DOCSLIB.ORG

Freedom of Investment Process

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Freedom of Investment Process Freedom of Investment Process INVENTORY OF INVESTMENT MEASURES TAKEN BETWEEN 15 NOVEMBER 2008 AND 31 AUGUST 2009 7 October 2009 The ―Freedom of Investment" (FOI) process hosted by the OECD Investment Committee has stepped up monitoring of investment policy developments and will be issuing reports on investment measures throughout 2010. This report was prepared for the 11th Freedom of Investment Roundtable held in October 2009. Earlier findings were presented at the OECD Ministerial Meeting in June 2009 and fed into a joint WTO-OECD-UNCTAD report to the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh in September 2009. More information about the FOI process is available at www.oecd.org/daf/investment/foi. Investment Division, Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2 rue André-Pascal, Paris 75116, France www.oecd.org/daf/investment/ TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 4 Inventory of Investment measures taken between 15 November 2008 and 31 August 2009 5 Summary of Findings 5 Reports on individual economies: Recent investment policy measures 10 Argentina 10 Australia 11 Austria 13 Belgium 15 Brazil 16 Canada 17 Chile 20 People‘s Republic of China 21 Czech Republic 23 Denmark 24 Egypt 25 Estonia 26 Finland 27 France 28 Germany 31 Greece 35 Hungary 36 Iceland 38 India 39 Indonesia 41 Ireland 42 Israel 44 Italy 46 Japan 47 Korea 49 Latvia 51 Lithuania 52 Luxembourg 53 Mexico 54 Netherlands 55 New Zealand 57 Norway 58 Peru 59 Poland 60 Portugal 61 Romania 63 Russian Federation 64 Saudi Arabia 67 Slovak Republic 68 Slovenia 69 South Africa 71 Spain 72 2 Sweden 73 Switzerland 74 Turkey 75 United Kingdom 76 United States 79 European Union 82 Methodology—Coverage, definitions and sources 84 3 INTRODUCTION 1. The Tour d’horizon is a permanent feature of Freedom of Investment (FOI) Roundtables. It provides an opportunity for Roundtable participants to monitor, share information, express views and make recommendations on recent investment policy developments. 2. These discussions are based on a variety of information sources: The participating countries themselves provide information in the form of written submissions or during presentations to the Roundtables. The Secretariat of the OECD Investment Committee has been mandated to track investment policy changes in order to inform discussions at the FOI Roundtables. The present inventory of investment measures provides descriptions of recent investment or investment-related actions by 47 countries and the European Union. These actions are of three types: ‗investment measures‘; ‗investment measures relating to national security‘ and ‗emergency and related measures with potential impacts on international investment‘. The Inventory also provides a brief summary of the findings. The inventory uses the same methodology as the report sent by the Roundtable to the 2009 Meeting of the OECD Council at Ministerial Level and the joint WTO-OECD- UNCTAD report to the G20 Leaders‘ Meeting in Pittsburgh in September 2009. 4 INVENTORY OF INVESTMENT MEASURES TAKEN BETWEEN 15 NOVEMBER 2008 AND 31 AUGUST 2009 3. By adhering to the OECD investment instruments, governments have committed themselves to open, non-discriminatory investment policies. At the London summit on 2 April 2009, G20 leaders reaffirmed their ―commitment made in Washington: to refrain from raising new barriers to investment or to trade in goods and services,‖ and pledged to ―minimise any negative impact on trade and investment of [their] domestic policy actions including fiscal policy and action in support of the financial sector.‖ They also committed to ―not retreat into financial protectionism, particularly measures that constrain worldwide capital flows, especially to developing countries‖ and asked for quarterly reporting on their ―adherence to these undertakings.