Download Our Latest Issue!

Headliners COURTENAY COYE LLP Unconstitutional: Telemedia ATTORNEYS AT LAW Nationalisation Eight Amendment Breaches Basic Structure Cases In Focus

The High Cost of Preventing Employees From Unionizing Norwich Pharmacal Order August 2012 Belize Sugar Cane Farmers Assn. Dismisses CEO Without Cause UNCONSTITUTIONAL: “EMBASSY” Mark Decision TELEMEDIA NATIONALISATION Freezing & Receivership Orders Faced with this unusual turn of events, Legislation In Focus the parties that had successfully challenged International Limited Liability the original nationalization were forced Companies Act, 2011 to return to Court again to challenge the The Evidence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 2012 - Making Prosecu- legislation that purported to validate the tions Easier re-nationalization. On the 11th June 2012 The Representaion of The People the Supreme Court declared the second (Amendment) Act, 2012 – Clean- compulsory acquisition by the Government ing of Voters List Deferred to be unconstitutional. This determination New Tax Measures by the Supreme Court was the second time that the nationalisation of Telemedia was General declared unconstitutional by a Belize Court Ownership of and Rights of in about one year. Access to Beachfront Property Back on the 24th June 2010, the Court of Video Link as a Means of Access Appeal declared the compulsory acquisition Strange Amendments to Justice by the Government of Belize of shares The Court of Appeal had declared that the The Rights and Duties of Receivers in Belize Telemedia Limited and certain Belize Telecommunications (Amendment) Act Managing and Selling Mortgaged security instruments held by British 2009 (“the 2009 Act”) to be unlawful, null and Property Caribbean Bank Limited to be “unlawful, null void. This was because sections 3(d) and 17 of and void.” The Government did not return the Belize Constitution provide protection to the property to the successful parties, nor property owners from arbitrary acquisition of “This did the Government appeal the decision to their property by the Government. In order determination the Caribbean Court of Justice. to lawfully acquire property the Government Instead, the Government went back can only do so pursuant to a law that satisfies by the Supreme to the National Assembly to try to all the criteria set out in section 17(1) of the Court was correct the legal situation and passed new Constitution. These criteria require the legislation purporting to re-acquire the acquisition law to include within it: the right to the second same property for a second time. On the property owners to have direct access to the time that the 4th July 2011, the National Assembly, both Court to establish their title to the property nationalisation the House of Representatives and the acquired; provisions to have the Supreme Court Senate, “with unusual speed” passed the determine whether the nationalization was of Telemedia Belize Telecommunications (Amendment) duly acquired for a public purpose; provisions was declared Act 2011 (“the 2011 Act ”). Consequent on to ensure that the compensation to be paid the amendments, on the 5th June 2011 the is reasonable and given within reasonable unconstitutional Minister of Public Utilities issued a Statutory time; and provisions to enforce the payment by a Belize Court Instrument by which he purported to of the compensation. Because the 2009 Act in about one once again compulsorily acquire the same did not comply strictly with these mandatory property, for the Government which constitutional requirements, it was declared year.” the Court of Appeal had ten days earlier “unlawful, null and void”. Once the Act itself declared unconstitutionally acquired. was unconstitutional, the knock on effect was Cont’d. on page 2

that the taking was also unconstitutional. However, the Court Court confirmed that the effect of the Court of Appeal’s of Appeal also held that the purpose which the Government decision was that the 2009 Act was “dead”. Therefore, the stated to justify the acquisition; stabilization and improvement attempt by the National Assembly to amend it, in order in the telecommunications industry, reliable service at to cure the deficiencies identified by the Court of Appeal affordable rates, and a harmonious and non-contentious was completely ineffective. It followed that the Statutory environment was not supported by the evidence. The Court Instrument issued by the Minister to re-acquire the of Appeal found that the Government was actuated by malice property was also null and void since it was issued pursuant towards Lord Ashcroft and that it was unconstitutional to to a dead law. acquire private property to pursue a personal vendetta. The effect of this decision is that since the 25th August In the 2011 Act, the Government ignored the Court of 2009 the Government has been in unlawful control of Appeal’s decision which had declared certain provisions to Telemedia. Its acquisition of the British Caribbean Bank’s be constitutionally non-compliant, and therefore it struck property has been unlawful from the very beginning. down the entire Act. Instead of re-enacting the 2009 Act Despite the constitutional requirement for reasonable with amendments to take account of the Court of Appeal’s compensation to property owners within a reasonable decision, the Government proceed to purport to amend it time the Government has paid no compensation. as if it was still valid and in force. Government Remains in Control Re-acquiring pursuant to the 2011 Act Even though the Supreme Court declared that the The Statutory Instrument issued by the Minister of acquiring legislation is null and void, the Government Public Utilities in 2011 by which he purportedly re-acquired remains in control of Telemedia and continues to treat the property on behalf of the Government, was expressly BCB’s loan as having been lawfully acquired. This is based on the same section that had been declared void by because the Supreme Court declined to give the winners the Court of Appeal. The Minister sought to get around the consequential relief. declaration of nullity by declaring that the acquisition Order The Eighth Amendment to the Belize Constitution should be deemed to be in effect as from the 25th August added section 144 to the Constitution. Boyce and BCB 2009, the date when the original acquisition occurred. challenged this section, and the Supreme Court concluded The intention of the Government was clear. It was re- that most of it was unconstitutional. However, the Court acquiring the same property with effect from 2009. If the severed the unconstitutional part and left the following part 2011 Act was valid, it would have the effect of validating the intact: “From the commencement of the Belize Constitution actions during the period from August 2009 to June 2011 (Eighth Amendment) Act, 2011, the Government shall have during which period the Government’s acquisition was and maintain majority ownership and control of a public utility unlawful according to the Court of Appeal. The intention provider.” Since the Court found this portion of section 144 was to neatly cover this period. This was not achieved. to be constitutional it regarded itself as constrained from granting relief to Boyce and British Caribbean Bank Limited. Unconstitutional Again Accordingly the Court refused consequential relief. The Dean Boyce, as trustee of the Telemedia Employees Government has appealed the decision of Justice Legall. Trust and British Caribbean Bank Limited that had its Boyce and the British Caribbean Bank Limited have cross- security interest purportedly acquired by the Government appealed on the Judge’s interpretation of the remaining again, challenged the second acquisition. As noted above, part of section 144. The Court of Appeal has decided that the Supreme Court found in favour of the property owners it will expedite the hearing of the appeal – it is set to begin and declared, for the second time, that the attempt at re- the hearing on the 8th October 2012. nationalisation was unlawful, null and void. In the main, the

