1. Openness To, and Restrictions Upon, Foreign Investment

Policies Towards Foreign Direct Investment

The Macri government actively seeks foreign direct investment. To improve the investment climate, the Macri administration has enacted reforms to strengthen institutions, reduce economic distortions, and increase capital markets efficiencies. It expanded economic and commercial cooperation with key partners including Mexico, Chile, Brazil, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Canada, and the United States, and deepened its engagement in international fora such as the G20, WTO, and OECD.

Over the past year, Argentina issued new regulations in the gas and energy, communications and technology, aviation, and automobile industries to improve competition and provide incentives aimed to attract investments to those sectors. The government more than doubled public works spending during the first quarter of 2017 alone and continues to seek investment in its infrastructure development plans. Argentina is also seeking investments in wireless infrastructure, oil and gas, lithium mines, renewable energy, and other areas.

Foreign and domestic investors generally compete under the same conditions in Argentina. The amount of foreign investment is restricted in specific sectors such as aviation and media. Foreign ownership of rural productive lands, bodies of water, and areas along borders is also restricted.

Argentina has a national Investment and Trade Promotion Agency that provides information and consultation services to investors and traders on economic and financial conditions, investment opportunities, and Argentine laws and regulations. The agency also provides matchmaking services and organizes roadshows and trade delegations. The agency’s web portal provides detailed information on available services ( ). Many of the 24 provinces also have their own provincial investment and trade promotion.

The Macri Administration welcomes dialogue with investors. Argentine officials regularly host roundtable discussions with visiting business delegations and meet with local and foreign business chambers. During official visits over the past year to the United States, Russia, and Europe, among others, Argentine delegations often met with host-country business leaders.

Limits on Foreign Control and Right to Private Ownership and Establishment

Foreign and domestic commercial entities in Argentina are regulated by the Commercial Partnerships Law (Law No. 19,550), the Argentina Civil and Commercial Code, and rules issued by the regulatory agencies. Foreign private entities can establish and own business enterprises and engage in all forms of remunerative activity in nearly all sectors.

Full foreign equity ownership of Argentine businesses is not restricted, for the most part, with exception in the air transportation and media industries. The share of foreign capital in companies that provide commercial passenger transportation within the Argentine territory is limited to 49 percent per the Aeronautic Code Law No. 17,285. The company must be incorporated according to Argentine law and domiciled in Buenos Aires. In the media sector, Law No. 25,750 establishes a limit on foreign ownership in television, radio, newspapers, journals, magazines, and publishing companies to 30 percent.

Law No. 26,737 (Regime for Protection of National Domain over Ownership, Possession or Tenure of Rural Land) restricts foreign ownership to a maximum of 15 percent of all national productive land. Individuals or companies from the same nation may not hold over 30 percent of that amount. Individually, each foreign individual or company faces an ownership cap of 1,000 hectares (2,470 acres) in the most productive farming areas, or the equivalent in terms of productivity levels in other areas. The law also establishes that a foreigner cannot own land that contains big and permanent extensions of water bodies, are located in riversides or water bodies with such features, or are located near a Border Security Zone. Waivers are not available.

Argentina does not maintain an investment screening mechanism for inbound foreign investment. U.S. investors are not at a disadvantage to other foreign investors or singled out for discriminatory treatment.

Other Investment Policy Reviews

Argentina was last subject to an investment policy review by the OECD in 1997 and a trade policy review by the WTO in 2013. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has not done an investment policy review of Argentina.

Business Facilitation

Since entering into office in December 2015, the Macri Administration has enacted reforms to normalize financial and commercial transactions and facilitate business creation and cross-border trade. These reforms include eliminating capital controls, reducing export taxes and import restrictions, streamlining business administrative processes, decreasing tax burdens, increasing businesses’ access to financing, and streamlining customs controls.

In October 2016, the Ministry of Production issued decree No. 1079/2016, easing bureaucratic hurdles for foreign trade and creating a Single Window for Foreign Trade (“VUCE” for its Spanish acronym). The VUCE centralizes the administration of all required paperwork for the import, export, and transit of goods (e.g., certificates, permits, licenses, and other authorizations and documents). Argentina subjects imports to automatic or non-automatic licenses that are managed through the Comprehensive Import Monitoring System (SIMI, or Sistema Integral de Monitoreo de Importaciones), established in December 2015 by the National Tax Agency (AFIP) through Resolutions 5/2015 and 3823/2015. The SIMI system requires importers to submit electronically detailed information about goods to be imported into Argentina. Once the information is submitted, the relevant Argentine government agencies can review the application through the VUCE and make any observations or request additional information. The number of products subjected to non-automatic licenses has been modified several times, resulting in a net decrease since the beginning of the SIMI system.

The Argentine Congress approved an Entrepreneurs’ Law in March 2017, which allows for the creation of a simplified joint-stock company (sociedad por acciones simplifacada, or SAS) within 24 hours and online. The Ministry of Production website provides the following link where there is a detailed explanation on how to register a SAS in Argentina ( ). As of April 2018, the online business registration process is only available for companies located in the city or province of Buenos Aires. The process is clear and complete and can be used by foreign companies. Officials project it will become available in other large municipalities by the end of 2018. More information may be found at .

Foreign investors seeking to set up business operations in Argentina follow the same procedures as domestic entities without prior approval and under the same conditions as local investors. To open a local branch of a foreign company in Argentina, the parent company must be legally registered in Argentina. Argentine law requires at least two equity holders, with the minority equity holder maintaining at least a five percent interest. In addition to the procedures required of a domestic company, a foreign company establishing itself in Argentina must legalize the parent company’s documents, register the incoming foreign capital with the Argentine Central Bank, and obtain a trading license.

A company must register its name with the Office of Corporations (IGJ, or Inspeccion General de Justicia). The IGJ website describes the registration process and some portions can be completed online ( ). Once the IGJ registers the company, the company must request that the College of Public Notaries submit the company’s accounting books to be certified with the IGJ. The company’s legal representative must obtain a fiscal code and a tax identification number from the federal tax agency (AFIP by its Spanish acronym), register for social security, and obtain blank receipts from another agency. Companies can register with AFIP online at  or by submitting the sworn affidavit form No. 885 to AFIP.

The enterprise must also provide workers’ compensation insurance for its employees through the Workers’ Compensation Agency (Aseguradora de Riesgos del Trabajo). The company must register and certify its accounting of wages and salaries with the General Bureau of Labor, within the Ministry of Labor.

Companies located in the City of Buenos Aires must register their by-laws and other documents related to their incorporation with the City’s Public Registry of Commerce. The company must file the proposed articles of association and by-laws, the publication in the Official Gazette, evidence of managers’ and unions’ (if applicable) acceptance of position, evidence of the deposit of the cash contributions in the National Bank of Argentina, evidence of compliance with the managers’ guarantee regime (filing of managers’ performance bonds), and evidence of the reservation of the corporate name for approval with the City’s Office of Corporations.

Some provinces offer training and assistance to facilitate business development. Under the law, those mechanisms are equally accessible by women and underrepresented minorities in the economy, but in practice may not be available in all areas with significant minority populations. At present, there is one operational small business center based on the Small Business Development Center model of the United States, located in Neuquén province.

Outward Investment

Argentina does not have a governmental agency to promote Argentine investors to invest abroad nor does it have any restrictions for a domestic investor investing overseas.

3. Legal Regime

Transparency of the Regulatory System

The Macri administration has taken measures to improve public dialogue and government transparency. President Macri created the Ministry of Modernization, tasked with conducting quantitative and qualitative studies of government procedures, and finding solutions to streamline bureaucratic processes and improve transparency.

In September 2016, Argentina enacted a Right to Access Public Information Law (No. 27,275) that mandates all three governmental branches (legislative, judicial, and executive), political parties, universities, and unions that receive public funding are to provide non-classified information at the request of any citizen. The law also created the Agency for the Right to Access Public Information to oversee compliance.

Continuing its efforts to improve transparency, in November 2017, the Ministry of the Treasury launched a new website to communicate how the government spends public funds in a user-friendly format. Subsections of this website are targeted toward policymakers, such as a new page to monitor budget performance ( ), as well as improving citizens’ understanding of the budget, e.g. the new citizen’s budget “Presupuesto Ciudadano” website ( ). This program is part of the broader Macri government initiative led by the Ministry of Modernization to build a transparent, active, and innovative state that includes data and information from every area of the public administration. The initiative aligns with the Global Initiative for Fiscal Transparency (GIFT) and UN Resolution 67/218 on promoting transparency, participation, and accountability in fiscal policy.

During 2017, the government introduced new procurement standards including electronic procurement, formalization of procedures for costing-out projects, and transparent processes to renegotiate debts to suppliers. The government also introduced OECD recommendations on corporate governance for state-owned enterprises to promote transparency and accountability during the procurement process. (The link to the regulation is at .)

Argentine government efforts to improve transparency were recognized internationally. In its December 2017 Article IV consultation, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Executive Board noted that “Argentina’s government made important progress in restoring integrity and transparency in public sector operations,” and agreed with the staff appraisal that commended the government for the progress made in the systemic transformation of the Argentine economy, including efforts to rebuild institutions and restore integrity, transparency, and efficiency in government.

On January 10, 2018, the government issued Decree 27 with the aim of curbing bureaucracy and simplifying administrative proceedings to promote the dynamic and effective functioning of public administration. Broadly, the decree seeks to eliminate regulatory barriers and reduce bureaucratic burdens, expedite and simplify processes before the public administration, taking advantage of the benefits of existing technological tools and focusing on transparency.

In the bilateral Commercial Dialogue, Argentina and the United States share best practices to improve the incorporation of public consultation in the regulatory process as well as regulatory coherence. Similarly, through the bilateral Digital Economy Working Group, Argentina and the United States share best practices on a multi-stakeholder approach to Internet governance and liberalization of the telecommunications sector.

Legislation can be drafted and proposed by any citizen and is subject to Congressional and Executive approval before being passed into law. Argentine government authorities and a number of quasi-independent regulatory entities can issue regulations and norms within their mandates. There are no informal regulatory processes managed by non-governmental organizations or private sector associations. Rulemaking has traditionally been a top-down process in Argentina, unlike in the United States where industry organizations often lead in the development of standards and technical regulations.

Ministries, regulatory agencies, and Congress are not obligated to provide a list of anticipated regulatory changes or proposals, nor share draft regulations with the public, nor establish a timeline for public comment. They are also not required to conduct impact assessments of the proposed legislations and regulations.

Since 2016, the Office of the President and various ministries sought to increase public consultation in the rulemaking process; however, public consultation is non-binding and has been done in an ad-hoc fashion. Some ministries and agencies have developed their own processes for public consultation, such as publishing the draft on their websites, directly distributing the draft to interested stakeholders for feedback, or holding public hearings.

Once the draft of a bill is introduced into the Argentine Congress, the text can be viewed online at the websites of the chamber where the bill was introduced. The lower chamber’s website is located at , and the senate’s website is at .

All final texts of laws, regulations, resolutions, dispositions, and administrative decisions must be published in the Official Gazette ( ), as well as in newspapers and the websites of the Ministries and agencies. These texts can also be accessed through Infoleg ( ), overseen by the Ministry of Justice. Interested stakeholders can pursue judicial review of regulatory decisions.

Argentina requires public companies to adhere to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Argentina is a member of UNCTAD’s international network of transparent investment procedures.

International Regulatory Considerations

Argentina is a founding member of MERCOSUR and has been a member of the Latin American Integration Association (ALADI for Asociacion Latinoamericana de Integracion) since 1980.

Argentina has been a member of the WTO since 1995, and it ratified the Trade Facilitation Agreement in January 2018. Argentina notifies technical regulations, but not proposed drafts, to the WTO Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade. Argentina voiced its intention to deepen its engagement with the OECD and submitted itself to an OECD regulatory policy review in March 2018. Argentina participates in all 23 OECD committees.

Additionally, the Argentine Institute for Standards and Certifications (IRAM) is a member of international and regional standards bodies including the International Standardization Organization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), the Panamerican Commission on Technical Standards (COPAM), the MERCOSUR Association of Standardization (AMN), the International Certification Network (i-Qnet), the System of Conformity Assessment for Electrotechnical Equipment and Components (IECEE), and the Global Good Agricultural Practice network (GLOBALG.A.P.).

Legal System and Judicial Independence

According to the Argentine constitution, the judiciary is a separate and equal branch of government. In practice, there have been instances of political interference in the judicial process. Companies have complained that courts lack transparency and reliability, and that Argentine governments have used the judicial system to pressure the private sector. The Macri administration has publicly expressed its intent to improve transparency and rule of law in the judicial system, and the Justice Minister announced in March 2016 the “Justice 2020” initiative to reform the judiciary.

Argentina follows a Civil Law system. In 2014, the Argentine government passed a new Civil and Commercial Code that has been in effect since August 2015. The Civil and Commercial Code provides regulations for civil and commercial liability, including ownership of real and intangible property claims. The current judicial process is lengthy and suffers from significant backlogs. In the Argentine legal system, appeals may be brought from many rulings of the lower court, including evidentiary decisions, not just final orders, which significantly slows all aspects of the system.

Many foreign investors prefer to rely on private or international arbitration when those options are available. Claims regarding labor practices are processed through a labor court, regulated by Law 18,345 and its subsequent amendments and implementing regulations by Decree No. 106/98. Contracts often include clauses designating specific judicial or arbitral recourse for dispute settlement.

Laws and Regulations on Foreign Direct Investment

According to the Foreign Direct Investment Law No. 21,382 and Decree 1853/93, foreign investors may invest in Argentina without prior governmental approval, under the same conditions as investors domiciled within the country. Foreign investors are free to enter into mergers, acquisitions, greenfield investments, or joint ventures. Foreign firms may also participate in publicly-financed research and development programs on a national treatment basis. Incoming foreign currency must be identified by the participating bank to the Central Bank of Argentina ( ). There is no official executive or other interference in the court that could affect foreign investors.

All foreign and domestic commercial entities in Argentina are regulated by the Commercial Partnerships Law (Law No. 19,550) and the rules issued by the commercial regulatory agencies. Decree 27/2018 amended Law No. 19,550 to simplify bureaucratic procedures. Full text of the decree can be found at ( ). All other laws and norms concerning commercial entities are established in the Argentina Civil and Commercial Code.

Further information about Argentina’s investment policies can be found at the following websites:

Competition and Anti-Trust Laws

The National Commission for the Defense of Competition and the Secretariat of Commerce, both within the Ministry of Production, have enforcement authority of the Competition Law (Law 25,156). The law aims to ensure the general economic interest and promotes a culture of competition in all sectors of the national economy. In April 2018, Argentina’s Senate passed a bill to amend the Competition Law, which is pending approval by the lower chamber of Congress.

Expropriation and Compensation

Section 17 of the Argentine Constitution affirms the right of private property and states that any expropriation must be authorized by law and compensation must be provided. The United States-Argentina BIT states that investments shall not be expropriated or nationalized except for public purposes upon prompt payment of the fair market value in compensation.

Argentina has a history of expropriations under previous administrations, the most recent of which occurred in March 2015 when the Argentine Congress approved the nationalization of the train and railway system. A number of companies that were privatized during the 1990s under the Menem administration were renationalized under the Kirchner administrations. Additionally, in October 2008, Argentina nationalized Argentina’s private pension funds, which amounted to approximately one-third of total GDP, and transferred the funds to the government social security agency.

Dispute Settlement

ICSID Convention and New York Convention

Argentina is signatory to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, which the country ratified in 1989. Argentina is also a party to the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Convention since 1994.

There is neither specific domestic legislation providing for enforcement under the 1958 New York Convention nor legislation for the enforcement of awards under the ICSID Convention. Companies that seek recourse through Argentine courts may not simultaneously pursue recourse through international arbitration. In practice, the Macri administration has shown a willingness to negotiate settlements to valid arbitral awards.

In March 2012, the United States suspended Argentina’s designation as a Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) beneficiary developing country because it had not acted in good faith in enforcing arbitral awards in favor of United States citizens or a corporation, partnership, or association that is 50 percent or more beneficially owned by United States citizens. Effective January 1, 2018, the United States ended Argentina’s suspension from the GSP program and restored access for GSP duty-free treatment for over 3,000 Argentine products.

Investor-State Dispute Settlement

The Argentine government officially accepts the principle of international arbitration. The United States-Argentina BIT includes a chapter on Investor-State Dispute Settlement for U.S. investors.

In the past ten years, Argentina has been brought before the ICSID in 23 cases involving U.S. or other foreign investors. Of those, nine remain pending. Argentina currently has five pending arbitral cases filed against it by U.S. investors, including four which have been pending for several years. For more information on the cases brought by U.S. claimants against Argentina, go to: .

Local courts cannot enforce arbitral awards issued against the government based on the public policy clause. There is no history of extrajudicial action against foreign investors.

Argentina is a member of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and the World Bank’s Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA).

Argentina is also a party to several bilateral and multilateral treaties and conventions for the enforcement and recognition of foreign judgments, which provide requirements for the enforcement of foreign judgments in Argentina, including:

Treaty of International Procedural Law, approved in the South-American Congress of Private International Law held in Montevideo in 1898, ratified by Argentina by law No. 3,192.

Treaty of International Procedural Law, approved in the South-American Congress of Private International Law held in Montevideo in 1939-1940, ratified by Dec. Ley 7771/56 (1956).

Panamá Convention of 1975, CIDIP I: Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration, adopted within the Private International Law Conferences – Organization of American States, ratified by law No. 24,322 (1995).

Montevideo Convention of 1979, CIDIP II: Inter-American Convention on Extraterritorial Validity of Foreign Judgments and Arbitral Awards, adopted within the Private International Law Conferences – Organization of American States, ratified by law No. 22,921 (1983).

International Commercial Arbitration and Foreign Courts

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms can be stipulated in contracts. Argentina also has ADR mechanisms available such as the Center for Mediation and Arbitrage (CEMARC) of the Argentine Chamber of Trade. More information can be found at:—CEMARC–/#sthash.RagZdv0l.dpuf .

