Legal Updates
|
Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act 2010The passage of the historic Eighteenth Amendment Act (Act) has been reported extensively in the media with great emphasis on its impact on the body politic of Pakistan. The following is a summary of the Amendments to the Constitution made through the Act as they relate to the corporate sector in Pakistan. Article 19A - Freedom of Information Article 25A – Right to Education Article 89 – Power of the President to promulgate Ordinances Article 161 – Natural Gas Article 167 – Borrowing by Provincial Government Article 172 – Rights to Minerals, Oil and Natural Gas Concurrent List - Omitted Fourth Schedule - Federal Legislative List Labour Policy 2010Labour Day, May 1, 2010, saw the Government of Pakistan announce a new Labour Policy, i.e. Labour Policy 2010. The aim of the Policy is to protect legitimate rights and interests of workers and employers and minimize the areas of friction which often cause disputes. Under the Policy, the Government plans to increase minimum wage from Rs.6000 to Rs.7000 along with regularising many of the contractual employees. The new Policy envisages workers being provided medical treatment at private medical facilities where public sector hospitals do not exist along with increasing the pensions of workers at the same rate as that of retired Government officials. Changes are expected to be seen in the Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971, with Labour colonies being established to provide housing to workers, legal aid of upto Rs.15000 being made available to dismissed or retrenched workers, introduction of a Matric-Tech scheme which would allow aid and scholarships to workers for education of their children for higher studies and marriage grants of Rs.70,000 for female workers and daughters of workers. Furthermore, another change being introduced which is likely to have a significant impact is that all workers registered under the universal registration scheme of the employees old age benefits will be eligible to obtain benefits from the Workers Welfare Fund. In addition to the above, perhaps the most significant change being brought by the new Policy is the annulment of section 27B of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962. Section 27B prohibits misuse of banks’ resources for union activities, prohibits carrying weapons in banks, bans carrying out union activities during office hours, prohibits subjecting bank officials to physical harassment or abuse and also prohibits non-employees to be office bearers of bank unions. With its annullement, outsiders may again become members of bank unions and the banks may witness a rise in union activities. The Labour Policy promises much in terms of bringing change but what remains to be seen is how far it will be implemented. The Government has announced in furtherance of the Labour Policy that it shall seek to consolidate the labour laws in Pakistan along with bringing changes that are aimed at rationalizing labour law into five core areas: • Laws relating to industrial relations; The new legislation, we are told, will do away with the complexity and over-lapping that has plagued the previous set of laws. Watch this space for further updates on the matter. Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010The Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 (Act) came into force on March 9, 2010. The Act applies to employees generally and would apply to any employee, permanent or contractual of an organization as defined below. In other words, the protections against harassment in the Act are not specific to women, nor do they preclude a male from lodging a complaint. This should be hailed as a positive step towards creating an equal and just society, where every person can enter the workplace free from harassment, and can continue to work in a safe and healthy environment. Definitions This broad definition ensures that every type of organization is caught by the Act, but leaves the onus on each individual entity to come up with more specific, transparent guidelines, codes of conduct, etc., which fit their particular organizational structure and can promote harassment free environment and where employees are able to understand their rights and responsibilities under the Act. “Harassment” is defined under the Act as any unwelcome sexual advance, request for sexual favours or other (unwelcome sexual) verbal or written communication, or physical conduct of a sexual nature or sexually demeaning attitudes, causing interference with work performance, or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment, or the attempt to punish the complainant for refusal to comply with such a request, or where compliance is made conditional upon employment. The term ‘sexual’ appearing above is not defined, and the difficulty faced in other jurisdictions in construing an acceptable definition of this term is well documented. Therefore, it is submitted that the test for harassment should be confined to where a complainant has felt offended, threatened, demeaned, humiliated, or intimidated due