EIGHTH AMENDMENT BREACHES BASIC STRUCTURE The Belize Constitution (Eighth Amendment) Bill (“the Eighth Amendment”) is perhaps the most controversial amendment to the Constitution ever proposed. It was introduced in the House of Representatives on the 22nd July 2011, and it was subject to widespread heated debate. Cont’d. on page 3

COURTENAY COYE LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3

The Bar Association of Belize went so far as to procure Validation of Nationalisation ? two opinions from leading international constitutional In addition to these far-reaching amendments, the Eighth law scholars. The amendment was introduced against the Amendment declared that the property acquired under the background of the decision of the Court of Appeal that the 2011 Acts (and the amendment to the Electricity Act which Government’s nationalisation of Belize Telemedia Limited was used to nationalize Belize Electricity Limited) “was duly and certain security interests of British Caribbean Bank carried out for a public purpose in accordance with the laws Limited was unlawful, null and void. The primary purpose of authorizing the acquisition of such property”. By this provision, the amendment was to make the re-nationalisation beyond the Government sought to put the acquisitions beyond legal challenge. question. It was designed to insulate the nationalisations The Eighth Amendment was unprecedented in from legal challenge of the property owners, the intent its implications for future challenges to constitutional being that they should be satisfied with compensation. amendments and to the power relationship between the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. Many regarded Eighth Amendment Trimmed it as a threat to democracy. The Supreme Court once again accepted that the basic structure doctrine applied to Belize. This doctrine No Longer Supreme was first accepted in the landmark decision in the Section 2 of the Belize Constitution contains the Barry Bowen case. The essence of the basic structure ‘supreme law clause’: “This Constitution is the supreme law of doctrine is that there are certain fundamental provisions Belize and if any other law is inconsistent with this Constitution and tenets that underpin the Constitution that the that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.” Legislature cannot change. This is because the power to This section has been construed and applied to declare legislate and to amend the Constitution exercisable by laws unconstitutional which were inconsistent with it. the Legislature is a limited power that is subject to the The Eighth Amendment sought to amend this section by Constitution. adding the following: “Section 2 of the Constitution is hereby amended by renumbering that section as subsection (1) and by “The essence of the basic structure adding the following as subsection (2):- (2) The words “other doctrine is that there are certain law” occurring in subsection (1) above do not include a law to fundamental provisions and tenets alter any of the provisions of this Constitution which is passed by the National Assembly in conformity with section 69 of the that underpin the Constitution that Constitution.” the Legislature cannot change.” The intention of the Legislature was made clear by the amendment to section 69. The new 69(9) provided: “For Relying on this cardinal principle and the separation the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the provisions of powers doctrine, the Supreme Court declared that of this section are all-inclusive and exhaustive and that there is the amendments to sections 2 and 69 were in excess of no other limitation, whether substantive or procedural, on the the Legislature’s competence. It was not possible for the power of the National Assembly to alter this Constitution.” Legislature to amend the Constitution with the result The clear intent of these amendments, taken together, that subsequent amendments would not be amenable to was to provide that once the National Assembly passed judicial review. The Court went further and declared that an amendment to the Constitution in compliance with the the provision that sought to insulate the nationalisations procedural requirements of section 69 it would become was also unconstitutional as it attempted to render the a part of the Constitution. The result would be that nationalisations immune from judicial review. as a part of the Supreme Law it could not be declared All that remains of the Eighth Amendment is section unconstitutional by any Court. In short, the power of 143, a definition section and a portion of section 144. the National Assembly to amend the Constitution would The part that was saved reads: “From the commencement henceforth be unchecked. of the Belize Constitution (Eighth Amendment) Act, 2011, the Government shall have and maintain majority ownership and “…the power of the National control of a public utility provider.” On its face this appears to Assembly to amend the be declaratory and does not seek to effect an acquisition. Constitution would henceforth There remains serious doubt about the legality of the be unchecked.” Government’s nationalisation programme and those doubts are likely to be resolved on appeal to the higher Courts.

THE HIGH COST OF PREVENTING EMPLOYEES FROM UNIONIZING

violation of the Claimants’ constitutional rights. However, the Court of Appeal stated that the Act created a new cause of action and awarded $30,000 to each Claimant as EMPLOYEE compensation for injury to their pride and feelings and one years’ salary to each claimant. RIGHTS Mayan King appealed to the Caribbean Court of Justice and on 6th July 2012 the CCJ delivered its landmark decision. The CCJ did not disturb the trial judge’s finding that the Claimants’ UNIONIZATION termination was union busting. However, it considered that an award of $30,000 to each Claimant together with one year’s salary was high, particularly since the claim was in private In October 2000 the Trade Unions and Employers’ law. The CCJ reduced the award from $30,000 to $15,000 to Organisations (Registration, Recognition and Status) each Claimant. The Court stated that “The aim of the award Act came into force in Belize. It is intended to provide cannot be to enrich unjustly or arbitrarily a claimant with a bountiful protection to employers and employees to freely associate windfall. Further, the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s and to form employees’ and employers’ organizations to misconduct is to be considered more for its impact on the victim protect their respective rights. While the Act is designed bearing in mind that the function of the civil law is ordinarily not to to protect the rights of employers and employees, in a punish the defendant.” society such as Belize where employers’ organizations are The award of $15,000 was described by the CCJ as not common, little if any benefit is derived by employers an award for distress and inconvenience. According to the from the Act. On the contrary, an employee’s constitutional Court the: “dismissals entailed much more than ending an right to freely associate is entrenched in the Act thereby employment relationship. The dismissals were accompanied by creating a new cause of action against an employer who the immediate expulsion of the claimants and their families from violates an employee’s right to unionize. their homes. … these dismissals justify awards to the Claimants The Supreme Court is given wide powers to redress the for distress and inconvenience.” It appears, therefore, that the violation of an employee’s rights under the Act by making such award was based on the peculiar facts of the case and that orders as it considers “just and equitable”. Redress may include such an award would not be merited in every case where a an order for the reinstatement of an employee, restoration of violation is established. benefits and other advantages and payment of compensation. It was noted that the Claimants’ evidence to assess However, the list is by no means exhaustive but unlike similar pecuniary loss was sparse and unsatisfactory. The losses laws in other jurisdictions, the Act does not provide any should have been established by clear evidence and in the guidance as to how the Supreme Court should exercise its absence of concrete testimony, it was not open to the discretion in awarding compensation. Court of Appeal to infer loss. The CCJ took into account The first claim made under the Act was filed by 6 that the employees were paid fortnightly and so were former employees of Mayan King Limited. The Claimants entitled to two weeks notice of their termination. A further were banana workers on Mayan King’s banana farms. two weeks was added since, on the facts of the case, the According to them, they were spearheading the movement dismissals also entailed the Claimants’ finding new housing to unionize the workers at Mayan King and were dismissed arrangements. The award of one year compensation was as a result of their union activities. therefore reduced to one month’s wages. One Claimant The Supreme Court determined that the termination had adduced evidence that he was unemployed for a period of the Claimants constituted union busting and that of three months and so his compensation was increased to they were each entitled to $70,000 as compensation for three months wages. violation of their respective constitutional rights. On appeal While the decision of the CCJ provides some guidance by Mayan King, the Court of Appeal agreed that the claim as to how the Supreme Court should, in future, determine was in private law against an employer and so there was no compensation for violation of an employee’s rights under the Cont’d. on page 5

