AMERICA’S CURVE-BALL TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: Analysing the US WTO Challenge against Indian Export Subsidies

Recently, the United States (“US”) issued an unprecedented challenge at the World Trade Organisation (“WTO”) against almost every export subsidy scheme maintained by India for violating the 1994 Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (“ASCM”).[1]

After consultations between the US and India failed on 11th April, 2018, the WTO has initiated the process for setting up a Panel.[2] If successful, the challenge could wipe out $7 billion worth of Indian benefits just annually.[3] However, its true significance lies in the global scope of its consequences. It would have a domino effect to invalidate or shorten the period of export subsidies for twenty-two developing countries, and consequently stymie their economic growth.[4] Continue reading

Call for Papers

The KSLR Commercial & Financial Law Blog, part of the King’s Student Law Review, welcomes submissions on all current/topical issues of commercial and financial law.

Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:

  1. US, tariffs and trade war.
  2. The UK property market: where is it heading, and rather, where should it be heading?
  3. NHS after Brexit: What does a commercially viable future look like?
  4. The impact of Blockchain on financial regulation;
  5. UNCITRAL Group III works. What future for ISDS?

Continue reading

Re Easynet Global Services Ltd – A Case Comment

By Lucas Nacif, LLB Candidate at the Dickson Poon School of Law, King’s College London.

Introduction

In Re Easynet Global Services Ltd[1] (“Re Easynet”) the Court of Appeal considered the scope of the Companies (Cross-Border Mergers) Regulations 2007 (“Cross-Border Regulations” or “the Regulations”), [2] which transposes the Cross-Border Mergers Directive 2005/56/EC[3] (“Cross-Border Directive” or “the Directive”) into domestic law.

For the first time the Court of Appeal decided on whether the Cross-Border Regulations can be triggered by the inclusion of a dormant EU subsidiary in mergers.[4] Significantly, reversing the decision of the Companies Court, the Court of Appeal adopted a pragmatic approach to the issue and decided that this is indeed the case. Continue reading