Gauci-Maistre Xynou (Legal | Assurance) is once again proud to be sponsoring the upcoming Malta Maritime Summit following its successful launch 2 years ago. Held at the Grand Hotel Excelsior in Floriana, the summit unveils who and what is radically transforming one of the world’s most vital and vibrant industries while provoking debate. Visitors are welcome to visit the company’s stand at this prestigious event.
Cross-border insolvency law has been gaining importance in the EU’s legal system over the past few decades. Harmonising insolvency laws is a difficult process as the legal framework interacts with a myriad of domestic laws. In order to increase the effectiveness of cross-border insolvency proceedings, the original Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings was replaced by new Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 the Insolvency Proceedings (Recast) Regulation (the “Recast”). Insolvency proceedings opened after 26 June 2017 are regulated by the Recast which applies to all Member States except Denmark. Like the old regulation, the Recast still deals primarily with private international law issues and does not harmonise national insolvency rules. However, the Recast fine-tunes the private international law rules in relation to insolvency proceedings, establishes national insolvency registers to facilitate smooth cooperation between Member States, broadens the scope of the application to include additional insolvency processes, places restrictions on secondary proceedings and allows for group insolvency proceedings. Generally, the Recast aims to remove inefficiencies from the systems that cause delays and make cross-border insolvency proceedings more effective while also modernising them in accordance with the commercial expectations of today’s rapidly changing global business environments.
The rules concerning jurisdiction are crucial. When a debtor or creditor have the option to choose various jurisdictions, they will want to go to the jurisdiction that offers the best options regarding procedures and substantive law. Under the Recast, main insolvency proceedings are brought before the courts of the Member State where the debtor has its centre of main interests (“COMI”). The term had been criticised for being unpredictable and open-ended and for leaving room for forum-shopping. However, the Recast defined it as “the place where the debtor conducts the administration of its interests on a regular basis and which is ascertainable by third parties”. For a company, which is the main focus of this article, the place of its registered office is presumed to be the centre of main interests, unless proven otherwise. Recital 30 also clarifies that if the company’s central administration is located in a Member State other than that of its registered office, and where a comprehensive assessment of all the relevant factors establishes, in a manner that is ascertainable by third parties, that the company’s actual centre of management and supervision and of the management of its interests is located in that other Member State, then the company’s COMI for the purposes of the Recast is considered to be in than other Member State. In this respect, the Recast has not provided for a radical shift from the approach taken by the old regulation with regard to forum shopping by companies since it merely codifies the interpretation given by the CJEU[1] in its case-law[2].
The Recast also added an anti-abuse provision by inserting a three-month period for which a legal entity could not open insolvency proceedings after shifting its COMI to another Member State. It is quite common to shift a company’s COMI to a more favourable jurisdiction for insolvency procedures, thus the introduction of an anti-abuse provision was a welcome addition. However, it is argued that it still left room for different interpretations of COMI. Additionally, Recital 5 of the Recast prohibits forum shopping when it is to the detriment of the general body of creditors. It is therefore interpreted that if the parties agree to shift the COMI to another Member State, seeking to obtain a more favourable legal position, this is allowed.
To shift the company’s COMI, you can either relocate the registered address of the company or change the jurisdiction where the everyday management and control is exercised. The anti-abuse provision of the three-month period refers only to relocating the company’s registered address. Hence, it is viewed that the transfer of the company’s place of effective management falls outside the scope of the anti-abuse provision. It is clear that the Recast aims to protect the creditors and to that end, various safeguards have been added, yet the anti-abuse provision could be read as a breach of the right of establishment under article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”). Restrictions of the right to move, set up and manage companies in another EU Member State are prohibited under TFEU.
