Tag: Brown

Posted on by

Editors’ Picks: 8 Events for Your Art Calendar This Week, From a Show by a Banksy Precursor to Trisha Brown at Rockaway Beach | Artnet News

Editors’ Picks: 8 Events for Your Art Calendar This Week, From a Show by a Banksy Precursor to Trisha Brown at Rockaway Beach | Artnet News

Each week, we search for the most exciting and thought-provoking shows, screenings, and events, both digitally and in-person in the New York area. See our picks from around the world below. (Times are all ET unless otherwise noted.)

 

Tuesday, August 16

Federico Zuccaro Taddeo Rebuffed by Francesco Il Sant'Angelo, (about 1595). Image courtesy the J. Paul Getty Museum.

Federico Zuccaro Taddeo Rebuffed by Francesco Il Sant’Angelo, (about 1595). Image courtesy the J. Paul Getty Museum.

1. “Hardship and Inspiration” at the Getty Center, Los Angeles

In this virtual talk on the occasion of “The Lost Murals of Renaissance Rome” (through September 4), Getty Museum curator Julian Brooks will explore one of the first illustrated “starving artist” narratives and its enduring relevance. Twenty drawings by Federico Zuccaro map out the setbacks, rejections, and eventual success of his older brother, Italian Renaissance painter Taddeo Zuccaro. Brooks will also explore how these images of artistic persistence have inspired 21st-century Los Angeles singer-songwriters.

Price: Free with Zoom registration
Time: 2 p.m. PT (5 p.m. ET)

—Eileen Kinsella

 

Friday, August 19

Blek Le Rat, <em>Danseuse Colour</em> (2021). Photo courtesy of West Chelsea Contemporary, New York.

Blek Le Rat, Danseuse Colour (2021). Photo courtesy of West Chelsea Contemporary, New York.

2. “Blek Le Rat” at West Chelsea Contemporary, New York

French artist Blek Le Rat developed his unique blend of printmaking and graffiti in Paris the early 1980s after encountering street art in New York City and the work of Richard “Shadowman” Hambleton. His symbol was a small black rat: an anagram of the word “art” that he spread art throughout the city the way rats carry disease. Blek’s pop culture-infused stencil graffiti helped pioneer the art form and was highly influential: in Banksy’s first public interview, with the Daily Mail in 2008, the British artist lamented that “every time I think I’ve painted something slightly original, I find out that Blek Le Rat has done it too, only Blek did it 20 years earlier.”

Location: West Chelsea Contemporary, 231 10th Avenue, New York
Price: Free
Time: Monday–Wednesday and Saturday, 10 a.m.–6 p.m.; Thursday, 10 a.m.–8 p.m.; Sunday, 12 p.m.–6 p.m.

—Sarah Cascone

 

Saturday, August 20

Trisha Brown Dance Company in rehearsal at Rockaway Beach, Queens. Photo by Alice Plati for Beach Sessions Dance Series.

3. “Trisha Brown: Beach Sessions” at Rockaway Beach, New York

In this event, dancers will perform a work by choreographer Trisha Brown along the Rockaway shoreline. The audience is invited to follow the dancers along the beach as they move from Beach 97th Street to Beach 110th Street. Now in its eighth year, “Trisha Brown: In Plain Site” is a program highlighting a selection of early works by the choreographer specifically chosen to respond to the beach and its shoreline.

Location: Various locations, Rockaway Beach, New York
Price: Free
Time: 5:30 p.m.

—Neha Jambhekar

 

Through Friday, August 26

Nam June Paik, <em>Admiral/Crying TV</em> (2005). Photo by Rob McKeever, ©Nam June Paik Estate, courtesy of Gagosian.

Nam June Paik, Admiral/Crying TV (2005). Photo by Rob McKeever, ©Nam June Paik Estate, courtesy of Gagosian.

4. “Nam June Paik, Art in Process: Part Two” at Gagosian, New York

Gagosian wraps up the second and final installment of its career survey of pioneering Korean American video artist Nam June Paik. The exhibition features three of the artist’s 1980s satellite broadcasts and late examples of his television sculptures. The show is curated by John G. Hanhardt, the man behind the artist’s shows at the Whitney Museum of American Art in 1982, the Guggenheim Museum in 2000, and the Smithsonian American Art Museum in 2011.

Location: Gagosian Park & 75, 821 Park Avenue, New York
Price: Free
Time: Monday–Friday, 10 a.m.–6 p.m.

—Sarah Cascone

 

Through Monday, September 5

Liz West, Hymn to the Big Wheel (2021) at Manhattan West. Photo by Jakob Dahlin, courtesy of Brookfield.

5. “Liz West: Hymn to the Big Wheel” at Manhattan West

Take advantage of the break in New York’s summer heatwave to check out this immersive sculptural work by Liz West just east of Hudson Yards. The octagonal structure features transparent sheets in jewel-like colors that catch the sunlight, creating vibrant shadows across cobblestone streets. The project is curated by Canadian public art firm Massivart, and was originally displayed last summer in London during the Canary Warf Summer Lights festival. It will also be on view on the Waterfront Plaza at Brookfield Place (September 9 through September 25).

Location: Manhattan West Plaza, 385 9th Avenue, New York
Price: Free
Time: 8 a.m.–7 p.m.

—Sarah Cascone

 

Through Sunday, September 18

"Adama Delphine Fawundu: Wata Bodis," Newark. Photo by Anthony Alvarez, courtesy of Project for Empty Space, Newark.

“Adama Delphine Fawundu: Wata Bodis,” Newark. Photo by Anthony Alvarez, courtesy of Project for Empty Space, Newark.

6. “Adama Delphine Fawundu: Wata Bodis” at Project for Empty Space, Newark

Adama Delphine Fawundu, a 2022 artist-in-residence at Project for Empty Space, presents an exhibition featuring a 360-video projection and mixed-media hanging sculptures made from hand-dyed fabrics. Fawundu conceived of the exhibition, which is inspired by the African diaspora experience, as a spiritual conversation with her namesake, her late grandmother who she called Mama Adama. “Although our physical bodies have only shared space on this earth for 23 years, our spirits have always been intertwined,” Fawundu wrote in her artist’s statement.

Location: Project for Empty Space, 800 Broad Street, Newark
Price: TK Free
Time: Wednesday–Saturday, 11 a.m.–5 p.m.

—Sarah Cascone

 

Through Saturday, September 24

Luchita Hurtado, <em>Untitled</em> (1971). Photo by Jeff McLane, ©the Estate of Luchita Hurtado.

Luchita Hurtado, Untitled (1971). Photo by Jeff McLane, ©the Estate of Luchita Hurtado.

7. “Luchita Hurtado” at Hauser and Wirth, Southampton

Luchita Hurtado, who died in 2020 at age 99, only began to received recognition for her decades-long career in the final years of her life. But while you may have seen her paintings, Hurtado’s works on paper, including charcoal, crayon, graphite, and ink drawings, have kept a low profile. Hauser and Wirth presents intimate self-portraits, plus other pieces never exhibited in her lifetime.

Location: Hauser and Wirth, 9 Main Street, Southampton, New York
Price: Free
Time: Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday, 11 a.m.–6 p.m.; Thursday, 11 a.m.–8 p.m.; Sunday, 12 p.m.–6 p.m.

—Sarah Cascone

 

Tojiba CPU Corp, <em>Disc Buddie #4448</em> (2022). Photo by Tom Powel Imaging, courtesy of Nahmad Contemporary, New York.

Tojiba CPU Corp, Disc Buddie #4448 (2022). Photo by Tom Powel Imaging, courtesy of Nahmad Contemporary, New York.