COURTENAY COYE LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5

Act, it is important to note that the compensation awarded Courtenay Coye LLP represented Mayan King at both to the Claimants was largely affected by the particular facts the Court of Appeal and the Caribbean Court of Justice and of the case. This was not a case of simple dismissal, but had successfully secured for its client a reduction of compensation the added element of requiring the Claimants to leave their from $480,000 to $90,000 together with one month wages to places of abode on short notice. While the Claimants did five Claimants, and 3 month wages to one Claimant. not in fact leave until thee months after their employment was terminated, the CCJ empahsised the fact that “Courtenay Coye LLP… successfully nature of the dismissal required them to find alternative secured for its client a reduction of accommodation within 24 hours and considered that this compensation from $480,000 to $90,000…”. must have occasioned some mental distress. NORWICHTHE RIGHTS PHARMACAL AND DUTIES ORDERS OF AS RECEIVERSA GAME CHANGER IN MANAGINGIN TRANSNATIONALAND SELLING MORTGAGED LITIGATION PROPERTY - THE BELIZE EXPERIENCE A Norwich Pharmacal order is essentially an order for a Norwich Pharmacal Order granted by the Supreme disclosure of documents or information and it may be a Court of Belize is illustrated in the decision of Mr. Justice critical tool in being able to establish one’s case against a McCloskey in the High Court of Justice of Northern Ireland wrongdoer. The original Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction dated 30th March, 2012 – Quinn Finance, Irish Bank in its early developmental stage permitted an applicant Resolution Corporation Limited et al v Galfis Overseas to seek disclosure from a third party involved in some Limited. In that decision, the Claimants were able have way with the wrongdoer so as to be able to identify the certain Assignment Agreements declared null, void and wrongdoer and bring an action or claim against him. But of no legal effect or consequence by relying on evidence for the information provided by the third party it would be obtained pursuant to a Norwich Pharmacal Disclosure difficult or impossible for the applicant to commence an Order granted by Chief Justice of Belize Kenneth Benjamin action against the appropriate wrong-doer(s). in Belize Supreme Court Claim – Irish Bank Resolution The Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction has now extended Corporation Limited et al v Aleman Cordero Galindo to cases where the wrongdoer is known but “a missing piece & Lee Trust (Belize) Limited. of the jigsaw” is required in order for a claim to be properly The Assignment Agreements which were the subject of brought. Further, the party from whom the information is the dispute in the Northern Ireland High Court purported sought need not be an innocent third party but may in fact to assign a debt valued at approximately £100 million be the wrongdoer himself. ultimately to a Belize International Business Company, Importantly, the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction is namely Galfis Overseas Limited. The evidence disclosed adaptable to new circumstances and is still developing. At pursuant to Belize Norwich Pharmacal Order established present, the jurisdiction is only to be exercised if the party the backdating of documents and the fact that Galfis was against whom the order is saught is innocent third parties a shelf-company at the time of the purported assignments. are the only practicable source of information. Mr. Justice McCloskey held that: In presenting an application to the Court for a Norwich “I conclude that all of the impugned transactions are Pharmacal Order the Applicant will need to make full and null, void and of no effect as they were executed without frank disclosure of all the material facts to the Court the authority of the creditor, Demesne; one of the particularly since the Norwich Pharmacal application is parties to the impugned transactions, Galfis, had no legal ordinarily made on an ex parte basis. The Applicant will power or authority to execute same on the date when also ordinarily be required to provide an undertaking to they were allegedly made, 4th April 2011; the attorney pay the reasonable legal costs and the disclosure costs of who purportedly and allegedly executed the impugned the party against whom the Order is granted. transactions on behalf of Galfis was not their attorney on Norwich Pharmacal applications have now become 4th April 2011 and could not have lawfully acted on their behalf until, at the earliest, 20th July 2011; and each almost common-place in Belize in light of the fact that of the instruments in question was illicitly backdated, Belize is a jurisdiction offering international financial without any legal power or authority. All of the impugned services. One of the most recent successes in terms of assignments and addendum agreements are shorn of Cont’d. on page 6

any vestige of legality in consequence. Accordingly, the cornerstone of the Plaintiff’s primary case succeeds.” Banner of Courtenay Coye LLP, Attorneys-at-Law for the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited. The decision of Mr. Justice McCloskey establishes that Norwich Pharmacal Orders can be a game-changing “Norwich Pharmacal Orders can and powerful tool in the conduct of multi-jurisdictional be a game-changing and powerful litigation. The Belize side of the litigation in Claim – Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited et al v Aleman Cordero tool in the conduct of multi- Galindo & Lee Trust (Belize) Limited was conducted by Eamon jurisdictional litigation.” H. Courtenay SC, Mrs. Ashanti Martin and Ms. Pricilla J.