Shifting of the COMI could also trigger tax implications. There are Member States which for tax purposes consider the relocation of the company to be liquidation and should the various conditions set by CJEU’s case-law[3] be met, then they are allowed to impose exit taxes. The EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (EU 2016/1164) also caters for exit taxes when a taxpayer transfers its assets/tax residence to a new Member State and falls under the circumstances mentioned therein. These are factors which should be taken into consideration prior to shifting the debtor company’s COMI and could potentially eliminate the forum shopping as the costs which the company would face might outweigh the benefits of relocating to a new Member State in order to benefit from a favourable legal regime. It is evident that the costs involved would make it less likely for SMEs to exploit forum shopping and this would in turn create inequalities among corporate entities within the harmonised environment of EU.
The Recast extends its scope to include interim proceedings, which have the purpose of rescue, adjustment of debt, or reorganisation. In this respect, the Recast applies to all types of Maltese insolvency proceedings, namely, dissolution (“xoljiment”), provisional administration (“amministrazzjoni”), members’ or creditors’ winding-up (“stralċ volontarju mill-membri jew mill-kredituri”), court winding-up (“stralċ mill-Qorti”), bankruptcy (“falliment f’każ ta’ kummerċjant”), and the company recovery procedure (“proċedura biex kumpanija tirkupra”). Proceedings not covered by Annex A of the Recast do not fall within the scope of the Recast. Thus, Member States are free to determine the legal framework for such proceedings and gain a competitive advantage by introducing effective recovery proceedings. An example of such a proceeding has been the “scheme of arrangement”, a restructuring mechanism under English law. Such scheme is not included in the list of UK insolvency proceedings contained in the Annex A of the Recast and therefore not subject to the jurisdiction requirements of article 3 of the Recast.
Forum shopping is without a doubt a clear indication that harmonisation of the insolvency proceedings within EU Member States has not yet been achieved. However, we have noticed in the last years that there is a tendency for the convergence of Member States’ laws including insolvency laws. Harmonisation of the various legal frameworks aims to enable economies to promptly respond to default conditions and insolvency in a way that promotes economic growth and competition. On 22 November 2016, the European Commission published its proposal for a Directive[4] on insolvency, restructuring and second chance. The main objective of this proposal is to provide a uniform European legal framework ensuring that companies in financial distress have access to preventive restructuring proceedings as soon as possible. Harmonising the principles of restructuring proceedings is a tool for a growing economy.
*The above article has been published on Malta Today.
[1] Court of Justice of the European Union
[2] See Case C-341/04 Eurofood IFSC Ltd; Case C-369/09 Interedil Srl and Case C-191/10 Rastelli Davide e C. Snc.
[3] Inter alia, Case C-371/10 National Grid Indus BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Rijnmond.
[4] Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on preventive restructuring frameworks, second chance and measures to increase the efficiency of restructuring, insolvency and discharge procedures and amending Directive 2012/30/EU.
The 5th edition of The Shipping Law Review was published and GMX contributed as authors of the Malta chapter.
You may access the full chapter through the link here or download the pdf version.
The Maritime community is celebrating today, the International Day of the Seafarer as a way to recognise their unique contribution in the maritime world. This year the IMO chose the theme “Seafarers’ wellbeing” as a particular concern on the seafarers’ mental health, whereby the campaign will address specific strategies to tackle stress and other issues affecting seafarers’ mental conditions. As part of the campaign, the aim is to promote the improvement of the seafarer’s conditions such as abandonment, wages, no criminalization, repatriation, shore leave and Maritime Labour Convention issues. An on-line survey was also created by IMO to collect seafarers’ feedback.
With more complicated company structures being used, it has become increasingly more difficult to establish who the ultimate beneficial owners of entities are. In light of the new regulation, do you believe that the Ultimate Beneficial Ownership (UBO) Register can help in any way to prevent financial crime?
The UBO Register system is a further step in the right direction taken in light of the issuance of the 4th Anti-Money Laundering Directive (4AMLD) back in 2015.
Even more so, the introduction of the UBO Register is also important in light of the aftermath of several terrorist attacks that have struck in the EU and also the revelation of the “Panama Papers” scandal in 2016.