8. “The Painter’s New Tools” at Nahmad Contemporary, New York

There’s more to art and technology that the love-it-or-hate it NFT, as this group show at Nahmad Contemporary suggests. Artists pushing the boundaries of painting have been incorporating everything from computer printers and tablets to CGI, AI, and coding into their practices. The exhibition includes groundbreaking works by Darren Bader, Urs Fischer, Wade Guyton, Camille Henrot, and Sarah Sze, among others.

Location: Nahmad Contemporary, 980 Madison Avenue, Third Floor, New York
Price: Free with appointment
Time: Monday–Friday, 10 a.m.–6 p.m.

—Sarah Cascone

Follow Artnet News on Facebook:


Want to stay ahead of the art world? Subscribe to our newsletter to get the breaking news, eye-opening interviews, and incisive critical takes that drive the conversation forward.

Posted on by

Asia Tax Bulletin – Summer 2022 | Perspectives & Events | Mayer Brown

Asia Tax Bulletin – Summer 2022 | Perspectives & Events | Mayer Brown

The times are changing. Due to pressure from the European Union, Hong Kong has issued the framework of how it proposes to change its long-cherished offshore taxation rules applicable to passive investment income. Hong Kong proposes to tax offshore investment income unless the Hong Kong company receiving the income meets certain economic substance rules or if the income is not received in Hong Kong. At the same time, Hong Kong will introduce a participation exemption rule for foreign dividends and gains earned by Hong Kong companies, based on which these foreign dividends and gains would not be taxable in Hong Kong if they meet the pertinent conditions. You will read more about that in this edition of the Asia Tax Bulletin. 

Further, China and Hong Kong have ratified the Multilateral Treaty and therefore certain of their tax treaties will now be subject to the anti-avoidance test contained in the Multilateral Treaty. This may have consequences for investments in Japan held by Hong Kong holding companies, which henceforth may be challenged if one of the main purposes of the structure is to benefit from the tax treaty. 

Hong Kong proposes to introduce tax exemptions for qualifying family offices and at the same time Singapore is tightening the tax exemption conditions for family offices if they are not managed by a CMS-licensed fund manager. Finally, a point worth mentioning is that Malaysia has introduced tax exemptions for qualifying venture capital companies, which adds Malaysia to the short list of jurisdictions besides Singapore and Hong Kong who promote their jurisdiction for venture capital activities in Asia. 

These and other news items are discussed in this edition of the Bulletin. 

View the Interactive Document

Posted on by

HKEX: Zero Tolerance to Inaccurate Bio Details About Directors | Perspectives & Events | Mayer Brown

HKEX: Zero Tolerance to Inaccurate Bio Details About Directors | Perspectives & Events | Mayer Brown

In a recent statement of disciplinary action, The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (HKEX) censured a former executive director (the Director) for providing inaccurate, incorrect and/or misleading information to a listed company (Listco) in respect of her biographical details.

In addition to being publicly censured, the HKEX issued a ‘Prejudice to Investors’ Interest’ (PII) statement against the Director, which means in the opinion of HKEX, had the Director remained on the board of Listco, the retention of office by her would have been prejudicial to the interests of investors. Listco was also censured for publishing inaccurate information contained in the related appointment announcement.

In this case, Listco had announced in January 2021 the appointment of the Director whose biographical details (as set out in the announcement and repeated in the subsequent notice of annual general meeting) became subject of a complaint. 

In response to enquiries from HKEX, Listco published in April 2021 a clarification announcement admitting that certain statements contained in the appointment announcement could not be satisfactorily verified.

Specifically, these unverifiable statements were that the Director “held senior positions in certain well-known companies and different international financial institutions” – and “has accumulated extensive experience in stock and bond analysis, trading and portfolio construction, currency trading, non-performing asset investment, quantitative research and derivative trading”.

Such statements would therefore “be deleted in its entirety”, and the Director’s remuneration was adjusted downwards from HK$300,000 per month to HK$2 million per annum. 

However, the matter did not end with publication of the clarification announcement.

The Director tendered her resignation in November 2021. In addition to publishing the HKEX’s statement of disciplinary action, Listco issued a further announcement on 18 July 2022, admitting that neither the Director’s appointment nor her remuneration had been considered by its Nomination Committee and Remuneration Committee.

Listco and the relevant directors (i.e. directors at the time of the appointment announcement) apologised for failure to conduct due diligence of any newly appointed director – and those directors agreed to undergo 17 hours of training.

This case serves as a cautionary reminder that issuers must properly consider a director’s appointment in accordance with both the Corporate Governance Code and the terms of reference applicable to its Nomination and Remuneration Committees.

In particular, the background, education, qualifications, experience and other particulars of a director candidate must be independently verified.

Issuers cannot simply rely on information provided by a candidate or disclosed by other listed companies in their announcements, circulars and/or financial reports.

Posted on by

New regulations on the Anti-Corruption Law is published | Perspectives & Events | Mayer Brown

Lexology Getting the Deal Through — Oil Regulation 2022 | Perspectives & Events | Mayer Brown

Last Tuesday July 12, 2022, the Brazilian Federal Government published Decree No. 11,129/22 (“Decree“), which regulates Law No. 12,846 of August 1, 2013 (“Anti-Corruption Law“).

The new decree revokes Decree No. 8,420 of March 18, 2015 and amends the regulations on the anticorruption legislation in force, by improving the procedures related to the preliminary investigation, the Administrative Liability Proceeding (PAR) and, most importantly, the negotiation, execution and fulfillment of leniency agreements, ensuring greater legal certainty, predictability and attractiveness of such institutes for the legal entities. According to the decree, the main purposes of the leniency agreements will now be to (a) increase the investigative capacity of the public administration; (b) enhance the authorities’ capacity to recover assets; and (c) promote a culture of integrity within the private sector.

Moreover, the decree establishes new rules that expand the prerogatives of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Union (CGU) in the scope of the liability proceedings against legal entities. The referred rules reinforce the promotion of an integrity culture in the private sector and seek to address the legal uncertainties that existed in the Brazilian anticorruption microsystem.

Among the new provisions introduced by the decree we have: changes in the calculation of penalties (including a change in the percentage reduction of the penalty for legal entities that have an effective integrity program in place); review of the methodology used to measure the undue advantage earned by corporate offenders for purposes of establishing the applicable penalty; changes to the timeframes for interruption or suspension of the statute of limitations; provision for joint action by different agencies to execute leniency agreements; imposition of limits on the exchange of information and documents obtained under a leniency agreement with other authorities; and inclusion of new requirements for renegotiation and amendment of the obligations undertaken in the agreements.

The decree also introduced a provision for indirect monitoring by the CGU of the obligations to adopt, implement and improve the integrity program, which suggests a will of the authorities to increase the inclusion of independent corporate monitors as a condition for the execution of leniency agreements under the supervision of the CGU. The topic was not formally regulated in Brazil so far, although we have seen some practical examples of the imposition of independent monitors by legal entities that have executed leniency agreements.

Among the main changes introduced by the decree, we highlight the following:

Preliminary Investigation and Administrative Liability Proceeding – PAR

  1. Improvement of the preliminary investigation procedure, which aims the verification of evidence of authorship and materiality of harmful acts against the public administration. The new term for the conclusion of the procedure by the competent authority will be up to 180 (one hundred and eighty) days, with the possibility of extension of such term. The new measures include the possibility of sharing information and documents with the competent authorities, as well as the application of judicial measures deemed necessary for the investigation (e.g., searches and seizures);
  2. Detailing of the procedures to be observed while conducting PARs, especially with regard to subpoenas, indictments, and elaboration of the respective final report. Furthermore, foreign legal entities may be subpoenaed and notified of all procedural acts regardless of power of attorney or contractual or bylaws provisions.
  3. The agencies and entities of the direct and indirect federal public administration can be held liable if they fail to inform the CGU of evidence of damaging acts against a foreign public administration, identified in the course of their duties.
  4. The decree also establishes that violations of the Anti-Corruption Law and that may also represent administrative violations of Law No. 14,133/2021 (“New Public Bidding Law“) or other related laws shall be investigated simultaneously in the same PAR proceeding.
  5. The provisions of the decree immediately apply to the proceedings in course and the procedural acts undertaken before it becomes enforceable remain valid.