Argentina does not have a specific law governing arbitration, but it has adopted a mediation law (Law No. 24.573/1995), which makes mediation mandatory prior to litigation. Some arbitration provisions are scattered throughout the Civil Code, the National Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, the Commercial Code, and three other laws. The following methods of concluding an arbitration agreement are non-binding under Argentine law: electronic communication, fax, oral agreement, and conduct on the part of one party. Generally, all commercial matters are subject to arbitration. There are no legal restrictions on the identity and professional qualifications of arbitrators. Parties must be represented in arbitration proceedings in Argentina by attorneys who are licensed to practice locally. The grounds for annulment of arbitration awards are limited to substantial procedural violations, an ultra petita award (award outside the scope of the arbitration agreement), an award rendered after the agreed-upon time limit, and a public order violation that is not yet settled by jurisprudence when related to the merits of the award. On average, it takes around 21 weeks to enforce an arbitration award rendered in Argentina, from filing an application to a writ of execution attaching assets (assuming there is no appeal). It takes roughly 18 weeks to enforce a foreign award. The requirements for the enforcement of foreign judgments are set out in section 517 of the National Procedural Code.

No information is available as to whether the domestic courts frequently rule in cases in favor of state-owned enterprises (SOE) when SOEs are party to a dispute.

Bankruptcy Regulations

Argentina’s bankruptcy law was codified in 1995 in Law 24,522. The full text can be found at: . Under the law, debtors are generally able to begin insolvency proceedings when they are no longer able to pay their debts as they mature. Debtors may file for both liquidation and reorganization. Creditors may file for insolvency of the debtor for liquidation only. The insolvency framework does not require approval by the creditors for the selection or appointment of the insolvency representative or for the sale of substantial assets of the debtor. The insolvency framework does not provide rights to the creditor to request information from the insolvency representative but the creditor has the right to object to decisions by the debtor to accept or reject creditors’ claims. Bankruptcy is not criminalized; however, convictions for fraudulent bankruptcy can carry two to six years of prison time.

Financial institutions regulated by the Central Bank of Argentina (BCRA) publish monthly outstanding credit balances of their debtors; the BCRA and the Central de Deudores (debtors’ center) compile and publish this information. The database is available for use of financial institutions that comply with legal requirements concerning protection of personal data. The credit monitoring system only includes negative information, and the information remains on file through the person’s life. At least one local NGO that makes microcredit loans is working to make the payment history of these loans publically accessible for the purpose of demonstrating credit history, including positive information, for those without access to bank accounts and who are outside of the Central Bank’s system. Equifax, which operates under the local name “Veraz” (or “truthfully”), also provides credit information to financial institutions and other clients, such as telecommunications service providers and other retailers that operate monthly billing or credit/layaway programs.

The World Bank’s 2018 Doing Business Report ranked Argentina 101 among 189 countries for the effectiveness of its insolvency law. This is a jump of 15 places from its ranking of 116 in 2017. The report notes that it takes an average of 2.4 years and 16.5 percent of the estate to resolve bankruptcy in Argentina.


1. Openness To, and Restrictions Upon, Foreign Investment

Policies Toward Foreign Direct Investment

Australia is generally welcoming to foreign direct investment (FDI), with foreign investment widely considered to be an essential contributor to Australia’s economic growth. Other than certain required review and approval procedures for certain types of foreign investment described below, there are no laws that discriminate against foreign investors.

A number of investment promotion agencies operate in Australia. The Australian Trade Commission (often referred to as Austrade) is the Commonwealth Government’s national ‘gateway’ agency to support investment into Australia. Austrade provides coordinated government assistance to promote, attract and facilitate FDI, supports Australian companies to grow their business in international markets, and delivers advice to the Australian Government on its trade, tourism, international education and training, and investment policy agendas. Austrade operates through a number of international offices, with U.S. offices primarily focused on attracting foreign direct investment into Australia and promoting the Australian education sector in the United States. Austrade in the United States operates from offices in Boston, Chicago, Houston, New York, San Francisco, and Washington, DC.

In addition, state investment promotion agencies also support international investment at the state level and in key sectors. For example, Investment Attraction South Australia aims to drive inward investment for South Australia. Invest in New South Wales similarly seeks to promote New South Wales as an investment location.

Limits on Foreign Control and Right to Private Ownership and Establishment

Within Australia, the right exists for foreign and domestic private entities to establish and own business enterprises and engage in all forms of remunerative activity in accordance with national legislative and regulatory practices.

See Section 4: Legal Regime – Laws and Regulations on Foreign Direct Investment below for information on Australia’s investment screening mechanism for inbound foreign investment.

Other than the screening process described in Section 4, there are few limits or restrictions on foreign investment in Australia. Foreign purchases of agricultural land greater than AUD 15 million (USD 12 million) is subject to screening. This threshold will apply to the cumulative value of agricultural land owned by the foreign investor, including the proposed purchase. However, the agricultural land screening threshold does not affect investments made under AUSFTA. The current threshold remains AUD 1.094 billion (USD 875 million) for U.S. non-government investors. Future investments made by U.S. non-government investors will be subject to inclusion on the foreign ownership register of agricultural land and are also subject to Australian Tax Office (ATO) information gathering activities on new foreign investment.

U.S. investors do not face any restrictions when investing in Australia relative to investors from other countries. All foreign persons, including U.S. investors, must notify the Australian government and receive prior approval to make investments of five percent or more in the media sector, regardless of the value of the investment.

Other Investment Policy Reviews

Australia has not conducted an investment policy review in the last three years through either the OECD or UNCTAD system. A WTO review of the trade policies and practices of Australia did take place however, in April 2015, and can be found at .

The Australian Trade Commission compiles an annual ‘Why Australia Benchmark Report’ that presents comparative data on investing in Australia in the areas of Growth, Innovation, Talent, Location and Business. The report also compares Australia’s investment credentials with other countries and provides a general snapshot on Australia’s investment climate. See .

Business Facilitation

Business registration in Australia is relatively straightforward and is facilitated through a number of Government web sites. The Commonwealth Department of Industry, Innovation and Science’s  provides an online resource and is intended as a ‘whole-of-government’ service providing essential information on planning, starting and growing a business. Foreign entities intending to conduct business in Australia as a foreign company must be registered with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). As Australia’s corporate, markets and financial services regulator, the ASIC web site provides information and guides on starting and managing a business or company.

In registering a business, individuals and entities are required to register as a company with the ASIC, which then gives the company an Australian Company Number, registers the company, and issues a Certificate of Registration. According to the World Bank ‘Starting a Business’ indicator, registering a business in Australia takes 2.5 days and Australia ranks 7th globally on this indicator.

The Australian Government has a range of initiatives to assist women and minority groups with establishing new businesses. At a high level, the Office for Women within the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet promotes economic security for women, leadership for women in business, and various grants and funding for initiatives that promote women in business. Various initiatives also exist to assist indigenous Australians engage in the economy including through business creation. Guidance on setting up new businesses is also available in a range of foreign languages through the  website.

Outward Investment

Australia generally looks positively towards outward investment as a ways to grow its economy. There are no restrictions on domestic investors. Austrade, the Australian Government’s export credit agency, Efic (Export Finance and Insurance Corporation), and various other government agencies offer assistance to Australian businesses looking to invest abroad.

3. Legal Regime

Transparency of the Regulatory System

The Australian Government utilizes transparent policies and effective laws to foster national competition and is consultative in its policy making process. The government generally allows for public comment of draft legislation and publishes legislation once it enters into force.

Regulations drafted by Australian Government agencies must be accompanied by a Regulation Impact Statement when submitted to the final decision maker (which may be the Cabinet, a Minister, or another decision maker appointed by legislation). All Regulation Impact Statements must first be approved by the Office of Best Practice Regulation (OBPR) which sits within the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, prior to being provided to the relevant decision maker. They are required to demonstrate the need for regulation, the alternative options available (including non-regulatory options), feedback from stakeholders, and a full cost-benefit analysis. Regulations are subsequently required to be reviewed periodically. All Regulation Impact Statements, second reading speeches, explanatory memoranda, and associated legislation are made publicly available on Government websites. Australia’s state and territory governments have similar processes when making new regulations.

The Australian Government has tended to prefer self-regulatory options where an industry can demonstrate that the size of the risks are manageable and that there are mechanisms for the industry to agree on, and comply with, self-regulatory options that will resolve the identified problem. This manifests in various ways across industries, including voluntary codes of conduct and similar agreements between industry players.

The Australian Government has recognized the impost that regulation can impose on businesses and has undertaken a range of initiatives to reduce red tape. This has included specific red tape reduction targets for government agencies, and various deregulatory groups within government agencies.

Australian accounting, legal, and regulatory procedures are transparent and consistent with international standards. Accounting standards are formulated by the Australian Accounting Standards Board, an Australian Government agency under the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001. Under that Act, the statutory functions of the AASB are to develop a conceptual framework for the purpose of evaluating proposed standards; make accounting standards under section 334 of the Corporations Act 2001, and advance and promote the main objects of Part 12 of the ASIC Act, which include reducing the cost of capital, enabling Australian entities to compete effectively overseas and maintaining investor confidence in the Australian economy. The Australian Government conducts regular reviews of proposed measures and legislative changes and holds public hearings into such matters.

International Regulatory Considerations

Australia is a member of the WTO, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and became the first of Association of Southeast Nations’ (ASEAN) ten dialogue partners in 1974. While not a regional economic block, Australia’s free trade agreement with New Zealand provides for a high level of integration between the two economies with the ultimate goal of a single economic market.

Australia is a signatory to the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) and performs at, or close to, the frontier for all eleven OECD Trade Facilitation Indicators. For the eight indicators where it is not located at the frontier, it has significantly improved on six between 2015 and 2017. While no new legislation has been required to progress Australia’s implementation of the TFA, Australia has created a National Committee on Trade Facilitation to oversee development of new trade facilitation initiatives. Two important initiatives to date have been the creation of an Authorized Economic Operator scheme to allow approved companies to streamline imports through Australian Customs, and the creation of a ‘single window’ portal for traders seeking information on importation and permit requirements.

Legal System and Judicial Independence

The Australian legal system is firmly grounded on the principles of equal treatment before the law, procedural fairness, judicial precedent, and the independence of the judiciary. Strong safeguards exist to ensure that people are not treated arbitrarily or unfairly by governments or officials. Property and contractual rights are enforced through the Australian court system, which is based on English Common Law.

Laws and Regulations on Foreign Direct Investment

Information regarding investing in Australia can be found in Austrade’s Investor Guide at . The guide is designed to help international investors and businesses navigate investing and operating in Australia. It is an online guide to the regulations, considerations and assistance relevant to investing in, establishing, and running a business in Australia, with direct links to relevant regulators and government agencies that relate to Australian Government regulation and available assistance.

Foreign investment in Australia is regulated by the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 and Australia’s Foreign Investment Policy. The Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB), a division of Australia’s Treasury, is a non-statutory body established to advise the Treasurer and the Commonwealth Government on Australia’s foreign investment policy and its administration. The FIRB screens potential foreign investments in Australia above threshold values, and based on advice from the FIRB, the Treasurer may deny or place conditions on the approval of particular investments above that threshold on national interest grounds. Following a number of recent investments made by foreign companies in key sectors of Australia’s economy, the laws and regulations governing foreign direct investment have been subject to a wide ranging and ongoing review.

The Australian Government has a ‘national interest’ consideration in reviewing foreign investment applications.

In January 2017, the Government established the Critical Infrastructure Centre (CIC) to better manage the risks to Australia’s critical infrastructure assets. A key role of the CIC is to advise the FIRB on risks associated with foreign investment in infrastructure assets, particularly telecommunications, electricity, water and port assets. While the CIC’s role in the foreign investment process signals the Government’s focus on these assets, its role is limited to providing advice to the Government and the approval framework itself was not changed when the CIC was established. Further changes to investments in electricity assets and agricultural land were announced in early 2018. Under these changes, electricity infrastructure is formally viewed as ‘critical infrastructure’ and foreign purchases will face additional scrutiny and conditions, while agricultural land is now required to be ‘marketed widely’ to Australian buyers before being sold to a foreign buyer. Various states also announced over 2017 that they would apply surcharges to foreign investment in real estate.

Under the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA), all U.S. greenfield investments are exempt from FIRB screening. U.S. investors require prior approval if acquiring a substantial interest in a primary production business valued above AUD 1.094 billion (USD 791.6 million).

Competition and Anti-Trust Laws

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) enforces the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and a range of additional legislation, promotes competition, fair trading and regulates national infrastructure for the benefit of all Australians. The ACCC plays a key role in assessing mergers to determine whether they will lead to a substantial lessening of competition in any market. ACCC also engages in consumer protection enforcement and has expanded responsibilities to monitor digital industries and the “sharing economy.”

Expropriation and Compensation

Private property can be expropriated for public purposes in accordance with Australia’s constitution and established principles of international law. Property owners are entitled to compensation based on “just terms” for expropriated property. There is little history of expropriation in Australia although a few U.S. investors have claimed certain commercial disputes should be considered expropriation. (See below description.)

Dispute Settlement

ICSID Convention and New York Convention

Australia is a member of the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID Convention) and the New York Convention of 1958 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The International Arbitration Act 1974 governs international arbitration and the enforcement of awards.

Investor-State Dispute Settlement

Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) is included in some but not all of Australia’s 21 BITs and 9 FTAs. AUSFTA establishes a dispute settlement mechanism for investment disputes arising under the Agreement. However, AUSFTA does not contain an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism that would allow individual investors to bring a case against the Australian government. Regardless of the presence or absence of ISDS mechanisms, there is no history of extrajudicial action against foreign investors in Australia.

In 2010, an Australian company with approximately 30 percent U.S. institutional investor ownership acquired an Australian mining company for the purpose of obtaining the latter company’s primary asset, a coal exploration license. The New South Wales (NSW) government had legally approved the purchase. Subsequent to the purchase, however, the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), a non-judicial anti-corruption entity with sweeping powers of investigation but no independent powers to prosecute, determined that the original Australian company had corruptly obtained the license. Based on the ICAC findings, the NSW government passed legislation cancelling the license, denying the investors the ability to seek compensation, and preventing the NSW government from having any liability for its past conduct. The result of these actions is the investors of the acquiring company, including the U.S. investors, have lost their entire investment.

International Commercial Arbitration and Foreign Courts

Australia has an established legal and court system for the conduct or supervision of litigation and arbitration, as well as alternate dispute resolutions. Australia is a leader in the development and provision of non-court dispute resolution mechanisms. It is a signatory to all the major international dispute resolution conventions and has organizations that provide international dispute resolution processes.

Bankruptcy Regulations

Bankruptcy is a legal status conferred under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 and operates in all of Australia’s States and Territories. Only individuals can be made bankrupt and not businesses or companies. Where there is a partnership or person trading under a business name, it is the individual or individuals who make up that firm that are made bankrupt. Companies cannot become bankrupt under the Bankruptcy Act though similar provisions (called administration and winding up) exist under the Corporations Act 2001. Bankruptcy is not a criminal offense in Australia.

Creditor rights are established under the Bankruptcy Act 1966, the Corporations Act 2001, and the more recent Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016. The latter legislation commenced in two tranches over 2017 and aims to increase the efficiency of insolvency administrations, improve communications between parties, increase the corporate regulator’s oversight of the insolvency market, and ‘improve overall consumer confidence in the professionalism and competence of insolvency practitioners’. Under the combined legislation, creditors have the right to: request information during the administration process, give direction to a liquidator or trustee, appoint a liquidator to review the current appointee’s remuneration, and remove a liquidator and appoint a replacement.

Four credit monitoring authorities operate in the Australian market: Equifax, Dun and Bradstreet, Experian, and the Tasmanian Collection Service. The information that can be provided to, and used by, these bodies is restricted by the Privacy Act 1988 and the associated Privacy (Credit Reporting) Code 2014. Current policy seeks to balance the privacy rights of individuals and the depth of information available to credit providers. Until 2018, credit reporting in Australia has consisted only of ‘negative’ reporting, however, in July 2018 the Government will require that credit providers also report ‘positive’ information on individuals’ credit history.


1. Openness To, and Restrictions Upon, Foreign Investment

Policies Towards Foreign Direct Investment

The Austrian government welcomes foreign direct investment, particularly when such investments have the potential to create new jobs, support advanced technology fields, promote capital-intensive industries, and enhance links to research and development.

There are no sectoral or geographic restrictions on foreign investment. American investors have not complained of discriminatory laws against foreign investors. Corporate taxes are relatively low (25 percent flat tax) and a tax reform implemented in 2016 aimed to further stimulate the economy. Citizens and investors have reported that it is difficult to establish and maintain banking services since the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) Agreement went into force in 2014, as some Austrian banks have been reluctant to take on this reporting burden.

Potential investors should also factor in Austria’s strict environmental regulations and environmental impact assessments into their investment decision-making. The requirement that over 50 percent of energy providers must be in public hands creates a potential additional burden for investments in the energy sector. Strict liability and co-existence regulations in the agriculture sector restrict research and virtually outlaw the cultivation, marketing, or distribution of biotechnology crops. That situation is unlikely to improve for biotech producers under the new coalition government.

Austria’s national investment promotion company, the Austrian Business Agency (ABA), is the first point of contact for foreign companies aiming to establish their own business in Austria. It provides comprehensive information about Austria as a business location, identifies suitable sites for greenfield investments, and consults in setting up a company. ABA provides its services free of charge.

Austrian agencies do not press investors to keep investments in the country, but the Federal Economic Chamber (WKO), and the American Chamber of Commerce in Austria (Amcham) carry out annual polls among their members to measure their satisfaction with the business climate, thus providing early warning to the government of problems investors have identified.

Limits on Foreign Control and Right to Private Ownership and Establishment

There is no principal limitation on establishing and owning a business in Austria. A local managing director must be appointed to any newly-started enterprise. For non-EU citizens to establish and own a business, the Austrian Foreigner’s Law mandates a residence permit that includes the right to run a business. Many Austrian trades are regulated, and the right to run a business in many trades sectors is only granted when certain preconditions are met, such as certificates of competence, and recognition of foreign education. There are no limitations on ownership of private businesses. Austria maintains an investment screening process for takeovers of 25 percent or more in the sectors of national security and public services such as energy and water supply, telecommunication, and education services, where the Austrian government retains the right of approval. The screening process has been rarely used since its introduction in 2012, but could pose a de facto barrier, particularly in the energy sector.

Other Investment Policy Reviews

Not applicable.