The UBO Register system seems to be directly aimed at helping curb terrorist funding, money laundering and tax evasion.
The UBO registers should definitely help in this respect because they allow national financial crime authorities, especially financial intelligence units and tax authorities, to access information on the beneficial ownership of companies. Furthermore, one cannot simply consider the Companies Act (Register of Beneficial Owners) Regulations (hereafter “the Regulations”) in isolation.
The Regulations are the transposing legislation of the EU 4AMLD which establishes a “system” of interconnected national registers which are centralised via the European Central Platform and the European e-Justice Portal. The financial crime authorities of one Member State may accordingly access data collected in another Member State and this is strength of the UBO register system when it comes to curbing financial crime. Having said this, much of the effectiveness of the system depends on what information subject persons provide. That is, how can the system adequately prevent financial crime if the information given by companies, on their own beneficial ownership, is not in some way verified or validated?
How will the UBO Registers affect the engagement of new customers within financial institutions?
The 5th Anti-Money Laundering Directive (5AMLD) will introduce “centralised bank account registries and data retrieval systems” for the identification of the persons holding bank and payment accounts. This will put significant pressure on banks. Apart from the cost it would take to invest in systems to gather such information, one must also consider the difficulty of keeping up with new accounts, closed accounts and any changes in previously supplied information.
More than a year after the Panama Papers scandal first broke, the fallout from the leaks continues, strengthening the need towards greater transparency.
Is a UBO register enough to improve EU transparency of company ownership?
The Panama Papers heightened the need for creating systems that would ensure a higher level of transparency in order to tackle financial crime. The need for more transparency by means of a system of mandatory UBO Registers in each of the EU Member States had already been identified in 2015 under the 4AMLD.
The data that would be collected is primarily accessible to anti-financial crime authorities notably financial intelligence units (FIUs) and tax authorities. The data is, however, also public, subject to some very rigid rules which require that there is a justified legitimate interest in accessing the UBO data.
Nonetheless, transparency of company ownership, especially when viewed in terms of crime fighting, requires a harmonised transposition of the anti-money laundering directives. One must also keep in mind that the UBO register system is an EU-wide measure and the UBO registers of the Member States are interconnected through the European Central Platform and the European e-Justice portal.
It is important not to underestimate the work involved in implementing such regulations.
A fair amount of work is thrust upon the private sector and the public authorities, primarily the registry of companies, MFSA. It has been a steep learning curve for all involved and the constant and open dialogue between the public authorities and the private sector is crucial to ensuring that, despite the increased compliance, it is business as usual.
Organisations need to be 100% sure that they can rely on what is held in the registers without any increased risk towards their businesses. Do you believe that these registers can guarantee accurate information within them, which information is enough for businesses to depend on?
While the 4AMLD obliges the Member States to collect “adequate, accurate, and current information”, the local transposing legislation does not provide for any controls in this respect.
To the contrary, the collection of data for the UBO Registers relies wholly on self-certification by the subject companies.
It can be reasonably expected that this will change once Malta is obliged to transpose the new
5AMLD. The new text provides that the Member States require information which is “adequate, accurate and current” but also obliges the Member States to “put in place mechanisms to this effect”.
Having said this, in general, these registers should never be completely relied upon by subject persons. To the contrary, subject persons need to do their own verification (KYC) for their own purposes and procedures.
The registers, however, can most certainly provide good guidance for subject persons.
Ultimately, the issue of transparency cannot be looked at solely in terms of having access to the UBO data. If the goal of setting up a UBO register is to build confidence and trust in our financial services sector, then, the data contained in these registers must be accurate and constantly kept up to date.
In accordance with the regulation, how will the data be accessed and by whom? How will this affect individual data in light of Data Protection Regulations?
The Companies Act (Register of Beneficial Owners) Regulations provide for three categories of access. In all cases the data is accessed from the central register held by the Registrar of Companies:
The first type of access is that without any restriction and which must be given without alerting the company concerned.