BELIZE SUGAR CANE FARMER’S ASSOCIATION DISMISSES CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHOUT CAUSE

On the 19th March, 2012 the Supreme Court of Belize By letter dated 29th September, 2010, eight months ruled that the Belize Sugar Cane Farmers Association into his contract, the BSCFA terminated Mr. Madrid’s (“BSCFA”) dismissed Mr. David Madrid, former Chief contract purportedly “With Cause” and cited many Executive Officer of the BSCFA, without cause. In his reasons which Mr. Madrid argued were fabricated for the judgment Mr. Justice Oswell Legall awarded Mr. Madrid purpose of denying him the benefit of a “Without Cause” damages in the sum of $148,950.00 plus attorneys termination, namely the payment of the full sum due for the costs in the sum of $22,342.50 amounting to a total entire term of his contract. Despite stating the “causes” award of $171,292.50. for which Mr. Madrid was being terminated, the letter of Mr. Madrid had executed a written contract of service termination also stated that Mr. Madrid was being paid dated 15th January, 2010 with the BSCFA wherein he gratuity although under his contract it only could be paid agreed to provide services to the BSCFA for a period of for satisfactory performance of his duties. One witness two years. Under the contract it was agreed that the for the BSCFA admitted under cross-examination that the services of Mr. Madrid could be terminated (1) “With question of gratuity had been discussed by the Executive Cause” by giving one month’s notice, or paying him one Committee prior to dismissing Mr. Madrid and that it was month’s salary in lieu of notice or (2) “Without Cause” decided to grant him gratuity for satisfactory performance. by paying him all the remaining term of his contract. The The Court did not accept that the BSCFA had dismissed BSCFA also agreed that upon completion of his services, Mr. Madrid “With Cause”. Mr. Justice Legall found that on a he would be entitled to receive gratuity at the rate of 10% balance of probabilities Mr. Madrid had proven that he was of his total salary earned under the contract provided dismissed without cause hence the award of damages and that the BSCFA had determined that his services had costs. The Claimant was represented by Pricilla J. Banner been satisfactorily executed. of Courtenay Coye LLP.

COURTENAY COYE LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 7

“EMBASSY” MARK DOES NOT INFRINGE THE “MARLBORO” MARK Cigarette giants Philip Morris S.A. and British American Tobacco (Brands) Limited had an epic battle in Belize over the registration of BAT’s Embassy trademark. The dispute arose in July 2008 when Philip Morris opposed the registration of BAT’s trademark alleging that the tail end of the vertical ribbon on BAT’s trademark was similar to its registered trademark described as a roof device (see trademarks below).

PHILIP MORRIS BAT’S TRADEMARK TRADEMARK

In 2009, that opposition was resolved by the Deputy Section 37(3) provides protection against the dilution Registrar of Intellectual Property in favor of BAT, which of a mark which has a reputation in Belize. This protection meant that BAT could proceed to register its Embassy is separate and distinct from the protection afforded to mark. Dissatisfied with that decision, Philip Morris a registered mark against the registration of a similar or appealed to the Supreme Court and alleged that the tail identical mark in respect of similar goods and services. end of the vertical ribbon on BAT’s trademark was slowly According to the Court, dilution under section 37(3) transitioning to resemble Philip Morris’ roof device. In “involves ‘the gradual whittling away or dispersion of the identity July 2010 the then Chief Justice of Belize, Dr. Abdulai O. and hold on the public mind’ of the earlier registered trade Conteh, ruled in favor of BAT. The decision by the former mark.” In other words, dilution would occur if ‘Rolls Royce’ Chief Justice was the first judicial decision on a trade-mark restaurants, ‘Rolls Royce’ cafeterias and ‘Rolls Royce’ pants dispute in Belize under this legislation. were permitted. Over time, the distinctiveness of the ‘Rolls Philip Morris appealed and in July 2012 the Court of Royce’ brand name as it relates to cars would be diluted. Appeal delivered its landmark decision, being the first A key requirement for protection under section 37(3) is decision on a trademark dispute to be delivered by that that the earlier mark must have a reputation in Belize. The Court. As such, the decision of the Court of Appeal is the Court of Appeal noted that there was no finding by either highest authority on modern trademark law in Belize. the Deputy Registrar or the Chief Justice that the Philip The sole issue on appeal was whether section 37(3) of Morris registered roof device had a reputation in Belize. the Trade Marks Act afforded some protection to Philip Philip Morris’ evidence in relation to reputation was that Morris’ roof device. The registration of a mark may be the Marlboro brand consisting of the name “Marlboro”, prevented pursuant to section 37(3) if it is established that the crest and the roof device had acquired a reputation (1) the later mark is identical or similar to the earlier mark, worldwide. There was no evidence that the roof device (2)the later mark is being registered for goods and services itself had acquired a reputation in Belize. In its evidence, which are not similar to those for which the earlier mark BAT admitted that Philip Morris’s Marlboro brand may is protected, and (3) the earlier mark has a reputation have acquired a reputation in Belize. The Court of Appeal in Belize and the use of the later mark would take unfair accepted that BAT’s concession was not an admission that advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character the registered roof device (as distinct from the Marlboro or repute of the earlier mark. brand) had acquired a reputation in Belize. The Court Cont’d. on page 8

noted that there was an obvious difference between the could be no dilution of Philip Morris’ roof device due to the registered mark which resembles a roof, and the Marlboro lack of prominence of the cut triangle at the tail end of the brand which includes the name “Marlboro”. It was therefore vertical ribbon on BAT’s trademark. In consequence, the the Marlboro “get up” which was a candidate for protection Court determined that even if it were assumed that Philip under section 37(3). Morris’ roof device was distinctive or that it had acquired Aside from reputation, there are two further a reputation in Belize, the use of BAT’s trademark would requirements for protection under section 37(3): (1) the not take unfair advantage of or cause detriment to Philip marks must be identical or similar and (2) the marks must Morris’ roof device. be registered for goods and services which are not similar. A peripheral issue that arose on the appeal was whether The Court of Appeal stated that: “The test for section 37(3) should be interpreted literally, thereby determining whether a trade mark is identical with or similar to excluding protection in circumstances where the goods another mark for the purposes of section 37(3) is whether the and services for which the trade mark is to be registered relevant section of the public would establish a link or connection are similar. The Court stated that based on the language between the two, without necessarily confusing them. It is that of section 37(3), if interpreted literally, the appeal would link or connection which creates the possibility that the use of have failed based on the admitted fact that the respective the latter trade mark would cause detriment to or take unfair goods and services are similar, if not identical. The Court advantage of the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier expressed grave misgivings about following European Court registered mark.” Applying that test, the Court was satisfied of Justice in Davidoff wherein that Court rejected the that the cigarette buying public in Belize would not make literal meaning of a similar statute and afforded protection a link with Philip Morris’ roof device. Furthermore, there to a mark in circumstances where the goods and services were similar. However, the Court of Appeal did not make “the Court of Appeal determined any ruling on the point since the appeal was dismissed on other grounds. that …the use of BAT’s trademark BAT has thus far persuaded the Deputy Registrar, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal that it should be would not take unfair advantage permitted to register its Embassy mark and in so doing, has of or cause detriment to Philip created judicial precedent in trademark law. BAT was represented by Courtenay Coye LLP in the Morris’ roof device.” appeals before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal.