Business Facilitation

Although the World Bank ranks Austria among the top 25 countries in 2018 with regard to “ease of doing business” ( ), starting a business takes time and requires many procedural steps (rank 118 in 2018).

There is no business registration website or online process for starting a business in Austria.

In order to register a new company, or open a subsidiary in Austria, a company must first be listed on the Austrian Companies’ Register at a local court. The next step is to seek confirmation of registration from the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber (WKO) establishing that the company is really a new business. The investor must then notarize the “declaration of establishment,” deposit a minimum capital requirement with an Austrian bank, register with the tax office, register with the district trade authority, register employees for social security, and register with the municipality where the business will be located. Finally, membership in the WKO is mandatory for all businesses in Austria.

According to Deloitte Austria, the average time to set up a company in Austria is 25 days, far more than the EU average of 7 days. A one-stop shop procedure for completing all necessary steps would improve the situation for U.S. investors significantly.

Austrian law prohibits gender-based discrimination. Job advertisements have to be gender-neutral. While government entities advertise a preference for women for top positions if they possess the same qualifications as males, private companies have no formal quotas and only encourage applications from qualified female candidates.

The government-run Austrian Business Agency (ABA) provides consulting services to firms interested in setting up business operations in Austria. There are several legal structures for companies to use in establishing a presence in Austria. The ABA website contains further details and contact information, and is intended to serve as a first point of contact for investors: .

Outward Investment

The Austrian government encourages outward investment. There is no special focus on specific countries, but the United States is seen as an attractive target country. The “Austrian Foreign Trade Service” (“Aussenwirtschaft Austria”) is a special section of the WKO promoting outward foreign investment and exports alike. The ATS runs six offices in the United States in Washington, DC, New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. The Ministry for Digital and Economic Affairs and the WKO run a joint program called: “go international,” providing services to companies that are considering investing for the first time in foreign countries. The program provides grants in form of contributions to “market access costs” and “soft subsidies,” such as counselling, legal advice, and marketing support.

3. Legal Regime

Transparency of the Regulatory System

Austria’s legal, regulatory, and accounting systems are transparent and consistent with international norms.

Federal ministries generally publish draft laws and regulations for public comment prior to their adoption by Austria’s cabinet and/or Parliament. In addition, relevant stakeholders such as the “Social Partners” (Economic Chamber, Agricultural Chamber, Labor Chamber, and Trade Union Association), the Industrial Association, and research institutions are invited to provide comments and suggestions for improvement, which may be taken into account before adoption of laws. This mechanism encompasses investment laws, as well. Austria’s nine provinces can also adopt laws relevant to investments; their review processes are generally less extensive, but local laws are less important than federal laws for investments. The judicial system is independent from the executive branch, thus helping to ensure the government follows administrative processes.

Draft legislation by ministries (“Ministerialentwurfe”) and resulting government draft laws and parliamentary initiatives (“Regierungsvorlagen und Gesetzesinitiativen”) can be accessed through the website of the Austrian Parliament:  (all in German). The parliament also publishes a history of all law-making processes. All final Austrian laws can be accessed through a government data base, partly in English: .

The government has made progress in streamlining its complex and cumbersome requirements for issuing business licenses and permits. It claims to have reduced the processing time for business permits to less than three months, except in the case of projects requiring an environmental impact assessment.

Austrian regulations governing accounting provide U.S. investors with internationally standardized financial information. In line with EU regulations, listed companies must prepare their consolidated financial statements according to the International Financial Reporting Standards (IAS/IFRS) system.

International Regulatory Considerations

Austria is a member of the EU. As such, its laws must comply with EU legislation and the country is therefore subject to European Court of Justice (ECJ) jurisdiction. Austria is a member of the WTO and largely follows WTO requirements. Austria has ratified the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA), but has not taken specific actions to implement it.

Legal System and Judicial Independence

The Austrian legal system is based on Roman law. The constitution establishes a hierarchy, according to which each legislative act (law, regulation, decision, and fines) must have its legal basis in a higher instrument. The full text of each legislative act is available online for reference. All final Austrian laws can be accessed through a government data base, partly in English: .

Commercial matters fall within the competence of ordinary regional courts except in Vienna, which has a specialized Commercial Court. The Commercial Court also has nationwide competence for trademark, design, model, and patent matters. There is no special treatment of foreign investors and the executive does not interfere in judicial matters.

The system provides an effective means for protecting property and contractual rights of nationals and foreigners. Sensitive cases must be reported to the Minister of Justice who can issue instructions for addressing them. Austria’s civil courts enforce property and contractual rights and do not discriminate against foreign investors. Austria allows for court decisions to be appealed, first to a Regional Court and finally, in the Supreme Court.

Laws and Regulations on Foreign Direct Investment

There is no discrimination against foreign investors, but businesses are required to follow numerous local regulations. Although there is no requirement for participation by Austrian citizens in ownership or management of a foreign firm, at least one manager must meet Austrian residency and other legal requirements. Expatriates are allowed to deduct certain expenses (costs associated with moving, maintaining a double residence, education of children) from Austrian-earned income.

In April 2017, a new “Law to Support Investments in Municipalities” (published in the Federal Law Gazette, 74/2017, available online in German only on the federal legal information system ) was adopted that allows federal funding of up to 25 percent of the total investment amount of a project to “modernize” a municipality.

Competition and Anti-Trust Laws

Austria’s Anti-Trust Act (ATA) is in line with European Union anti-trust regulations, which take precedence over national regulations in cases concerning Austria and other EU member states. The Austrian Anti-Trust Act prohibits cartels, anticompetitive practices, and the abuse of a dominant market position. The independent Federal Competition Authority (FCA) and the Federal Cartel Prosecutor (FCP) are responsible for administering anti-trust laws. The FCA can conduct investigations and request information from firms. Private parties are enabled to file damage claims based on an infringement of Austrian and European anti-trust rules under an April 2017 ATA amendment. The ATA amendment also includes strengthened merger control, and more room for appeals against verdicts based on the ATA.

Companies must inform the FCA of mergers and acquisitions (M&A). Special M&A regulations apply to media enterprises, such as a lower threshold above which the ATA applies, and the requirement that media diversity must be maintained. A cartel court is competent to rule on referrals from the FCA or the FCP. For violations of anti-trust regulations, the cartel court can impose fines of up to the equivalent of 10 percent of a company’s annual worldwide sales. The independent energy regulator E-Control separately examines antitrust concerns in the energy sector, but must also submit cases to the cartel court.

Austria’s Takeover Law applies to friendly and hostile takeovers of corporations headquartered in Austria and listed on the Vienna Stock Exchange. The law protects investors against unfair practices, since any shareholder obtaining a controlling stake in a corporation (30 percent or more in direct or indirect control of a company’s voting shares) must offer to buy out smaller shareholders at a defined fair market price. The law also includes provisions for shareholders who passively obtain a controlling stake in a company. The law prohibits defensive action to frustrate bids. The Shareholder Exclusion Act allows a primary shareholder with at least 90 percent of capital stock to force out minority shareholders. An independent takeover commission at the Vienna Stock Exchange oversees compliance with these laws.

Expropriation and Compensation

According to the European Convention of Human Rights (applicable in Austria) and the Austrian Civil Code, property ownership is guaranteed in Austria. Expropriation of private property in Austria is rare and may be undertaken by federal or provincial government authorities only on the basis of special legal authorization “in the public interest” in such instances as land use planning, and infrastructure project preparations. The government can initiate such a procedure only in the absence of any other alternatives for satisfying the public interest; when the action is exclusively in the public interest; and when the owner receives just compensation. The expropriation process is non-discriminatory toward foreigners, including U.S. firms. There is no indication that significant expropriations will take place in the foreseeable future.

Dispute Settlement

ICSID Convention and New York Convention

Austria is a member of both the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID) and the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, meaning local courts must enforce foreign arbitration awards in Austria. There is no specific domestic legislation in this regard, but local courts must enforce arbitration decisions where the affected companies have their business locations.

Investor-State Dispute Settlement

Austria is a member of the UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). Its arbitration law largely conforms to the UNCITRAL model law. The main divergence is that an award may only be set aside if the arbitral procedure is not in accordance with Austrian public policy.

Austria does not have a BIT or FTA with the United States. There is no special domestic arbitration body.

In 2015, the Austrian government was sued, for the first time ever, by the offshore parent company of the Austrian Meinl Bank, Far East. The case was brought before the ICSID in New York because of alleged damages arising from domestic prosecution in Austria; the ICSID dismissed the case in November 2017.

International Commercial Arbitration and Foreign Courts

The Vienna International Arbitral Center of the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber acts as Austria’s main arbitration institution. Legislation is modeled after the UNCITRAL model law (see above). The New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (NYC) overrides most of Austria’s domestic provisions, where applicable, and Austrian courts are consistent in applying it.

Bankruptcy Regulations

The Austrian Insolvency Act contains provisions for business reorganization and bankruptcy proceedings. Reorganization requires a restructuring plan from the still solvent debtor. The plan must offer a quota of at least 20 percent of the debtor’s obligation and be adopted by a majority of all creditors and a majority of creditors holding at least 50 percent of all claims. Bankruptcy proceedings take place in court and are opened upon application of the debtor or a creditor; the court appoints a receiver for winding down the business and distributes proceeds to the creditors. Bankruptcy is not criminalized, provided the affected person performed all his documentation and reporting in accordance with the law.

Austria’s major commercial association for the protection of creditors in cases of bankruptcy is the “KSV 1870 Group”, , which also carries out credit assessments of all companies located in Austria. Other European-wide credit bureaus, particularly “CRIF” and “Bisnode”, also monitor the Austrian market.


1. Openness To, and Restrictions Upon, Foreign Investment

Policies Toward Foreign Direct Investment

Bangladesh actively seeks foreign investment, particularly in the agribusiness, garment and textiles, leather and leather goods, light manufacturing, energy, information and communications technology (ICT), and infrastructure sectors. It offers a range of investment incentives under its industrial policy and export-oriented growth strategy with few formal distinctions between foreign and domestic private investors.

Foreign and domestic private entities can establish and own, operate, and dispose of interests in most types of business enterprises. Four sectors, however, are reserved for government investment:

  • Arms and ammunition and other defense equipment and machinery;
  • Forest plantation and mechanized extraction within the bounds of reserved forests;
  • Production of nuclear energy;
  • Security printing.

The Bangladesh Investment Development Authority (BIDA) is the principal authority tasked with promoting supervising and promoting private investment. The BIDA Act of 2016 approved the merger of the now disbanded Board of Investment and the Privatization Committee. BIDA performs the following functions:

  • Provides pre-investment counseling services;
  • Registers and approves of private industrial projects;
  • Issues approval of branch/liaison/representative offices;
  • Issues work permits for foreign nationals;
  • Issues approval of royalty remittances, technical know-how and technical assistance fees;
  • Facilitates import of capital machinery and raw materials;
  • Issues approvals for foreign loans and supplier credits.

BIDA’s newly designed website has aggregated information regarding Bangladesh investment policies and ease of doing business indicators: .

The Bangladesh Export Processing Zone Authority (BEPZA) acts as the investment supervisory authority in export processing zones (EPZs). BEPZA is the one-stop service provider and regulatory authority for companies operating inside EPZs. In addition, Bangladesh plans to establish over 100 Economic Zones (EZs) over the next several years. The EZs are designed to attract additional foreign investment to locations throughout the country. The Bangladesh Economic Zones Authority (BEZA) is responsible for supervising and promoting investments in the economic zones (EZs).

Limits on Foreign Control and Right to Private Ownership and Establishment

Foreign and domestic private entities can establish and own, operate, and dispose of interests in most types of business enterprises. Bangladesh allows private investment in power generation and natural gas exploration, but efforts to allow full foreign participation in petroleum marketing and gas distribution have stalled. Draft regulations in the area of telecommunication infrastructure currently include provisions precluding 100 percent foreign ownership.

Four sectors are reserved for government investment and exclude both foreign and domestic private sector activity:

  • Arms and ammunition and other defense equipment and machinery;
  • Forest plantation and mechanized extraction within the bounds of reserved forests;
  • Production of nuclear energy;
  • Security printing.

In addition, there are 17 controlled sectors that require prior clearance/ permission from the respective line ministries/authorities. These are:

  1. Fishing in the deep sea;
  2. Bank/financial institution in the private sector;
  3. Insurance company in the private sector;
  4. Generation, supply and distribution of power in the private sector;
  5. Exploration, extraction and supply of natural gas/oil;
  6. Exploration, extraction and supply of coal;
  7. Exploration, extraction and supply of other mineral resources;
  8. Large-scale infrastructure projects (e.g. flyover, elevated expressway, monorail, economic zone, inland container depot/container freight station);
  9. Crude oil refinery (recycling/refining of lube oil used as fuel);
  10. Medium and large industry using natural gas/condescend and other minerals as raw material;
  11. Telecommunication service (mobile/cellular and land phone);
  12. Satellite channels;
  13. Cargo/passenger aviation;
  14. Sea-bound ship transport;
  15. Sea-port/deep seaport;
  16. VOIP/IP telephone;
  17. Industries using heavy minerals accumulated from sea beach.

While discrimination against foreign investors is not widespread, the government frequently promotes local industries and some discriminatory policies and regulations exist. For example, the government closely controls approvals for imported medicines that compete with domestically-manufactured pharmaceutical products and it has required majority local ownership of new shipping and insurance companies, albeit with exemptions for existing foreign-owned firms, following a prime ministerial directive. In practical terms, foreign investors frequently find it necessary to have a local partner even though this requirement may not be statutorily defined.

In certain strategic sectors, the GOB has placed unofficial barriers on foreign companies’ ability to divest from the country.

Business Registration

The Bangladesh Investment Development Authority (BIDA), formerly the Board of Investment, is responsible for screening, reviewing and approving FDI in Bangladesh. BIDA is directly supervised by the Prime Minister’s office and the Chairman of BIDA has Minister-equivalent rank. There have been instances where receiving approval was delayed. Once the foreign investor’s application is submitted to BIDA, the authorities review the proposal to ensure the investment does not create conflicts with local business. Investors note it is frequently necessary to separately register with other entities such as the National Board of Revenue. According to the World Bank’s 2017 Doing Business Report, business registration in Bangladesh takes 19.5 days on average with nine distinct steps ( ).

BIDA’s “Roadmap to Investment in Bangladesh” is also available at: .

Requirements vary by sector, but all foreign investors are also required to obtain clearance certificates from relevant ministries and institutions with regulatory oversight. BIDA establishes time-lines for the submission of all the required documents. For example, if a proposed foreign investment is in the healthcare equipment field, investors need to obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Directorate General for Health Services under the Ministry of Health. The NOC states that the specific investment will not hinder local manufacturers and is in alignment with the guidelines of the ministry. Negative outcomes can be appealed, except for applications pertaining to the four restricted sectors previously mentioned.

A foreign investor also must register its company with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies and Firms (RJSC&F) and open a local bank account under the registered company’s name. For BIDA screening, an investor must submit the RJSC&F Company Registration certificate, legal bank account details, a NOC from the relevant ministry, department, or institution, and a project profile (if the investment is more than USD 1.25 million) along with BIDA’s formatted application form.

Other Investment Policy Reviews

In 2013, Bangladesh completed an investment policy review (IPR) with the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD):;

Bangladesh has not conducted an IPR through the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

A Trade Policy Review was last done by the World Trade Organization in October 2012 and can be found at: .

With EU assistance, Bangladesh conducted a trade policy review, the “Comprehensive Trade Policy of Bangladesh”, which was published by the Ministry of Commerce in September 2014. Current Bangladesh government export and import policies are available at: .

Business Facilitation

The Government has had limited success in reducing the time required to establish a company. BIDA and BEZA are both attempting to establish one-stop business registration shops and these agencies have proposed draft legislation for this purpose. In February 2018, the Bangladesh Parliament passed the “One Stop Service Bill 2018,” which aims to streamline business and investment registration processes. Expected streamlined services from BIDA include: company registration, name clearance issuance, tax certificate and TIN, VAT registration, visa recommendation letter issuance, work permit issuance, foreign borrowing request approval, and environment clearance. BIDA also aims to automate 150 processes from 34 government agencies by December 2018.

Companies can register their business at Office of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies and Firms: . However, the online business registration process is not clear and cannot be used by a foreign company to attain the business registration as certain steps are required to be performed in-person.

In addition, BIDA has branch/liaison office registration information on its website at: .

The online business registration process is clear and complete but cannot be used by foreign companies to register their businesses as certain steps are required to be performed in-person.

Other agencies with which a company must typically register are as follows:

  • City Corporation – Trade License;
  • National Board of Revenue – Tax & VAT Registration;
  • Chief Inspector of Shops and Establishments – Employment of workers notification.

The company registration process now takes around 15 workdays to complete. The process to open a branch or liaison office is approximately one month. The process for trade license, tax registration, and VAT registration requires seven days, two days, and three weeks, respectively.

Outward Investment

Outward foreign direct investment is generally restricted through the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act of 1947. As a result, the Bangladesh Bank plays a key role in limiting outbound investment. In September 2015, the government amended the 1947 Act by adding a “conditional provision” that permits outbound investment for export-related enterprises. Private sector contacts note that the few international investments approved by the Bangladesh Bank have been limited to large exporting companies with international experience.

3. Legal Regime

Transparency of the Regulatory System

Since 1989, the government has gradually moved to decrease regulatory obstruction of private business. The chambers of commerce have called for a greater voice for the private sector in government decisions and for privatization, but at the same time, many support protectionism and subsidies for their own industries. The result is that policy and regulations in Bangladesh are often not clear, consistent, or publicized. Registration and regulatory processes are alleged to be frequently used as rent-seeking opportunities. The major rule-making and regulatory authority exist in the national level – under each Ministry with many final decisions being made at the top-most levels, including the Prime Minister’s office (PMO). The PMO is actively engaged in policies, as well as foreign investment in government-controlled projects.

The Bangladesh Investment Development Authority (BIDA) – a merger of the Board of Investment (BOI) and the Privatization Commission (PC) – was formed in accordance with the Bangladesh Investment Development Authority Bill 2016 passed by Parliament on July 25, 2016. The bill established BIDA as the lead private investment promotion and facilitation agency in Bangladesh. The move came amid complaints about redundancies in the BOI’s and the PC’s overlapping mandates and concerns that the PC had not made sufficient progress. BIDA hopes to become a “one-stop shop” for investors and a “true” investment promotion authority rather than simply follow the referral service-orientation of BOI. Currently, BIDA is not yet a one-stop shop and companies must still seek approvals from relevant line ministries.