The second type of access is that given for the purpose of carrying out customer due diligence and thus the data which can be accessed is limited to this effect.
The access is given to service providers operating in or from Malta. The third type of access is that offered to any person or organisation. However, this is far from granting access to the public as there are stringent restrictions imposed. It is important to note that this third category will become open to the public if the current text of the 5AMLD is adopted.
The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) has issued an opinion criticising the amendments introduced by the 5AMLD, arguing that the information access provided by the anti-money laundering directives is not proportional to the objectives set out thereunder. In particular, the EDPS has stated that forms of personal data processing are acceptable for anti-money laundering and counterterrorism purposes but not for tax evasion. It has also lamented that data access has been given to the public and that there are no safeguards that condition access to information on financial transactions by FIUs.
The European Commission’s 5th Anti-Money Laundering Directive (5AMLD) included a proposal to lower the threshold to 10 percent for higher-risk entities, including trusts, to provide beneficial ownership details.
However, this proposal has not been included in the final text adopted on the 19th of April
The original proposal of the Commission was to introduce a 10% threshold only in respect of “passive non-financial entities”. This proposal was considered too fragile by the European Parliament which proposed to have the threshold lowered to 10% in respect of all entities. However, both proposals were dropped when the directive passed through the Council of the EU.
The proposal had drawn some criticism that the threshold is too low and would entail an excessive burden on obliged entities due to more data being collected.
It is imperative to strike the right balance between achieving the correct level of transparency without creating excessive burdens on the public and private sector that will ultimately dissuade stakeholders from investing in Malta due to excessive bureaucracy, costs, etc.
*The above article has been published in Malta Today.
Earlier this year, Parliament passed Act I of 2018[1] which amends the Maltese court structure to make room for a Commercial Section of the Civil Court. The legal effect of this Act had been suspended until the Minister for Justice appoints a date by Legal Notice and last week, on the 23rd of March, The Hon. Owen Bonnici, Minister for Justice, Culture and Local Government, and the Hon. Silvio Schembri, Parliamentary Secretary for Financial Services, Digital Economy and Innovation issued a joint Press Release[2] stating that Act I of 2018 establishing the Civil Court (Commercial Section) will enter into force on the 9th of April 2018. The respective Legal Notices is therefore expected to be published in the coming days.
While a Commercial Court had already existed in Malta, this court had an entirely different competence than the one to be introduced now. The previous Commercial Court heard all cases dealing with the Commercial Code. In fact, since determining whether an issue had been correctly categorised as commercial or civil in nature by the applicant to the lawsuit was very time consuming, this Commercial Court was abolished in 1995. In terms of Act I of 2018, the new Civil Court (Commercial Section) will only hear cases related to matters which are specifically regulated by the Companies Act; namely bankruptcy, dissolution, winding up, the Article 214 application, and the Article 402 application known as ‘the unfair prejudice remedy’.
Lawsuits pending before the Civil Court First Hall but which relate to the Companies Act will be continued before the Civil Court (Commercial Section) unless they were put off for final oral or written submissions or for judgment before the 9th of April 2018.
The need to establish such a Commercial Section has been felt for some time now, principally in terms of lengthy lawsuits and the need for specialized judges. In fact, the courts have been operating an informal arrangement as to how commercial cases are assigned, therefore, in court practice there has already been a move towards the categorisation of cases. As Malta’s economy is increasingly based on attracting foreign investment, efficiency has been the overarching ambition of the Maltese Government.
In the Press Release, Hon. Minister Owen Bonnici said “This Government is committed to increase the efficiency and quality of the Maltese Courts. Undeniably, the setting up of a section tasked with Company Law matter clearly crystallises the said commitment in that it provides a more specialised and accessible judicial service to citizens running a business as well as companies in commercial disputes.”
Whereas Hon. Silvio Schembri added that “It will create greater confidence in the commercial community in view that Malta is about to explore and develop new market, including the digital and financial technology sectors.”
