Governor clarifies Statutory Instrument 142 of 2019 – The Zimbabwean

Posted on by TSA Press

25.7.2019 7:35

by NANGO

NANGO Board Chairperson, Ronika Mumbire, led a delegation that met the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Dr. J. P. Mangudya, on the 17th of July 2019.

Mangudya

The objective of the engagement was to seek clarity on Statutory Instrument (SI) 142 of 2019 and the subsequent RBZ Directives. The engagement was a result of a membership meeting where NANGO members resolved to seek clarity and commitments from the Governor.

The Governor clarified the provisions of SI142/19 and assured NGOs that the Bank is implementing these reforms in view of creating a constructive environment for all sectors to thrive. This he said is envisaged to ultimately contribute to economic growth and development.

The Governor clarified that:

  • SI 142/19 compliments SI 133 which came to establish the exchange rate between the Zimbabwe Dollar and other currencies. Further, it came to facilitate local purchases that should be done using local currency.
  • As such, the SI is effective at the point of purchasing goods within the local market where all domestic purchases are to be done using the Zimbabwe Dollar.
  • He asserted that this is facilitating a process of transitioning to normalcy within the Monetary Policy Framework.
  • NGO employees who were being paid in foreign currency will still maintain their contract in foreign currency and can withdraw their salaries in foreign currency. However, when they want to buy from local shops they will have to change to local currency from Banks and Bureau De Change.
  • Thus to further ensure effective implementation of the Statutory Instrument, the RBZ will be issuing guidelines that should guarantee that there are no inconsistencies among banks and other agencies.

The Governor assured and committed to the following:

  • He reiterated that NGO funds are free funds and are not subject to the Exchange Control Regulations. Thus, there will be no retention, expiry and deductions.
  • The Governor, stressed that the Domestic Nostro accounts for NGOs will still be functional as in the previous monetary regime and NGOs can make transfers from one organisation to another or to make payments to sectors that are exempted.
  • The RBZ is going to instruct all the banks to communicate an agreed position on how they should relate with NGOs.
  • The RBZ highlighted that Banks were engaged and sensitised on SI 142/19 and how they should operate. In this regard, if NGOs face any challenges with their respective banks they are free to report to the RBZ.
  • The Governor highlighted that they are going to review RTGS withdrawal limits considering the obtaining prices of commodities due to inflation.
  • The Reserve Bank will facilitate access to Zimbabwe Dollar for NGOs who would like to disburse huge sums of money to communities on cash basis.
  • The Government is considering putting in place a system where some designated service stations will be selling fuel in USD for Embassies, Development Partners and NGOs who may want to purchase fuel in USD.
  • As a fiscal Advisor, the Governor will advise the Minister of Finance and Economic Development on the tax regime which is in relation to people earning in USD.
Summary comparison of AIPPA and Freedom of Information Bill 
Nango, Zimra in Tax Talks

Post published in: Business

Nango, Zimra in Tax Talks – The Zimbabwean

Posted on by TSA Press

25.7.2019 7:31

by Allafrica

Harare — The National Association of non governmental organisations (NANGO) this week said it had entered into negotiations with the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA) to resolve a four-month tax dispute but hinted the civic society could be forced to resort to legal action if government presses ahead with the controversial decision to have them pay income tax at the interbank rate.

A storm had been brewing between the two sides after the revenue-collecting agency in June ordered non governmental organisations (NGOs) paying salaries in foreign currency to meet their income tax obligations using the interbank rate, which will leave workers with little money to spend. NGOs previously remitted Pay As You Earn (PAYE) using a much lower rate fixed in terms of the Exchange Control Act.

Governor clarifies Statutory Instrument 142 of 2019
Zimbabwe Fashion Showcase announces ‘top-line’ showcasers for London fashion show

Post published in: Business

Deutsche Bank Somehow Still A Thing That Exists

Posted on by TSA Press

Admitting to collecting fees from a notorious sex criminal is somehow only the third-worst thing that has happened to Deutsche Bank in the last 24 hours.

This Biglaw Firm Knows A Lot About Bankruptcy

Posted on by TSA Press

Which Biglaw firm was ranked #1 in the Vault’s 2020 practice area rankings in the area of bankruptcy & restructuring?

Hint: The firm is new to the #1 spot in bankruptcy, and the full service firm has notable litigation, M&A, and private equity practices as well.

See the answer on the next page.

Thanks So Very Much To All Of Our Awesome Advertisers

Posted on by TSA Press

Advertising

We appreciate your support!

By

Jul 24, 2019 at 6:45 PM

We’d like to express gratitude to our fantastic sponsors here at Above the Law:

If you’re interested in advertising on Above the Law or any other site in the Breaking Media network, please download our media kits or email advertising.

—ADVERTISEMENT—

From the Above the Law Network

It’s Time To Consider Investing In Commercial Real Estate

Posted on by TSA Press

Interested in investing in commercial real estate (CRE)? Diversifying your investments across asset classes is an excellent risk management tool, and with historically strong annual returns, there’s never been a better time to consider adding CRE to your portfolio.

Stocks may generate high returns over time, but offer very low returns until they are sold. The simple reason for CRE’s advantage over stocks is that rent payments generate income for investors during the entire holding period — from the moment the property is purchased until it is sold.

Investors can get into this alternative asset class with just $30,000 thanks to iintoo, an innovative online investment platform that provides convenient access to CRE. After thoroughly evaluating hundreds of real estate opportunities each year, iintoo’s experts offer investors hand-picked, pre-vetted real estate deals to ensure quality.

To learn more about investing in commercial real estate, fill out the form below to download iintoo’s report today, and find out how you can get direct access to premium real estate opportunities from industry experts.

The Am Law A-List: Ranking The Most Elite Law Firms In America (2019)

Posted on by TSA Press

Another day, another ranking for lawyers to ogle in a search for meaning as they attempt to get through the day’s billables. Such is the life of a Biglaw attorney, always on the hunt for confirmation that their firm is the best firm, the one that’s hitting all of its essential metrics year after year. If that sounds like you (and you might as well admit it, it probably does), then you should check out the latest offering from the American Lawyer, the annual A-List ranking.

Are you somehow unfamiliar with this ranking? Here are all of the metrics that it measures to determine which Biglaw firms are the best of the best:

The American Lawyer’s annual A-List ranking doesn’t measure size or profits. Rather, it highlights the best of the best law firms for their commitment to a variety of financial and cultural markers: revenue per lawyer, pro bono work, associate satisfaction, racial diversity and gender diversity among the partnership. The last metric was added to our calculation in 2017 to recognize firms for supporting women and making them partners.

With that said, the full top 20 firms and their scores are listed at the American Lawyer. Without further ado, here are the top 10 to satiate your rankings cravings (with the firms’ total scores noted parenthetically):

  1. Munger Tolles & Olson (89.8)
  2. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr (88.8)
  3. Ropes & Gray (88.3)
  4. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe (88.2)
  5. Covington & Burling (88.1)
  6. Debevoise & Plimpton (87.1)
  7. O’Melveny & Myers (86.8)
  8. Morrison & Foerster (86.4)
  9. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (85.9)
  10. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison (84.6)

Congratulations to all of the firms that made this year’s Am Law A-List.

The 2019 A-List: Law Firms Think Holistically to Make the Cut [American Lawyer]
The 2019 A-List: Which Firms Are Knocking at the Door? [American Lawyer]

Staci ZaretskyStaci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

Solos & Smalls – Time to Weigh in On Changes to California

Posted on by TSA Press

Last week, the State Bar of California released for public comment several proposals for regulatory reforms developed by the California Task Force on Access Through Innovation of Legal Services. Designed to spur innovation and expand access to justice options, the task force proposed three key reforms

  • Narrowing restrictions on the unauthorized practice of law (UPL) to allow persons or businesses other than a lawyer or law firm to render legal services, provided they meet appropriate eligibility standards and comply with regulatory requirements;
  • Permitting a nonlawyer to own or have a financial interest in a law practice; and
  • Permitting lawyers to share fees with nonlawyers under certain circumstances and amending other attorney rules regarding advertising, solicitation, and the duty to competently provide legal services.

Not surprisingly, California’s proposals have solo and small law firm attorneys running scared. On various solo and small Facebook groups and list serves, lawyers have expressed concern that non-lawyers who lack adequate knowledge and training will lead clients astray. To be fair, these concerns aren’t entirely unfounded. After all, California itself was home to massive foreclosure scams including one involving a company that marketed foreclosure and eviction delay services to homeowners and then had them sign fake deeds to suggest that the properties had been conveyed to fictional third parties. However, California’s proposed reforms deal with these potential dangers head on by proposing to subject non-lawyer providers to some degree of regulation (As an aside, the appropriate amount of regulation is one of the subjects open for comment – in my own view, some kind of sliding scale is appropriate to avoid saddling smaller and individual non-lawyer providers handling tiny law matters with onerous and costly compliance requirements).

Others raise different concerns about the California initiative. ATL Solo and Small Firm Columnist Steven Chung questions whether the proposed rules will actually increase access to justice and reduce legal costs, or instead encourage venture backed firms to come in with services or Uber-type bidding platforms designed to target those clients who can afford legal services but don’t want to pay exorbitant fees. And while I’ve always been suspicious of the motives of for-profit legal tech companies that raise the A2J flag as a marketing device, the fact of the matter is that many legal services are too costly for the value provided. Should consumers – even those who have the money – have to pay upwards of $5000 or more for a relatively uncomplicated divorce or estate plan when the work can be done through forms and automation? In today’s world, we lawyers must constantly prove our value – and there’s nothing wrong with that.

I don’t necessarily agree with all of the proposed reforms. My main beef is that the proposals focus too much on creating new categories of providers without also examining ways to loosen up regulations on solo and small firm lawyers (specifically, trust accounts and onerous advertising regulations and bonafide office rules) so they can compete and offer services at lower costs. That was the topic of my talk at 2 Civility which should soon be available online.

Moreover, at some point, California and other states that implement reform will have to come to grips with the reality that non-lawyers’ inability to bring cases to court can force opponents to take advantage of them in some cases. In my practice area, I often work with a land company that helps landowners negotiate easement rights and charges less than the fee that an eminent domain attorney would take. The system works great if the parties can reach settlement – but often, once a pipeline realizes that the land company can’t defend a suit in court, it will up the ante. These problems can also be solved – indeed, allowing for fee splitting between lawyers and non-lawyers can give non-lawyers incentive to team with lawyers if they find themselves in a pinch. But again, the potential for unequal bargaining power when a litigant is represented by a non-lawyer against a well-heeled firm can’t be discounted entirely.

These critiques aside, I strongly disagree that the California initiative will harm solo and small firm lawyers and our clients. To the contrary, the proposed reforms create enormous opportunities for us to develop new services that make our legal services more relevant and convenient to our clients’ lives. Imagine, if a family law attorney could share fees with a social worker and offer some kind of combined divorce+wellness product. Or if a tutoring company could make lawyers available to its clients to handle special education cases through some kind of fee sharing arrangement? There are so many ways that we as solo and small firm lawyers can make ourselves more relevant and in doing so, more sustainable. That’s reason to celebrate, not to cower.  

Most importantly, no matter where you are licensed or what your position is concerning the California proposal, it is critical for solo and small firm lawyers to make our voices heard. Whether you have real stories about how your clients were harmed by non-lawyer providers or services or how you developed an innovation that was stymied by bar rules, you should share your experience with the State Bar. Tech companies and vendors of legal services will be weighing in to defend their interests, and as solos and smalls, we must make our voices heard.  Deadline for comments on the California Proposal is September 23, 2019 and they may be emailed to E-mail: atils-pc@calbar.ca.gov

Dances With Wolves In Space FINALLY Dethroned As Highest Grossing Movie By Avengers: Endgame

Posted on by TSA Press

(Image via Shutterstock)

If you grew up in the 90s like me, you probably saw the Best Picture-winning film Dances with Wolves roughly 300 times over the course of your childhood. Why? Because whenever one of the mediocre cable channels had four hours of airtime to kill, they went right ahead and spun up Kevin Costner learning all about life on the prairie from its native Lakota inhabitants. Then your dad uttered something like, “Oh, that’s a good western,” and wrested the remote control from your hands. You were pretty much committed for the rest of the evening at that point.

You know, after a while, Dances with Wolves actually started to grow on me. Sure, it’s gotten some criticism from a tiny minority of the cripplingly ultra-woke over the years (who can’t really enjoy anything), and conversely also from a tiny minority of the neoconservatives (who can’t really enjoy anything except a tiki torch rally). And Dances with Wolves caused us all to have to listen to far too many screeds about how Goodfellas should have won the Best Picture Oscar that year instead. But overall, if you ask me at least, Dances with Wolves started out as a pretty good movie and held up fairly well over time. Like that scene where Wind In His Hair tastes processed sugar for the first time and then just unceremoniously dumps a whole fistful into Kicking Bird’s coffee? Classic.

Dances with Wolves definitely didn’t need a remake, and it didn’t get one, at least not one that was credited. But in 2009, James Cameron decided to rip off the entire plot and storyline of Dances with Wolves, set it in space, take out all the character development and anything even remotely resembling cogent dialogue, and then put a mantis shrimp in charge of cinematography.

Proving once and for all that you don’t have to be good to make money, the resulting abomination called Avatar became the highest-grossing film of all time, and held onto the record for nearly 10 years.

Avatar’s global box office gross topped out at $2,789,700,000.

I still vividly remember walking out of that theater in 2009, the way people remember where they were on days of great national tragedies. My friends and my degenerate cousin all mystifyingly seemed to somehow have avoided the shellshock I was suffering, despite having just endured the same three-hour neon train wreck that I did. Was this what it was like to see the culture you thought you knew and loved slip away through your fingers? I was midway through law school, and for the first time found myself questioning my career path. Maybe the laws of a society that would elevate to the very top of its most popular art form a film in which the main character literally says, “Let’s dance,” right before the fight scene really weren’t worth spending a career fighting for.

For nearly a decade, no other movie even came close to erasing the lightning bug stain on the windshield of cinematic history that is Avatar. But then, finally — FINALLY — after years of building up the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Disney and Marvel Studios released Avengers: Endgame in 2019. And it was… good. Not great, but, you know, good enough. The characters weren’t all two-dimensional stereotypes. People occasionally did and said funny things. Where it was hackneyed, it was supposed to be hackneyed. Maybe best of all — spoiler alert if you’re one of the three people who haven’t seen it yet — it (kind of) got rid of Hawkeye for us.

The most heroic thing the Avengers did though is finally snatch the crown for top-grossing movie of all time from Avatar’s empty, elf-eared dome. As of last Sunday, 13 weeks after its release, Avengers: Endgame’s worldwide box office gross topped $2,790,000,000, edging out Avatar for the top spot.

I know that is not accounting for inflation and there are all kinds of other reasons you could argue that Avatar actually made more money, but shhhhhh… just let us have a moment to enjoy living in a world where Dances with Wolves in Space isn’t the highest grossing film of all time anymore. Ah, exquisite.

Jonathan Wolf is a litigation associate at a midsize, full-service Minnesota firm. He also teaches as an adjunct writing professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law, has written for a wide variety of publications, and makes it both his business and his pleasure to be financially and scientifically literate. Any views he expresses are probably pure gold, but are nonetheless solely his own and should not be attributed to any organization with which he is affiliated. He wouldn’t want to share the credit anyway. He can be reached at jon_wolf@hotmail.com.