Fine for Unlawful Acts

  1. Improvement of the criteria for determining the applicable penalty, including changes in the calculation methods for the respective amounts and in the percentages of the calculation bases of such penalty.
  2. Increase from 4% to 5% of the reduction percentage of the penalty, in case the legal entity proves that an effective integrity program was in place at the time of the Anti-Corruption Law violation. The increase of the reduction percentage sends a clear message on the importance of implementing an effective integrity program.
  3. Improvement of the definition of “obtained or intended advantage”, which now corresponds to the monetary equivalent of the product of the illicit act, i.e., the earnings or profits obtained or intended by the legal entity as a direct or indirect result of the harmful act.
  4. Inclusion of new methodologies for estimating the obtained or intended advantage, which include the use of the amount of the (a) revenue obtained in the scope of administrative agreements and their amendments, minus licit costs; (b) expenses or costs avoided by the legal entity, including tax or regulatory expenses; or (c) additional profit earned by the legal entity as a result of an action or omission from the public administration that would not have occurred without the harmful act.

Leniency Agreements

  1. The leniency agreements may provide for a different deadline from the one established by the decree (i.e., 30 days) for payment of the applicable penalty or any other financial obligation imposed on the legal entity.
  2. The main purposes of leniency agreements are now (a) to increase the investigative capacity of the public administration; (b) to enhance the authorities’ capacity to recover assets; and (c) to promote an integrity culture of integrity in the private sector.
  3. Preparation of a joint act by the CGU and the Office of the Federal Attorney General (AGU) to regulate the joint action of those entities in the negotiation, execution and monitoring of leniency agreements. The joint action of the CGU and AGU was previously regulated by an Ordinance and by the Technical Cooperation Agreement between CGU, AGU, the Federal Court of Accounts (TCU) and the Ministry of Justice and Public Security (MJSP), executed in 2020.
  4. The CGU may accept the prerogative to negotiate, execute and monitor the fulfillment of leniency agreements related to harmful acts against other government and federative entities.
  5. Inclusion of two new requirements for the execution of leniency agreements: (a) full compensation of the uncontroversial amount of the damage and (b) loss, in favor of the damaged entity or the Federal Union, of the amounts corresponding to the undue asset increase or illicit enrichment obtained with the violation.
  6. In cases where the unlawful act simultaneously implies in damage to the public entity and undue asset increase to the legal entity (provided that they are identical), the corresponding amounts will be calculated (a) in a lump sum for purposes of quantification of the amount to be paid under the leniency agreement and (b) registered as compensation for damages for accounting and budgetary purposes and for their destination to the public entity.
  7. The signing of the memorandum of understanding with the legal entity that is negotiating the leniency agreement will interrupt and suspend the statute of limitations for the negotiation period, limited, in any case, to 360 days. Furthermore, the PAR filed against the a legal entity may also be suspended;
  8. The CGU may take over the records of administrative proceedings in progress in other federal public administration agencies or entities related to the facts subject to the leniency agreement under negotiation.
  9. The negotiation of a leniency agreement will not interfere in the regular progress of specific administrative proceedings for the investigation of damages and losses to the federal public administration resulting from a harmful act committed by a legal entity, with or without the participation of a public agent.
  10. Provision of new clauses that may be included in the leniency agreement and that address (a) deadlines and monitoring of the implementation of integrity program improvement measures; (b) payment of the penalty and of the uncontroversial amount of the damages; and (c) possibility of using such amount to compensate amounts established in other sanction or liability proceedings, when related to the same facts included in the scope of the agreement.
  11. Provision for monitoring the obligations of adopting, implementing, and improving the integrity program, which may be carried out directly or indirectly by the CGU including the possibility of imposing independent monitorship.
  12. Inclusion of new criteria to be considered when defining the percentage reduction of the applicable penalty, such as the (a) timing of the self-reporting and the unprecedentedness of the harmful acts; (b) effectiveness of the collaboration of the legal entity; and (c) commitment to undertake relevant conditions to comply with the agreement.
  13. The information and documents obtained as a result of the leniency agreements may be shared with other authorities, upon commitment not to use them to sanction the legal entity with regard to the same facts that were the object of the leniency agreement, or upon the approval of the legal entity itself.
  14. The execution of the leniency agreement will interrupt the statute of limitations with regard to the unlawful acts that are subject of the agreement, which will remain suspended until the fulfillment of the commitments undertaken in the agreement or its termination.
  15. The benefits of exemption from the extraordinary publication of the administrative decision, the prohibition to receive incentives, subsidies, grants, donations or loans from public agencies or entities and public financial institutions or those controlled by the Public Administration, as well as the reduction of the final amount of the penalty and the exemption or mitigation of administrative sanctions will be granted to legal entities from the date of execution of the leniency agreement, and no longer from the date of its fulfilment.
  16. Inclusion new rules and improvement of the existing ones regarding breach, termination and amendments to the leniency agreements.

Integrity Program

  1. Improvement of the evaluation parameters of the existence and application of integrity programs, as well as exclusion of the former parameter of “transparency of the legal entity regarding donations to candidates and political parties”, in line with the ruling of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) regarding the unconstitutionality of political donations made by companies and of Law No. 13,165/2015 (“Electoral Reform Law“), which ratified the STF’s ruling.
  2. Among the improvements of the evaluation parameters, we highlight the need to (a) demonstrate the senior management’s commitment by providing adequate resources to the integrity program; (b) conduct adequate risk management including periodic risk analysis and effective allocation of resources; (c) conduct due diligence for hiring and monitoring third parties, politically exposed persons (PEP) and people related to them, and for granting donations and sponsorships.
  3. Inclusion of new criteria for analyzing the parameters for evaluation of the existence and application of integrity programs (e.g., the legal entity’s gross revenue and its corporate governance structure).

Other Provisions

  1. Amendments to the laws on the publication of information regarding administrative sanctions imposed on individuals or legal entities that imply a restriction to the right to participate in public bids or to execute agreements with the public administration of any federative sphere in the National Registry of Ineligible and Suspended Companies (CEIS).
  2. Possibility of including, in the CEIS or in the National Register of Punished Companies (CNEP), information regarding the scope of the sanction.
  3. Exclusion of the data contained in the CEIS or CNEP after the fulfillment of the penalty of extraordinary publication of the administrative decision.
  4. Inclusion of new attributions of the Minister of CGU to issue complementary guidelines, rules and procedures for ensuring the effectiveness of the decree, especially with regard to the methodology for calculating gross revenues and the taxes to be excluded for purposes of calculating fines and evaluating the integrity program, including the method for simplified evaluation in the case of micro and small companies; and
  5. The Ministry of Justice and Public Security, AGU and CGU will create institutional communication channels for the submission of information regarding the practice of unlawful acts against the national or foreign public administration or resulting from plea agreements and leniency agreements, as well as for international cooperation and asset recovery.

The decree, which will come into force on July 18, 2022, will revoke Decree No. 8,420/2015.

If you are interested in reading the complete decree, please visit:

http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2019-2022/2022/Decreto/D11129.htm

 

Posted on by

Hydrogen in Australia – The States of Play | Perspectives & Events | Mayer Brown

Hydrogen in Australia – The States of Play | Perspectives & Events | Mayer Brown

Introduction

In May we published a Legal Update on the recent Australian federal election (here) and what a new Labor government may mean for the renewables industry in Australia. The note highlighted that no specific legislation was planned for hydrogen.

Australia’s states have been more active in trying to jump on the hydrogen bandwagon. This Legal Update provides a brief overview of the existing and planned legislation for hydrogen in Australia’s six states and two territories.

Federal

Australia does not have any federal laws in place that deal directly with hydrogen. There are existing funding mechanisms in place, as well as new announcements from the Labor government aimed at encouraging renewables development. The federal government has also taken the lead in trying to achieve harmonisation across the states in the regulation of hydrogen. For example, Australia’s energy ministers (at federal and state level) recently agreed to amend the national gas regulatory framework to address biomethane and hydrogen and reconsider the definition of “natural gas” under the National Gas Law. 

The federal government has also commenced trialling a Guarantee of Origin scheme that may eventually allow the certification of hydrogen exports as “green hydrogen”. This will be of particular importance to Japanese and Korean importers, where hydrogen is seen as part of their plans to be carbon neutral by 2030 and 2050, respectively.

New South Wales

The government released the NSW Hydrogen Strategy in October 2021. The government has pledged up to A$3 billion in support of green hydrogen. The government aims to create hydrogen hubs where there are geographical requirements for green hydrogen and, importantly, in coal-producing areas (such as the Hunter Valley and Illawarra) where “going green” is often seen as an attack on jobs and the local economy.

The government has also introduced the Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 2021, with a plan of allowing blending of up to 10 percent hydrogen and biomethane into natural gas pipelines by 2030. The law also amends the Electricity Supply Act 1995 and the Energy and Utilities Administration Act 1987 to allow specific exemptions for electricity used in the production of green hydrogen. Electricity used for green hydrogen production will also be exempt from the Climate Change Fund.

Western Australia

Western Australia’s economy is heavily tied to the energy and resources industry. It has a highly skilled workforce and solid export infrastructure, providing significant potential for the development of a green hydrogen market

In 2019, the government released its Renewable Hydrogen Strategy. As with other states, the paper was more aspirational than it was detailed. Key areas of consideration were replacing diesel with hydrogen in remotely located communities and industries, blending hydrogen into existing natural gas networks, mobility and leveraging existing infrastructure and skills to promote hydrogen export. The strategy has recently been updated (translations in Japanese (here) and Korean (here).

Western Australia is one of the few states implementing laws to encourage hydrogen development. The government recently announced the Land and Public Works Legislation Amendment Bill 2022, which will amend the Land Administration Act 1997. This will allow for the introduction of “diversification leases”. While this is not as attention-grabbing as the announcement of a multi-million dollar fund, the actual impact of this bill could be significant. The introduction of a diversified lease could allow the development of renewables and hydrogen projects on crown land or pastoral leases. Presently, pastoral leases only allow the land to be used for pastoral purposes. The changes could free up significant areas of land for hydrogen and renewables development.

The government has also announced plans to introduce up to 10 percent renewable hydrogen into the gas network by 2030. The government had previously set a timetable of 2040 to achieve this.

South Australia

South Australia is a leading state in terms of spending money on, and taking action to facilitate, hydrogen development. In February 2021, the government amended the Petroleum and Geothermal Regulations 2013 to make hydrogen, and its compounds and by-products, “regulated substances” under the Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Act 2000. This amendment allowed for the exploration and development of natural hydrogen under the state’s petroleum licensing regime.

The government has also announced an intention to introduce legislation that will expedite hydrogen development. The legislation will cover the licencing of green and blue hydrogen, with the intention that the law can be the focal point for hydrogen reduction. No details of the law have been provided. It is not clear when an exposure draft will be released for public comment.

As with other states, South Australia is promoting a number of active projects. Notably, the government has committed A$593 million over four years to create a hydrogen hub in Whyalla (an industrial port city, approximately 400km from South Australia’s capital, Adelaide).

Tasmania

Tasmania already produces approximately 90 percent of its electricity from hydropower. Tasmania exports electricity to the mainland during peak demand via the Basslink electricity interconnector. Tasmania has established the Tasmanian Renewable Hydrogen Industry Development Fund which will promote the trial of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and provide loans to support hydrogen projects. There are no hydrogen specific laws in place.

Victoria

The government has published the Victorian Renewable Hydrogen Industry Development Plan. Like other state governments, the Victorian government emphasises the importance of hydrogen and renewables development. No specific legislation has been announced.

Queensland

Queensland has been the focus of significant attention in the renewables and hydrogen space. Queensland’s existing gas and LNG infrastructure, strong resources industry, favourable solar climate, and proximity to Asian markets have made it a popular place for development, particularly with Korean and Japanese investors.

The government has not introduced any hydrogen specific legislation. The Hydrogen and Renewable Energy Jobs Fund has been formed to promote job-creation in the renewables and hydrogen industries. There is also focus on creating “hydrogen hubs”. The mining industry is a large employer in Queensland, so government policy may need to be more nuanced than in other states.

Northern Territory

The Northern Territory released its Renewable Hydrogen Master Plan in October 2021. While the paper talks about the “extracting value”, “opportunities for downstream value-add” and plans to “drive economic growth” and “leverage the Territory’s unique value propositions”, no relevant legislation has been tabled for consideration. However, the Northern Territory’s close proximity to export markets, along with its renewables potential, makes it a jurisdiction to watch.

Australian Capital Territory (ACT)

Given its small geographical area, it is not surprising that there is no legislation in place for large-scale hydrogen development in the ACT. While most of the energy produced in the ACT comes from renewable sources (mainly solar), the ACT imports most of its electricity through the national electricity grid, via New South Wales. The ACT does have some incentives in place for renewables, including subsidies for electric vehicles.

Posted on by

Lexology Getting the Deal Through — Oil Regulation 2022 | Perspectives & Events | Mayer Brown

Lexology Getting the Deal Through — Oil Regulation 2022 | Perspectives & Events | Mayer Brown

Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd. This article was first published in Lexology Getting the Deal Through – Oil Regulation 2022; contributing editor: Bob Palmer, Mayer Brown International LLP. For further information please visit lexology.com/gtdt.

At the end of 2019, the Brent crude oil price was around US$65/bbl. The key issues prevalent in the sector were energy transition, a continuing growth in global demand for energy and how the energy sector as a whole was going to respond to those competing pressures.

In the 30 months since then, there have been two unlinked global events that have resulted in a paradigm shift in the global oil and gas sector. The Covid-19 pandemic altered the demand and supply equation and caused oil and gas companies to review investments and strategies. Coupled with an oversupply caused when the OPEC+ countries decided not to cut back on supply in March 2020, the falling demand caused by Covid lockdowns around the world sent the oil price into freefall, with the Brent crude price bottoming out at US$20/bbl in April 2020. Since then, there has been a gradual recovery of the oil price and investment in the sector.

By February 2022, crude had recovered to around US$90/bbl and that looked to be something of a new norm. The Russian invasion of Ukraine and the resulting economic sanctions created a supply crunch, temporarily forcing up the price of crude to US$140/bbl, which then levelled out by May 2022 to around US$110/bbl.

These price rises clearly affect consumers and businesses, who have to pay more for their energy, and have led to a growth in inflation. They have also impacted corporate strategy. At the new higher oil prices many oil and gas prospects that had previously looked uneconomic will be unlocked, while at the same time increased investment in renewable energy now looks much more attractive.

Not only is there now a general upward slope in the global energy demand curve, with increases in demand particularly in Asia and Africa going past 2050, there is now, at least temporarily, a constriction of supply with Russian oil and gas being taken out of the global market. These competing forces will keep oil and gas prices high for some time. 

Security of supply has become a key factor in national energy policies and it is likely that one of the results will be an increase in global LNG production and export to countries previously reliant on Russian oil & gas. 

However, in spite of a huge demand for energy, it is clear that energy transition – the move away from hydrocarbon-sourced energy – has a momentum that is not being slowed: indeed, Russia’s actions in Europe have only reinforced the need for renewable and alternative sources of supply. All stakeholders – from investors to consumers – have embraced the need for energy transition and continued investment in non-hydrocarbon sources of energy. 

