In Australia, land use planning legislation and pollution control legislation impose a wide range of criminal and civil liability.
Globalisation of the legal profession has accelerated in recent years, particularly with the growth of cross-border transactions and increased access to international capital markets. Until relatively recently, environmental law has resisted the trend toward legal globalisation, given its traditional focus on the localised impacts of projects and businesses. Global warming, however, is changing all of that. Environmental lawyers are finding themselves at the forefront of a newly-international environmental practice as companies around the world address a kaleidoscope of new regulatory requirements, investment opportunities, and disclosure obligations arising out of international obligations under the Kyoto Protocol and fast-developing domestic requirements aimed at reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other ‘greenhouse’ gases that trap heat in the atmosphere.
Climate change is rarely out of the headlines these days, and has won a firm place on the political agenda. There is little serious dispute that action should be taken to reduce the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and avoid the risk of severe consequences from climate change. There is considerably less agreement on exactly how to balance the need to reduce emissions with a desire for economic growth and high standards of living. This article looks at the new regulatory environment in the EU emerging from this tension.
The last twenty years have seen a dramatic shift in retail development in the United States.
Over the past 20 years capital markets have expanded exponentially from issuers in developed economies to issuers in emerging markets.
For over 20 years the English courts have had the power to make numerous orders in support of proceedings taking place in European Union and Lugano Convention countries (essentially European countries that decided not to join the European Union, such as Norway and Switzerland).
When it comes to pursuing claims following a major maritime casualty, a claimant can have a great many options. Forum shopping has been a longstanding practice – particularly in the Far East where there are significant differences between competing jurisdictions. Any prudent shipowner will seek to gain maximum advantage from those differences, wherever possible. But what factors should the would-be shopper take into account and what are the options available? Richard Lovell and John Simpson of Ince & Co’s Singapore office explore some of the issues and examine them in the context of various Far East jurisdictions.
On 1 July 2001, the Canada Shipping Act 2001 (CSA 2001) replaced the Canada Shipping Act (CSA) as the primary legislation governing marine transport, pollution and safety, but it did not come into force until 1 July 2007, when certain regulations to clothe the statute also came into effect. The old CSA was initially based on the British Merchant Shipping Act of 1894 and was amended over the years on an ad hoc basis.
Historically there was no statutory regime conferring a right to compensation on shareholders and investors for errors in, and omissions from, a company’s financial statements, and the common law of torts had to be relied upon in any such action. It is generally accepted, applying the principles laid down by the House of Lords in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (which concerned the liability of auditors), that directors have a duty of care to shareholders as a whole to enable them to exercise their governance rights but not, in the absence of circumstances creating proximity or a special relationship, to individual shareholders in relation to their investment or to potential investors or other third parties.
Capital markets had a strong year in 2006 and 2007 has also had a solid first half; they are characterised by high liquidity and investors’ quest for attractive investments.