[1] http://www.justiceservices.gov.mt/DownloadDocument.aspx?app=lp&itemid=28883&l
[2] http://www.gov.mt/en/Government/Press%20Releases/Pages/2018/March/23/pr180619en.aspx
The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) recently signed a new partnership agreement with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), which practices in the maritime and port sectors and is experienced in supporting comprehensive transport related development activities. Continue reading “International Maritime Organisation Signs New Partnership Agreement”
It is true that at the moment in most jurisdictions around the world the use of bitcoin, and cryptocurrencies in general, is not adequately regulated. As a result, a system seems to have been created that runs in parallel to the traditional fiat currency system. This phenomenon in combination with the specific characteristics of cryptocurrencies such as the anonymity in the transactions, the absence of a central authority and its immutability, creates loopholes in sectors like investment protection, taxation law, database protection as well as criminal law while risks related to anti-money laundering and financing of terrorism also need to be tackled.
At the same time, bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are so widely used that they have become a reality which could change the way the entire financial market works. Considering the function of law as the means of organised societies to control and regulate the actions of their members we believe that it is crucial for legislators to take action and adapt the appropriate regulatory measures. Issues such as the legal nature of cryptocurrencies and their connection to traditional (fiat) currencies, the legal requirements for the setting up and operation of firms investing or trading in cryptocurrencies, and the protection of investors and investments in this field should be adequately addressed. When this happens, the law should provide the necessary security safeguards so that society can be sure that it is protected from the negative side effects of any unlawful use of virtual currencies. The Government of Malta has consistently shown that it wants to be a leader in this sector and has taken active steps to regulate the industry, in consultation with industry stakeholders. Regulators all over the world are currently playing catch-up, however, credit must be given to both the Maltese Government, the regulator and the private sector for their initiatives in ensuring that Malta is at the forefront of this industry.
The applications of blockchain technology can be numerous. Although at present the use of blockchain in different industries is indeed at an experimental stage, it can have significant effect in the way the markets function and in the way business is conducted. Based on its characteristics blockchain can provide safety, transparency, efficiency and reduce costs whilst reducing the time required for executing transactions.
The potential benefits of blockchain in the banking sector are undoubtedly appealing and it should come as little surprise that huge amounts of resources are invested by major international organisations. Within the next years we will likely see blockchain implemented in very much the same way as the internet pervaded in the nineties.
In this context and taking for granted the impact which a database unification project for the largest banks may have in terms of cost and labour savings, although the process is very complex and needs to be implemented with the cooperation of specialists of many sectors in order to operate smoothly, sooner or later it will become reality.
Naturally, the investment required is immense as security is of paramount importance. Vulnerabilities have been discovered and exploited in the past and was witnessed on a large scale a few years ago with respect to the Distributed Autonomous Organisation. Whilst not related to the banking industry, this case did show that vulnerability in the programming of a smart contract led a hacker to drain the DAO of its cryptocurrency ‘Ether’.
Nonetheless, in the meantime blockchain can be used by and benefit banks in several ways. In KYC procedures blockchain can provide more efficiency and security with respect to the implementation of Anti-Money Laundering legislation on an international level. It can be used to reduce intermediaries and make international payments and transfer of money less expensive, faster and reduce the paperwork needed for the completion of complex transactions. In addition blockchain and especially smart contracts can have significant benefits in side sectors of the banking business such as insurance and the real estate industries.
As lawyers, the development of smart contracts is one of the most intriguing aspects of blockchain. To begin with we read with more frequency that the role of a lawyer will diminish as a result of smart contracts or, that contracts as we know them will soon become a thing of the past, so naturally this is an area of interest. I am of the opinion that the term ‘smart contract’ may be a bit misleading and is being given more importance than it deserves, from a legal aspect.
Smart contracts in essence will be capable of executing certain instructions based on the criteria in built into the code. This is nothing new in and of itself and would function no different to an automatic pay-out or purchase of shares on a pre-determined trading price of the stock. With respect to a smart contract, we see something similar in relation to the role of an escrow agent in a sale and purchase. In this case, the escrow function could indeed be deemed to be ‘smart’. However, the smart contract should be viewed as a tool that would work in tandem with a contract, in the more traditional sense of the word.
There are various aspects that need to be given serious thought with respect to smart contracts but one point in particular is related to that aspect of Distributed Ledger Technology which is often touted as one of its biggest advantages, that is, its irreversibility of transactions. However, in reality, we have to contend with amendments to the law, a change of intention by the contracting parties, the possibility of a party to a contract acting without authority, etc. Such scenarios require a rectification as the original instructions are no longer aligned with the law or the contracting parties’ intentions. In such cases, the immutability of smart contracts is something that may become a shortcoming unless tackled adequately.
In the short term I believe that the more straightforward and standardised transactions would be serviced well by smart contracts. This should undoubtedly be to the satisfaction of many and have considerable beneficial effects on the market and society in general. The straightforward execution of contracts based on clear-cut terms and conditions, the avoidance of long-term disputes, the facilitation of business, the reduction of cost and time of transactions and even the elimination of bureaucracy are just some of the benefits which cannot be dismissed.
However, for the more complex transactions, the industry needs more time to mature. Humans will be humans, that is to say, they have opinions and are conditioned by various factors that will lead to divergent views and disagreement on interpretation. As long as this is the case, the legal profession will continue to survive.
The consultation document on the establishment of the Malta Digital Innovation Authority and the framework for the Certification of Distributed Ledger Technology Platforms and Related Service Providers; and a Virtual Currency Act is indicative of what a cross-sector revolution we are experiencing. The Government of Malta is anticipating an overlap between various competent authorities in Malta and the proposed Media Digital Innovation Authority. This in itself is a clear indication of how far-reaching the effects of blockchain are going to be. Whilst I am a great proponent of less regulation and greater implementation and avoiding additional layers of bureaucracy I firmly believe that at this stage the proposed “Joint Co-Ordination Board” will be extremely beneficial. The effective cooperation between the proposed Media Digital Innovation Authority and the various competent authorities will be crucial. The key point is that all of us, from our respective sectors pull on the same rope.
Organisations should approach blockchain technology in a very similar manner. The personnel concerned in the various departments need to be made aware of what the technology has to offer and how it would be adopted. Transmission of the correct information is key as all too often technology is associated with requiring less manpower and thus leading to redundancies of current employees, which makes implementing the changes that much harder. Blockchain has several benefits to offer any organisation. Transparency, security and integrity of information, high level of trust and public verifiability constitute a few of the key advantages. In addition, it could also provide cost and time savings. However this does not mean that the use of blockchain makes sense for every single organisation no matter what the specific needs and structure of it are.
Organisations that need to store large amounts of data, particularly when the information is distributed among multiple parties/entities, stand to benefit through the use of blockchain. What would otherwise lead to issues of poor communication or confidentiality could help organisations dealing with supply chain management, banks, healthcare units, insurance companies and real estate agencies streamline their procedures. Even the public sector stands to benefit by the use of blockchain and smart contracts applications.
*The above article has been published on Malta Today.
Women in today’s society have certainly gained power and influence when compared to the women of yesterday. Women today have easier access to positions of power carrying substantial decision-making authority and women’s success in attaining leadership positions speaks volumes. Having said that, there is still far to go until a complete balance between the genders is achieved. Moreover, there are still nations where women are excluded from positions of power as a result of gender stereotypes. Although it is fair to say that women, in the broadest sense have more freedom, this is not true in all cases because prejudice still remains. Even though phenomena of inequality have diminished, women do work harder and longer in order to remain on the same playing field as men. Multi-tasking, productivity, consistency, managerial skills and the ability to adapt to new situations are the main characteristics of working women and these lead us to climb the corporate ladder. Women are an integral part of today’s society, and we no longer lag behind men in most occupations. However, various studies provide evidence that there is a gender pay gap; women still earn less than men in many industries despite their professional achievements and working longer hours. Women are still treated as the stay-at-home parent and in many cases, it is viewed by their employers that motherhood will lower their productivity and commitment to work. I strongly believe that women’s inherent qualities allow for a full-time career and a family at the same time. Women over the last years have begun taking the reins in more and more companies worldwide and they have established their position as business leaders. Regarding shipping it is well known that it has historically been a male-dominated industry and that tradition runs long and deep. However, the achievements of women in the maritime industry, particularly in leadership roles, have been very well noted and the recruitment of more women has been encouraged. Despite the stereotypes, there is a growing number of professional women in the maritime industry. The position of women in our society cannot be generalised as throughout the world women receive differing amounts of respect. There has been a change but there is still room in evening the divide between the sexes.
Has the ongoing crisis in Greece affected the viability of businesses?
Since the beginning of the sovereign debt crisis, Greece has implemented a series of draconian austerity packages that led to impoverishment and loss of income and property. The Greek debt crisis has negatively affected the private sector. In fact, the last few years we have all witnessed the mass exodus of Greek entrepreneurs who opted to relocate their companies abroad, due to the current economic crisis looming over the Greek economy. Severe taxation, lack of adequate funding, bureaucracy, unstable economy, and the overall obsolete Greek legal system, far from being friendly to investments, are only some of the difficulties businesses established in Greece encounter. The difficulties are transformed into barriers for the start-up community, reducing the flexibility required and hampering foreign investment. Having this in mind the Greek government should lower social security costs to allow the companies to hire talented personnel reducing unemployment and generating more revenue faster. The solution for enterprises operating in or from Greece has been obvious for some time; reforms, less state expenditure, tax reduction and simplification of the investment procedures which can directly result in economic growth.
Do you think that innovative products are needed in 21st century enterprises?
Enterprises which act upon the opportunities and possibilities for change through innovation in the current volatile and uncertain business environment, will not only survive but they will successfully compete and even flourish in the fluctuating economic conditions. Innovation i.e. being able to come up with new ideas to keep operations, products and services fresh is one of the keys to any successful business. In our firm very soon, we realised that in the current day economic scenario, innovation has become a major factor which leads to success; out-of-the-box-thinking is important to generate new value and also sustain your business. At GMX innovation is at the center of our way of doing things, in our corporate functions, business models and processes. Law firms must learn to innovate to remain competitive, survive in the ever-changing marketplace and ensure that the client’s professional needs are met.
Do you believe that recognition of senior executives is achieved only through successful crisis management?
Crisis situations can erupt suddenly and without warning. Every crisis has the potential to significantly impact a company’s short and long-term reputation, daily operations, and financial performance if the situation is not handled properly. We have witnessed that in the current volatile business environment a crisis in the workplace is the rule in today’s business word, and a successful crisis management plan is important for the continuity of every company. Leadership skills are proven significantly important for the management of the company to handle a crisis. Successful leaders understand that a long-term solution requires the input and involvement of many stakeholders (employees, shareholders) and they work together with them to produce a viable solution for the company. Although not all crises can be prevented, the majority originate from within the organisation, thus a crisis management plan must be regarded as an investment rather than a cost. It must be treated as a strategic function that is embedded in the organisation’s corporate culture, driven from and by the top echelon, and implemented across all levels. A crisis puts to the test the decision-making skills of an organization’s management and employees. Crisis management is not only about the tactical reactive response when a crisis hits, but also about preparedness, anticipation and prevention.
This morning, GMX participated in a celebratory business breakfast which was held in Casino Maltese, Valletta and organised by the Malta Arbitration Centre, celebrating the entry into force of the Malta Arbitration Act, which took place on this day twenty years ago. Continue reading “GMX celebrates the Malta Arbitration Centre’s 20th Anniversary”