FREEZING AND RECEIVERSHIP ORDERS IN AID OF FOREIGN PROCEEDINGS – A DEVELOPING JURISDICTION

The Belize Supreme Court has jurisdiction to grant a “free and which has since been established authoritatively in the standing” freezing order in respect of the assets of an British Virgin Islands Black Swan Investment I.S.A. v international business company, more colloquially known Harvest View Limited and in Guernsey in Solvalub Ltd v as an offshore company, for the purpose of freezing the Match Investments Limited. company’s assets in aid of ongoing foreign proceedings. In In exercising the jurisdiction to grant a “free standing” Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited et al v Galfis freezing order, the Supreme Court ordinarily only does so Overseas Limited conducted by Courtenay Coye LLP, the if the order is sought against a party within the jurisdiction Supreme Court exercised this jurisdiction to grant a freezing of the Court. Ordinarily, the Court must be satisfied that order in aid of foreign proceedings in circumstances where the assets which are the subject of the freezing order are the claim form was endorsed with a claim for a freezing located within the jurisdiction of the Court. order only, often referred to, in offshore jurisdictions, as a In order to obtain a freezing order of this nature, the “free-standing mareva or freezing order”. This is a developing Claimant must establish that there is a real risk that the jurisdiction which was first recognized in England in the Defendant will dissipate its assets pending the outcome of dissenting judgment of Mercedez Benz A.G. v Leiduck, the foreign proceedings if the Court does not freeze the Cont’d. on page 9

COURTENAY COYE LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 9

said assets. It must be shown that the Defendant will not company to hide assets, the Court will likely not consider retain sufficient property to meet a money or proprietary it heavy handed to appoint a Receiver. judgment which the Claimant expects to obtain in the foreign proceedings. The Claimant must also establish a “…where the Defendant is good arguable case. The Claimant must also establish that the balance of convenience favours the grant of a mixed up in fraud, or has used freezing order in that the grant of the order is just and an offshore company to hide convenient and that the Claimant will obtain a judgment which will “be enforceable (whether by registration, recognition assets, the Court will likely not or otherwise) by the local Court against the local Defendant.” consider it heavy handed to Importantly, the Supreme Court is only likely to grant a appoint a Receiver.” freezing order to duplicate injunctive relief already granted in the foreign jurisdiction. The absence of such duplicative injunctive relief in the foreign proceedings is a factor which The Court will also appoint a receiver over property will militate against such relief being granted in the Belize in support of a freezing order where to do so is necessary Supreme Court. in order to preserve assets and prevent their dissipation Apart from the grant of a freezing order, the Supreme prior to trial. Good reason must be shown in order for the Court has jurisdiction in certain circumstances to appoint Court to appoint a receiver. The Court must consider the a Receiver of a Belize international business company for effect of the order on the defendant and ultimately balance the purpose of preserving assets in aid of ongoing foreign the competing factors in order to decide whether the proceedings where the freezing order has been breached appointment of a receiver is just and convenient in all the or is otherwise ineffective. A receivership order will only circumstances of the case. Evidence that a freezing order be appropriate in cases where a freezing order alone would will be circumvented will clearly support a submission that a not be sufficient to preserve assets. receivership order may be necessary to prevent dissipation The prerequisites for the appointment of a receiver of assets notwithstanding the existence of a freezing order. are threefold, i.e. (i) there must be sufficient evidence to However, it is not in every case that evidence of such establish a good arguable case; (ii) there is property to circumvention will be present and an order appointing a preserve and (iii) the claim is not frivolous or vexatious. receiver may be granted in the absence of such evidence. While the Supreme Court is at liberty to grant an order Ultimately, the jurisdiction to appoint a receiver is one appointing a receiver as a remedy of first resort and in which the Supreme Court exercises with great caution and the absence of a freezing order, this jurisdiction is only often reluctantly in view of the draconian nature of the exercised exceptionally. Case law confirms that where remedy but where the circumstances of the case justify such the Defendant is mixed up in fraud, or has used an offshore an appointment, the Supreme Court is not wont to hesitate.

INTERNATIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES ACT, 2011 Adapted from the Nevis Limited Liability Company a partnership, the members/shareholders of an LLC have Ordinance and the Cook Islands LLC Act, the International limited liability. At the same time, like a partnership but Limited Liability Companies Act (“LLC Act”) was enacted unlike a corporation, the income of the LLC is deemed to be in January 2012 as a much anticipated addition to the the income of its members/shareholders. In other words, repertoire of products offered by Belize’s offshore sector. unlike a corporation, an LLC from a taxation standpoint is The limited liability company (“LLC”), a USA innovation a “flow-through” or “disregarded” entity and the members/ first established in the state of Wyoming and popularized shareholders are accordingly able to avoid being effectively by the state of Delaware, is essentially a hybrid of two double-taxed on both the LLC’s profits and the dividends/ familiar business structures, namely, a partnership and a distributions declared. corporation. The LLC integrates the beneficial elements of The LLC Act provides a general framework for the a partnership and a corporation without the disadvantages construct and conduct of an international LLC. The LLC of either entity. In particular, like a corporation but unlike Act provides for many of the familiar features that an LLC Cont’d. on page10