‖ 4. Under its mandate to track investment policy developments, the Secretariat of the OECD Investment Committee prepared a status report for consideration by Ministers at the June Council Meeting at Ministerial Level (MCM).1 Building on this work, the OECD developed, jointly with WTO and UNCTAD, a report to the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh on 24-25 September 2009.2 5. The present inventory of investment measures draws on the information gathered in these exercises and covers the period from 15 November 2008 to 31 August 2009. It comprises all economies that participate in the Freedom of Investment process of the OECD Investment Committee. The report uses broad definitions of international investment and of investment measures and includes: investment policy measures (involving removal or imposition of discrimination against foreign or non-resident investors); investment measures relating to national security; and emergency and related measures with potential impacts on international investment. More detailed information on the methodology is available in the section ―Methodology—Coverage, definitions and sources‖ on p. 84 in this document. Summary of Findings The thrust of investment policy changes is, for the most part, toward greater openness and clarity. 6. During the reporting period, 44 of the 48 economies—47 countries and the European Union— included in the present survey took some sort of policy action that will or may affect international investment (investment measures, investment measures related to national security, emergency and related measures). Table 1 summarises the information on the individual measures that are described in detail in part II of the present report. Many of the governments taking these measures indicated that the purpose was to reduce barriers to investment and improve the clarity of existing policies. 1 ―Status Report: Inventory of Investment Measures taken between 15 November 2008 and 15 June 2009‖, C/MIN(2009)12. 2 ―Report on G20 Trade and Investment Measures‖, WTO, OECD, UNCTAD, September 2009. 5 Table 1: Investment Measures taken between 15 November 2008 and 31 August 2009 Investment policy Investment Emergency and related measures with potential measures measures related impacts on international investment to national security Financial sector Automotive Cross-sectoral sector measures Argentina • • Australia • • Austria • • Belgium • • Brazil • Canada • • • • • Chile • P.R. China • • Czech Republic • • Denmark • Egypt Estonia • Finland • • France • • • • Germany • • • • Greece • • Hungary • • Iceland • • India • • • Indonesia • Ireland • • Israel • • Italy • Japan • • • Korea • • • Latvia • • Lithuania • Luxembourg • • Mexico • • Netherlands • • New Zealand • • Norway • • Peru Poland • • Portugal • • Romania • • Russian Federation • • • • Saudi Arabia Slovak Republic • Slovenia • • South Africa Spain • • Sweden • • 6 Investment policy Investment Emergency and related measures with potential measures measures related impacts on international investment to national security Financial sector Automotive Cross-sectoral sector measures Switzerland • Turkey • United Kingdom • • • • United States • • • European Union • • • Investment policy measures 7. During the reporting period, 14 economies—13 countries and the European Union—changed policies governing inward and/or outward investment, not including policy changes related to national security (treated below). Measures include the following: Argentina relaxed capital controls it had introduced in 2005. Australia relaxed restrictions on residential real estate investment. Also, Australia liberalised screening requirements for the Foreign Investment Review Board to lower compliance costs on foreign investors. An annual indexing of investment screening thresholds seeks to ensure that the thresholds do not capture lower value foreign investment proposals over time. Canada changed its investment review procedure in ways that, by its own assessment, will lower the number of investments it reviews. Canada also released for public comment draft regulations amending the existing Investment Canada Act Regulations. These follow amendments to the Investment Canada Act, which changed the monetary threshold for reviews of investments to determine whether they are of net benefit to Canada. The draft regulations: define the "enterprise value" which is the basis for determining whether the monetary threshold for review has been met; eliminate lower monetary review thresholds for investments in the uranium production, financial services, and transportation sectors; and modify the information requirements for investors. Canada also concluded a series of open skies agreements. The People‘s Republic of China: streamlined its foreign investment review process; eased restrictions on provision of financial information services by foreign institutions; and authorised two foreign banks to issue Yuan bonds in China. In the area of outward investment, it simplified approval processes for such investment and allowed Chinese companies to lend up to 30% of their equity to their overseas subsidiaries. France established a state-controlled Strategic Investment Fund to aid national businesses and to invest in companies that are considered of strategic value for the French or European economies. India relaxed restrictions in some sectors (including by changing the way it calculates the amount of foreign investment in Indian companies), but replaced automatic approval of investments in several ―capped‖ sectors with a requirement for prior approval. India has also taken steps to facilitate investment in Indian depository receipts by foreign institutional investors and mutual funds.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Directive 94/19/EC on Deposit-Guarantee Schemes – Obligation of Result – Emanation of the State – Discrimination)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 28 January 2013 (Directive 94/19/EC on deposit-guarantee schemes – Obligation of result – Emanation of the State – Discrimination) In Case E-16/11, EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis, Director, and Gjermund Mathisen, Officer, Department of Legal & Executive Affairs, acting as Agents, applicant, supported by the European Commission, represented by its Agents Enrico Traversa, Albert Nijenhuis and Karl-Philipp Wojcik, intervener, v Iceland, represented by Kristján Andri Stefánsson, Agent, Tim Ward QC, Lead counsel, Jóhannes Karl Sveinsson, Co-counsel, defendant, APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing to ensure payment of the minimum amount of compensation to Icesave depositors in the Netherlands and in the United Kingdom provided for in Article 7(1) of the Act referred to at point 19a of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes) within the time limits laid down in Article 10 of the Act, Iceland has failed to comply with the obligations resulting from that Act, in particular its Articles 3, 4, 7 and 10, and/or Article 4 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area. – 2 – THE COURT, composed of: Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge Rapporteur, Páll Hreinsson, and Ola Mestad (ad hoc), Judges, Registrar: Gunnar Selvik, - having regard to the written pleadings of the parties and the intervener and the written observations of the Principality of Liechtenstein, represented
    [Show full text]
  • Iceland's Financial Crisis
    Iceland’s Financial Crisis A Global Crisis • The current economic turmoil in Iceland is part of a complex global financial crisis and is by no means an isolated event. • Governments around the world have introduced emergency measures to protect their financial system and rescue their banks, as they suffer from a severe liquidity shortage. • Thus far, Iceland has been hit particularly hard by this unprecedented financial storm due to the large size of the banking sector in comparison to the overall economy. • The Icelandic Government has taken measures and is working hard to resolve the situation, both independently and in cooperation with other parties. • Iceland is cooperating with its Nordic and European partners and is currently consulting with the IMF on measures toward further stabilization of the Icelandic economy. 1 Bank Liquidity Tightens • The liquidity position of Icelandic banks tightened significantly in late September and early October as interbank markets froze following the collapse of Lehman Brothers. • The nationalization of Glitnir, one of Iceland’s three major banks, on Sept. 29 th , led to a credit rating downgrade on sovereign debt and that of all the major banks. • This led to further deterioration of liquidity. • Early October, all three banks were suffering from a severe liquidity shortage and in dire need for Central Bank emergency funding. Negative coverage on the Icelandic economy, particularly in the U.K, did not help either. • By mid-October, all three banks, Glitnir, Landsbanki and Kaupthing, had been taken over by the government on the basis of a new emergency law. • The banks had become too large to rescue.
    [Show full text]
  • Coping with a Banking Crisis – Rise, Fall and Rebirth of the Icelandic Banking System
    Coping with a banking crisis – Rise, fall and rebirth of the Icelandic banking system Second International Workshop on Managing Financial Instability in Capitalist Economies Reykjavik, Iceland September 23 - 25, 2010 Tryggvi Pálsson, Director Financial Stability Central Bank of Iceland SI-65698 Coping with a banking crisis The Rise 2 Iceland • In the 20th century Iceland went from being one of the poorest economies in Europe to a prosperous one – High but volatile growth, -mostly led by fisheries – From 2/3 of labour force in agriculture to 2/3 in services • In past decades: liberalization, deregulation and privatization • Member of the EEA in 1994 – Free movement of capital – European “passport” for financial institutions headquartered in any country within the area – Common legal and regulatory framework … – … but the safety net, e.g. deposit insurance and LOLR, and crisis management and resolution remained largely national (a poisonous coctail) 3 Banking system: - from sectoral and state owned to fully privatized (2003) - major acquisitions abroad 2004-2005 4 Kaupthing Bank Kaupthing began operations in Faroe Islands Stockholm branch opened Kaupthing Bank A new investment bank, New York office Commenced merged wtih Kaupthing Denmark, opens in was opened operations in London Bunadarbanki Islands Copenhagen Organic 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Acquired the Stenghthens its Buy a 20% share in the Indian Finnish securities Norwegian operation by Acquired the British bank financial firm FiNoble Advisors Kaupthing acquired Acquired
    [Show full text]
  • Special Report
    September 2014 turnarounds & Workouts 7 Special Report European Restructuring Practices of Major U.S. Law Firms, page 1 Firm Senior Professionals Representative Clients Bingham McCutchen James Roome Elisabeth Baltay Creditors of: Arcapita Bank, Bulgaria Telecommunications/Vivacom, Crest +44.20.7661.5300 Barry G. Russell Liz Osborne Nicholson, Dannemora Minerals, DEPFA Bank, Findus Foods, Gala Coral, www.bingham.com James Terry Neil Devaney Icelandic Banks (Kaupthing, Glitnir and Landsbanki), Invitel, Klöckner Stephen Peppiatt Emma Simmonds Pentaplast, Media Works, Northland Resources, Oceanografia, OSX3 Leasing Tom Bannister B.V., Petromena, Petroplus, Preem, Punch Taverns, Royal Imtech, Selecta, Sevan Marine, Skeie Drilling, Straumur, Technicolor S.A. (Thomson S.A.), Terreal, The Quinn Group, Uralita, Wind Hellas, Xcite, and others. Cadwalader, Wickersham Gregory Petrick Louisa Watt Centerbridge Partners, Avenue Capital Group, GSO Capital Partners, & Taft Richard Nevins Paul Dunbar Oaktree Capital Management, Varde Partners, Golden Tree Asset +44 (0) 20 7170 8700 Yushan Ng Karen McMaster Management, Bluebay Asset Management, MBIA, Davidson Kempner, www.cadwalader.com Holly Neavill Alexis Kay Outrider Management, GLG Partners, Warwick Capital, Alchemy, Finnisterre Capital. Davis Polk Donald S. Bernstein Timothy Graulich Lehman Brothers International (Europe) and its U.K. Lehman affiliates, +44 20 7418 1300 Karen E. Wagner Elliot Moskowitz Sterling Equities in Madoff SIPA liquidation, Technicolor S.A., Royal www.davispolk.com Andrés V. Gil Thomas J. Reid Imtech, Carrefour, major global banks and financial institutions in Arnaud Pérès Christophe Perchet connection with several monoline insurance company restructurings, Marshall S. Huebner John Banes Goldman Sachs in connection with exposures to BP, Castle HoldCo 4, Benjamin S. Kaminetzky Reuven B.
    [Show full text]
  • Decision-292-12-COL.Pdf EN
    Case No: 68972 Event No: 645913 Dec. No: 292/12/COL Public version of1 EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION of 11 July 2012 regarding state aid granted in the winding up of certain investment funds connected to New Glitnir, New Landsbankinn and New Kaupþing (Iceland) The EFTA Surveillance Authority (“the Authority”), HAVING REGARD to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (“the EEA Agreement”), in particular to Article 61 and Protocol 26, HAVING REGARD to Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement (“Protocol 3”), in particular to Article 1(2) of Part I and Articles 6, 7(3) and 13 of Part II, HAVING CALLED on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to those provisions2 and having regard to their comments to the decision to open the formal investigation procedure, Whereas: I. FACTS 1. Procedure (1) By letter dated 8 April 2009, Byr sparisjóður, Rekstrarfélag Byrs, Íslensk verðbréf, Rekstrarfélag íslenskra verðbréfa, MP banki, MP sjóðir, Sparisjóður Reykjavíkur og nágrennis, and Rekstrarfélag Spron (referred to collectively throughout as “the complainants”) made a complaint against alleged state aid granted in the winding up of investment funds connected to the three failed Icelandic banks Glitnir, Kaupþing and Landsbankinn. The letter was received and registered by the Authority on 17 April 2009 (Event No. 515439). (2) After various exchanges of correspondence3, by letter dated 8 September 2010 the Authority informed the Icelandic authorities that it had decided to initiate the procedure 1 This document is made available for information purposes only. In this public version, some information has been omitted so as not to divulge confidential information.
    [Show full text]
  • World Bank Document
    Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized IN TiUS ISSUE The Great American Motor Rallye •...............•... Meet a Foreigner . .. Christma~ Cocktail Party Pictures. ............... Public Disclosure Authorized The following statement was made by Mr. Andrew N. Overby at the last Executive Directors' meeting in 1955. We think his words are most fitting as a thought for the New Year. "Mr. Chairman: "This, I believe. will be the last meeting of the year. and I think it is appropriate at this time not only to extend to the management and staff of the Bank the Board's Christmas greetings. but also their deep appreciation. of the work and able and efficient discharge of duty on behalf of the staff• . They wish also to pay tribute to the leadership of the management of the Bank which has taken us through another difficult year and. we think, without running afoul of too many rocks, and has taken us into some new and perhaps even interesting horizons lying ahead of us. "So with those words. we expres~ our appreciation, as well as our Christmas greetings to you and all the members of the staff, sir." CHRISTMAS CARDS RE<:;EIVED BY THE BANK, 1955 The First National Ciiy Bank of Caisse d'Epargne de L 'Etat, New York Luxembourg Amsterdamsche Bank The Workers' Bank Ltd., Israel Governor of the Bank of Greece Landsbanki Islands La Asociacion Mexicana de Caminos Central Hidroelectrica del Rio Federal Reserve Bank of New York Anchicaya, Limitada,. Colombia Bank of the Ryukyus Comptoir National d'Escompte de Banque de France Paris Industrial Development Bank of The Trust Company of Cuba Turkey Central Office of Information, Malta Nederlandsche Handel-Maatschappij.
    [Show full text]
  • POLICY INSIGHT No. 44 JANUJANUARY 2010
    abcd a POLICY INSIGHT No. 44 JANUJANUARY 2010 The saga of Icesave Jon Danielsson London School of Economics The President of Iceland has refused to sign a parlia- • Strong likelihood of state support in the event of mentary bill agreeing to compensate the governments systemic shock of the UK and Netherlands for deposit insurance pay- • Good financial fundamentals outs because of Icesave. This does not mean a rejection • Good efficiency levels of the country's obligations, nor any form of default. • Diversification of income On the contrary, the decision by the president stems • Capable credit risk management and good qual- from the fact that over 70% of Icelanders find the terms ity loan portfolios of the current deal unreasonable. • Adequate capitalisation • Prudent liquidity management Origin of the problem This coincided with one of the biggest asset bubbles the Iceland has traditionally had limited experience with world has ever seen, where anybody taking a highly international banking (Buiter and Sibert 2008). The leveraged bet was assured outsized profits. Eventually, financial system was highly regulated and politicised, the balance sheet of the banks swelled to 10 times the with the bulk of the system in government hands and GDP of Iceland. (See Danielsson and Zoega 2009). insulated from the outside world with capital controls until 1994. This all changed with the deregulation and So what is Icesave? privatisation of the financial system. Iceland adopted a new regulatory structure, in line with EU regulations, The Iceland banks started experiencing increasing prob- because of its European Economic Area membership. lems raising funds in international capital markets in Importantly, this meant that Icelandic banks could 2006.
    [Show full text]
  • Kaupthing Bank
    Kaupthing Bank - COMPANY UPDATE - HOLD Rating Summary and Conclusions Equity value 223,7 bn.ISK Kaupthing Bank acquires FIH Price 407,9 Kaupthing Bank (KB banki) has reached an agreement with Forenings Sparbanken (Swedbank) to Closing price 23.06.2004 429,5 purchase FI Holding, the holding company of the Danish corporate bank FIH. The purchase price amounts to ISK 84 billion (EUR 1,000 million), in addition to which Swedbank will retain part of Contents FIH's own equity. The acquisition will be financed with the issue of new share capital to holders of pre-emptive rights, as well as through subordinated debt. The price-to-book ratio for the Summary and Conclusions.........................................................1 transaction is 1.6. Kaupthing Bank acquires FIH....................................................2 Payment..................................................................................2 FIH is the third-largest bank in Danmark, with total assets close to ISK 800 bn at the end of Q1. It Financing.........................................................................2 was established in 1954 by the Danish state to encourage growth and development of Danish FIH...............................................................................................2 industry. FIH's activities are almost exclusively corporate lending. It holds a 17% share of the Danish Effect on group operations and value...................................3 corporate market and has around 5,000 customers, half of whom have been dealing with the
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Government Interventions United Kingdom
    21 April 2009 Summary of Government Interventions United Kingdom Overview Beginning in April 2008 and accelerating from there on, the UK began taking numerous and substantial actions in order to combat the economic downturn. Amongst the most important measures enacted by the UK are: • Bank Recapitalisations; • Credit Guarantee Scheme; • Bank of England Liquidity Provisions; • Guarantee Scheme for Asset-Backed Securities; • Bank of England Asset Purchase Facility, and • Asset Protection Scheme. In addition to the above measures, the UK has enacted several other significant measures that will also be discussed below. Investments/recapitalisation Bank Recapitalisation Scheme On 8 October 2008, the UK announced several significant measures (the “Initial Stability Measures”) to provide financial stability to the economy by ensuring that banks and building societies in the UK had sufficient access to (i) short-term liquidity, (ii) new capital and (iii) funds for medium-term lending. Of the Initial Stability Measures, the UK’s scheme (the “Bank Recapitalisation Scheme”) to help banks increase the level of their tier 1 capital above the regulatory requirements was arguably the most significant. Under the Bank Recapitalisation Scheme, the UK sought and obtained the commited participation of many of the largest UK banks and building societies (specifcally, Abbey, Barclays, HBOS, HSBC Bank, Lloyds TSB, Nationwide Building Society, RBS and Standard Chartered), however the scheme is available to any “eligible insitution” (which are UK incorporated banks (including UK subsidiaries of foreign institutions) that have substantial business in the UK and building societies). The participating institutions agreed that they would increase their aggregate tier 1 capital by GBP 25bn.
    [Show full text]
  • Addendum to the 2009 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund Investment Portfolio As of December 31, 2009
    Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund Addendum to the 2009 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund Investment Portfolio as of December 31, 2009 Interest Asset Description Rate Maturity Date Par Value Cost Value Market Value FIXED INCOME U.S. Securities Corporate Bonds 1st Horizon Mtg Passthru TR 5.30% 02/01/2035 $ 2,428,978 $ 2,328,783 $ 2,168,767 Abbott Laboratories Disc Coml Paper 4/2 Yrs 3& 0.13% 01/11/2010 10,000,000 9,999,450 9,999,725 Abbott Labs Nt 5.13% 04/01/2019 3,320,000 3,305,624 3,472,614 Ace Cash Express Inc Sr 10.25% 10/01/2014 330,000 330,000 240,900 Actuant Corp 6.88% 06/15/2017 830,000 826,738 789,538 Advanstar Communications Inc 2nd Lien Tldue 10.36% 11/30/2014 90,000 51,525 11,025 AEP Inds Inc Sr Nt 7.88% 03/15/2013 180,000 180,000 172,350 AES Corp 7.75% 03/01/2014 350,000 373,988 355,250 AES Corp Sr 8.00% 10/15/2017 2,319,000 2,321,224 2,379,874 AES Corp Sr Nt 7.75% 10/15/2015 580,000 580,000 588,700 AES Corp Sr Nt 9.38% 09/15/2010 215,000 209,088 221,988 Aetna Inc New 6.75% 12/15/2037 255,000 268,617 265,896 Affiliated Computer Svcs Inc Sr Nt 5.20% 06/01/2015 490,000 508,620 505,313 Affinia Group Inc 9% 9.00% 11/30/2014 720,000 668,494 698,400 Ak Airls Inc 9.50% 04/12/2010 1,245 1,202 1,145 Ak Airls Inc 9.50% 04/12/2012 109,201 106,906 106,024 Aleris International Inc Dip 10.46% 02/13/2010 267,922 94,869 273,504 Aleris Intl Inc B•1 NR 4.25% 12/19/2013 146,018 146,018 7,301 Aleris Intl Inc B•1 Ru 4.25% 12/19/2013 306,132 286,376 140,821 Aleris Intl Inc Sr 9.00% 12/15/2014 640,000 640,000
    [Show full text]
  • Maintaining the Financial Stability of UK Banks: Update on the Support Schemes Our Vision Is to Help the Nation Spend Wisely
    REPOrt BY THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL HC 676 SESSION 2010–2011 15 DECEMBER 2010 HM Treasury Maintaining the financial stability of UK banks: update on the support schemes Our vision is to help the nation spend wisely. We apply the unique perspective of public audit to help Parliament and government drive lasting improvement in public services. The National Audit Office scrutinises public spending on behalf of Parliament. The Comptroller and Auditor General, Amyas Morse, is an Officer of the House of Commons. He is the head of the National Audit Office which employs some 900 staff. He and the National Audit Office are totally independent of Government. He certifies the accounts of all Government departments and a wide range of other public sector bodies; and he has statutory authority to report to Parliament on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which departments and other bodies have used their resources. Our work leads to savings and other efficiency gains worth many millions of pounds: £890 million in 2009-10. HM Treasury Maintaining the financial stability of UK banks: update on the support schemes Ordered by the House of Commons This report has been to be printed on 14 December 2010 prepared under Section 6 of the National Audit Act Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General 1983 for presentation to HC 676 Session 2010–2011 the House of Commons 15 December 2010 in accordance with Section 9 of the Act. London: The Stationery Office £14.75 Amyas Morse Comptroller and Auditor General National Audit Office 13 December 2010 Our December 2009 report Maintaining financial stability across the United Kingdom’s banking system provided a summary of the actions the Treasury took to support the UK banks through the financial crisis.
    [Show full text]
  • • the EFTA Court Pronounced Its Judgment on the Icesave Case
    Icesave: A farewell to uncertainty The EFTA court pronounced its judgment on the Icesave case yesterday. The court dismissed all pleas brought by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, and the ruling represented an outright victory for Iceland. Of the thirteen court cases brought by ESA against Iceland on behalf of EFTA through 2011, this is the first time that Iceland has emerged victorious. This eliminates all uncertainty associated with the resolution of the Icesave dispute in the last few years, which has, as we will see below, been damaging to the Icelandic economy. We expect the judgment to have a positive effect on the domestic economy. Icesave: A farewell to uncertainty The EFTA court pronounced its judgment on the Icesave case yesterday. The court dismissed all pleas brought by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, and the ruling represented an outright victory for Iceland. Of the thirteen court cases brought by ESA against Iceland on behalf of EFTA through 2011, this is the first time that Iceland has emerged victorious. This eliminates all uncertainty associated with the resolution of the Icesave dispute in the last few years, which has, as we will see below, been damaging to the Icelandic economy. This was a declaratory judgment in which the court ruled on the following points: 1) The violation of the EEA agreement by the Icelandic deposit guarantee fund. The court was of the opinion that the Icelandic authorities did not contravene the deposit guarantee directive by not ensuring that Icesave depositors were paid from the depositors’ and investors' guarantee fund (TIF) no later than 2009.
    [Show full text]