to the conduct of a colleague or supervisor in the workplace. However, it may be noted that conduct should not be limited to physical touching as it is an accepted principle that assault can be verbal, most particularly sexual assault that results in feelings of intimidation, fear or creates an untenable or hostile environment. Code of Conduct Procedure A particularly invasive and alarming provision is the power held by the Inquiry Committee under Section 5(2) to get the complainant or the accused medically examined by an authorized doctor. These powers, if present at all should be limited and very strictly circumscribed. Penalties Appeals Conclusion Notwithstanding its drawbacks, the Act is a welcome development in our legal system that would lead to the protection of vulnerable groups in the workplace. The Code of Corporate GovernanceRecently, the Task Force constituted by the Pakistan Institute of Corporate Governance (1) has recommended amendments in the Code (Recommendations). The Recommendations have been circulated for comments after holding several consultations, round tables, focus groups etc. The following is a brief summary and analysis of the salient Recommendations:1. It should be considered whether the Code be made enforceable by legislation possibly through amendment of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 as opposed to being made part of the Listing Regulations of the respective stock exchanges. This recommendation was initially made by the Corporate Law Review Commission an initiative of SECP and headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (retired) Ajmal Mian. 2. The definition of a “public interest entity” has been introduced, which aims to capture all those bodies which would otherwise not fall into the category of a listed company but would be required to apply the provisions of the Code. More specifically, this proposed amendment seeks to apply the Code to a company or entity which (a) has non-resident equity investment wholly or partly comprising the paid up capital of a company; (b) is owned wholly or partly by the Federal or Provincial Governments; (c) is subject to a criterion based on capital and reserves (Rs.500 million or more), annual turn over (Rs. 1 billion or more) or total assets (exceeding Rs.1.5 billion). This would difficult to implement especially given that the Code is intended to apply only to listed companies through the Listing Regulations. As an alternative, it is submitted that separate codes of governance should be drafted and implemented to meet the different requirements of stakeholders in organizations such as public unlisted companies, private companies, state owned enterprises, and non profit organizations. This is especially pertinent to state owned enterprises, as experiences of eminent professionals such as Mr. Zaffar A. Khan (KSE, PTCL, PIA) and Mr. Farooq Rehmatullah (CAA and OGDCL) illustrates that such organizations may require a separate code of governance to deal with matters peculiar to such organizations. Just across the border, such a step has been taken in India where recently (May 2010) the “Guidelines on Corporate Governance for Central Public Sector Enterprises 2010” have been made mandatory on both listed and unlisted public sector corporations (for more visit www.dpe.nic.in). Furthermore, regulating foreign equity holding companies would have negative impact on foreign investors wanting to invest in Pakistan and, if it is necessary to regulate these, a more flexible code may be evolved to encourage foreign investment. 3. In order to ensure balance between executive and non executive directors on the board of directors and promote independence of directors, the Recommendation proposes to restrict the number of executive directors (including the CEO) to 1/3 or 3, whichever is higher. Further, the term “independent director” has been defined with particularity and circumstances prescribed to test the independence of a director. The object of this proposed amendment to ensure that boards are not controlled by dominant stakeholders and the management by having more independent directors on the board to exercise independent judgment. However, the term of independent directors has been circumscribed to 3 consecutive terms. 4. In order to ensure that directors devote their time and commitment to companies, the Recommendations propose to limit the number of directorships an individual can hold in a listed company to 5. However, this eligibility criterion does not extend to directorships held in listed subsidiaries. 5. The Recommendations include an undertaking of individual and collective annual board evaluations in order to provide a forum for the board to assess its own performance and improve accountability. In this context, the offices of chairman and CEO are also proposed to be separated given their different roles in the company. 