Nasdaq, LSE, Cadbury Schweppes and extra-territoriality
The UK has in the last week been involved in two tussles about extra territoriality but has been on opposite sides in the two tussles. In the case of the possible acquisition of the London Stock Exchange (LSE) by Nasdaq, the UK has been eager to ensure that the extra-territorial jurisdiction of US law (particularly Sarbanes Oxley) does not affect companies listed at LSE. In the case of Cadbury Schweppes, it is the UK that has been told to stop exerting territorial jurisdiction to impose a tax on the UK company’s Dublin subsidiary which is subject to low taxes there.
The fear of extra-territorial jurisdiction of US laws over a US owned LSE is quite well grounded. Way back in 1979, in the wake of the US hostage crisis, President Carter issued Executive Order 12710 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act stating: “I hereby order blocked all property and interests in property of the Government of Iran, its instrumentalities and controlled entities and the Central Bank of Iran which are or become subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or which are in or come within the possession or control of persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” Nearly half of the blocked money was in deposits outside the US (principally in London). While the Iranians did sue in London to release these funds, the courts and governments were slow in resisting the extra-territorial demands of the US order and since the entire hostage crisis lasted only 14 months, the legality of the US freeze was not adequately tested. A good account of this episode is provided by Robert Carswell’s article “Economic sanctions and the Iran experience”, in Foreign Affairs, Winter 1981/1982.
In later sanctions against other countries, the US was less successful. For example, “a U.S. bank in the United Kingdom was ordered by a British court to release a Libyan bank’s assets blocked under U.S. unilateral sanctions in 1986. The United States subsequently authorized the release of the assets.” (GAO-04-1006 “Foreign Regimes’ Assets: The United States Faces Challenges in Recovering Assets, but Has Mechanisms That Could Guide Future Efforts”, Government Accountability Office, 2004)
Extra-territorial reach over UK listed companies through a change in exchange regulations would be less vulnerable to judicial challenge. The UK government therefore wishes to have a statutory weapon against it. In a speech on September 13, 2006, Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Ed Balls stated “ the UK Government will now legislate to protect our regulatory approach. This legislation will confer a new and specific power on the FSA to veto rule changes proposed by exchanges that would be disproportionate in their impact on the pivotal economic role that exchanges play in the UK and EU economies. It will outlaw the imposition of any rules that might endanger the light touch, risk based regulatory regime that underpins London's success.”
The Financial Services Authority has made its view clear in February 2005 and again in June 2006.
[W]e will be indifferent to the nationality of the owners or the managers of any future combined operation, and will be concerned to ensure that the future operation meets our regulatory standards. If the LSE remains a UK exchange under a new parent it will continue to be subject to FSA regulation as a Recognised Investment Exchange (RIE).
The LSE, as a UK RIE, plays a key role as a focal point for the wider regulatory framework, including capital raising and corporate governance. The attractiveness of the UK financial markets, and ultimately the competitiveness of EU capital markets, depends, in part, on a system of corporate governance and of regulation which is of a high standard, but is proportionate and adaptable and attuned to the requirements of users. (“Potential longer term implications of a change of ownership of the London Stock exchange”, FSA/PN/015/2005, 4 February 2005)
However, we believe that there could be circumstances where a more complex regulatory position might arise. Theoretically, in the longer term, a new entity might seek to achieve further benefits from rationalisation of its regulatory structure. This could at the extreme involve the LSE no longer being subject to UK regulation as an RIE. Its services might be provided from outside the UK, either from the US, another EU member state or an alternative location, through the provision of trading screens in the UK and with securities admitted to trading on the market operated from elsewhere. Such a move, were it to occur, would potentially have significant implications for various aspects of the wider regulatory regime as indicated in our February 2005 statement. If such a market were to be operated from the US it would require member firms and issuers to be registered with the SEC and subject to its oversight. (“Implications of ownership of a UK Recognised Investment Exchange by a US entity”, FSA/PN/055/2006 12th June 2006).
It is ironic therefore that the UK had to be reminded this week about the extra-territoriality of its own tax laws by the European Court of Justice. Though the tax rate in Dublin’s International Financial Services Centre is only 10%, the UK claimed an additional 20% tax on the Dublin subsidiaries of Cadbury Schweppes on the ground that these were “controlled foreign companies”. The European Court ruled that if the foreign subsidiary has offices, staff and operations in the foreign country, then the fact that it was set up with an intention to obtain tax relief does not make it a wholly artificial arrangement that justifies levying UK tax rates. Ireland is a country that has built up a vibrant financial services industry on the strength of a sound regulatory and tax regime. The court ruling will hopefully allow this to survive.
In general, I like regulatory competition. I think of a regulator as being in the business of manufacturing and providing regulatory products and services. Consumers of these products and services (investors, issuers and others) benefit if this industry is competitive. Similarly, healthy competition in tax rates also helps put a bound on the rapacity of the nation state. A vigorous defence of the competitive structure of the market for regulatory services is therefore very much welcome.
Posted at 3:41 pm IST on Sat, 16 Sep 2006 permanent link
Categories: international finance, law, regulation
Comments