Httpmquiz se

HDI Global has been fined for holding a majority ownership in PVI multiple times now (Illustration photo)

Specifically, a fine of VND125 million($5,435) is stipulated in Article 28.2 of Decree No.108/2013/ND-CP dated September 23, 2013 on administrative penalties for violations in the securities market for performing one or more transactions in order to conceal real ownership of a security in order to avoid the obligation to disclose information in accordance with regulations.

In 2017-2019, HDI Global SE made a number of transactions to conceal its real ownership of 15,468,250 shares in PVI (HNX: PVI), violating information disclosure obligations.

A fine of VND60 million ($2,600) was also imposed according to the provisions of Article 28.1a, of Decree No.108/2013/ND-CP for violating the foreign investors’ ownership.

Last year, in mid-August, HDI Global SE was allegedly fined for VND125 million ($5,435) for conducting one or several transactions to obscure company ownership and avoid information disclosure responsibilities. Moreover, a fine of VND60 million ($2,600) was also imposed on the corporation for violating the FOL.

Last year, at PVI’s annual shareholders’ meeting, PVI elected and replaced three members of the board, bringing total members to nine. In particular, four members are PVI representatives, while HDI and FLL representatives number five.

Jens Holger Wohlthat has been appointed as chair of the board for 2017-2022, effective since January 16, 2020.

As of January 31, 2019, HDI Global SE held a total of 126,297,216 PVI shares, of which it directly owned 83,711,071 PVI shares and indirectly owned 27,117,895 shares of PVI through Funderburk Lighthouse Ltd. and 15,468,250 shares through Sunway. Thus, HDI Global SE held a total of 54.64 per cent of the total number of voting shares in PVI, exceeding the FOL before April 19, 2019.

In addition to the above administrative fine, the SSC also requires HDI to make up for the consequences by transferring PVI shares back to reduce its ownership in accordance with the provisions of Article 28.3b of Decree No.108/2013/ND-CP.

The time limit for taking the remedial measure is 60 days from the date of receiving the sanctioning decision.

PVI is currently the largest non-life insurer in Vietnam.

Burgener will not attend the ASEAN Summit in Jakarta scheduled for April 24 via a video conference. However, she will hold sideline meetings with ASEAN leaders and discuss the situation in Myanmar, Reuters cited its sources as saying.

Earlier on April 17, spokesperson of the Thai Foreign Ministry Tanee Sangrat said leader of the Myanmar army Min Aung Hlaing will attend the summit.

During a recent Arria-formula online meeting, Ambassador Dang Dinh Quy, head of the Vietnamese Mission to the UN, stressed that the current top priority is ensuring life, security and safety of all people and unobstructed humanitarian aid for those in need of support, especially vulnerable groups in society.

He called on parties concerned in Myanmar to refrain from acts of violence, conduct dialogues and reconciliation according to people’s will and aspirations, for the sake of peace and stability in the region.

Quy called on the international community to make constructive contributions to help Myanmar prevent violence, promote an environment conducive to dialogue and reconciliation while respecting the country’s principles of independence, national sovereignty, territorial integrity and unity.

The ambassador affirmed that Myanmar is a member state of the ASEAN family and the bloc is ready to help the country in a constructive and peaceful manner via related mechanisms.

ASEAN member states, including Vietnam, have been working with parties concerned in Myanmar to promote dialogue and seek solutions to the issue, he said. He also called on the international community to support ASEAN’s efforts and stance, and wished that discussions at the UN and relevant important issues need consultations with ASEAN member countries and others in the region.

Source: VNA

By Dr. Deborah Elms – Executive director, Asian Trade Centre Singapore

As the text and schedules for all existing members are already available, it is possible to see where likely obstacles may be found and to identify gaps between existing practices, laws, and regulations of a potential member and the requirements of the CPTPP.

An incoming member is meant to canvas the current membership on a bilateral basis and ensure that any potential obstacles are highlighted, discussed between the two sides in detail and, potentially, and removed. While many trade irritants can and should probably be tackled through group negotiations, sometimes a potential member has a specific issue of concern to only one member. In this circumstance, it can be addressed prior to entry to negotiations.

Assuming the current members have no objection, the applicant country can proceed to file a formal request to join. This letter, as the UK has demonstrated, gets sent to New Zealand, as Wellington serves as the official repository location for the CPTPP.

In the absence of a secretariat, the CPTPP is managed through a rotating appointment of commission chairs. The rotation is dictated by the order in which members joined the agreement.

A CPTPP secretariat would make accession talks significantly easier. It would come with a built-in group of officials well versed in CPTPP rules and regulations, familiar with the existing membership and important sensitivities, as well as the current individuals for each member that are actively involved in various chapter activities. Secretariat staff could serve as neutral parties, shepherding new members through accession.

Without a secretariat, CPTPP accession will be started by the current chair. It will help members decide on the composition of a working group to manage the process. It may be that all aspiring members are grouped together into one working group or that members opt to hold separate working groups for each potential member. The chair of the working group(s) will be decided by members and the group(s) will include representatives from all active members.

Accession to the CPTPP is not like launching free trade agreement (FTA) negotiations. The process is closer to that of joining the World Trade Organization. It will likely take some time to organise, as there is no sitting working group for members.

New members are not negotiating over changes to existing rules, and the nearly 600 pages of text need not be adjusted in accession. Instead, work will get underway on crafting new member’s specific schedules which include:

– Tariff cuts (order and timing of cuts to reach tariff elimination quickly);

– Services, including financial services, and investment restrictions which will remain in place after joining the CPTPP (all other services and investments will be opened for all parties);

– Government procurement entities that will not be bound by CPTPP rules to open federal level procurement above the specified thresholds;

– State-owned enterprises (SOEs) that will not be bound by CPTPP rules; and

– Temporary entry of business persons commitments (such as how many inter-corporate transferees are to be allowed or whether spouses have access).

Of course, the start of accession provides a potential opportunity for CPTPP members to adjust the agreement, if all agree. The CPTPP was always designed as a “living agreement” which meant it was pitched as open for adjustment from the very beginning.

An agreement that effectively closed in 2015 is likely to benefit from a careful review in 2021 and beyond. CPTPP members have been enthusiastic participants in a range of FTAs, including the work on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership which closed late last year and a growing set of digital economy agreements.

Some of these later agreements have innovations that might be brought into the CPTPP – such as the creation of a secretariat or the inclusion of MoUs to cover topics of collaboration that are still evolving and not yet ready for binding into the CPTPP texts.

Members could potentially take advantage of an opportunity to adjust their own commitments. Some of the more innovative areas of the CPTPP, like the scheduling of SOEs or government procurement, might look unnecessarily cautious in hindsight.

Such adjustments to texts and existing schedules are not part of the accession process, per se, but members might find it useful to review such elements as negotiating teams are gathering together for the first expansion of the CPTPP.

In short, the receipt of the UK’s letter of interest moves the ball forward for the CPTPP. The start of new negotiations on accession should be a trigger for additional possible members to come forward.

Apple to pay $3.4-m over iPhone obsolescence in Chile (Source: freepik.com)

Apple is accused of having programmed a limited lifespan into some products to force users to replace their phones sooner than necessary, and has previously settled similar cases in the United States and Europe.

In Chile, some 150,000 users of the iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s Plus, 7, 7 Plus and SE sued the US company, claiming their smartphones started underperforming after software updates programmed by Apple before December 21, 2017.

The agreement provides for a registration period for affected clients, who will have to provide proof of their devices’ reduced performance, a lawyer for the Odecu consumer body, Juan Sebastian Reyes, told a virtual press conference.

Each client stands to get maximum compensation of $50, which is to be shared if there are more than one claim per serial number, as in the case of second-hand phones.

In December 2017, Apple admitted iOS software was tweaked to slow performance of older iPhones whose battery life was deteriorating.

An outcry forced Apple to upgrade its software and offer steep discounts on battery replacements.

In March 2020, Apple agreed to pay up to $500 million to settle a class-action lawsuit over slowed iPhones in the United States, followed in November by another $113 million to settle litigation with more than 30 US states over the same issue.

The company has also settled a case with France’s consumer watchdog for 25 million euros ($29.7 million) for failing to tell iPhone users that software updates could slow older devices.

Italy, for its part, has fined Apple and Samsung 10 and five million euros respectively for planned smartphone obsolescence.