is known to possess in other jurisdictions including but not the judgment creditor and shall remain at the disposal of limited to the afore-mentioned limited liability advantage, and to be used in the best interest of the LLC not the that is, the Belize international LLC (“Belize LLC”) is a legal judgment creditor. entity with separate rights and liabilities distinct from its This charging order protection is further supplemented members and managers. A member shall have no interest in the LLC Act by the requirement of statutory security in the property of a Belize LLC, and the property of a for costs to deter frivolous and vexatious litigation. Every Belize LLC shall not be available to satisfy any claim or creditor shall, before bringing an action or proceeding judgment against a member. No manager, officer, member against any LLC property, shall first deposit with the or employee of a Belize LLC shall be liable for the debts, Supreme Court Registry an amount equal to half of the obligations or liabilities of the Belize LLC unless he has amount claimed or fifty thousand dollars, whichever is assumed such liability by written contract. As an offshore greater, for securing the payment of all costs as may become product, while the Belize LLC is restricted from conducting payable by the creditor. business with residents of Belize or being owned by or Furthermore, in connection with the law against owning a resident entity or person, the Belize LLC enjoys fraudulent conveyances, no action or proceeding shall lie in extensive tax, duty and exchange control exemptions. connection with a fraudulent conveyance to a Belize LLC Of particular significance, the LLC Act introduces and a transfer to a Belize LLC shall not be fraudulent as numerous asset protection features that make Belize’s against a particular creditor of a member after the earlier LLC one of the strongest asset protection tools available. of: (1)the expiration of one year from the date of the One of the most salient asset protection features of the formation of the limited liability company; or (2) if such a Belize LLC is the charging order protection. A judgment transfer takes place after two years after the earliest cause creditor of a member/shareholder of an LLC may apply for of action arose. a charging order against a member’s interest. This charging As to the matter of jurisdiction, only judgments order if granted gives the judgment creditor certain rights delivered by a court within Belize shall be enforceable tantamount to an assignee of the member’s interest i.e. the against a Belize LLC or any manager or member thereof in right to receive distributions attributable to the member’s relation to matters governed by the LLC Act. This includes interest in an LLC, if and to the extent any are made, along decisions of the Supreme Court of Belize, the Court of with allocation of profits and losses attributable to the Appeal of Belize and the Caribbean Court of Justice. member in accordance with the allocation provisions set Apart from these extensive asset protection features out in the LLC Act or an operating agreement. However, and consistent with Belize’s key advantage as a low cost the charging order does not afford the judgment creditor offshore jurisdiction, the Belize LLC is one of the most any voting rights whatsoever nor does it grant any right competitively priced offshore LLC’s in the world. The to partake in the management or administration of the government fee for registration of a Belize LLC is only LLC, including the right to amend the company’s operating $150.00. The annual renewal fee is also only US$150.00. agreement, its articles of organisation, to act as a manager A foreign LLC may also be re-domiciled in Belize for only or to become a substituted member. The LLC Act further US$100.00. A name may even be reserved for up to 10 provides that the charging order shall be the sole and days for free. exclusive remedy available to a judgment creditor or other Altogether, with its strong asset protection features, creditor of a member of an LLC. What this means then flexibility and competitive price, the Belize LLC is sure is that the judgment creditor even with a charging order to make its mark in the increasingly significant field of cannot cause a distribution of the funds/assets of the LLC international asset protection planning. to itself. Those funds/assets of the LLC are protected from

COURTENAY COYE LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 11

THE EVIDENCE (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) ACT, 2012 - MAKING PROSECUTIONS EASIER For a number of years, prosecutors of criminal cases have inconsistent with the previous statement. Now, if a witness been facing increasing difficulties because of witnesses gave a statement at the time of the offence that he saw refusing to testify, or ‘forgetting’ their evidence once they Mr X shoot the deceased, but when called upon at trial to get on the witness stand. This challenge is a feature of the give that evidence he gives evidence inconsistent therewith, witness intimidation problem that has been on the rise. A the prosecution may apply to tender the previous written simple, but important, amendment to the Evidence Act has statement and rely on it to prove that the witness had been passed to address this problem. identified Mr. X as the shooter. The Evidence (Amendment) (No 2) Act 2012 This is a very powerful tool for the prosecution, now enables the prosecution to introduce into evidence although the prosecution will continue to have to grapple a written statement made by a witness to prove the truth with instances where witnesses simply say they have of its contents, where at trial the witness is giving evidence forgotten what they said in the previous statement.

THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2012 – CLEANING OF VOTERS LISTS DEFERRED The Representation of the People (Amendment) financial resources to monitor the process. Act 2012 has been enacted to defer the re-registration The last re-registration process was conducted in process which is designed to ‘clean up’ the voters list every 1997 and was monitored by the Organisation of American ten years. As originally designed, the Representation of the States. The RoPA was amended in 2007 to defer the re- People Act (“RoPA”) required each person to re-register registration for a further five years to 2012. Now, the law every ten years. This process required every eligible has been amended to provide that re-registration should person to satisfy the courts that he or she is entitled to be take place every twenty years. Therefore, the next re- registered to vote in the constituency where he or she lives. registration exercise will be due in 2017 after the next However, the process is expensive for the Government general elections. and requires the political parties to mobilize human and

NEW TAX MEASURES

increased the rate of business tax on BEL to 6%, the then owners complained bitterly about this increase. BEL was nationalized in July 2011, and now the rate has reverted to the previous level. Business Tax imposed on two sectors has been tweaked. With respect to contractors, business tax will be imposed at the rate of 6% on the first 40 percent of a contract price, and at the rate of 3 percent on the remaining 60 percent. This is a reduction, overall, on the business tax levied on contractors. Service providers in the international financial services sector will now pay business tax at the rate of 3 percent. A few noteworthy tax measures accompanied the 2012- This will apply to that portion of the services provided to 2103 national budget. Government reintroduced the 1.75% non-residents if the service provider maintains that revenue rate of Business Tax on entities providing electricity supply separate from its domestic revenue. However, if there is services. This effectively applies to Belize Electricity Limited. a comingling of receipts then the service provider will be It is noted that in its 2010 – 2011 budget, the Government taxed at 6 percent.