Nevertheless, for every international oil company that sells off oil and gas assets, there is a buyer to step in. Some companies do not have the financial muscle to shift quickly from one type of business to another – and the buy-side has been filled to a large extent by private equity-backed companies and national oil companies. Stakeholder pressure and improved corporate governance has led to most, if not all, of those companies that are committed to continued investment in oil and gas to embrace low-carbon initiatives and, more generally, environmental, social, and governance issues.

Energy transition and increasing global demand for energy, now coupled with concerns about security of supply caused by Russia’s actions in Ukraine, will dominate strategy and policy-making for the foreseeable future. Most regulators around the world are committing to energy transition, however, it is clear that oil and gas will continue to play an important role in the energy mix for some time.

***

Corporate & Securities partner Bob Palmer (London) is the contributing editor of Lexology Getting The Deal Through – Oil Regulation 2022, which offers a quick-reference summary of all the important issues related to the regulation and business of oil exploration and production worldwide, covering: governmental policy, legislative framework and industry overview, regulators, offshore production and regulation, licensing, concessions and production sharing agreements, royalties and taxation, measurement of oil and oil facility equipment standards, transportation, environment, health and safety, labour, international treaties, foreign investment matters, commodity price controls, cross-border sales and merger control and competition.

Jurisdictions covered by the 2022 Guide are Argentina, Brazil, Denmark (and Faroe Islands, Greenland), Ecuador, Egypt, Ghana, Iraq, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Myanmar, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Peru, Thailand, UAE and the UK. Bob also contributed the UK chapter of the Guide. 

An interactive version is available here.

Posted on by

Commerce Department Receives Comments on Indo-Pacific Economic Framework | Perspectives & Events | Mayer Brown

FSB Releases Report on Approaches to Climate-Related Risks | Perspectives & Events | Mayer Brown

On April 11, the US Department of Commerce (the “Department”) and the Office of the US Trade Representative (“USTR”) closed their public comment period for the administration’s proposed Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (“IPEF”). The comments provided during the period will help the Department and USTR set goals for the final agreement.

Background on Comment Period

The IPEF is designed as a joint effort between the Department of Commerce and USTR, with each agency overseeing separate “pillars” of the agreement. USTR will handle the pillar on “fair and resilient trade,” and the Department will handle the pillars on supply chain resilience; infrastructure, clean energy, and decarbonization; and tax and anti-corruption.1 For more information on IPEF, please refer to our previous newsletter entry.

Both agencies sought public input on the following 10 items:

  1. General negotiating objectives for the IPEF.
  2. Digital and emerging technologies-related issues.
  3. Supply chain resilience-related issues.
  4. Infrastructure-related issues.
  5. Clean energy-related issues.
  6. Decarbonization-related issues.
  7. Tax-related issues.
  8. Anti-corruption-related issues.
  9. Issues of particular relevance to small and medium-sized businesses that should be addressed in the negotiations.
  10. Other issues for consideration.2

Summary of Comments

The Department of Commerce received 60 comments during the public comment period, and several trends emerged across the submissions. USTR received 1,300 comments, although many of those comments were form letters discussing workers’ rights provisions. This summary focuses on broad trends in comments submitted by industry associations, human rights groups, and corporations; the full dockets are available online at regulations.gov for the Department of Commerce and USTR.

To start, there was widespread agreement among the commenters on the need for trade negotiations in the Indo-Pacific region. Several commenters noted the lack of US participation in trade agreements like the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (“CPTPP”) and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (“RCEP”),3 but labor rights groups focused on the shortcomings of previous negotiations in the region, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and hoped that workers’ rights would be protected in these negotiations.4 Commenters in general hoped for widespread participation in the IPEF among countries in the region, who will sign on to all pillars of the agreement, rather than an a la carte participation option.5

Industry associations and corporations urged negotiators to reduce non-tariff barriers to trade and set uniform regulatory standards across participating IPEF nations, which would increase certainty in the business environment.6 Ensuring multilateral participation in export control regimes was a popular example of regulatory streamlining that commenters argued negotiators should pursue.7 Several commenters suggested repurposing standards for trade facilitation and digital trade in already existing agreements, like the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (“USMCA”) and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (“APEC”).8 However, certain human rights groups noted that agreements like the USMCA fell short on data privacy concerns, and further standardizing that model in another trade agreement would be damaging.9

Technology groups were particularly active in suggesting infrastructure provisions, noting that the Asia-Pacific region presents unique challenges like reliance on offshore cable lines and cloud computing that an agreement would need to address.10 In addition, technology groups also asked that the agreements consider technology training programs among IPEF participants to develop a skilled workforce able to engage in digital trade.11

Finally, looking at supply chains, certain commenters were concerned about a “too-heavy focus on only supplying from the US domestic market,” instead advocating for a more flexible approach to supply chain management.12 These groups hoped for a “friendshoring” approach, where US companies would still source from abroad, though primarily through allied countries, and added that an early warning network for supply chain disruptions would help industry predictability.13 Human and labor rights groups advocated for forced labor provisions to be included in the final agreement.14

Next Steps

The relevant agencies now will review the comments and develop a negotiating strategy for the agreement. President Biden formally launched IPEF on May 23, 2022, during his travel to Tokyo.

 

 

 

1 85 Fed. Reg. 13971 (March 11, 2022).

2 Id.

3 E.g. Consumer Technology Association, Request for Comments on the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, ITA-2022-0001-0056, at 8 (hereinafter CTA Comment); US Chamber of Commerce, Office of the US Trade Representative: Comments on the Proposed Fair and Resilient Trade Pillar of an Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (FRN Docket No. USTR-2022-0002), ITA-2022-0001-0024, at 2 (hereinafter US Chamber Comment).

4 E.g. Alliance for American Manufacturing, Re: Request for Comments on the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (ITA-2022-0001), ITA-2022-0001-0048, at 2-3 (hereinafter AAM Comment).

5 E.g. CTA Comment at 4.

6 E.g. American Association of the Indo-Pacific, Comments to the US Federal Register: Docket No. ITA-2022-0001 Concerning the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, ITA-2022-0002-0058 (hereinafter AAIP Comment).

7 US Chamber Comment at 18; National Foreign Trade Council, Comments Regarding the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, ITA-2022-0002-0057, at 19 (hereinafter NFTC Comment).

8 E.g. US Chamber Comment at 4; NFTC Comment.

9 E.g. Public Citizen, Comments from Public Citizen Regarding the Proposed Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, ITA-2022-0001-0033, at 5 (hereinafter Public Citizen Comment).

10 E.g. Microsoft, Microsoft Corporation’s Response to Office of US Trade Representative Request for Comments on the Proposed Fair and Resilient Trade Pillar of an Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and US Department of Commerce Request for Comments on the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, ITA-2022-0001-0034, at 6 (hereinafter Microsoft Comment); Google, Comments Regarding the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, ITA-2022-0001-0046, at 8 (hereinafter Google Comment).

11 E.g. Microsoft Comment at 3-4; Google Comment at 3.

12 NFTC Comment at 15.

13 Id. at 16; CTA Comment at 7.

14 Public Citizen Comment at 3; AAM Comment at 5.

Posted on by

Mike Brown was the Warriors’ perfect interim leader (again)

Mike Brown was the Warriors' perfect interim leader (again)

The crowd was sighing in relief, the players were milling around the court after the Warriors’ rough-and-tumble Game 4 victory, and Mike Brown and Draymond Green headed straight for each other, then shared a long, strong hug that communicated a multitude of emotions.

A big man’s embrace. A moment when two people who have meant so much to the Warriors seemed to lean into and blend into each other for a bit, sharing things only they could know.

So much happened Monday before the Warriors ever played the Grizzlies in this crucial game at Chase Center. So much pain and transition and surprise and adapting on the fly. So much that had nothing to do with each other. And so much that had everything to do with each other and the community of this team.

Early in the morning, news broke that Draymond’s former Michigan State teammate, Adreian Payne, had been shot and killed in Florida. Later, Brown was officially hired as the Sacramento Kings’ head coach. Then, a few hours before tipoff, Steve Kerr tested positive for COVID-19, which meant he couldn’t coach the game (and probably Game 5) and Brown suddenly was the guy, as he’d been for 11 games during the 2017 postseason when Kerr was suffering from the effects of a botched back surgery.

So much going on.

“I love Draymond, you know, and when he hurts, we all hurt,” Brown said after the game. “So that was tough on me personally. Then to find out Steve was out, too, it was an up-and-down or emotional day for me, too.”

But the Warriors had to get through this game. It was not a small game. The 101-98 victory, as ugly as it looked, gave them a 3-1 lead as they head to Memphis for Wednesday’s Game 5 and a shot to end this grueling series. The Warriors very much did not want to lose this game. So they had to deal with everything as it all came down Monday, which was pretty much all at once.

They had the perfect guy to handle it, though. Which the Warriors knew, because Brown has handled this before.

“You know, we’ve done this drill before,” Brown said after the game.

And once Kerr called to tell him he wasn’t feeling well and then later that he’d tested positive, Brown did the perfect Warriors thing: He leaned on the dynastic figures of this franchise. Led by letting them lead, too. Leaned on them while they leaned on him.

“Andre (Iguodala), I know he’s not playing, but just his voice, his presence, he’s always saying the right thing,” Brown said. “It uplifts all of us. And for me, it uplifted me. I told him, I told Draymond, I said: ‘I need you guys tonight. I need you guys. I’m going to lean on you guys.’ And those guys stayed steady the whole game, Andre on the bench obviously and Draymond out on the floor, and we found a way. You can do that when you have Steph Curry and (Jordan Poole) out on the floor.”

Maybe the clearest indication of the currents that flowed through the players and the staff came when Brown declined to speak about the Kings job because he wanted to remain focused on the Warriors’ situation and didn’t want to talk about the Kings until his full attention was on his next role. And then, about 20 minutes later, Draymond patiently stood in the interview room waiting for Curry’s presser to end, then politely said he couldn’t talk at length right now.

“So my emotions are kind of all over the place now,” Draymond said. “I’m going to go home and just sit on my podcast and talk because I can pause that and cry if I need to cry. I don’t like to cry in front of people. What I will say is (my wife) Hazel and I are going to donate $100,000 to a fund in Adreian’s name.

“I call on my Spartan family, coach (Tom) Izzo, Magic (Johnson), Jaren Jackson, Miles Bridges, Mat Ishbia, all of my Spartan family to come in, and let’s do something in honor of Adreian. If that’s naming something on a campus after him, if that is some scholarships for some kids from Dayton, whatever that is, I call on my Spartan family to band together and do something in Adreian’s name. So I’m going to go home and talk about Adreian, and I’ll talk a little bit about this game.

“But I can do it at my own speed and at my own space. I apologize. I will give you guys the greatest press conference after Wednesday’s game, but I just don’t have it in me tonight, I truly apologize.”

It would be a cop out to say the run of events leading up to the game caused the Warriors’ incredibly sluggish first three quarters Monday. They also knew Ja Morant was unlikely to play because of his injured knee, which could’ve led to a Warriors letdown. And also, the Warriors just couldn’t shoot for a long time in this game.

They trailed after the first quarter. They could barely score in the second quarter and trailed at halftime, too. Curry, Klay Thompson and Poole were all struggling. Everybody on the Warriors was struggling. They trailed 69-62 going into the fourth thanks to Desmond Bane’s 32-foot buzzer-beater.

But the Warriors have been together for too long and have held together for too long to despair in the face of any of that.

“I had a feeling we were going to win the game when Bane hit the tough shot to end the third, we just willed it to four, and I just knew we could,” Klay said. “We were going to win the game. I just had a feeling. It was ugly, but at this time of year, all that matters is that win.”

Curry got hot in the fourth quarter. Klay made a huge jumper from the corner. The Warriors defense surged. The Grizzlies offense, without Morant, hit the wall. Draymond brushed off his foul trouble and stopped Jaren Jackson Jr. at a few crucial moments.

Brown ran the game calmly. He didn’t call a million timeouts. He didn’t veer from his and Kerr’s rotation plan. He didn’t try weird things to show the Kings and the world how gutsy and creative he can be. He just ran the team. And when it was over, he accepted congratulations from the rest of the coaching staff, patted a few players as they headed to the locker room and beelined for Draymond.

“Yeah, it was an emotional day,” Klay said. “Prayers up to Adreian and his family, and Draymond, I know they played together. Just a terrible loss of life, and his legacy will live on. It was just a sad day.

“Really happy for Mike B., though. He’s going to do great things for Sacramento. His head-coaching record for Warriors playoff games, I think, is undefeated. We did miss Steve a lot, just his voice, his presence. But we’ve been here before in 2017 when Mike took over and we rolled off a lot of wins. I reflected on that a lot. Just an up-and-down day as far as emotions were going.”

The Warriors are going to miss Brown. They know that. He joined the staff for the 2016-17 season, just in time for the arrival of Kevin Durant and to fill in for Kerr during those 2017 playoff games, on the way to a championship.

“Coach (Kerr) talked about it, I think this morning, about what (Brown has) meant to our team and to that coaching staff,” Curry said. “And just maybe the way they approach it all year in terms of everybody having a voice for us and being able to hear that throughout the year, it makes situations like tonight a little bit easier of a transition. He had a lot of good words tonight.

“I don’t know in the history if you could name the head coach of two teams in 24 hours. He’s continuing to set many trends.”

Of course, being the Warriors in a moment of victory, it had to have humor, too. During his TNT postgame interview, Curry joked that when things were going poorly, it felt like the whole team had been traded to the Kings. (He tried to backtrack a bit later, which was almost as amusing as the one-liner.)

“Yeah, we got a lot of jokesters on the team,” Brown said with a smile when asked about the Curry crack, “and I’m OK with it.”

You get used to that kind of thing when you’re around the Warriors. You get used to major swings of emotion, surprises, drama, passion and a lot of victories. And at the end, sometimes, you just hug somebody who needs it, and you realize you need it, too.

(Photo Mike Brown and Draymond Green: Joe Murphy / NBAE via Getty Images)

Posted on by

Mike Brown was the Warriors’ perfect interim leader (again)

Mike Brown was the Warriors' perfect interim leader (again)

The crowd was sighing in relief, the players were milling around the court after the Warriors’ rough-and-tumble Game 4 victory, and Mike Brown and Draymond Green headed straight for each other, then shared a long, strong hug that communicated a multitude of emotions.

A big man’s embrace. A moment when two people who have meant so much to the Warriors seemed to lean into and blend into each other for a bit, sharing things only they could know.

So much happened Monday before the Warriors ever played the Grizzlies in this crucial game at Chase Center. So much pain and transition and surprise and adapting on the fly. So much that had nothing to do with each other. And so much that had everything to do with each other and the community of this team.

Early in the morning, news broke that Draymond’s former Michigan State teammate, Adreian Payne, had been shot and killed in Florida. Later, Brown was officially hired as the Sacramento Kings’ head coach. Then, a few hours before tipoff, Steve Kerr tested positive for COVID-19, which meant he couldn’t coach the game (and probably Game 5) and that Brown suddenly was the guy, as he’d been for 11 games during the 2017 postseason when Kerr was suffering from the effects of a botched back surgery.

So much going on.

“I love Draymond, you know, and when he hurts, we all hurt,” Brown said after the game. “So that was tough on me personally. Then to find out Steve was out, too, it was an up-and-down or emotional day for me, too.”

But the Warriors had to get through this game. It was not a small game. The 101-98 victory, as ugly as it looked, gave them a 3-1 lead as they head to Memphis for Wednesday’s Game 5 and a shot to end this grueling series. The Warriors very much did not want to lose this game. So they had to deal with everything as it all came down Monday, which was pretty much all at once.

They had the perfect guy to handle it, though. Which the Warriors knew, because Brown has handled this before.

“You know, we’ve done this drill before,” Brown said after the game.

And once Kerr called to tell him that he wasn’t feeling good and then later that he’d tested positive, Brown did the perfect Warriors thing: He leaned on the dynastic figures of this franchise. Led by letting them lead, too. Leaned on them while they leaned on him.

“Andre (Iguodala), I know he’s not playing, but just his voice, his presence, he’s always saying the right thing,” Brown said. “It uplifts all of us. And for me, it uplifted me. I told him, I told Draymond, I said, ‘I need you guys tonight. I need you guys. I’m going to lean on you guys.’ And those guys stayed steady the whole game, Andre on the bench obviously and Draymond out on the floor, and we found a way. You can do that when you have Steph Curry and (Jordan Poole) out on the floor.”

Maybe the clearest indication of the currents that flowed through the players and the staff came when Brown declined to speak about the Kings job because he wanted to remain focused on the Warriors’ situation and didn’t want to talk about the Kings until his full attention was on his next role. And then, about 20 minutes later, Draymond patiently stood in the interview room waiting for Curry’s presser to end, then politely said he couldn’t talk at length right now.

“So my emotions are kind of all over the place now,” Draymond said. “I’m going to go home and just sit on my podcast and talk because I can pause that and cry if I need to cry. I don’t like to cry in front of people. What I will say is (wife) Hazel and I are going to donate $100,000 to a fund in Adreian’s name.

“I call on my Spartan family, coach (Tom) Izzo, Magic (Johnson), Jaren Jackson, Miles Bridges, Mat Ishbia, all of my Spartan family to come in and let’s do something in honor of Adreian. If that’s naming something on a campus after him, if that is some scholarships for some kids from Dayton, whatever that is, I call on my Spartan family to band together and do something in Adreian’s name. So I’m going to go home and talk about Adreian, and I’ll talk a little bit about this game.

“But I can do it at my own speed and at my own space. I apologize. I will give you guys the greatest press conference after Wednesday’s game, but I just don’t have it in me tonight, I truly apologize.”

It would be a copout to say that the Warriors’ incredibly sluggish first three quarters Monday were caused by the run of events leading up to the game. They also knew that Ja Morant was unlikely to play because of his injured knee, which could’ve led to a Warriors letdown. And also, the Warriors just couldn’t shoot for a long time in this game.

They trailed after the first quarter. They could barely score in the second quarter and trailed at halftime, too. Curry, Klay Thompson and Poole were all struggling. Everybody on the Warriors was struggling. They trailed 69-62 going into the fourth thanks to Desmond Bane’s 32-foot buzzer-beater.

But the Warriors have been together for too long and have held together for too long to despair in the face of any of that.

“I had a feeling we were going to win the game when Bane hit the tough shot to end the third, we just willed it to four, and I just knew we could,” Klay said. “We were going to win the game. I just had a feeling. It was ugly, but at this time of year, all that matters is that win.”

Curry got hot in the fourth quarter. Klay made a huge jumper from the corner. The Warriors defense surged. The Grizzlies offense, without Morant, hit the wall. Draymond brushed off his foul trouble and stopped Jaren Jackson Jr. at a few crucial moments.

Brown ran the game calmly. He didn’t call a million timeouts. He didn’t veer from his and Kerr’s rotation plan. He didn’t try weird things to show the Kings and the world how gutsy and creative he can be. He just ran the team. And when it was over, he accepted congratulations from the rest of the coaching staff, patted a few players as they headed to the locker room and beelined for Draymond.

“Yeah, it was an emotional day,” Klay said. “Prayers up to Adreian and his family, and Draymond, I know they played together. Just a terrible loss of life, and his legacy will live on. It was just a sad day.

“Really happy for Mike B., though. He’s going to do great things for Sacramento. His head-coaching record for Warriors playoff games, I think, is undefeated. We did miss Steve a lot, just his voice, his presence. But we’ve been here before in 2017 when Mike took over and we rolled off a lot of wins. I reflected on that a lot. Just an up-and-down day as far as emotions were going.”

The Warriors are going to miss Brown. They know that. He joined the staff for the 2016-17 season, just in time for the arrival of Kevin Durant and to fill in for Kerr during those 2017 playoff games, on the way to a championship.

“Coach (Kerr) talked about it, I think this morning, about what (Brown has) meant to our team and to that coaching staff,” Curry said. “And just maybe the way they approach it all year in terms of everybody having a voice for us and being able to hear that throughout the year, it makes situations like tonight a little bit easier of a transition. He had a lot of good words tonight.

“I don’t know in the history if you could name the head coach of two teams in 24 hours. He’s continuing to set many trends.”

Of course, being the Warriors in a moment of victory, it had to have humor, too. During his TNT postgame interview, Curry joked that when things were going poorly, it felt like the whole team had been traded to the Kings. (He tried to backtrack a bit later, which was almost as amusing as the one-liner.)

“Yeah, we got a lot of jokesters on the team,” Brown said with a smile when asked about the Curry crack, “and I’m OK with it.”

You get used to that kind of thing when you’re around the Warriors. You get used to major swings of emotion, surprises, drama, passion and a lot of victories. And at the end, sometimes, you just hug somebody who needs it, and you realize you need it, too.

(Photo Mike Brown and Draymond Green: Joe Murphy/NBAE via Getty Images)

Posted on by

FSB Releases Report on Approaches to Climate-Related Risks | Perspectives & Events | Mayer Brown

FSB Releases Report on Approaches to Climate-Related Risks | Perspectives & Events | Mayer Brown

On April 29, 2022, the Financial Stability Board (“FSB”) released an interim report on “Supervisory and Regulatory Approaches to Climate-Related Risks” (the “Report”).1 The Report contains recommendations for banking and insurance regulators to oversee climate-related financial risks at the country-wide and institution levels. It examines supervisory and regulatory practices for reporting and aggregating climate-related data from financial institutions, explores supervisory and regulatory approaches to assessing climate-related risks and assesses the extent to which current policies and tools address climate-related risks.

The FSB has requested comments on the interim Report in anticipation of releasing a final report at a later date. In particular, the FSB has asked for comments on several questions, which include whether the report appropriately highlights the most important and relevant information and whether the FSB’s recommendations are helpful. The deadline for comments is June 30, 2022.

In this Legal Update, we highlight key points from the Report and discuss important takeaways for US financial institutions.

Background

The FSB is an international, intergovernmental entity that monitors and makes recommendations about the global financial system. It was formed in 2009 by the heads of state and government of the Group of Twenty (“G20”)—the 20 countries with the world’s largest economies—as a successor to the Financial Stability Form (“FSF”). The FSB was formed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis as a stronger institution than the FSF and with an expanded membership. Today, the FSB’s members consist of international bodies and senior policy makers from central bank and supervisory and regulatory authorities for the G20 countries and Hong Kong, Singapore, Spain, and Switzerland.

The FSB serves as a forum for its members to assess financial risks and propose standards to limit risks to financial stability. It does so by identifying systemic risk in the financial sector, framing financial sector policy actions that can address identified risks, and overseeing implementation of those responses. The FSB’s purposes specifically include, among other things, assessing vulnerabilities affecting the global financial system, promoting coordination and information exchange among authorities responsible for financial stability, and monitoring and advising on market developments.

The Report

The Report seeks to help supervisory and regulatory authorities that are part of the FSB develop a consistent approach to addressing climate-related risks globally. Through a more consistent approach, the FSB believes that authorities will be better able to assess and mitigate financial vulnerabilities and reduce the risk of market fragmentation. The Report focuses on the cross-sectoral and system-wide aspects of climate-related financial risks. In other words, the Report mainly concentrates on macroprudential objectives, such as monitoring vulnerabilities and their implications to financial stability and sector- and jurisdiction-level scenario analysis and stress testing. However, the Report does address some microprudential objectives, i.e., institution-specific strategies and risks such as the viability of institutions’ business models.

In the Report, the FSB highlights that climate scenario analysis and stress testing have been the main tool used to address the coverage of climate-related risks, and primarily physical risk and transition risk. Physical risk includes, for example, severe weather events and sea-level rise. Transition risk includes technological developments that may make less environmentally friendly technology obsolete, consumer and investor demands for more environmentally sustainable products and services, and governmental changes intended to shift to a lower-carbon economy. The Report notes generally that, across sectors, the level of coverage for transition risk is slightly higher than for transition risk.

Importantly, the Report states that the use of climate scenario analysis and stress tests is currently more common for the banking and insurance sectors than the asset management and pension fund sectors. Therefore, the asset management and pensions sectors may want to consider the potential for further regulation in this area in the future.

The Report is divided into three sections: (i) supervisory and regulatory collection of climate-related data from financial institutions, (ii) system-wide supervisory and regulator approaches to assessing climate-related risks and (iii) the extent to which current policies and tools address climate-related risks. We discuss each section in more detail below.

Reporting and Collection of Climate-Related Data

In the Report’s first section, the FSB acknowledges that many financial institutions and regulators have cited the lack of sufficient climate data as a major challenge to developing approaches to address climate-related risks. The Report examines the current regulatory and supervisory practices on the reporting and collection of climate-related data from financial institutions. In addition, the Report identifies types of data and metrics that entities may require and provides examples of industry practices on these metrics. The Report also discusses the reliability of climate-related data and identifies common elements for a high-level definition of climate-related risks.

Highlights of the section include the following:

  • Significantly, the Report identifies three types of climate risks: physical risk, transition risk and liability risk. Most US definitions of climate risk typically only include physical and transition risk. The FSB adds liability risk, which can result from manifestations of physical and transition risk but can also materialize separately. Liability risks include potential financial losses stemming from legal claims. The FSB raises concerns about liability risks in the Report, highlighting that authorities may want to consider issuing a clear definition of liability risk, even if it is considered a subset of physical and transition risks.2
  • The Report also discusses the collection of information about climate-related risks and the need to standardize that information. The FSB notes that authorities may want to consider implementing a system-wide reporting structure that can facilitate compiling data across sectors, aggregating data and metrics, and monitoring cross-sectoral risks and systemic risks.

Aspects of a System-Wide Regulatory and Supervisory Approach to Climate-Related Risks and the Use of Analytical Tools

The Report’s next section discusses why a system-wide perspective of climate-related risks is important, the key elements of system-wide supervisory and regulatory tools and policies, and authorities’ approaches to date. The Report states that risk assessments and policies need to better incorporate an understanding of how climate-related risks to financial institutions may be transferred across sectors or borders. The FSB reported that the primary tools for capturing transition and physical risk have been climate scenario analysis and stress tests; however, authorities are starting to expand their approaches by looking at risks in the aggregate and factoring in system-wide aspects. Authorities who have started to adopt a system-wide perspective have incorporated practices such as top-down exercises combined with bottom-up elements involving financial institutions, dynamic balance sheet assumptions and common scenarios.

The section also discusses analytical tools for a system-wide perspective, focusing on macroprudential measures that can supplement microprudential tools. The Report discusses existing literature and the work to date of standard-setting bodies and authorities on such macroprudential policies and tools, as well as trade-off considerations. The FSB encourages authorities to undertake research and analysis on appropriate enhancements to regulatory and supervisory frameworks.

One highlight of this section addresses current practices and trends in scenario analysis and stress testing. The FSB suggests that the nature of climate risks may require substantial modifications to a traditional macroprudential stress test framework. The Report points out that many jurisdictions have developed or are developing new climate stress test frameworks or are improving existing methodologies to incorporate second-round effects. Accordingly, the Report appears to envision a more robust approach to stress testing that could impose binding constraints on institutions.

Extent to Which Regulatory and Supervisory Tools and Policies Address Climate-Related Risks

The Report’s final section summarizes key findings on the extent to which tools and policies currently used or planned to be used by jurisdictions account for the specificities of climate-related risks. These findings include how, and to what extent, the tools and policies address systemic risks as well as capture physical and transition risk. The Report proposes several recommendations on expanding climate scenario analysis and stress tests to incorporate systemic risks. Further, the Report introduces potential macroprudential policies and tools to address systemic risks that may not be addressed fully by current measures.

One highlight of this section is that the FSB makes several suggestions on macroprudential tools that authorities may consider using to address system-wide climate-related risks. These tools include principle-based supervisory expectations and capital requirements. Specifically, the FSB discusses concentration limits on portfolios, large exposure limits, and capital buffers. All of the suggested macroprudential tools would likely be controversial in the United States. Indeed, only three months before the Report was published, the US Secretary of the Treasury, Janet Yellen, stated that it is too early to consider adjusting capital requirements for US banks based on climate change-related risks. Secretary Yellen did not completely discount the possibility of such requirements in the future but indicated that regulators must first conduct further research to evaluate risks to individual institutions.3

Takeaways for US Financial Institutions

The Report adds to the other signals that prudential regulators globally, including US regulators, may take action to strengthen regulations and oversight of climate-related financial risks, particularly with regard to cross-sectoral and system-wide risks. US regulators—such as representatives from the Federal Reserve System and the Department of the Treasury—are all members of the FSB and may propose implementing at least some of the Report’s recommendations in the United States.

Further, one significant takeaway from the Report is that the United States may be lagging behind other FSB members with respect to addressing climate-related financial risks. None of the examples of policies, tools, or measures cited in the Report are from the United States. The lack of US examples in the Report, and the general progress of many of the other G20 countries, could further encourage US regulators to consider implementing some of the Report’s recommendations sooner rather than later. Accordingly, US financial institutions should expect more regulation of climate-related risks as the United States catches up to other countries that have implemented significant measures for addressing climate-related risks.

Finally, the Report emphasizes the lack of comprehensive and standardized data on climate-related financial risks, which is needed to both assess and manage climate risk. Many in the United States have raised this as a concern, and some have noted that even institution-specific data may be insufficient. Some regulators may seek to collect this information through new reporting requirements, but financial institutions will need time to develop the expertise and capabilities to capture this information. While standardization through reporting requirements could facilitate greater interoperability and anonymized sharing arrangements, regulators will need to be sensitive to the burden that such requirements have on the industry and work collaboratively with institutions. This will help to ensure that climate risk processes use data that reflects material factors, do not constantly change for the latest fad, and are not overly burdensome for the financial sector. We expect this to be a key area for comments on the Report, which again, are due by June 30, 2022.

 

 

1 FSB, Supervisory and Regulatory Approaches to Climate-Related Risks Interim Report (Apr. 29, 2022), https://www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/P290422.pdf.

2 The FSB’s concerns regarding liability risks are consistent with those of other international organizations. For example, in November 2021, the Network for Greening the Financial System released a report on the increasing risk of climate-related litigation. See NGFS, Climate-related litigation: raising awareness about a growing source of risk (Nov. 5, 2021), https://www.ngfs.net/en/climate-related-litigations-raising-awareness-about-growing-source-risk.

3 See Christopher Condon, Janet Yellen Says Higher Bank Capital Rules for Climate Risk are “Premature,” Bloomberg (Feb. 2, 2022), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-02/yellen-says-higher-bank-capital-rules-for-climate-premature.