6. The Recommendations make it mandatory for directors of listed companies to attain certification under the “Board Development Series” offered by Pakistan Institute of Corporate Governance (PICG), or such other organization as may be accredited by PICG in this respect. There have been numerous objectives to this proposal. Whilst the objective is certainly laudable, concerns have been raised that other certification from established institutes of international repute should not be made subject to accreditation by PICG. Further, in case of multinationals and companies with significant foreign shareholding, some flexibility should be present for those non resident foreign directors who visit Pakistan to attend board meetings. 7. It has been recommended that the board create a human resources and remuneration committee of not less than three members including at least one independent director and the CEO (who shall not participate in proceedings relating to his own pay and performance). This is a positive recommendation which will help ensure transparency and accountability in the compensation structure of senior management. However, despite the focus on governance and adherence to rules through the Code, the role of the in-house counsel is yet to be institutionalized in the Code. It is a fact that most large corporations have a team of in-house counsels to assist and advise on all kinds of legal issues and this trend is ever increasing. It is, therefore, submitted that the role of in-house counsels should be institutionalized through the Code, which would pave the way for creating a culture of conflict avoidance and conflict resolution and help mitigate legal costs and consequences . Currently, in the Code, the only role assigned to lawyers is the possibility of being appointed as a Company Secretary. The Recommendations of the Task Force are the need of the hour as Pakistan is amongst the least efficient countries as regards the governance index. Any evaluation of the Code should be based on ground realities in Pakistan and should be cognizant of the fact that our corporate landscape consisting of some 700 listed companies comprises largely of subsidiaries of multinational, state owned enterprises and / or predominantly family owned or sponsored companies. 1 The Task Force is headed by Mr. Ebrahim Sidat (Managing Partner / CEO of Ernst and Young) and includes the following as its members: Other Laws and RegulationsDetails of enactments and regulations that are pertinent and impact the corporate sector are summarized as under:
Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 Competition Ordinance, 2010 Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Ordinance, 2010 Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Ordinance, 2010
Draft Corporate Rehabilitation Act announced by SECP Draft Real Estate Investment Trust Regulations, 2008 dated May 3, 2010 Comments and suggestions are sought by all those concerned and affected by the draft regulations. Draft Companies (Investment in Associated Companies and Associated Undertakings) Regulations 2010 dated January 22, 2010 Comments and suggestions are sought by all those concerned and affected by the draft regulations. Circular No. 35 of 2009 outlines mandatory certification requirements for sales agents of Assets Management Companies (AMCs) and Pension Fund Manager (PFMs). Buy-Back of Shares Rights Issues Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
Reports and Orders By an Order dated February 23, 2010 a leading multinational engaged in manufacturing of beauty, household and healthcare products was held liable (“Company”) for violating the Competition Ordinance. The Commission’s appellate bench in exercising its suo motto jurisdiction has held the Company’s advertisement for one their hair products as violating Section 10 of the Competition Ordinance dealing with deceptive market practices. More particularly, it has been held that the Company’s advertisement, “100% dandruff free” was misleading. Accordingly, the Commission passed the following orders: (i) stop advertising in the current form; (ii) modify the advertisement “100% dandruff free” and (iii) to file compliance report with the Commission after implementing the above measures. The Commission issued an Order dated March 22, 2010 against a Steel Mill for abuse of its dominant position in the market. The Commission’s appellate bench was inter alia based on the Steel Mill refusing to supply billets to certain customers and at the same time supplying by preference to a certain other customers without any economic justification for doing so. It was held that such practice leads to distorting competition in the relevant market, however, given that Steel Mill had adopted a cooperative attitude and had indicated its willingness to comply with the Competition laws, a lesser fine of Rs. 25 million was levied.
Levy of Supervision Fees by SECP Draft amendments in the Securities and Exchange Commission (Insurance) Rules 2002 announced for circulation and comments. Guidelines for Bancassurance |
Associate, Michelmores LLP, UK
OF THE SUBCONTINENT
Senior Associate, Orr, Dignam & Co.
Director, Atlas Asset Management Limited
Barrister-at-Law and an Advocate
of the High Courts
Director & General Counsel, Pfizer Laboratories
ITS CITIZENS
Head, Corporate and FI Origination,
Royal Bank of Scotland