OWNERSHIP OF AND RIGHTS OF ACCESS TO BEACHFRONT PROPERTY

There is a commonly held belief that all coastal land is subject to a 66 feet reserve to which the public has unlimited access. This is not accurate. Prior to the Crown Land Rules made in 1936 under the Crown Lands Act there was no reserve, whether of 66 feet or otherwise, on privately owned or Crown land. Section 33 of Part III of the Rules (Rules for Surveys) introduced the requirement that in surveys of Crown lands, surveyors should provide for reservations not exceeding 66 feet in width measured from the high water mark along all water frontages for Government for public purposes. These Rules have been preserved by the National Lands Act and therefore still According to the common law of England, the soil of apply to all surveys of national lands. (Section 12(8) of the the seashore is vested in the Crown unless it has been National Lands Act also provides that a 66 ft wide strip specifically granted to an individual by the Crown, or must be left along any leased land outside a city or town and the owner has acquired title by possession. At common adjoining any stream, river or open water unless otherwise law, the seashore, foreshore or beach (these terms are allowed by the Minister.) Therefore all surveys of Crown interchangeable) was defined as the land lying between the Lands done after 1939 provided for these reserves and all high water mark at medium tide and the low water mark. land granted by the Government since that date is subject The Registered Land Act, has a nearly identical definition of to such a reservation. the foreshore, i.e. “the part of the shore between high water However, land already in private ownership at the and low water marks”. time the rule came in to force in 1939, was not and is not In 1886, the Crown Lands Act, (now repealed) came subject to such a reservation. So, such a private landowner into effect in Belize. This Act governed the grant of all land can exclude persons and vehicles from his land from the owned or disposed of by the Crown from 1886 to the date high water mark landwards, and may erect any barrier or of its repeal. Section 37 of the Act provided that: gate for this purpose just as an owner of non-beachfront “In any grant or conditional freehold title, lease or other property may do. However, even such privately held land document where the sea or any sound, bay or creek or any has, in some cases, been affected by the reserve provisions. part thereof affected by the ebb and flow of the tide is If an application is made to subdivide such property, it is described as formerly the whole or any part of the boundary routine for the Land Utilization Authority to require that of the land to be disposed of, such boundary or part thereof provision be made for a reserve of 66 feet along waterfront shall be deemed and taken to be the line of high water mark property as a condition for approving the proposed at ordinary tides.” subdivision. (Since the Crown Lands Rules provide for a This section is reproduced verbatim in the National reservation of not less than 66 feet, sometimes a smaller Lands Act which replaced the Crown Lands Act. Therefore reserve is required). However, it should be noted that this in Belize, as in England, where a grant of land bounded by land while subject to a reserve, remains the landowner’s the sea is made, the boundary of the land is taken to be the property. high water mark at ordinary tides. There is also uncertainty as to what rights are enjoyed by the public in the reserve area. According to the Crown Lands Rule, the reservation is for “government or public “There is a commonly held belief purposes”. However, this term is not defined, and there are that all coastal land is subject no known decided cases in Belize on the point. to a 66 feet reserve to which the There are cases in England regarding the rights of the public has unlimited access. This is public in relation to the foreshore owned by the Crown. not accurate.” According to Halsbury’s, at common law:

Cont’d. on page 13

COURTENAY COYE LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 13

“… the public had no right of passing along or across the Prescription Act, Chapter 192), whereby the public could acquire foreshore except in the exercise of rights of navigation or the right to use the beach by showing uninterrupted user for a fishery or in respect of a lawfully dedicated right of way from one place to another. Additionally there was no right of period of twenty years, provided the user is not derived from stray or recreation and no right to go across the foreshore any consent or agreement by the landowner. These provisions for the purpose of getting to and from boats except by such reflect the common law principles. In Belize, section 138 of the places only as usage or necessity has appropriated for that Registered Land Act specifically provides that prescriptive rights purpose… no right to wander about at will… no general may not be acquired in respect of the foreshore in the case of right of loading or unloading or embarking at pleasure upon national lands. any part of the seashore or land adjoining it, except in case It can be argued that the public should have limited use of peril or necessity....” of the reserve area, except in the cases where custom has According to Halsbury’s there was also no common established otherwise, since this remains privately owned law right to use the foreshore to bathe or to cross the property. Passage along the beach would seem to be reasonable foreshore to do this. In one case, the court held that in all cases, but not the right to stay and loiter and certainly not although the public had a right of passage over the sea for to use vehicles or carry out any type of commercial activity. navigation, trade fishing and commerce, they must use the While it is to be implied that a landowner cannot erect barriers ports of the kingdom and public, not private places, to load or gates to prevent access to such property altogether, and unload goods except in cases of danger or necessity. any activity which may cause damage to the property, or However it was accepted at common law, that which presents a danger or substantial inconvenience to the inhabitants of a particular locality or community could by landowner or or his guests can be prevented (e.g. large groups local custom, utilize private land in a particular manner and arriving by boat on private property). for a particular purpose. These rights were established by Individuals may apply for permission to erect structures custom and were often referred to as ‘quasi-easements’ on the reserve or on the foreshore (e.g. cabanas or a pier), where they related to land. They must however be certain to which public access may be restricted. However it is and reasonable, and must have existed and been continued now common for licences to construct piers to contain from time immemorial (usually established by evidence of conditions allowing some use by third parties for loading existence as far back as living testimony can go). and unloading goods and passengers. This has led to further Legislation was enacted in common law jurisdictions including uncertainty about the rights of private landowners to Jamaica (the Prescription (Amendment) Law 1955, and Belize, (the restrict public access to their property. VIDEO LINK AS A MEANS OF ACCESS TO JUSTICE Traditionally, in order for persons involved in litigation in the justice is therefore a timely development that is relevant to Supreme Court to participate in such proceedings whether as the dynamic needs of parties involved in litigation. While a Claimant, Defendant, or even a witness, such persons would the general rule according to the Civil Procedure Rules is be required to be present in Court. This strict requirement that any fact which needs to be proved by the evidence of personal presence has at times served as a barrier to the of a witness is to be proved “at trial” and “by oral evidence ultimate goal of resolving disputes through litigation where given in public”, the rules empower the Supreme Court to persons involved in litigation may not be able to attend trial “allow a witness to give evidence without being present in the in person. A person’s inability to attend a trial may be due courtroom, “through a videolink or by any other means.” The to illness, travel restrictions because of failure to meet visa rules in fact contemplate not only the use of video-link but requirements, fear of arrest or persecution, fear of harm to “any other means” which arguably include other forms of person, or high costs associated with participation in litigation. communication as effective as video-link. The list is not exhaustive. A vital component of the operation of the rule The introduction by the Civil Procedure Rules, 2005 permitting use of video-link is the availability of video-link of the use of video-link as a means of promoting access to facilities without which the rule cannot be used. Fortunately, the rule permitting the use of video-link has been put into “The introduction by the Civil operation by the Belize Supreme Court which does have Procedure Rules, 2005 of the use of video-link facilities. The Supreme Court has in fact used video-link as a means of promoting video-link in a case where the Claimant was a Belizean access to justice is … a timely company but whose director and sole witness resided development” abroad and who was suing a Minister of Government who Cont’d. on page 14

had allegedly made threats against him if he came to Belize Trinidad & Tobago and the parties and their attorneys in to testify. In another case, a Russian national could not get Belize. In the cases mentioned earlier the court convened a visa in time to be present in Belize; the parties therefore and was able to conduct the hearing efficiently and agreed to use video-link and the witness, in Moscow, was effectively. cross-examined by attorney’s at Court in Belize City. On the whole, the Belize Supreme Court have proven its The Caribbean Court Justice frequently convenes readiness to grant videoconferencing orders in civil proceedings hearings by way of video-link with the Judges sitting in where the justice of the case requires such an order.

THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF RECEIVERS IN MANAGING AND SELLING MORTGAGED PROPERTY

Over the past few years, there have been several instances a. Collect debts due to the Company where financial institutions in Belize have placed high profile b. Recover property owned by the Company businesses in receivership. While for the most part there c. Pay rates, duties and taxes have been no formal challenges to the authority of, or the d. Carry out repairs and insure the property actions taken by such receivers by way of court proceedings, e. Create or terminate leases of Company property there have been criticisms levelled at the manner in which f. Commence or continue litigation on the some of these receiverships have been conducted. It is Company’s behalf therefore useful to take a brief look at the rights and duties g. Carry on the Company’s business of receivers in managing and disposing of property charged h. Sell the Company’s assets in favour of Banks and other financial institutions. For the most part, receivers are usually appointed If the receiver is authorized to and elects to manage pursuant to the provisions of a Mortgage Debenture or and operate the relevant business prior to sale thereof, the a registered Mortgage or Charge (hereafter collectively receiver has a duty to both the debenture holder and the referred to as ‘the Charge’). Their duties are prescribed Company “….to manage the property with due diligence, by the terms of the Charge, by the terms of the Deed by subject to his primary duty of attempting to create a which they are appointed, and by the general law relating situation where the interest on the secured debt can be to receivers. paid and the debt itself repaid.” The position of a receiver is a somewhat anomalous one. If the receiver determines that the property should The documents pursuant to which a receiver is appointed be sold, then the receiver’s duty is the same as that of usually specify that the receiver is the agent of the debtor a mortgagee exercising its power of sale. That duty is Company. However there is no doubt at law or in fact that owed to the debenture holder, the company, as well as the receiver’s primary responsibility is to the Mortgagee guarantors of the debt and secured creditors, and is both who made the appointment. Though the receiver is contractual and equitable. It is a duty to act in good faith expressed to be the Company’s agent, the receiver does (i.e. to act without collusion, corruption, fraud, dishonesty not take directions from, but rather gives directions to the and recklessness), and also to take reasonable precautions Company. The Company is however, bound by the acts to realize the market value of the property on the date performed within the scope of the receiver’s authority, and on which it is sold. This includes taking advice as to the the receiver may enter into contracts and incur debts on method of sale (public auction was not necessarily the best the Company’s behalf, and the Company is liable for such method in all circumstances), and as to the steps to be taken debts and even for torts committed in the execution of the receiver’s duties. “The primary duty of the receiver The primary duty of the receiver is “…to get in the assets is ‘…to get in the assets covered by covered by the charge pursuant to which he is appointed, and the charge pursuant to which he to manage and realise those assets with a view to discharging is appointed, and to manage and the debt owed to the debenture-holders.” The duties of the realise those assets with a view to receiver may include all or any of the following depending discharging the debt owed to the on the terms of the appointment and the nature of the debenture-holders.’ relevant business: Cont’d. on page 15

COURTENAY COYE LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 15

to make the sale successful, and what is a suitable reserve It is therefore incumbent on a receiver to exercise due price in the circumstances. At the same time, there may be care and diligence in the carrying out of his duties and to no duty on a receiver to improve the mortgaged property obtain proper advice prior to taking decisions which may or increase its value, or to pursue planning permission so significantly affect the assets under receivership, or which that the property could be developed, so as to realize a may potentially diminish the value of those assets. better price. It follows that where a receiver fails to carry out his duties with due diligence and in accordance with the above principles, the receiver may become personally liable to the debenture holder or the Company. The following are examples where a receiver has been held to account for negligence in the conduct of a receivership: • Receiver held liable for the loss of interest resulting from his failure to deposit money in a bank in a timely manner. • Receiver liable for losses resulting from the failure of a bank where he placed the receivership income in the same account with his own funds. • Receiver exceeding his authority by taking possession of property not charged. • Negligent mishandling of the sale of the Company’s property.

ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE

with the opportunity to network and connect with intellectual property practitioners from over 140 countries. Attendees enjoyed a wide diversity of exhibits this year as over 100 exhibitors provided access to major multinational law firms, media companies, worldwide trademark solution providers and other regional trade associations. The INTA experience also provided Courtenay Coye LLP with the opportunity to keep up to date with developments in the field of intellectual property law. Topical issues at this year’s INTA included: (1) Anti-counterfeiting and its impact on business profits and reputation as well as life and health; May 5-9, 2012 marked Courtenay Coye LLP’s fourth year (2) Regional update on Latin America and issues that of attendance at the Annual International Trademark trademark owners face with unregistered marks and Association (INTA) Conference which was hosted in the subsequent use thereof. Washington D.C. this year. INTA hosted more than 9,500 intellectual property professionals originating from (3) Registration and protection of non-traditional over 140 countries. This year’s INTA drew students and trademarks (i.e. three dimensional; color combinations) professors from local and international law schools as well around the world and the best strategy that trademark as practising lawyers who wished to obtain continuing legal owners can employ to ensure the best protection; education credit. Through its representatives, Christopher (4) Best practices to facilitate the relationship between Coye (Partner) and Erienne Romero (Intellectual Property law firms and in-house counsel for major brand owners Officer), Courtenay Coye LLP was once again provided who wish to protect their marks in the region.

Cont’d. on page 16

These issues are important in the Belize context. As an illustration, in the case of anti-counterfeiting, counterfeit pharmaceuticals are a growing trend and major risk for the populace of mainly third world populations who, unknowingly, consume sub-par medications which usually results in a range of serious health concerns or even death. In most developed countries, counterfeit drugs are not a major problem due to effective regulatory controls and border management initiatives that are in place. For countries such as Belize, counterfeit drugs easily infiltrate the health system due to the appeal of lower-than-market- priced goods and poor regulatory controls from both health care providers and the Customs Department. INTA’s next annual meeting will be in Dallas, TX in 2013 where Courtenay Coye LLP expects to make a strong presence once more. INTA photos courtesy Photography photos Arrossi Eddie INTA

LLP COURTENAYATTORNEYS COYE AT LAW

P.O. Box 234 Main Street “DISCLAIMER: The information contained in the LEX focus 15 ‘A’ Street, King’s Park, 2nd Floor, Scotia Bank Building newsletter is not intended to be legal advice. You must not Belize City, Belize, C.A. Placencia Village, rely on the information contained herein. If you have a T: +(501)223.1476/223.0279 Stann Creek legal problem you should seek legal advice. To the extent F: +(501)223.0214/225.2548 T: +(501)523.3282/674.1478 permitted by law, Courtenay Coye LLP excludes all liability E: [email protected] E: [email protected] for anything contained or presented in this publication and any use you make of it.”

COURTENAY COYE LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW