant allowed at first instance and in the Court of The phrase clearly envisaged activities by the Corporation of Hamilton of a Appeal for Bermuda. out of the ordinary run, since it referred guarantee to support borrowing by a private to purposes of an “extraordinary nature”, developer was ultra vires and, accordingly, THE POWER and it expressly required ministerial unenforceable.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Maryland's Business Judgment Rule
    File: sharfmanfinalmacro.doc Created on: 4/18/2006 5:07 PM Last Printed: 5/20/2006 5:17 PM Understanding Maryland’s Business Judgment Rule Bernard S. Sharfman1 I. INTRODUCTION The “Business Judgment Rule” (“BJR”) is a common law stan- dard of judicial review.2 The BJR is applied by the courts to favor the actions of corporate managers.3 According to Henry Manne, a leading commentator on corporate law, the BJR protects from ju- dicial review “honest if inept business decisions” made by corpo- rate managers.4 By accomplishing this strategic objective, the BJR tries to obtain its ultimate goal - preventing courts from exer- cising regulatory authority over corporate management.5 The creation of the BJR as a means of obtaining this goal is a direct product of the time period in which it originated. The BJR first appeared in the 19th century, a time when there was a fear of gov- ernment regulation. Since then, the BJR has been used by the courts as a means to avoid the exercise of regulatory authority over corporations.6 1. Bernard Sharfman is a member of the DC and Maryland bars and a Class of 2000 graduate of Georgetown University Law Center. This article is dedicated to Mr. Sharfman’s wife, Susan David, for without her encouragement and editorial comments this article would never have been completed. Mr. Sharfman would like to thank Joseph Hinsey, H. Douglas Weaver Professor of Business Law, Emeritus, at the Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration and James J. Hanks, Jr., Partner, Venable LLP and the author of Maryland Corporate Law for their helpful comments and insights.
    [Show full text]
  • Due Diligence
    Due Diligence Sheppard Mullin has designed an innovative solution for its clients that are acquiring or selling businesses or providing debt or equity financing to companies. With its team of trained due diligence attorneys who leverage emerging technology, Sheppard Mullin can deliver high-level diligence-related services quickly, effectively and in a cost-efficient manner. Diligence Experience Our Diligence Team focuses full-time on providing diligence-related support on corporate and financing transactions. Because of this, they are skilled at reviewing and analyzing documents and agreements produced by target companies and can quickly prepare diligence memoranda, material issues lists and other client deliverables. The Diligence Team also frequently and proficiently oversees the document production and disclosure schedule preparation process on behalf of sellers, issuers and borrowers. Each time services are provided, the Diligence Team develops an institutional knowledge base that can be accessed for future deals by the same client or in the same industry. Sheppard Mullin’s deep bench of subject matter experts (such as tax, environmental, employment, real estate and intellectual property) join the Diligence Team as needed on transactions to appropriately advise clients. 24/7 Rapid Support The Diligence Team has the ability to ramp up a time-sensitive review in less than a day. While operating as a team, the attorneys proficiently divide up tasks based on their individual strengths and tap into their extensive collective experience to quickly prepare the desired work product. And because Diligence Team members are located in the firm’s offices in New York, Los Angeles, and San Diego, we are able to provide nationwide support across time zones, which is often critical in transactions with expedited timing and a large volume of documents.
    [Show full text]
  • The Duty of UK Company Directors to Consider Relevant ESG Factors
    The Duty of UK Company Directors to Consider Relevant ESG Factors Disclaimer This memorandum is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Neither the PRI Association nor Debevoise & Plimpton, nor any of their respective agents, partners or employees, takes any responsibility for any action taken or not taken on the basis of anything contained in this memorandum. Specific legal advice should always be sought. This memorandum, which is based upon the law as at August 2019, is deliberately abbreviated and summary in nature. Unless expressly stated otherwise, the opinions, recommendations, findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this report are those of the various contributors to the report and do not necessarily represent the views of PRI Association or the signatories to the Principles for Responsible Investment. Any recommendations or summaries made by the PRI Association based on the content of this memorandum should not be taken to have been endorsed by Debevoise & Plimpton. Debevoise & Plimpton Debevoise & Plimpton LLP is a premier law firm with market-leading practices and a global perspective. Approximately 700 lawyers work in nine offices across three continents, within integrated global practices, serving clients around the world. The Debevoise Private Equity Group is a genuine market leader and has helped shape the industry for decades. More than 200 lawyers work within the Group in Debevoise offices around the world, making it one of the few truly global private equity practices. The team works hand-in-hand with our Business Integrity Group, designing and integrating solutions to complex corporate responsibility challenges. We work with in-house counsel, sustainability leaders and compliance departments to provide guidance on emerging integrity standards.
    [Show full text]
  • SUMMARY Introduction the Fiduciary Position of Directors to Whom Do Directors Owe T
    14 Directors’ duties <start feature> SUMMARY Introduction The fiduciary position of directors To whom do directors owe their duties? The general duties of directors: CA 2006, Part 10 Remedies Accessory liability Relief from liability <end feature> Introduction 14.1 In this chapter we consider the duties which a director owes to the company. In Chapter 13 we explained that directors are fiduciaries and so much of the case law on their duties is founded on principles originating from the law of trusts and agency. We also saw that the early part of the 20th century marked a significant shift in the way the judges viewed the office of director. In tandem with this development the courts adopted a stricter approach towards the standard of care and skill expected of directors in the performance of their management roles. A concern of both equity and common law courts was to develop a corpus of rules designed to prevent directors abusing their considerable powers. The policy objective is based on prophylaxis and the result is a formidable body of reported decisions in which the judges have been developing the contours of directors’ liabilities. In addition to the work of the courts, legislation has also imposed a range of duties, devised principally as reactive measures against specific abuses by directors, particularly in relation to fraudulent asset stripping. Confronted with this considerable body of law, it came as little surprise that the Company Law Review (CLR), in line with its objectives of maximising clarity and accessibility, recommended that the duties of directors should be codified by way of a 1 statutory restatement.
    [Show full text]
  • CCAR Journal the Reform Jewish Quarterly
    CCAR Journal The Reform Jewish Quarterly Halachah and Reform Judaism Contents FROM THE EDITOR At the Gates — ohrgJc: The Redemption of Halachah . 1 A. Brian Stoller, Guest Editor ARTICLES HALACHIC THEORY What Do We Mean When We Say, “We Are Not Halachic”? . 9 Leon A. Morris Halachah in Reform Theology from Leo Baeck to Eugene B . Borowitz: Authority, Autonomy, and Covenantal Commandments . 17 Rachel Sabath Beit-Halachmi The CCAR Responsa Committee: A History . 40 Joan S. Friedman Reform Halachah and the Claim of Authority: From Theory to Practice and Back Again . 54 Mark Washofsky Is a Reform Shulchan Aruch Possible? . 74 Alona Lisitsa An Evolving Israeli Reform Judaism: The Roles of Halachah and Civil Religion as Seen in the Writings of the Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism . 92 David Ellenson and Michael Rosen Aggadic Judaism . 113 Edwin Goldberg Spring 2020 i CONTENTS Talmudic Aggadah: Illustrations, Warnings, and Counterarguments to Halachah . 120 Amy Scheinerman Halachah for Hedgehogs: Legal Interpretivism and Reform Philosophy of Halachah . 140 Benjamin C. M. Gurin The Halachic Canon as Literature: Reading for Jewish Ideas and Values . 155 Alyssa M. Gray APPLIED HALACHAH Communal Halachic Decision-Making . 174 Erica Asch Growing More Than Vegetables: A Case Study in the Use of CCAR Responsa in Planting the Tri-Faith Community Garden . 186 Deana Sussman Berezin Yoga as a Jewish Worship Practice: Chukat Hagoyim or Spiritual Innovation? . 200 Liz P. G. Hirsch and Yael Rapport Nursing in Shul: A Halachically Informed Perspective . 208 Michal Loving Can We Say Mourner’s Kaddish in Cases of Miscarriage, Stillbirth, and Nefel? . 215 Jeremy R.
    [Show full text]
  • Defining Due Diligence?
    \\jciprod01\productn\H\HLI\53-2\HLI208.txt unknown Seq: 1 22-MAY-12 12:47 Volume 53, Number 2, Summer 2012 Lenahan (Gonzales) v. United States of America: Defining Due Diligence? Amy J. Sennett* Introduction The United Nations reports that the most common form of violence ex- perienced by women around the world is physical violence inflicted by an intimate partner.1 On a global average, at least one in three women is beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused by an intimate partner in the course of her lifetime.2 Thus, it is all the more significant that in August 2011, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (“the Commis- sion”) found that the United States violated the human rights of Jessica Lenahan and her three daughters in the first domestic violence case brought against the United States in an international human rights tribunal.3 The Commission’s decision confirmed the application of the due diligence stan- dard to interpret the obligation of non-discrimination under the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man. That obligation requires states to prevent, prosecute, and sanction acts of violence against women, including, in certain circumstances, acts of violence by private actors.4 The Commission found that the United States’ failure to meet this standard re- sulted in violations of Lenahan and her daughters’ right to equality, right to life, and right to special protection as women and children.5 The decision stands in stark contrast to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2005 ruling on the same facts in Town of Castle Rock, Colo.
    [Show full text]
  • Directors Duties and Liabilities Under Cayman Islands Law Article
    October 2012 Company Directors: Duties and Liability in Cayman Islands Law For further information Duties and liabilities of directors of companies in the Cayman Islands are on any of the issues discussed in determined by legislation in the Companies Law (Revised) and by the this article please contact: Common Law from which precedents are established. Some of the Common Law principles are incorporated in statute and legal precedents evolve over time as new cases are tried before the Grand Court, Court of Appeal and the Privy Council. Statutory Duties of Company Directors The Companies Law (2011 Revision) lists the duties and requirements of company directors: • To maintain a register of company members with their names and addresses and in the case of a company having its capital divided Lorcan Tiernan DD: + 353 (0)1 673 1736 into shares, a statement of the shares held by each member, at the [email protected] registered office of the company in the Cayman Islands. (This provision does not apply to the register of exempted companies which can be kept at any location). • To maintain a register of directors. The Registrar of Companies shall be notified of any change in directors or officers within 30 days. Failure to comply with the notification gives rise to a penalty of CI$10 for every day during which the default continues. The penalty applies to every director and manager who knowingly and willfully authorises or permits such default. • A register of mortgages and charges over company assets must be kept at the registered office of the company.
    [Show full text]
  • Trump V. Sierra Club, Et
    No. 19A60 In the Supreme Court of the United States _______________________________ DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., Applicants, v. SIERRA CLUB, ET AL., Respondents, _______________________________ RESPONDENT’S OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR STAY _______________________________ Sanjay Narayan Cecillia D. Wang Gloria D. Smith Counsel of Record SIERRA CLUB ENVIRONMENTAL AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES LAW PROGRAM UNION FOUNDATION 2101 Webster Street, Suite 1300 39 Drumm Street Oakland, CA 94612 San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 343-0770 Mollie M. Lee [email protected] Christine P. Sun AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES Dror Ladin UNION FOUNDATION OF Noor Zafar NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. Jonathan Hafetz 39 Drumm Street Hina Shamsi San Francisco, CA 94111 Omar C. Jadwat AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES David Donatti UNION FOUNDATION Andre I. Segura 125 Broad Street AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES New York, NY 10004 UNION FOUNDATION OF TEXAS P.O. Box 8306 David D. Cole Houston, TX 77288 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 915 15th Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20005 Attorneys for Respondents CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT In accordance with United States Supreme Court Rule 29.6, respondents make the following disclosures: 1) Respondents Sierra Club and Southern Border Communities Coalition do not have parent corporations. 2) No publicly held company owns ten percent or more of the stock of any respondent. 1 INTRODUCTION Defendants ask this Court, without full briefing and argument and despite their own significant delay, to allow them to circumvent Congress and immediately begin constructing a massive, $2.5 billion wall project through lands including Organ Pipe National Monument, Coronado National Memorial, the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, and the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge.
    [Show full text]
  • 9 Requirments of Due Diligence – Ezike
    THE NIGERIANJURIDICALREVIEW Vol.13 (2015) Articles Pages Terrorism,ArmedConflictandtheNigerianChild:LegalFramework forChildRightsEnforcementinNigeria ~DamilolaS.Olawuyi 1 ClearingtheHurdles:ATherapeuticExaminationoftheChallengesto theProtectionandEnforcementofEconomic,SocialandCulturalRights ~DamianU.Ajah&IjeamakaNnaji 25 InequitableTradeRulesinWorldTradeOrganisation(WTO): ImpactonDevelopingCountries ~ EmekaAdibe&ObinneObiefuna 57 PublicParticipationinEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentinNigeria: ProspectsandProblems ~ HakeemIjaiya 83 RethinkingtheBasisofCorporateCriminalLiabilityinNigeria ~ CalistusN.Iyidiobi 103 ElevatingConsumerRightstoHumanRights ~FestusO.Ukwueze 131 WhenaTrademarkBecomesaVictimofItsOwnSuccess: TheIronyoftheConceptofGenericide ~NkemItanyi 157 EnvironmentalConstitutionalisminNigeria: AreWeThereYet? ~TheodoreOkonkwo 175 RequirementsofDueDiligenceonCapacityofNigerianGovernment Officials/Organs/AgentstoContract- GodwinAzubuikev.Government OfEnuguState inFocus ~ Rev.Fr.Prof.E.O.Ezike 217 FACULTYOFLAW UNIVERSITYOFNIGERIA,ENUGUCAMPUS EDITORIAL BOARD General Editor Dr. Edith O. Nwosu, LL.B., LL.M., Ph.D., B.L Assistant Editor Dr. Chukwunweike A. Ogbuabor, LL.B., LL.M., Ph.D., B.L Statute and Case Note Editor Professor Ifeoma P. Enemo, LL.B., LL.M., Ph.D., B.L Book Review Editor John F. Olorunfemi, LL.B., LL.M., B.L Distribution Coordinator Damian U. Ajah, LL.B., LL.M., B.L EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Professor Boniface O. Okere, Professor Obiora Chinedu Okafor Docteur d’Universite de Paris LL.B (Nig), LL.M, (Nig) LL.M, Professor,
    [Show full text]
  • Global Due Diligence Manual
    GLOBAL DUE DILIGENCE MANUAL NAVIGATING THE WORLD OF PRO BONO Pro Bono Institute Founded in 1996, Pro Bono Institute (PBI) is a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit organization. With an unparalleled depth of knowledge, resources, and expertise, PBI is the respected resource for all things pro bono. Through our work with law firms, legal departments, the courts, and public interest organizations, PBI is the global thought leader in exploring, identifying, evaluating, catalyzing, and taking to scale new approaches and resources for the provision of legal services to the poor, disadvantaged, and other individuals or groups unable to secure legal assistance to address critical problems. Our rigorous empirical research and analysis; white papers and reports; and advice and support allow us to reach a wide variety of audiences and transform the concept and practice of pro bono. By providing expert, confidential consultative services, educational programming, and local, national, and global pro bono convenings, our goal is to continually improve and enrich pro bono service. We count among our members, supporters, and partners the most respected law firms and legal departments in the world, as well as the most effective and cutting-edge public interest organizations. The Law Firm Pro Bono Project The Law Firm Pro Bono Project is the only global effort designed to support and enhance the pro bono culture and performance of major law firms in the United States and around the world. The Project's goal is to fully integrate pro bono into the practice, philosophy, and culture of firms so that large law firms provide the institutional support, infrastructure, and encouragement essential to fostering a climate supportive of pro bono service and promoting partner and associate participation.
    [Show full text]