Bangladesh has achieved incremental progress in using information technology to improve the transparency and efficiency of some government services and to develop independent agencies to regulate the energy and telecommunication sectors. Some investors cited government laws, regulations, and implementation as impediments to investment. The government has historically limited opportunities for the private sector to comment on proposed regulations. In 2009, Bangladesh adopted the Right to Information Act that provides for multilevel stakeholders consultation through workshops or media outreach. Although the consultation process exists, it is still weak and subject to further improvement.

Ministries do not generally publish and release draft proposals to the public. However, several agencies, including the Bangladesh Bank, BIDA, the Ministry of Commerce, and the Bangladesh Telecommunications Regulatory Commission have occasionally posted draft legislation and regulations online and solicited feedback from the business community. In some instances, parliamentary committees have also reached out to relevant stakeholders for input on draft legislation. The media continues to be the main information source for the public on many draft proposals. There is also no legal obligation to publish proposed regulations, consider alternatives to proposed regulation, or solicit comments from the general public.

Regulatory agencies generally do not solicit comments on proposed regulations from the general public; however, when a consultation occurs, comments may be received through public media consultation, feedback on websites (e.g., in the past, the Bangladesh Bank received comments on monetary policy), Focused Group Discussions, or workshops with relevant stakeholders. There is no government body tasked with soliciting and receiving comments, but the Bangladesh Government Press of the Ministry of Information is entrusted with the authority of disseminating government information to the public. The law does not require regulatory agencies to report on the results of consultations, and in practice, regulators do not generally report the results. Widespread use of social media in Bangladesh has created an additional platform for public input into developing regulations, and government officials appear to be sensitive to this form of messaging.

The Bangladesh Government Press ( ), the government printing office, publishes the weekly “Bangladesh Gazette” every Thursday. The gazette provides official notice of government actions, including the issuance of government rules and regulations and the transfer and promotion of government employees. Laws can also be accessed at .

Bangladesh passed the Financial Reporting Act of 2015 that created the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) and aims to establish transparency and accountability in the accounting and auditing of financial institutions. However, the FRC is not fully operational and accounting practices and quality varies widely in Bangladesh. Internationally known and recognized firms have begun establishing local offices in Bangladesh and the presence of these firms is positively influencing the accounting norms in the country. Some firms are capable of providing financial reports audited to international standards while others maintain unreliable (or multiple) sets of accounting reports. Regulatory agencies also do not conduct impact assessment of proposed regulations; hence, regulations are often not reviewed on the basis of data-driven assessments. National budget documents are not prepared according to internationally accepted standards.

International Regulatory Considerations

BIMSTEC aims to integrate regional regulatory systems between Bangladesh, India, Burma, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Nepal, and Bhutan. However, efforts to advance regional cooperation measures have stalled in recent years and regulatory systems remain uncoordinated.

Local law is based on English common law system, but most fall short of international standards. The country’s regulatory system remains weak, where many of the laws and regulations are not enforced and standards are not maintained.

Bangladesh has been a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) since January 1995. WTO requires all signatories to the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) to establish a National Inquiry Point and Notification Authority to gather and efficiently distribute trade-related regulatory, standards, and conformity assessment information to the WTO Member community. Bangladesh Standards and Testing Institute (BSTI) is the National Enquiry Point. There is an internal committee on WTO affairs in BSTI and it participates in the notification activities to WTO through the Ministry of Commerce and the Ministry of Industries.

Focal Points and Methods of Contact are:

Focal Points for WTO:

  • Mr. Taher Jamil, Deputy Director, BSTI, Dhaka, cell: +8801723704505;
  • Mr. Shajjatul Bari, Deputy Director, Standards Wing, BSTI, Dhaka; Office tel: +880-2-8870285;
  • Director General, WTO Cell, Ministry of Commerce; Office Tel: +880-2-8870285.

Focal Points for SPS, TBT and TRIPS:

Legal System and Judicial Independence

Bangladesh is a common law based jurisdiction. Many of the basic laws of Bangladesh, such as the penal code, civil and criminal procedural codes, contract law, and company law, are influenced by English common laws. However, family laws, such as laws relating to marriage, dissolution of marriage, and inheritance, are based on religious scripts, and therefore differ between religious communities. The Bangladeshi legal system is based on a written constitution and the laws often take statutory forms that are enacted by the legislature and interpreted by the higher courts. Ordinarily, executive authorities and statutory corporations cannot make any law, but can make by-laws to the extent authorized by the legislature. Such subordinate legislation is known as rules or regulations and is also enforceable by the court. Yet, being a common law system, the statutes are short, and set out basic rights and responsibilities, but are elaborated by the courts in their application and interpretation of those. The Judiciary of Bangladesh acts through (1) The Superior Judiciary having appellate, revision, and original jurisdiction, and (2) Sub-Ordinate Judiciary having original jurisdiction.

Since 1971, Bangladesh’s legal system has been updated in the areas of company, banking, bankruptcy, and money loan court laws, and other commercial laws. An important impediment to investment in Bangladesh is a weak and slow legal system in which the enforceability of contracts is uncertain. The judicial system does not provide for interest to be charged in tort judgments, which means delays in proceedings carry no penalties. Bangladesh does not have a separate court or division of a court dedicated solely to hearing commercial cases. The Joint District Judge court (a civil court) is responsible for enforcing contracts.

Some notable commercial laws include:

  • The Contract Act, 1872 (Act No. IX of 1930);
  • The Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (Act No. III of 1930);
  • The Partnership Act, 1932 (Act No. IX of 1932);
  • The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act No. XXVI of 1881);
  • The Bankruptcy Act, 1997 (Act No. X of 1997);
  • The Arbitration Act, 2001 (Act No. I of 2001).

The judicial system of Bangladesh has never been completely independent from the interference of the executive branch of the government. In a significant milestone, the government in 2007 separated the country’s judiciary from the executive, but the executive retains strong influence over the judiciary through control of judicial appointments. Other pillars of the justice system, including the police, courts, and legal profession are also closely aligned with the executive branch. In lower courts, corruption is widely perceived as a serious problem. Regulations or enforcement actions are appealable under the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court. Bangladesh scored 2.38 in the World Bank’s 2016 Judicial Independence Index out of a 1-7 band score with 7 being the best.

Laws and Regulations on Foreign Direct Investment

Major laws affecting foreign investment include: the Foreign Private Investment (Promotion and Protection) Act of 1980, the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority Act of 1980, the Companies Act of 1994, the Telecommunications Act of 2001, the Industrial Policy Act of 2005, the Industrial Policy Act of 2010, and the Bangladesh Economic Zones Act 2010. The Industrial Policy Act of 2016 was approved by the Cabinet Committee on Industrial Purchase on February 24, 2016 and replaces the Industrial Policy of 2010.

The Industrial Policy Act of 2016 offers incentives for “green,” (environmental) high-tech, or “transformative” industries. Foreign investors who invest USD 1 million or transfer USD 2 million to a recognized financial institution can apply for Bangladeshi citizenship. The Government of Bangladesh will provide financial and policy support for high-priority industries (those that create large-scale employment and earn substantial export revenue) and creative (architecture, arts and antiques, fashion design, film and video, interactive laser software, software, and computer and media programming) industries. Specific importance will be given to agriculture and food processing, ready-made garments (RMG), information and communication technology (ICT) and software, pharmaceuticals, leather and leather products, and jute and jute goods.

In 2017, BIDA has submitted proposed legislation for a One-Stop Service Act (OSS), which has since been approved by the Parliament, to attract further foreign direct investment to Bangladesh. In addition, Petrobangla, the state-owned oil and gas company, has modified its production sharing agreement contract for offshore gas exploration to include an option to export gas.

BIDA has a “one-stop” website that provides relevant laws, rules, procedure, and reporting requirements for investors at: .

Aside from information on relevant business laws and licenses, the website includes information on Bangladesh’s investment climate, opportunities for business, potential sectors, and how to do business in Bangladesh. The website also has an eService Portal for Investors, which provides services like visa recommendations for foreign investors, approval/extension of work permit for expatriates, approval of foreign borrowing, and approval/renewal of branch/liaison and representative office. However, the effectiveness of these online services is questionable.

Competition and Anti-Trust Laws

The GOB formed an independent agency in 2011 called the “Bangladesh Competition Commission (BCC)” under the Ministry of Commerce. The Bangladesh Parliament then passed the Competition Act in June 2012. However, the BCC has experienced operational delays and it has not received sufficient resources to fully operate. Currently, the WTO Cell of the Ministry of Commerce handles most competition-related issues.

In January 2016, the two parent companies of Malaysia-based Robi and India-based Airtel signed a formal deal to merge their operations in Bangladesh, completing the country’s first telecommunications merger. The deal, valued at USD 12.5 million, is to date Bangladesh’s largest corporate merger. The merger raised anti-competition concerns but it was completed in November 2016 after the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) and Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina gave final approvals.

Expropriation and Compensation

Since the Foreign Investment Act of 1980 banned nationalization or expropriation without adequate compensation, the GOB has not nationalized or expropriated property from foreign investors. In the years immediately following independence in 1971, widespread nationalization resulted in government ownership of more than 90 percent of fixed assets in the modern manufacturing sector, including the textile, jute and sugar industries and all banking and insurance interests, except those in foreign (but non-Pakistani) hands. The government has since taken steps to privatize many of these industries during the last 20 years and the private sector has developed into a main driver of the country’s sustained economic growth.

Dispute Settlement

ICSID Convention and New York Convention

Bangladesh is a signatory to the International Convention for the Settlement of Disputes (ICSID) and it acceded in May 1992 to the United Nations Convention for the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Alternative dispute resolutions are possible under the Bangladesh Arbitration Act of 2001. The current legislation allows for enforcement of arbitral awards.

Investor-State Dispute Settlement

Bangladeshi law allows contracts to refer investor-state dispute settlement to third country fora for resolution. The U.S.-Bangladesh Bilateral Investment Treaty also stipulates that parties may, upon the initiative of either of them and as a part of their consultation and negotiation, agree to rely upon non-binding, third-party procedures, such as the fact-finding facility available under the Rules of the Additional Facility of the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes. If the dispute cannot be resolved through consultation and negotiation, then the dispute shall be submitted for settlement in accordance with the applicable dispute-settlement procedures upon which they have previously agreed. Bangladesh is also a party to the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Agreement for the Establishment of an Arbitration Council, signed November 2005, which aims to establish a permanent center for alternative dispute resolution in one of the SAARC member countries.

International Commercial Arbitration and Foreign Courts

Bangladeshi law allows contracts to refer dispute settlement to third country forums for resolution. The Bangladesh Arbitration Act of 2001 and amendments in 2004 reformed alternative dispute resolution in Bangladesh. The Act consolidated the law relating to both domestic and international commercial arbitration. It thus created a single and unified legal regime for arbitration in Bangladesh. Although the new Act is principally based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, it is a patchwork quilt as some unique provisions are derived from the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and some from the English Arbitration Act 1996.

In practice, enforcement of arbitration results is applied unevenly and the GOB has challenged ICSID rulings, especially those that involve rulings against the GOB. The timeframe for dispute resolution is unpredictable and has no set limit. It can be done as quickly as a few months, but often takes years depending on the type of dispute. Anecdotal information indicates average resolution time can be as high as 16 years. Local courts may be biased against foreign investors in resolving disputes.

Bangladesh is a signatory of the New York Convention and recognizes the enforcement of international arbitration awards. Domestic arbitration is under the authority of the district judge court bench and foreign arbitration is under the authority of the relevant high court bench.

The ability of the Bangladeshi judicial system to enforce its own awards is weak. Senior members of the government have been effective in using their offices to resolve investment disputes on several occasions, but the GOB’s ability to resolve investment disputes at a lower level is mixed. The GOB does not publish the numbers of investment disputes involving U.S. or foreign investors. Anecdotal evidence indicates investment disputes occur with limited frequency and the involved parties often resolve the disputes privately rather than seek government intervention.

The practice of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in Bangladesh has many challenges, including lack of funds, lack of lawyer cooperation, and lack of good faith. Slow adoption of ADR mechanisms and sluggish judicial processes impede the enforcement of contracts and the resolution of business disputes in Bangladesh.

As in many countries, Bangladesh has adopted a “conflicts of law” approach to determining whether a judgment from a foreign legal jurisdiction is enforceable in Bangladesh. This single criterion allows Bangladesh courts broad discretion in choosing whether to enforce foreign judgments with significant effects on matrimonial, adoption, corporate, and property disputes. Most enterprises in Bangladesh, and especially state-owned enterprises (SOEs), whose leadership is nominated by the ruling government party, maintain strong ties with the government. Thus, domestic courts strongly tend to favor SOEs and local companies, in investment disputes.

Investors are also increasingly turning to the Bangladesh International Arbitration Center (BIAC) for dispute resolution. BIAC is an independent arbitration center established by prominent local business leaders in April 2011 to improve commercial dispute resolution in Bangladesh to stimulate economic growth. The council committee is headed by the President of International Chamber of Commerce – Bangladesh (ICC,B) and includes the presidents of other prominent chambers such as like Dhaka Chamber of Commerce and Industry (DCCI) and Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce and Industry (MCCI). The center operates under the Bangladesh Arbitration Act of 2001. According to BIAC, fast track cases are resolved in approximately six months while typical cases are resolved in one year. Major Bangladeshi trade and business associations such as the American Chamber of Commerce in Bangladesh (AmCham) can sometimes help to resolve transaction disputes.

Bankruptcy Regulations

Many laws affecting investment in Bangladesh are old and outdated. Bankruptcy laws, which apply mainly to individual insolvency, are sometimes not used in business cases because of webs of falsified assets and uncollectible cross-indebtedness supporting insolvent banks and companies. A Bankruptcy Act was enacted in 1997, but has been ineffective in addressing these issues. An amendment to the Bank Companies Act of 1991 was enacted in 2013. Some bankruptcy cases fall under the Money Loan Court Act, which has more stringent and timely procedures.


1. Openness To, and Restrictions Upon, Foreign Investment

Policies Towards Foreign Direct Investment

Belgium has traditionally maintained an open economy that is highly dependent on international trade. Since WWII, foreign investment has played a vital role in the Belgian economy, providing technology and employment. It is one of the key economic policies of the current center-right government to make Belgium a more attractive destination to foreign investment. Though the federal government regulates important elements of foreign direct investment such as salaries and labor conditions, it is primarily the responsibility of the regions to attract FDI. Flanders Investment and Trade (FIT), Wallonia Foreign Trade and Investment Agency (AWEX) and Brussels Invest and Export are the three investment promotion agencies who seek to attract FDI to Flanders, Wallonia and the Brussels Capital Region, respectively.

The regional investment promotion agencies have focused their industrial strategy on key sectors including aerospace and defense; agribusiness, automotive and ground transportation; architecture and engineering; chemicals, petrochemicals, plastics and composites; environmental technologies; food processing and packaging; health technologies; information and communication; and services.

Foreign corporations account for about one-third of the top 3,000 corporations in Belgium. According to Graydon, a Belgian company specializing in commercial and marketing information, there are currently more than one million companies registered in Belgium. The federal government and the regions do not specifically prioritize investment retention or maintain an ongoing “facilitation” dialogue with investors.

Limits on Foreign Control and Right to Private Ownership and Establishment

There are currently no limits on foreign ownership or control in Belgium. There are no distinctions between Belgian and foreign companies when establishing or owning a business or setting up a remunerative activity.

Other Investment Policy Reviews

Over the past three years, the country has not been the subject of third-party investment policy reviews (IPRs) through a multilateral organization such as the OECD, WTO, or UNCTAD.

Business Facilitation

In order to set up a business in Belgium, one has to take the following steps:

  1. Deposit at least 20 percent of the initial capital with a Belgian credit institution and obtain a standard certification confirming that the amount is held in a blocked capital account;
  2. Deposit a financial plan with a notary, sign the deed of incorporation and the by-laws in the presence of a notary, who authenticates the documents and registers the deed of incorporation. The authentication act must be drawn up in either French, Dutch or German (Belgium’s three official languages);
  3. Register with one of the Registers of legal entities, VAT and social security at a centralized company docket and obtain a company number.

In most cases, the business registration process can be completed within one week. 

Based on the number of employees, the projected annual turnover and the shareholder class, a company will qualify as a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME) according to the meaning of the Promotion of Independent Enterprise Act of February 10, 1998. For a small or medium-sized enterprise, registration will only be possible once a certificate of competence has been obtained. The person in charge of the daily management of the company must prove his or her knowledge of business management, with diplomas and/or practical experience. In the Global Enterprise Register, Belgium currently scores 7 out of 10 for ease of setting up a limited liability company.

Business facilitation agencies provide for equitable treatment of women and underrepresented minorities in the economy.

The three Belgian regions each have their own investment promotion agency, whose services are available to all foreign investors.

Outward Investment

The Belgian government does not actively promote outward investment; neither does it impose restrictions to certain countries or sectors, other than those where Belgium applies UN resolutions.

3. Legal Regime

Transparency of the Regulatory System

The Belgian government maintains a generally transparent competition policy that encompasses tax, labor, health, safety, and other policies to avoid distortions or impediments to the efficient mobilization and allocation of investment, comparable to those in other EU member states. Foreign and domestic investors in some sectors face stringent regulations designed to protect small- and medium-sized enterprises. Many companies in Belgium also try to limit their number of employees to 49, the threshold above which certain employee committees must be set up, such as for safety and trade union interests.

The American Chamber of Commerce has called attention to the adverse impact of cumbersome procedures and unnecessary red tape on foreign investors, although foreign companies do not appear to be impacted more than Belgian firms. Draft bills are not made available for public comment, but rather go through an independent court for vetting and consistency. Recognizing the need to streamline administrative procedures in many areas, in 2015 the federal government set up a special task force to simplify official procedures, so far with little result. It also agreed to streamline laws regarding the telecommunications sector into one comprehensive volume after new entrants in this sector had complained about a lack of transparency. Additionally the government reinforced its Competition Policy Authority with a number of academic experts and additional resources. Traditionally, scientific studies or quantitative analysis conducted on the impact of regulations are made publicly available for comment. However, not all public comments received by regulators are made public.

Accounting standards are regulated by the Belgian law of January 30, 2001; balance sheet and profit and loss statements follow international accounting norms. Cash flow positions and reporting changes in non-borrowed capital formation are not required. However, contrary to IAS/IFRS standards, Belgian accounting rules do require an extensive annual policy report.

Belgium publishes all its relevant legislation and administrative guidelines in an official Gazette, called Le Moniteur Belge ( ).

International Regulatory Considerations

As a founding member of the EU, Belgium enforces EU directives and occasionally applies stricter rules, as has been the case for data privacy issues. On May 25, 2018 Belgium implemented the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (EU) 2016/679, an EU regulation on data protection and privacy for all individuals within the European Union.

Through the European Union, Belgium is a member of the WTO, and notifies all draft technical regulations to the WTO Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). The country does not maintain any measures that are inconsistent with the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) obligations.

Legal System and Judicial Independence

Belgium’s (civil) legal system enjoys judicial independent and is an efficient means for resolving commercial disputes or protecting property rights. Belgium has a wide-ranging codified law system since 1830. There are specialized commercial courts which apply the existing commercial and contractual laws. As in many countries, the Belgian courts labor under a growing caseload, and backlogs cause delays. There are several levels of appeal.

Laws and Regulations on Foreign Direct Investment

Payments and transfers within Belgium and with foreign countries require no prior authorization. Transactions may be executed in euros as well as in other currencies.

Belgium has no debt-to-equity requirements. Dividends may be remitted freely except in cases in which distribution would reduce net assets to less than paid-up capital. No further withholding tax or other tax is due on repatriation of the original investment or on the profits of a branch, either during active operations or upon the closing of the branch.

Since there are three different regional Investment Authorities, the links to their respective websites are given below.

Flanders: ;
Wallonia: ;
Brussels: .

Competition and Anti-Trust Laws

The contact address for competition-related concerns:

Federal Competition Authority
City Atrium, 6th floor
Vooruitgangsstraat 50
1210 Brussels
tel: +32 2 277 5272
fax: +32 2 277 5323

In 2017, the Belgian Competition Authority ruled in the case of the merger between a Belgian and a Dutch supermarket chain. The Authority ruled that the newly created supermarket chain would be in a position to abuse its dominant market position and ordered the chain to shed 19 stores.

Expropriation and Compensation

There are no outstanding expropriation or nationalization cases in Belgium with U.S. investors. There is no pattern of discrimination against foreign investment in Belgium.

When the Belgian government uses its eminent domain powers to acquire property compulsorily for a public purpose, adequate compensation is paid to the property owners. Recourse to the courts is available if necessary. The only expropriations that occurred during the last decade were related to infrastructure projects such as port expansion, roads, and railroads.

Dispute Settlement

ICSID Convention and New York Convention

Belgium is a member of the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and regularly includes provision for ICSID arbitration in investment agreements.

Investor-State Dispute Settlement

The government accepts binding international arbitration of disputes between foreign investors and the state. There have been no investment disputes involving a U.S. person within the past 10 years. Local courts are expected to enforce foreign arbitral awards issued against the government. To date, there has been no evidence of extrajudicial action against foreign investors.

International Commercial Arbitration and Foreign Courts

  • Alternative Dispute Resolution is not mandatory by law and is therefore not commonly used in disputes, except for matters where the determination by an expert is sought, whether appointed by the parties in agreement or in accordance with a contractual clause or appointed by the court in the context of dispute resolution;
  • Belgium has no domestic arbitration bodies;
  • Local courts recognize and enforce foreign arbitral awards. Judgments of foreign courts are recognized and enforceable under the local courts.

Bankruptcy Regulations

Belgian bankruptcy law is governed by the Bankruptcy Act of 1997 and is under the jurisdiction of the commercial courts. The commercial court appoints a judge-auditor to preside over the bankruptcy proceeding and whose primary task is to supervise the management and liquidation of the bankrupt estate, in particular with respect to the claims of the employees. Belgian bankruptcy law recognizes several classes of preferred or secured creditors. A person who has been declared bankrupt may subsequently start a new business unless the person is found guilty of certain criminal offences that are directly related to the bankruptcy. The Business Continuity Act of 2009 provides the possibility for companies in financial difficulty to enter into a judicial reorganization. These proceedings are to some extent similar to Chapter 11 as the aim is to facilitate business recovery. In the World Bank’s Doing Business Report, Belgium ranks number 11 (out of 198) for the ease of resolving insolvency.


1. Openness To, and Restrictions Upon, Foreign Investment

Policies Towards Foreign Direct Investment

Brazil was the world’s seventh largest destination for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in 2016, with inflows of USD 58.7 billion, according to UNCTAD. The GOB actively encourages FDI – particularly in the automobile, renewable energy, life sciences, oil and gas, and transportation infrastructure sectors – to introduce greater innovation into Brazil’s economy and to generate economic growth. GOB investment incentives include tax exemptions and low-cost financing with no distinction made between domestic and foreign investors. Foreign investment is restricted in the health, mass media, telecommunications, aerospace, rural property, maritime, insurance, and air transport sectors.

Limits on Foreign Control and Right to Private Ownership and Establishment

A 1995 constitutional amendment (EC 6/1995) eliminated distinctions between foreign and local capital, ending favorable treatment (e.g. tax incentives, preference for winning bids) for companies using only local capital. However, constitutional law restricts foreign investment in the health (Law 13097/2015), mass media (Law 10610/2002), telecommunications (Law 12485/2011), aerospace (Law 7565/1986 and Decree 6834/2009, updated by Law 12970/2014, Law 13133/2015, and Law 13319/2016), rural property (Law 5709/1971), maritime (Law 9432/1997 and Decree 2256/1997), insurance (Law 11371/2006), and air transport sectors (Law 13319/2016 ).

Screening of FDI

Foreigners investing in Brazil must electronically register their investment with the BCB within 30 days of the inflow of resources to Brazil. In cases of investments involving royalties and technology transfer, investors must register with Brazil’s patent office, the National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI). Investors must also have a local representative in Brazil. Portfolio investors must have a Brazilian financial administrator and register with the Brazilian Securities Exchange Commission (CVM).

To enter Brazil’s insurance and reinsurance market, U.S. companies must establish a subsidiary, enter into a joint venture, acquire a local firm, or enter into a partnership with a local company. The BCB reviews banking license applications on a case-by-case basis. Foreign interests own or control 20 of the top 50 banks in Brazil. Santander is the only major wholly foreign-owned retail bank remaining in Brazil. Citibank sold its Brazilian retail banking assets to Brazilian bank Itau in October 2016. In June 2016, Brazil’s anti-trust authorities approved Bradesco bank’s purchase of HSBC’s Brazilian retail banking operation.

Foreign ownership of airlines is limited to 20 percent. The government of Brazil presented a bill in the Brazilian Congress in April of 2017 to allow for 100 percent foreign ownership of Brazilian airlines (PL 7425/2017). There has been no vote on this bill. On March 19, 2011, the United States and Brazil signed an Air Transport Agreement as a step towards an Open Skies relationship that would eliminate numerical limits on passenger and cargo flights between the two countries. Brazil’s lower house approved the agreement in December 2017 and the Senate ratified it in March 2018. The agreement is now undergoing executive branch certification procedures before diplomatic notes can be exchanged and the agreement enters into force.

In July 2015, under National Council on Private Insurance (CNSP) Resolution 325, the Brazilian government announced a significant relaxation of some restrictions on foreign insurers’ participation in the Brazilian market, and in December 2017, the government eliminated restrictions on risk transfer operations involving companies under the same financial group. The new rules revoked the mandatory cession requirement to purchase a minimum percentage of reinsurance and eliminated a limitation or threshold for intra-group cession of reinsurance to companies headquartered abroad that are part of the same economic group. Rules on preferential offers to local reinsurers, which are set to decrease in increments from 40 percent in 2016 to 15 percent in 2020, remain unchanged. Foreign reinsurance firms must have a representation office in Brazil to qualify as an admitted reinsurer. Insurance and reinsurance companies must maintain an active registration with Brazil’s insurance regulator, the Superintendence of Private Insurance (SUSEP) and maintaining a minimum solvency classification issued by a risk classification agency equal to Standard & Poor’s or Fitch ratings of at least BBB.

In September 2011, Law 12485/2011 removed a 49 percent limit on foreign ownership of cable TV companies, and allowed telecom companies to offer television packages with their service. Content quotas require every channel to air at least three and a half hours per week of Brazilian programming during primetime. Additionally, one-third of all channels included in any TV package have to be Brazilian.

The National Land Reform and Settlement Institute (INCRA) administers the purchase and lease of Brazilian agricultural land by foreigners. According to guidelines published in 2013, the foreign interests cannot buy or lease more than 25 percent of the overall land area in a given municipal district. Additionally, foreign investors from a single country may not own or lease more than 10 percent of agricultural land in any given municipal district. The rules also require Congressional approval before foreign nationals, foreign companies, or Brazilian companies with majority foreign shareholding can purchase large plots of agricultural land. Draft Law 2289/2017, which would lift the limits on foreign ownership of agricultural land, except near national borders, will be up for a vote in the Brazilian Congress in 2018.

Brazil is not a signatory to the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA), but became an observer in October 2017. By statute, a Brazilian state enterprise may subcontract services to a foreign firm only if domestic expertise is unavailable. Additionally, U.S. and other foreign firms may only bid to provide technical services where there are no qualified Brazilian firms. U.S. companies need to enter into partnerships with local firms or have operations in Brazil in order to be eligible for “margins of preference” offered to domestic firms to participate in Brazil’s public sector procurement to help these firms win government tenders. Foreign companies are often successful in obtaining subcontracting opportunities with large Brazilian firms that win government contracts. Under trade bloc Mercosul’s Government Procurement Protocol, member nations Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay are entitled to non-discriminatory treatment of government-procured goods, services, and public works originating from each other’s suppliers and providers. Only Argentina has ratified the protocol so it has not yet entered into force.

Other Investment Policy Reviews

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) 2018 Brazil Economic Survey of Brazil highlights Brazil as a leading economy. However, it notes that high commodity prices and labor force growth will no longer be able to sustain Brazil’s economic growth without deep structural reforms. While praising the Temer government for its reform plans, the OECD urged that Brazil must pass all needed reforms to realize their full benefit. The OECD cautions about low investment rates in Brazil, and cites a World Economic Forum survey that ranks Brazil 116 out of 138 countries on infrastructure as an area where Brazil must improve to maintain competitiveness. The IMF’s 2017 Country Report No. 17/216 on Brazil highlights that a deterioration in Brazil’s medium-term growth rates, rising policy uncertainty, rising real interest rates and other varied factors have contributed to a 30 percent decline in investment from the beginning of 2014 to 2017 that hampers Brazil’s prospects for more robust economic growth. In order to boost competitiveness and productivity, the IMF suggests better allocation of factors of production such as labor and capital equipment, as well as greater efficiency of tax policy. The IMF recognizes that these are structural but necessary reforms, if Brazil seeks to correct the current misallocation of resources. The WTO’s 2017 Trade Policy Review of Brazil notes the country’s open stance towards foreign investment, but also points to the many sector-specific limitations (see above). All three reports highlight the upcoming October 2018 presidential elections and uncertainty regarding reform plans as the most significant political risk to the economy. These reports are located at ;

and .

Business Facilitation

A company must register with the National Revenue Service (Receita) to obtain a business license and be placed on the National Registry of Legal Entities (CNPJ). Brazil’s Export Promotion and Investment Agency (APEX) has a mandate to facilitate foreign investment. The agency’s services are available to all investors, foreign and domestic. Foreign companies interested in investing in Brazil have access to many benefits and tax incentives granted by the Brazilian government at the municipal, state, and federal levels. Most incentives target specific sectors, amounts invested, and job generation. Brazil’s business registration website can be found at .

Outward Investment

Brazil does not restrict domestic investors from investing abroad and APEX-Brasil supports Brazilian companies’ efforts to invest abroad under its “internationalization program”: . Apex-Brasil frequently highlights the United States as an excellent destination for outbound investment. Apex-Brasil and SelectUSA (the U.S. Government’s investment promotion office at the U.S. Department of Commerce) signed a memorandum of cooperation to promote bilateral investment in February 2014.

3. Legal Regime

Transparency of the Regulatory System

In the 2018 World Bank Doing Business report, Brazil ranked 125th out of 190 countries in terms of overall ease of doing business in 2017, a decline of two positions compared to the 2017 report. According to the World Bank, it takes approximately 101.5 days to start a business in Sao Paulo, Brazil’s largest economic center. Brazil is seeking to streamline the process and decrease the amount to time it takes to open a small or medium enterprise (SME) to five days through its RedeSimples Program. Similarly, the government attempted to reduce regulatory compliance burdens for SMEs through the implementation of the SIMPLES program, designed to simplify the collection of up to eight federal, state, and municipal-level taxes into one single payment.

The 2018 World Bank study noted that the annual administrative burden for a medium-size business to comply with Brazilian tax codes is an average of 1,958 hours versus 160.7 hours in OECD high-income economies. The total tax rate for a medium-sized business in Rio de Janeiro is 69 percent of profits, compared to the average of 40.1 percent in the OECD high-income economies. Business managers often complain of not being able to understand complex and sometimes contradictory tax regulations, despite their housing large local tax and accounting departments in their companies.

Tax regulations, while burdensome and numerous, do not generally differentiate between foreign and domestic firms. However, some investors complain that in certain instances the value-added tax collected by individual states (ICMS) favors locally based companies who export their goods. Exporters in many states report difficulty receiving their ICMS rebates when their goods are exported. Taxes on commercial and financial transactions are particularly burdensome, and businesses complain that these taxes hinder the international competitiveness of Brazilian-made products.

Of Brazil’s ten federal regulatory agencies, the most prominent include:

  • ANVISA, the Brazilian counterpart to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which has regulatory authority over the production and marketing of food, drugs, and medical devices;
  • ANATEL, the country’s telecommunications agency, which handles telecommunications, and licensing and assigning of radio spectrum bandwidth;
  • ANP, the National Petroleum Agency, which regulates oil and gas contracts and oversees auctions for oil and natural gas exploration and production, including for offshore pre-salt oil and natural gas;
  • ANAC, Brazil’s civil aviation agency;
  • IBAMA, Brazil’s environmental licensing and enforcement agency; and
  • ANEEL, Brazil’s electric energy regulator that regulates Brazil’s power electricity sector and oversees auctions for electricity transmission, generation, and distribution contracts.

In addition to these federal regulatory agencies, Brazil has at least 27 state-level regulatory agencies and 17 municipal-level regulatory agencies.

The Office of the Presidency’s Program for the Strengthening of Institutional Capacity for Management in Regulation (PRO-REG) has introduced a broad program for improving Brazil’s regulatory framework. PRO-REG and the U.S. White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) are collaborating to exchange best practices in developing high quality regulations that mandate the least burdensome approach to address policy implementation.

Regulatory agencies complete Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIAs) on a voluntary basis. The Senate has approved a bill on Governance and Accountability for Federal Regulatory Agencies (PLS 52/2013 in the Senate, and PL 6621/2016 in the Chamber) that is pending Lower House approval. Among other provisions, the bill would make RIAs mandatory for regulations that affect “the general interest”. PRO-REG is drafting enabling legislation for implementing this provision. While the Legislation is pending PRO-REG has been working with regulators to voluntarily make RIAs part of their internal procedures, with some success.

The Chamber of Deputies, Federal Senate, and the Office of the Presidency maintain websites providing public access to both approved and proposed federal legislation. Brazil is seeking to improve its public comment and stakeholder input process. In 2004, the GOB instituted a Transparency Portal, a website with data on funds transferred to and from the federal, state and city governments, as well as to and from foreign countries. It also includes information on civil servant salaries.

International Regulatory Considerations

Brazil is a member of Mercosul – a South American trade bloc whose full members include Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay – and routinely implements Mercosul common regulations.

Brazil is a member of the WTO and the government regularly notifies draft technical regulations, such as agricultural potential barriers, to the WTO Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT).

Legal System and Judicial Independence

Brazil has a civil legal system structured around courts at the state and federal level. Investors can seek to enforce contracts through the court system or via mediation, although both processes can be lengthy. The Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (STJ) must accept foreign contract enforcement judgments for the judgments to be considered valid in Brazil. Among other considerations, the foreign judgement must not contradict any prior decisions by a Brazilian court in the same dispute. The Brazilian Civil Code, enacted in 2002, regulates commercial disputes, although commercial cases involving maritime law follow an older, largely superseded Commercial Code. Federal judges hear most disputes in which one of the parties is the Brazilian State, and also rule on lawsuits between a foreign state or international organization and a municipality or a person residing in Brazil.

The judicial system is generally independent. The Supreme Federal Court (STF), charged with constitutional cases, frequently rules on politically sensitive issues. State court judges and federal level judges below the STF are career officials selected through a meritocratic examination process. The judicial system is backlogged, however, and disputes or trials of any sort frequently require years to arrive at a final resolution, including all available appeals. Regulations and enforcement actions can be litigated in the court system, which contains mechanisms for appeal depending upon the level at which the case is filed. The STF is the ultimate court of appeal on constitutional grounds; the STJ is the ultimate court of appeal for cases not involving constitutional issues.

Laws and Regulations on Foreign Direct Investment

Foreigners investing in Brazil must electronically register their investment with the BCB within 30 days of the inflow of resources to Brazil. Investors must register investments involving royalties and technology transfer with Brazil’s patent office, the National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI). Investors must also have a local representative in Brazil. Portfolio investors must have a Brazilian financial administrator and register with the Brazilian Securities Exchange Commission (CVM).

Competition and Anti-Trust Laws

The Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE) is responsible for enforcing competition laws, consumer protection, and carrying out regulatory reviews of mergers and acquisitions. Law 12529 from 2011 established CADE in an effort to modernize Brazil’s antitrust review process and to combine the antitrust functions of the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Finance into CADE. The law brought Brazil in line with U.S. and European merger review practices and allows CADE to perform pre-merger reviews, in contrast to the prior legal regime that had the government review mergers after the fact. In October 2012, CADE performed Brazil’s first pre-merger review.

Expropriation and Compensation

Article 5 of the Brazilian Constitution assures property rights of both Brazilians and foreigners that live in Brazil. The Constitution does not address nationalization or expropriation. Decree-Law 3365 allows the government to exercise eminent domain under certain criteria that include, but are not limited to, national security, public transportation, safety, health, and urbanization projects. In cases of eminent domain, the government compensates owners in cash.

There are no signs that the current federal government is contemplating expropriation actions in Brazil against foreign interests such actions. Brazilian courts have decided some claims regarding state-level land expropriations in U.S. citizens’ favor. However, as states have filed appeals to these decisions, the compensation process can be lengthy and have uncertain outcomes.

Dispute Settlement

ICSID Convention and New York Convention

Brazil ratified the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitration Awards. Brazil is not a member of the World Bank’s International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). Brazil joined the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) in 2010, and its membership will expire in 2022.

Investor-State Dispute Settlement

Article 34 of the 1996 Brazilian Arbitration Act (Law 9307) defines a foreign arbitration judgment as any judgment rendered outside the national territory. The law established that the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) must ratify foreign arbitration awards. Law 9307, updated by Law 13129/2015, also stipulates that a foreign arbitration award is to be recognized or executed in Brazil in conformity with the international agreements ratified by the country and, in their absence, with domestic law. A 2001 Brazilian Federal Supreme Court (STF) ruling established that the 1996 Brazilian Arbitration Act, permitting international arbitration subject to STJ Court ratification of arbitration decisions, does not violate the Federal Constitution’s provision that “the law shall not exclude any injury or threat to a right from the consideration of the Judicial Power.”

Contract disputes in Brazil can be lengthy and complex. Brazil has both a federal and a state court system, and jurisprudence is based on civil code and contract law. Federal judges hear most disputes in which one of the parties is the State, and rule on lawsuits between a foreign State or international organization and a municipality or a person residing in Brazil. Five regional federal courts hear appeals of federal judges’ decisions. The 2018 World Bank Doing Business report found that on average it takes 11 procedures and 731 days to litigate a breach of contract.

International Commercial Arbitration and Foreign Courts

Brazil ratified the 1975 Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration (Panama Convention) and the 1979 Inter-American Convention on Extraterritorial Validity of Foreign Judgments and Arbitration Awards (Montevideo Convention). Law 9307/1996 provides advanced legislation on arbitration, and provides guidance on governing principles and rights of participating parties. Brazil developed a new Cooperation and Facilitation Investment Agreement (CFIA) model in 2016 ( ), but it does not include ISDS mechanisms. (See sections on bilateral investment agreements and responsible business conduct.)

Bankruptcy Regulations

Brazil’s commercial code governs most aspects of commercial association, while the civil code governs professional services corporations. In 2005, bankruptcy legislation (Law 11101) went into effect creating a system modeled on Chapter 11 of the U.S. bankruptcy code. Critics of Law 11101 argue it grants equity holders too much power in the restructuring process to detriment of debtholders. Brazil is drafting an update to the bankruptcy law aimed at increasing creditor rights, but it has not been presented in Congress yet. The World Bank’s 2018 Doing Business Report ranks Brazil 80th out of 190 countries for ease of “resolving insolvency.”


1. Openness To, and Restrictions Upon, Foreign Investment

Policies Towards Foreign Direct Investment

As mentioned above, Cambodia has an open and liberal foreign investment regime and actively courts FDI. The primary law governing investment is the 1994 Law on Investment. The government permits 100 percent foreign ownership of companies in most sectors. In a few sectors, such as cigarette manufacturing, movie production, rice milling, gemstone mining and processing, publishing and printing, radio and television, wood and stone carving production, and silk weaving, foreign investment is subject to local equity participation or prior authorization from authorities. There is little or no discrimination against foreign investors either at the time of initial investment or after investment. Some foreign businesses, however, have reported that they are at disadvantaged vis-a-vis Cambodian or other foreign rivals that engage in acts of corruption or tax evasion or take advantage of Cambodia’s poor regulatory enforcement.

The Council for the Development of Cambodia’s (CDC) is the lead investment promotion agency in Cambodia and is the principal government agency responsible for providing incentives to stimulate investment. Investors are required to submit an investment proposal to either the CDC or the Provincial-Municipal Investment Sub-committee to obtain a Qualified Investment Project (QIP) status depending on capital level and location of the investment question. More information about investment and investment incentives in Cambodia may be found on the website at: .

To facilitate foreign investment, Cambodia has created special economic zones (SEZs). These zones provide companies with ready access to land, infrastructure, and services to facilitate the set-up and operation of businesses. Services provided include utilities, tax services, customs facilitation and other administrative services designed to support import-export processes. Projects within the SEZs are also offered with incentives such as tax holidays, zero rate VAT and import duty exemption for raw materials, machinery and equipment. The primary authority responsible for SEZs is the Cambodia Special Economic Zone Board (CSEZB).

Limits on Foreign Control and Right to Private Ownership and Establishment

There are few limitations on foreign control and ownership in Cambodia. Foreign investors may own 100 percent of their investment projects except in the sectors mentioned above. According to Cambodia’s 2003 Amended Law on Investment and related sub-decrees, there are no limitations based on shareholder nationality or discrimination against foreign investors except in relation to investments in real property or state-owned enterprises. Both the Law on Investment and the Amended Law on Investment state that the majority interest in land, however, must be held by one or more Cambodian citizens. Pursuant to the Law on Public Enterprise, the Cambodian government must directly or indirectly hold more than 51 percent of the capital or the right to vote in state-owned enterprises. In addition, the Cambodian Bar has periodically taken actions to restrict or impede the work of foreign lawyers or foreign law firms.

Other Investment Policy Reviews

In compliance with WTO requirements, Cambodia conducted its first review of trade policies and practices in November 2011. The second review was conducted on November 21-23, 2017. Cambodia’s full trade policy review report can be found on the WTO website: . Cambodia also conducted an Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development investment policy review in 2017.

In response to the WTO trade policy review recommendations, Cambodia completed the following reforms:

  • Elimination of the Certificate of Origin requirement for exports to countries where a certificate is not required;
  • Implementation of online business registration;
  • Adoption of a competitive hiring process for Ministry of Commerce staff;
  • Implementation of risk evaluation measures for the Cambodia Import-Export Inspection and Fraud Repression Directorate General (CamControl) and creation of a CamControl risk management unit;
  • Enactment of the Law on Public Procurement;
  • Enactment of three judicial system laws: the Law on Court Structures, the Law on the Duties and Discipline of Judges and Prosecutors, and the Law on the Organization and Functioning of the Supreme Council of Magistracy;
  • Creation of the Commercial Court as a specialized Court of First Instance;
  • The creation of a credit bureau;
  • Establishment of a Telecom Regulator of Cambodia (TRC); in 2012, the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunication transferred its regulatory role to the TRC;
  • Enactment of the Law on Telecommunications in December 2015; and
  • Enactment of the Law on Animal Health and Production in February 2016.

Areas of ongoing or planned reforms include a law on Special Economic Zones, amending the Standards Law, and enacting laws on competition, food safety, and e-commerce.

Business Facilitation

All businesses are required to register with the Ministry of Commerce (MoC) and the General Department of Taxation (GDT). In January 2016, the Ministry of Commerce launched an online business registration portal that allows all existing and new businesses to register their companies at: . Information about the online business registration process is available on the website of the MoC at . The link also provides sources of information for various types of business registration documents. Depending on the types of business activities, new businesses are also required to register with other relevant ministries. For example, travel agencies must register with the Ministry of Tourism and private universities must register with the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport, in addition to registering with the MoC and the GDT. The World Banks 2018 Ease of Doing Business Report ranks Cambodia 183 of 190 countries globally for the ease of starting a business. The report notes that it includes nine separate procedures and can take up to three months to complete all business, tax, and employment registration processes.

Cambodia’s 1994 Law on Investment created an investment licensing system to regulate the approval process for foreign direct investment and provide incentives to potential investors. The website of the Council for the Development of Cambodia (CDC) provides a list of laws, rules, procedures and regulations, which could be useful for foreign investors. CDC’s website is found here: .

Outward Investment

There are no restrictions on domestic citizens investing abroad. A number of local companies have already invested in neighboring countries, particularly Laos and Myanmar, in various sectors including banking, IT services, legal and consulting services, and the entertainment industry.

3. Legal Regime

Transparency of the Regulatory System

Numerous issues related to the general lack of transparency in the regulatory regime arise from the lack of legislation and limited capacity of key institutions. Investors often complain that the decisions of Cambodian regulatory agencies are inconsistent, arbitrary, or motivated by corruption. For example, in May 2016 in what was perceived as a populist move, the government set caps on retail fuel prices, with little consultation with petroleum companies.

Cambodian ministries and regulatory agencies are not legally obligated to publish the text of proposed regulations before their enactment. Draft regulations are only selectively available for public consultation with relevant non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or parties before their enactment. Approved or passed laws are available on websites of some line Ministries but are not always up to date. The Council of Jurists, the government body reviewing law and regulation, publishes a list of updated laws and regulations on its website at .

Under Prakas (sub-decree) 643 of the Ministry of Economy and Finance, enterprises must submit their annual financial statements to be audited by an independent auditor registered with the Kampuchea Institute of Certified Public Accountants and Auditors (KICPAA) provided those enterprises meet two of the following three criteria: (1) annual turnover above KHR 3 billion (approximately USD 750,000); (2) total assets above KHR 2 billion (approximately USD 500,000); and (3) more than 100 employees. QIPs registered with the CDC are also obligated to submit their annual financial statement to be audited by an independent auditor registered with the KICPAA.

International Regulatory Considerations

As a member of the ASEAN since 1999, Cambodia is required to comply with certain rules and regulations with regard to free trade agreements with the 10 ASEAN member states. These include tariff-free importation of information and communication technology (ICT) equipment, harmonizing custom coding, harmonizing the medical device market, as well as compliance with tax regulations on multi-activity businesses, among others.

As a member of the WTO, Cambodia has been drafting new laws and amending existing laws and regulations to comply with WTO rules. Relevant laws and regulations are notified to the WTO legal committee after their adoption. A list of Cambodian legal updates in compliance with the WTO is described in the above section regarding Investment Policy Reviews.

Legal System and Judicial Independence

The Cambodian legal system is primarily based on French civil law. Under the 1993 Constitution, the King is the head of state and the elected Prime Minister is the head of government. Legislative power is vested in a bicameral parliament, while the judiciary makes up the third branch of government. Contractual enforcement is governed by Decree Number 38 D Referring to Contract and Other Liabilities. More information on this decree can be found at .

Although the Cambodian Constitution calls for an independent judiciary, most investors are generally reluctant to use the Cambodian judicial system because the courts are perceived as unreliable and susceptible to external political influence or bribery. Both local and foreign businesses report problems with inconsistent judicial rulings, corruption, and difficulty enforcing judgments. For these reasons, most commercial disputes are currently resolved through negotiations facilitated by the Ministry of Commerce, the Council for the Development of Cambodia, the Cambodian Chamber of Commerce, or other institutions.

Cambodia adopted a Commercial Arbitration Law in 2006. In 2010, the government provided for the establishment of the National Commercial Arbitration Center (NCAC), the country’s first alternative dispute resolution mechanism, to enable companies to resolve commercial disputes more quickly and inexpensively than through the court system. The NCAC was officially launched in March 2013, but has limited capacity.

Laws and Regulations on Foreign Direct Investment

Cambodia’s 1994 Law on Investment created an investment licensing system to regulate the approval process for foreign direct investment and provide incentives to potential investors. In March 2003, the government simplified licensing and increased transparency and predictability by enacting the Law on the Amendment to the Law on Investment (Amended Law on Investment). Sub-decree No. 111 on the Implementation of the Law on the Amendment to the Law on Investment, issued in September 2005, lays out detailed procedures for registering a QIP, which is entitled to certain taxation incentives, with the CDC and provincial/municipal investment subcommittees.

Information about investment and investment incentives in Cambodia may be found on the CDC’s website: .

Competition and Anti-Trust Laws

The government has announced plans to draft a competition law but the law has yet to be enacted. A competition department was established under the Directorate General of CamControl in 2016. The department aims to work on drafting laws and regulations on competition, study and coordinate with various relevant agencies on local and international competition. The draft law is now reportedly being considered in a technical working group at the Council of Ministers.

Expropriation and Compensation

Land rights are a contentious issue in Cambodia, complicated by the fact that most property holders do not have legal documentation of their ownership as a result of official policies and social upheaval during Khmer Rouge era in the 1970s. Numerous cases have been reported of influential individuals or groups acquiring land titles or concessions through political and/or financial connections, and then using force to displace communities to make way for commercial enterprises.

In late 2009, the National Assembly approved the Law on Expropriation, which sets broad guidelines on land-taking procedures for public interest purposes. It defines public interest activities to include construction, rehabilitation, preservation, or expansion of infrastructure projects, and development of buildings for national defense and civil security. These provisions include construction of border crossing posts, facilities for research and exploitation of natural resources, and oil pipeline and gas networks. Property can also be expropriated for natural disasters and emergencies, as determined by the government. Legal procedures regarding compensation and appeals are expected to be established in a forthcoming sub-decree, which is under internal discussion within the technical team of the Ministry of Economy and Finance.

In 2017, a U.S.-owned independent newspaper had its bank account frozen purportedly for failure to pay taxes. It is believed that, while the company may have had some tax liability, the action taken by Cambodia’s General Department of Taxation, notably an inflated tax assessment, was politically motivated and intended to halt operations. These actions took place at the same time the government took steps to reduce the role of press and independent media in the country as part of a wider anti-democratic crackdown.

Dispute Settlement

ICSID Convention and New York Convention

Cambodia has been a member of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention – also known as the Washington Convention) since 2005. Cambodia is also a signatory to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (the New York Convention) since 1960.

Investor-State Dispute Settlement

International arbitration is available for Cambodian commercial disputes. In March 2014, the Supreme Court of Cambodia upheld the decision of the Cambodian Court of Appeal, which had ruled in favor of the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award issued by the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board of Seoul, South Korea. Cambodia became a member of the World Bank’s International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes in January 2005.
In 2009, the International Center approved a U.S. investor’s request for arbitration in a case against the Cambodian government, and in 2013 the tribunal rendered an award in favor of Cambodia.

International Commercial Arbitration and Foreign Courts

Commercial disputes can also be resolved through the National Commercial Arbitration Center (NCAC), Cambodia’s first alternative dispute resolution mechanism, which was officially launched in March 2013.

Bankruptcy Regulations

Cambodia’s 2007 Law on Insolvency was intended to provide collective, orderly, and fair satisfaction of creditor claims from debtor properties and, where appropriate, the rehabilitation of the debtor’s business. The Law on Insolvency applies to the assets of all business people and legal entities in Cambodia. The World Bank’s 2018 Doing Business Report ranks Cambodia 74 out of 190 in terms of the “ease of resolving insolvency.”

In 2012, Credit Bureau Cambodia (CBC) was established in an effort to create a more transparent credit market in the country. CBC’s main role is to provide credit scores to banks and financial institutions, and to improve access to credit information.


1. Openness To, and Restrictions Upon, Foreign Investment

Policies Toward Foreign Direct Investment

With few exceptions, Canada offers full national treatment to foreign investors within the context of a developed open market economy operating with democratic principles and institutions. Canada reviews investments under the ICA. Foreign investment is prohibited or restricted in several sectors of the economy such as telecoms, airlines and culture. The U.S. and Canada agree on important foreign investment principles, including right of establishment and national treatment.

The U.S. has long been Canada’s primary source for foreign investment, and Canada is the second largest source of FDI in the U.S. after the United Kingdom (U.K.). Nearly 50 percent of Canada’s FDI comes from the U.S. At the end of 2016, the most recent year available, U.S. FDI in Canada was USD 364 billion. The U.S.’ share of FDI in Canada has declined considerably since 2005 when it was 63.2 percent of Canada’s total FDI stock. According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Canada attracted 3.3 percent of the world’s FDI in 2015.

Canadian residents have become increasingly active as worldwide investors. Canadian FDI in the U.S. was USD 454 billion in 2016, an increase of 12 percent (USD 55 billion) compared to 2015 (
). The U.S. is the top destination for Canadian FDI. The U.S.’ share of total Canadian FDI in 2016 increased to 47.5 percent from 44 percent in 2015 ( ).

The Canadian government launched a new federal agency, Invest in Canada, in March 2018. The agency will help global business navigate Canada’s investment landscape and promote inward FDI.

Limits on Foreign Control and Right to Private Ownership and Establishment

Aerospace and Defense ‑ Commercial Aviation: Canada limits foreign ownership of Canadian air carriers to 25 percent. In addition, foreign interests may not control a Canadian air carrier. One Canadian airline has put a special procedure in place for foreign share transfers that reclassifies its stock as variable voting shares. This allows non-Canadians to own more than 25 percent of the equity while reducing foreign voting rights and allowing the airline to remain Canadian with at least 75 percent of its voting interests owned and controlled by Canadians. Bill C-49 is in Parliament and would increase foreign ownership limits for commercial airlines to 49 percent.

Aerospace and Defense – General Aviation: No non-Canadian (other than permanent residents) may register a general aviation aircraft for commercial or personal use in Canada.

Energy and Environmental Industries: Canada continues to encourage additional foreign investment in its energy sector to develop its vast oil and gas resources. In Quebec, calls for tender for energy projects vary between 30 and 60 percent of local content. Canada has faced several investment disputes involving energy in recent years. A U.S. oil and gas company filed a notice of arbitration under NAFTA Chapter 11 in September 2013, following the Government of Quebec’s announced suspension of oil and gas exploration beneath the Saint Lawrence River in June 2011. The U.S. company filed an additional memorial in April 2015 stating that Quebec’s provincial legislation effectively destroyed the economic potential of its investment and deprived it of the ability to enjoy any economic benefit from the investment. The USD 118.9 million damages claim is still active and the government of Canada filed a counter-memorial in January 2016. Further, the company claims the suspension breached NAFTA expropriation and minimum standard of treatment provisions.

Energy and Environmental Industries – Mining: Generally, foreigners cannot be majority owners of uranium mines.

Energy and Environmental Industries – Electric Power Generation and Distribution: Regulatory reform in electricity continues in Canada in expectation that increased competition will lower costs of electricity supply. Province-owned power firms are interested in gaining greater access to the U.S. power market. Since power markets fall under the jurisdiction of the Canadian provinces, they are at the forefront of the reform effort. Several Canadian provinces have introduced initiatives to encourage the development and implementation of renewable sources of electricity.

Finance – Financial Services: Chapter 14 of the NAFTA deals specifically with the financial services sector, and eliminates discriminatory asset and capital restrictions on U.S. bank subsidiaries in Canada. The NAFTA also exempts U.S. firms and investors from the federal “10/25” rule so that they will be treated the same as Canadian firms. The “10/25” rule prevents any non-NAFTA, nonresident entity from acquiring more than 10 percent of the shares (and all such entities collectively from acquiring more than 25 percent of the shares) of a federally regulated, Canadian-controlled financial institution. The limit for single, non-NAFTA shareholders is 20 percent. Several provinces, however, including Ontario and Quebec, have similar “10/25” rules for provincially chartered trust and insurance companies that were not waived under the NAFTA.

The requirement that bank ownership be “widely held” with no more than 25 percent of its shares owned by a single shareholder is said to prevent ownership concentration without discriminating against foreign investors; however, Canadian influence is still exerted through certain requirements of the Bank Act:

  • the head office of a bank must be located in Canada;
  • shareholders’ meetings are required to be held in Canada;
  • two-thirds of the directors must be resident Canadians;
  • the chief executive officer of the bank must ordinarily be resident in Canada;
  • important corporate and transactional documents must be kept in Canada;
  • certain administrative changes require ministerial approval.

Information & Communication – Telecommunications: Under provisions of Canada’s Telecommunications Act, foreign ownership of transmission facilities is limited to 20 percent direct ownership and 33 percent through a holding company, for an effective limit of 46.7 percent total foreign ownership. Canada also requires that at least 80 percent of the members of the board of directors of facilities-based telecommunications service suppliers be Canadian citizens.

Canada amended the Telecommunications Act in June 2012 to rescind foreign ownership restrictions on carriers with less than 10 percent share of the total Canadian telecommunications market. Foreign-owned carriers are permitted to continue operating if their market share grows beyond 10 percent provided the increase does not result from the acquisition of or merger with another Canadian carrier. The policy change was part of the Canadian government’s strategy to facilitate more competition in the telecom sector.

Canada defines cultural industries to include: the publication, distribution or sale of books, magazines, periodicals or newspapers, other than the sole activity of printing or typesetting; the production, distribution, sale or exhibition of film or video recording, or audio or video music recordings; the publication, distribution or sale of music in print or machine-readable form; and any radio, television and cable television broadcasting undertakings and any satellite programming and broadcast network services.

The Broadcasting Act sets out the policy objectives of enriching and strengthening the cultural, political, social, and economic fabric of Canada. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) administers broadcasting policy. When a Canadian broadcast service is licensed in a format competitive with that of an authorized non-Canadian service, the commission can drop the non-Canadian service if a new Canadian applicant requests it to do so. Licenses will not be granted or renewed to firms that do not have at least 80 percent Canadian control, represented both by shareholding and by representation on the firms’ board of directors.

Canada allows up to 100 percent foreign equity in an enterprise to publish, distribute and sell periodicals, but all foreign investments in this industry are subject to review by the Minister for Canadian Heritage, and investments may not occur through acquisition of a Canadian-owned enterprise. No more than 18 percent of the total advertising space in foreign periodicals exported to Canada may be aimed primarily at the Canadian market. Canadian advertisers may place advertisements in foreign-owned periodicals, and may claim a tax deduction for the advertising costs, including in cases where the periodical is a Canadian issue of a foreign-owned periodical.

This regime is the result of a 1999 U.S.-Canada agreement, which balanced U.S. publishers’ desire for access to the Canadian market against Canada’s desire to ensure that Canadian advertising expenditures support the production of Canadian editorial content.

Other Investment Policy Reviews

Canada has not conducted an Investment Policy Review through the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), WTO, or UNCTAD in the past three years.

Business Facilitation

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) works with Global Affairs Canada (GAC) to encourage foreign companies to invest in Canada and to promote an open, rules-based global investment regime. The Canadian Trade Commissioner Service has a comprehensive website “Invest in Canada” with the needed information for starting and registering a business in Canada. It can be found at the following website: . While the website is available in several languages, navigation can be difficult. In addition to Federal registration, businesses may also be required to register with the provincial, territorial, and municipal revenue agencies ( ). Canada ranks 18th on the 2017 World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business Scale. For more general information on the Canadian business climate, see:

In its 2018 budget, the Canadian government launched a Canadian Women Entrepreneurship Strategy to break down the barriers to growth-oriented entrepreneurship that will include new funding from the regional development agencies targeted to women entrepreneurs, mentorship, and skills training, as well as targets for federal procurement from women-led business. The Procurement Strategy for Aboriginal Business promotes subcontracting to Aboriginal firms and encourages Aboriginal firms to form joint ventures with other Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal businesses ( Departments must set aside procurement contracts for competition among Aboriginal businesses when an Aboriginal population is the end user of the good or service being procured and the value exceeds USD 3,884 (C5,000).

Outward Investment

Canada does not restrict domestic investors from investing abroad. Canadian companies are encouraged to invest abroad through Export Development Canada (EDC), which created the Canadian Direct Investment Abroad (CDIA) program. CDIA offers Canadian businesses a range of solutions to obtain financing and research international markets in support of long-term business objectives.

3. Legal Regime

Transparency of the Regulatory System

The transparency of Canada’s regulatory system is similar to that of the U.S. The legal, regulatory, and accounting systems are transparent and consistent with international norms. Proposed legislation is subject to parliamentary debate and public hearings, and regulations are issued in draft form for public comment prior to implementation. While federal and/or provincial licenses or permits may be needed to engage in economic activities, regulation of these activities is generally for statistical or tax compliance reasons. The Bureau of Competition Policy and the Competition Tribunal, a quasi-judicial body, enforce Canada’s antitrust legislation.

Canada and the U.S. announced the creation of the Canada-U.S. Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) on February 4, 2011. This regulatory cooperation does not encompass all regulatory activities within all agencies. Rather, the RCC is focused on areas where benefits can be realized by regulated parties, consumers, and/or regulators without sacrificing outcomes such as protecting public health, safety and the environment. The initial RCC Joint Action Plan set out 29 initiatives where Canada and the U.S. sought greater regulatory alignment.

The World Bank published in-depth information on regulatory transparency for 185 economies. For information on Canada, see .

International Regulatory Considerations

Canada is not part of a regional economic block and does not incorporate regional standards into its economic system. Canada and the U.S. work together through the RCC to develop like standards and streamline product certification on both sides of the border. Canada, with the U.S. and Mexico, is a member of the NAFTA.

Canada is a member of the WTO and notifies draft technical regulations to the WTO Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). Canada is a signatory to the Trade Facilitation Agreement, which it ratified in December 2016.

Legal System and Judicial Independence

Canada’s legal system is based on English common law, except for Quebec, which follows civil law. Canada has both a federal parliament which makes laws for all of Canada and a legislature in each of the provinces and territories that deals with laws in their areas. When Parliament or a provincial or territorial legislature passes a statute, it takes the place of common law or precedents dealing with the same subject. The judicial branch of government is independent of the executive branch and the current judicial process is considered procedurally competent, fair, and reliable. The provinces administer justice in their jurisdictions. This includes organizing and maintaining the civil and criminal provincial courts and civil procedures in those courts.

Canada has both written commercial law and contractual law, and specialized commercial and civil courts. Canada’s Commercial Law Directorate provides advisory and litigation services to federal departments and agencies whose mandate includes a commercial component and has legal counsel in Montréal and Ottawa.

Parliament and provincial and territorial legislatures give government organizations the authority to make specific regulations. As of June 1, 2009, all consolidated Acts and regulations on the Justice Laws Website ( ) are “official,” meaning they can be used for evidentiary purposes.

Laws and Regulations on FDI

Foreign investment policy in Canada has been guided by the Investment Canada Act (ICA) since 1985. The ICA liberalized policy on foreign investment by recognizing that investment is central to economic growth and key to technological advancement. The ICA provides for review of large acquisitions by non-Canadians and imposes a requirement that these investments be of “net benefit” to Canada, and conducts a national security review of every acquisition. For the vast majority of small acquisitions and the establishment of new businesses, foreign investors need only to notify the Canadian government of their investments.

U.S. FDI in Canada is subject to provisions of the ICA, the WTO, and the NAFTA. Chapter 11 of the NAFTA ensures that regulation of U.S. investors in Canada and Canadian investors in the U.S. results in treatment no different than that extended to domestic investors within each country, i.e., “national treatment.” Both governments are free to regulate the ongoing operation of business enterprises in their respective jurisdictions provided that the governments accord national treatment to both U.S. and Canadian investors.

Competition and Anti-Trust Laws

The Bureau of Competition Policy and the Competition Tribunal, a quasi-judicial body, enforce Canada’s antitrust legislation.

Expropriation and Compensation

Canadian federal and provincial laws recognize both the right of the government to expropriate private property for a public purpose, and the obligation to pay compensation. The federal government has not nationalized any foreign firm since the nationalization of Axis property during World War II. Both the federal and provincial governments have assumed control of private firms, usually financially distressed, after reaching agreement with the former owners.

Dispute Settlement

ICSID Convention and New York Convention

Canada ratified the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Convention on December 1, 2013 and is a signatory to the 1958 New York Convention, ratified on May 12, 1986. Canada signed the United Nations Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration (known as the Mauritius Convention on Transparency) in March 2015.

Investor-State Dispute Settlement

Canada accepts binding arbitration of investment disputes to which it is a party only when it has specifically agreed to do so through a bilateral or multilateral agreement, such as a Foreign Investment Protection Agreement. The provisions of Chapter 11 of the NAFTA guide the resolution of investment disputes between NAFTA persons and NAFTA member governments. The NAFTA encourages parties to settle disputes through consultation or negotiation. It also establishes special arbitration procedures for investment disputes separate from the NAFTA’s general dispute settlement provisions. Under the NAFTA, a narrow range of disputes dealing with government monopolies and expropriation between an investor from a NAFTA country and a NAFTA government may be settled, at the investor’s option, by binding international arbitration. An investor who seeks binding arbitration in a dispute with a NAFTA party gives up his right to seek redress through the court system of the NAFTA party, except for proceedings seeking nonmonetary damages. As stated previously, the NAFTA is currently being renegotiated. Canada does not have a history of extrajudicial action against foreign investors.

A list of current NAFTA Chapter 11 Arbitrations is below:

International Commercial Arbitration and Foreign Courts

Provinces primarily regulate arbitration within Canada. With the exception of Quebec, each province has legislation adopting the UNCITRAL Model Law. The Quebec Civil Code and Code of Civil Procedure are consistent with the UNCITRAL Model Law. The Canadian Supreme Court has ruled that arbitration agreements must be broadly interpreted and enforced. Canadian courts respect arbitral proceedings and have been willing to lend their enforcement powers to facilitate the effective conduct of arbitration proceedings, requiring witnesses to attend and give evidence and produce documents and other evidence to the arbitral tribunal.

Bankruptcy Regulations

Bankruptcy in Canada is governed by the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) and is not criminalized. Creditors must deliver claims to the trustee and the trustee must examine every proof of claim. The trustee may disallow, in whole or in part, any claim of right to a priority under the BIA or security. Generally, the test of proving the claim before the trustee in bankruptcy is very low and a claim is proved unless it is too “remote and speculative.” Provision is also made for dealing with cross-border insolvencies and the recognition of foreign proceedings. Canada is ranked number 11 for ease of “resolving insolvency” by the World Bank. Credit bureaus in Canada include Equifax Canada and TransUnion Canada.


1. Openness To, and Restrictions Upon, Foreign Investment

Policies Towards Foreign Direct Investment

Foreign direct investment (FDI) has historically played an essential role in China’s economic development. China still restricts foreign investment in multiple sectors by requiring joint venture arrangements with Chinese companies, limiting foreign investment control by restricting shareholder rights, or, in some industries, prohibiting foreign investment outright. However, government officials continue to encourage foreign investment to further develop segments of China’s economy. Due to stagnant FDI growth over the past few years, along with a significant gap in technology and labor capacities, Chinese government officials have publicly promoted FDI by promising market access expansion to foreign investors, stronger national treatment of foreign firms, and the strengthening of China’s legal and regulatory frameworks to enhance market-based competition.

Despite assurances of market access and small modifications to the FIC that liberalized a handful of new sectors, FDI growth in China remained relatively flat in 2017. According to Chinese official statistics, FDI in 2017 was USD 131 billion, a less than four percent increase from the prior year. Despite static FDI growth in the past few years, China still is one of the largest recipients of FDI due to its sustained high economic growth rate, growing middle class, and the expansion of consumer demand for diverse products.

In addition to market access concerns, China’s willingness to offer a level playing field for foreign companies is often in question. Foreign investors voice concerns over China’s current investment climate, including: broad use of industrial policies to protect domestic firms through subsidies, preferential financing, and selective legal and regulatory enforcement; weak protection and enforcement of IPR; corruption; discriminatory and non-transparent anti-monopoly enforcement that forces companies to license technology at below-market prices to Chinese competitors; excessive cybersecurity data localization and data-flow requirements; increased emphasis on requirements to include CCP cells in foreign enterprises; and an unreliable legal system lacking transparency and rule of law. Other laws and regulations, including the 2015 Anti-Terrorism Law and the Cyber Security Law, impede local Chinese firms from purchasing foreign-origin technology, raising concerns that China has back-tracked on reforms to further open up to foreign investment.

China promotes FDI through the MOFCOM “Invest in China” website ( ). MOFCOM publishes laws and regulations, economic statistics, investment projects, relevant news articles, and other relevant information about investing in China. In addition, each province has a provincial-level investment promotion agency that operates through local MOFCOM departments.

American Chamber of Commerce China 2018 American Business in China White Paper: .

American Chamber of Commerce China 2018 Business Climate Survey: .

U.S.-China Business Council’s 2017 China Business Environment Member Survey: .

EU Chamber’s 2018 Business Confidence Survey: .

MOFCOM’s Investment Promotion Website: .

Limits on Foreign Control and Right to Private Ownership and Establishment

The FIC governs the “pre-establishment,” or market access, phase of foreign investment by listing particular economic sectors or industries as “encouraged”, “restricted”, or “prohibited” when it comes to foreign investment. In June 2017, the Chinese government rebranded the FIC as a “nationwide negative list” by moving economic sectors subject to equity caps, joint ventures requirements, and shareholder rights restrictions in the “encouraged” section to the “restricted” section. The “encouraged” list reflects Chinese sector-specific industrial policy goals. The “restricted” and “prohibited” lists have been combined and renamed the “nationwide negative list” and include industries and economic sectors that are seen as sensitive, possibly touching on national security concerns, or at odds with the industrial goals of China’s economic development plans. In June 2018, China implemented a nationwide negative list that removed “encouraged” investments and restructured the negative list by industry. Instead of maintaining a “restricted” and “prohibited” separate list, all restrictions/prohibitions are now together by industry. Foreign investors interested in industries not on the negative list are no longer required to obtain pre-approval from MOFCOM, but only need to register their investment.

The 2017 Foreign Investment Catalogue made minor liberalizations in manufacturing (rail transportation equipment, automobile equipment, civilian satellites, processing of seeds and other food goods), services (operation of highway transport, ocean shipping, credit rating, accounting/auditing), and mining (exploration of non-conventional gas and oil, precious metals, and smelting of some rare earths) sectors. While modest liberalizations were welcomed by U.S. businesses, many foreign investors were underwhelmed and disappointed by the lack of ambition on market access liberalization, pointing out new openings mainly were in industries that domestic Chinese companies already dominate.

The June 2018 revision of the FIC (i.e., implementation of the nationwide negative list) saw substantial market openings, most of which were previously announced. These included: eliminating equity caps for specialty and new energy vehicles, shipbuilding, and aircraft manufacturing, with a five-year plan to phase out equity caps in other automotive categories, including commercial vehicles by 2020 and passenger vehicles by 2022 (announced April 2018); and some openings in financial services and insurance industry segments, including by raising foreign ownership caps to 51 percent, and thus, allowing majority foreign ownership (announced November 2017).

The Chinese language version of the 2017 FIC:…/W020170628553266458339.pdf .

The English language version of the 2017 FIC: .

The Chinese language version of the 2018 Nationwide Negative List: .

Ownership Restrictions

In the “restricted” category of the FIC, certain industries require joint ventures, impose control requirements requiring that an investment is led by a Chinese national, and apply specific equity caps. Below are some examples, but not an exhaustive list, of investment restrictions:

Examples of foreign investments that require an equity joint venture or cooperative joint venture for foreign investment include:

  • The exploration and exploitation of oil and natural gas;
  • Preschool, general high school, and higher education institutes (which are also required to be led by a Chinese partner);
  • Production of radio and television programming and movies;
  • General Aviation companies for forestry, agriculture, and fisheries;
  • Market investigations;
  • Establishment of medical institutions; and
  • Commercial and passenger vehicle manufacturing.

Examples of foreign investments requiring Chinese control include:

  • Water transport companies (domestic);
  • The construction and operation of civilian airports;
  • The construction and operation of nuclear power plants;
  • The establishment and operation of cinemas;
  • Selection and cultivation of new varieties wheat and corn seeds; and
  • Public air transportation companies.

Examples of foreign investment equity caps include:

  • 50 percent in value-added telecom services (excepting e-commerce);
  • 49 percent in basic telecom enterprises;
  • 51 percent in life insurance firms;
  • 51 percent in security investment fund management companies; and
  • 50 percent in manufacturing of commercial and passenger vehicles.

These investment restrictions often force foreign investors to transfer technology to Chinese partners as a prerequisite to market access, providing Chinese stakeholders tremendous benefit. While such practices are explicitly against WTO rules, foreign companies have reported that in many sectors, these dictates and decisions are made behind closed doors and are thus difficult to attribute as official policies of the Chinese government. In addition, the approval process for foreign investment remains non-transparent with regards to licensing and other approval steps, giving broad discretion to Chinese authorities to impose deal-specific conditions beyond written legal requirements, in a blatant effort to support industrial policy goals that bolster the technological capabilities of local competitors.

Other Investment Policy Reviews

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)

China is not a member of the OECD. The OECD Council decided to establish a country program of dialogue and co-operation with China in October 1995. The most recent OECD Investment Policy Review for China was completed in 2008. The OECD Investment Policy Review noted that policy changes in China between 2006 and 2008 tightened restrictions on inward direct investment, including cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&As).

OECD 2008 report: .

In 2013, OECD published a working paper entitled “China Investment Policy: An Update,” which provided an update on China’s investment policy since the publication of the 2008 Investment Policy Review. The paper noted that, although China’s economic strength buoys foreign investor confidence, fears of investment protectionism are growing.

OECD 2013 Update: .

OECD 2016 Regulatory Restrictiveness Survey: .

World Trade Organization (WTO)

China became a member of the WTO in 2001. WTO membership boosted China’s economic growth and advanced its legal and governmental reforms. The sixth and most recent WTO Investment Trade Review for China was completed in 2016. The report highlighted key changes between the 2011 and 2015 FICs. In addition, it noted that the foreign investment pilot negative list expanded from the Shanghai Pilot FTZ to the FTZs of Tianjin, Fujian, and Guangdong. The trade review also said that China encourages inward FDI, as well as joint ventures between Chinese and foreign companies, particularly in research and development. The report further mentioned that technology transfer, while not a requirement for investment approval, is a practice widely encouraged by Chinese authorities.

WTO Investment Trade Review for China: .

International Monetary Fund (IMF) information on China: .

FDI Statistics from MOFCOM: .

Business Facilitation

Registering a business in China can be difficult. The World Bank ranked China 78th out of 190 economies in terms of ease of doing business and 93rd for starting a business. In Shanghai and Beijing, at least 11 procedures are required to establish a business, with an average timeline of more than 30 days to complete the registration process. Steps to register a business include pre-approval for a company name, a business license approved by the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC), an organization code certificate with the Quality and Technology Supervision Bureau, registration with the provincial and local tax bureaus, a company seal issued by the police department, registration with the local statistics bureau, a local bank account, the authorization to print or purchase invoices and receipts, and registration with the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security, as well as with the Social Welfare Insurance Center.

World Bank Ease of Doing Business: .

World Bank Investing Across Borders: .

The Government Enterprise Registration (GER), an initiative of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), gave China a score of 1.5 out of 10 on its website for registering and obtaining a business license. SAIC is the main government body that approves business licenses, and according to GER, SAIC’s website lacks even basic information, such as what to do and how to do it.


SAIC’s Business Registration Information: .

The State Council in recent years has reduced red tape by eliminating hundreds of administrative licenses and delegating administrative approval power across a range of sectors. The number of investment projects subject to central government approval has reportedly dropped more than 75 percent. The State Council also has set up a website in English, which is more user-friendly than SAIC’s website, to help foreign investors looking to do business in China.

The State Council Information on Doing Business in China: .

The Department of Foreign Investment Administration within MOFCOM is responsible for foreign investment promotion in China, including promotion activities, coordinating with investment promotion agencies at the provincial and municipal levels, engaging with international economic organizations and business associations, and conducting research related to foreign direct investment into China. MOFCOM also maintains the “Invest in China” website.

MOFCOM “Invest in China” Information: .

Despite recent efforts by the Chinese government to streamline business registration procedures, foreign companies still complain about the challenges they face when setting up a business, including registration and licensing problems. In addition, U.S. companies complain they are treated differently from domestic companies when setting up an investment, which is an added market access barrier for U.S. companies. Numerous companies offer consulting, legal, and accounting services for establishing wholly foreign-owned enterprises, partnership enterprises, joint ventures, and representative offices. The differences among these corporate entities are significant, and investors should review their options carefully with an experienced advisor before choosing a particular corporate entity or investment vehicle.

Outward Investment

China has a relatively new history with outbound investment. In 2001, China initiated its “going-out” investment strategy that encouraged SOEs to go abroad and acquire primarily energy investments that helped facilitate greater market access for Chinese exports to foreign markets. As Chinese investors gained experience, and as China’s economy grew and diversified, China’s outbound investment strategy also changed to include both state and private enterprise investments in multiple economic sectors. China now is one of the largest outward direct investors in the world. While China has reported a decrease in outbound investment in 2017 compared to record-setting investments levels in 2016, some third-party data suggest actual global outbound investment figures in 2017 were on par with 2016 global investment levels. Experts who track investment flows from China noted that while the United States was one of the top investment destinations of Chinese investors in 2017, outbound investment to the United States decreased almost 50 percent in 2017 compared to 2016 numbers. However, experts estimate that outbound investment to Europe and in Asian countries around the “Belt and Road” (described further below) increased.

In August 2017, in reaction to concerns about capital outflows and exchange rate volatility, the Chinese government issued guidance to curb “irrational” outbound investments and created “encouraged,” “restricted,” and “prohibited” investment categories to guide Chinese outbound investment. The guidelines restrict Chinese outbound investment in sectors like property, hotels, cinemas, entertainment, sports teams, and “financial investments that create funds that are not tied to specific investment projects.” The guidance encouraged outbound investment in sectors that supported industrial policy, such as Strategic Emerging Industries (SEI) and MIC 2025, by acquiring advanced manufacturing and high-technology assets. MIC 2025’s main aim is to transform China into an innovation-based economy that can better compete against advanced economies in 10 key high-tech sectors, including: new energy vehicles, next-generation IT, biotechnology, new materials, aerospace, oceans engineering and ships, railway, robotics, power equipment, and agriculture machinery. Chinese firms in MIC 2025 industries often receive preferential treatment such as preferred financing, subsidies, and access to an opaque network of investors to promote and provide incentives for outbound investment in key sectors. The outbound investment guidance also encourages investments that promote China’s Belt and Road development strategy that seeks to create connectivity and cooperation agreements between China and countries along the Chinese designated “Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st-century Maritime Silk Road” through an expansion of infrastructure investment, construction materials, real estate, power grids, etc.

3. Legal Regime

Transparency of the Regulatory System

The World Bank assessed China’s regulatory governance by providing a composite score of 2 out 6 points. The World Bank attributes the relatively low score to the futility of foreign companies appealing administrative authorities’ decisions, given impartial courts, not having laws and regulations in one accessible place that is updated regularly, the lack of impact assessments conducted prior to issuing a new law, and other concerns about public comments and transparency.

World Bank Rule Making Information: 

U.S. businesses consistently rank arbitrary legal enforcement and the lack of regulatory transparency among the top challenges of doing business in China. China’s legal and regulatory systems are complex and allow regulators and government authorities broad discretion to enforce regulations, rules, and other regulatory guidelines in an inconsistent and impartial manner. Government-controlled trade organizations, business associations, and regulatory bodies set industry standards that often are inconsistent with international norms and best practices and directly benefit Chinese competitors, while simultaneously allowing regulators to ignore Chinese transgressors but strictly enforce regulations targeting foreign companies. In addition to central and provincial-level rules and guidelines that impact foreign businesses and investors, there are also administrative rules and enforcement guidelines, which are not necessarily part of the legal code or even published. The complex regulatory system and unpublished enforcement guidelines overly burden foreign investors and foreign companies that must confront a regulatory system rife with contradictions and inconsistencies. A lack of confidence in the regulatory system and overall confusion is a common complaint of U.S. businesses operating in the local Chinese business environment.

To comply with China’s WTO accession commitments, the State Council’s Legislative Affairs Office (SCLAO) has issued instructions to Chinese agencies to publish all foreign trade and investment-related laws, regulations, rules, and policy measures in the MOFCOM Gazette. The State Council also issued Interim Measures on Public Comment Solicitation of Laws and Regulations and the Circular on Public Comment Solicitation of Department Rules, which require government agencies to post proposed trade and economic-related administrative regulations and departmental rules on the official SCLAO website for a 30-day public comment period. Despite these commitments, Chinese agencies often do not meet the WTO commitments. Chinese ministries under the State Council continue to post only some of the draft administrative regulations and departmental rules on the SCLAO website; even when drafts are published, they often are available for comment for less than the required 30 days.

The State Council and the ministries under the State Council also issue “normative documents” (opinions, circulars, notices, etc.), which are quasi-regulations used to implement applicable rules, laws, and regulations and to address legal specificity problems or situations where there is no governing law. These documents typically are not available for public comment and sometimes are not even published, yet the U.S. business community reports that Chinese ministries impose requirements on companies by referencing these normative documents.

Proposed draft regulations are often drafted without using scientific studies or quantitative analysis to assess the regulation’s impact. When Chinese officials claim an assessment was made, the methodology of the study and the results are not made available to the public. When draft regulations are available for public comment, it is unclear what impact third-party comments have on the final regulation. The lack of transparency in regulation drafting only adds to foreign investor perceptions that industrial policy goals and other anti-competitive factors are the driving forces behind China’s regulatory regime.

The inability to separate the relationships between the CCP, the Chinese government, Chinese businesses, and other stakeholders in the domestic economy makes it impossible to determine the motivating factors behind state actions. As a result, many foreign-invested companies perceive that Chinese government officials prioritize political goals, industrial policies, and a desire to protect social stability at the expense of foreign investors. An example of these blurred lines is evident with Chinese Self-Regulatory Organizations (SROs) that are responsible for licensing decisions. For instance, a Chinese financial institution may be a voting member, and can exert tremendous influence upon, the same SRO that adjudicates the license application of a foreign competitor. To protect one’s market share and competitive position, a Chinese company has incentive to disapprove the license application. The licensing procedures, because of the blurred lines, are non-transparent, discriminatory, and erode the rule of law.

Access to foreign online resources – including news, cloud-based business services, and virtual private networks (VPNs) – are increasingly restricted without official acknowledgement or explanation. Foreign-invested companies have also reported threats of retaliation by government regulators for actions taken by the United States and other foreign governments at the WTO or other legal forums.

For accounting standards, Chinese companies must use the Chinese Accounting Standards for Business Enterprises (ASBE) for all financial reporting within mainland China. Companies listed overseas (including in Hong Kong) may choose to use ASBE, the International Financial Reporting Standards, or Hong Kong Financial Reporting Standards.

International Regulatory Considerations

China has been a member of the WTO since 2001. As part of its accession agreement, China agreed to notify the WTO Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade of all draft technical regulations. Compliance with this WTO commitment is something Chinese officials have promised in previous dialogues with U.S. government officials.

Legal System and Judicial Independence

The Chinese legal system is based on a civil law model that borrowed heavily from the legal systems of Germany and France, but retains local Chinese legal characteristics. The rules governing commercial activities are present in various laws, regulations, and judicial interpretations, including China’s civil law, contract law, partnership enterprises law, security law, insurance law, enterprises bankruptcy law, labor law, and Supreme People’s Court (SPC) Interpretation on Several Issues Regarding the Application of the Contract Law. While China does not have specialized commercial courts, in 2014, three IP courts were established in Beijing, Guangzhou, and Shanghai.

While China’s Constitution and various laws provide a legal basis for court independence, or the exercise of adjudicative power free from interference by administrative organs, public organizations, and/or powerful individuals, in practice, courts are heavily influence by Chinese regulators and the CCP. The Chinese Constitution also emphasizes the “leadership of the Communist Party,” which has only been strengthened by consolidation of political power by China’s senior-most leaders at the end of 2017. The reasons for interference may include:

  • Courts fall under the jurisdiction of local governments;
  • Court budgets are appropriated by local administrative authorities;
  • Judges in China have administrative ranks and are managed as administrative officials;
  • The CCP is in charge of the appointment, dismissal, transfer, and promotion of administrative officials;
  • China’s Constitution stipulates that local legislatures appoint and supervise the courts; and
  • Corruption may also influence local court decisions.

The U.S. business community consistently reports that Chinese courts, particularly at lower levels, are susceptible to outside political influence (particularly from local governments), lack the sophistication to understand complex commercial disputes, and operate without transparency. U.S. companies often avoid challenging administrative decisions or bringing commercial disputes before a local court for fear of future retaliation.

Reports of business disputes involving violence, death threats, hostage-taking, and travel bans involving Americans continue to be prevalent, although American citizens and foreigners in general do not appear to be more likely than Chinese nationals to be subject to this treatment. Police are often reluctant to intervene in what they consider internal contract disputes.

Laws and Regulations on Foreign Direct Investment

China’s foreign direct investment legal and regulatory frameworks have more across-the-board foreign investment restrictions and less transparency than developed countries, including the United States. Broad investment restrictions at both the central and local level lead to inconsistent enforcement of foreign investment laws and add to the difficulty of gaining necessary approvals from different agencies and localities. In turn, all of this adds to a feeling among U.S. investors that the Chinese legal system discriminates against them.

China’s central-level foreign investment regime consists of three laws: the China-Foreign Equity Joint Venture Enterprise Law, the China-Foreign Cooperative Joint Venture Enterprise Law, and the Foreign-Invested Enterprise (FIE) Law. In addition, there are multiple administrative regulations and regulatory documents issued by the State Council that are directly derived from these three laws, including:

  • Implementation Regulations of the China-Foreign Equity Joint Venture Enterprises Law;
  • Implementation Regulations of the China-Foreign Cooperative Joint Venture Enterprise Law;
  • Implementation Regulations of the FIE Law;
  • State Council Provisions on Encouraging Foreign Investment;
  • Provisions on Guiding the Direction of Foreign Investment; and
  • Administrative Provisions on Foreign Investment to Telecom Enterprises.

There are also over 1,000 rules and regulatory documents related to foreign investment in China and issued by government ministries, including:

  • the FIC;
  • Provisions on Mergers & Acquisition of Domestic Enterprises by Foreign Investors;
  • Administrative Provisions on Foreign Investment in Road Transportation Industry;
  • Interim Provisions on Foreign Investment in Cinemas;
  • Administrative Measures on Foreign Investment in Commercial Areas;
  • Administrative Measures on Ratification of Foreign Invested Projects;
  • Administrative Measures on Foreign Investment in Distribution Enterprises of Books, Newspapers, and Periodicals;
  • Provision on the Establishment of Investment Companies by Foreign Investors; and
  • Administrative Measures on Strategic Investment in Listed Companies by Foreign Investors.

Local legislatures and governments also enact their own regulations, rules, and guidelines that directly impact foreign investment in their geographical area. Examples include the Wuhan Administration Regulation on Foreign-Invested Enterprises and Shanghai’s Municipal Administration Measures on Land Usage of Foreign-Invested Enterprises.

A Chinese language list of Chinese laws and regulations, at both the central and local levels: .

FDI Laws on Investment Approvals

Foreign investments in industries and economic sectors that are not listed in the “restricted” or “prohibited” sections of the FIC are not subject to MOFCOM pre-approval, but only require notification of the proposed investment. However, wanting to invest in a category that is not restricted or prohibited does not guarantee approval, as other steps and approvals are required in order to proceed, including, for example, receiving land rights, business licenses, and other necessary permits. In some industries, such as telecommunications, foreign investors will also need to receive approval from regulators like the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT).

In July 2004, the State Council issued the Decision on Investment Regime Reform and the Catalogue of Investment Projects subject to Government Ratification (Ratification Catalogue). According to the Ratification Catalogue, all proposed foreign investment projects in China must be submitted for “review and ratification” by the NDRC, or provincial or local Development and Reform Commissions (DRCs), depending on the sector and value of the investment. In 2013, however, the government issued a new catalogue to narrow the scope of foreign investment projects subject to NDRC ratification. Per the updated guidance, an “encouraged” investment under the FIC that does not require a Chinese controlling interest, and is in a sector not listed on the Ratification Catalogue, only needs to be “filed for record” with the local DRC office. This policy shift marked a positive step toward easing bureaucratic barriers to foreign investment.

In November 2014, China released an updated edition of the Ratification Catalogue, which eliminated NDRC ratification requirements for 15 new sectors and delegated ratification authority to local governments in 23 additional sectors. In several new sectors, the new Ratification Catalogue also raised the threshold of foreign ownership that would trigger the requirement for NDRC approval. When announcing the reforms, NDRC stated the goal of the latest revision to the Ratification Catalogue was to limit ratification to projects relating to “national and ecological security, geographic and resource development,” and the “public interest.” NDRC estimates that revisions made to the Ratification Catalogue over the past several years will reduce the number of projects requiring ratification from central government authorities by 76 percent.

Ratification Catalogue: .

The NDRC approval process for foreign investment projects also includes assessing the project’s compliance with China’s laws and regulations; its compliance with the FIC and industrial policy; its national security, environmental safety, and public interest implications; its use of resources and energy; and its economic development ramifications. In some cases, NDRC also solicits the opinions of relevant Chinese industrial regulators and “consulting agencies,” which may include industry associations that represent Chinese domestic firms. This presents potential conflicts of interest that can disadvantage foreign investors seeking to receive project approval. The State Council may also weigh in on high-value projects in “restricted” sectors.

After receiving NDRC approval for the investment project and either notifying or applying for approval for an investment from MOFCOM, investors next apply for a business license with the SAIC. Once a license is obtained, the investor registers with China’s tax and foreign exchange agencies. Greenfield investment projects must also seek approval from China’s Environmental Protection Ministry and its Ministry of Land Resources. The specific approvals process may vary from case to case, depending on the details of a particular investment proposal and local rules and practices.

For investments made via merger or acquisition with a Chinese domestic enterprise, an anti-monopoly review and national security review may be required by MOFCOM if there are concerns about the foreign transaction. The anti-monopoly review is detailed in a later section of this report, on competition policy.

Article 12 of MOFCOM’s Rules on Mergers and Acquisitions of Domestic Enterprises by Foreign Investment stipulates that parties are required to report a transaction to MOFCOM if:

  • Foreign investors obtain actual control, via merger or acquisition, of a domestic enterprise in a key industry;
  • The merger or acquisition affects or may affect “national economic security”; or
  • The merger or acquisition would cause the transfer of actual control of a domestic enterprise with a famous trademark or a Chinese time-honored brand.

If MOFCOM determines the parties did not report a merger or acquisition that affects or could affect national economic security, it may, together with other government agencies, require the parties to terminate the transaction or adopt other measures to eliminate the impact on national economic security. In February 2011, China released the State Council Notice Regarding the Establishment of a Security Review Mechanism for Foreign Investors Acquiring Domestic Enterprises. The notice established an interagency Joint Conference, led by NDRC and MOFCOM, with authority to block foreign M&As of domestic firms that it believes may impact national security. The Joint Conference is instructed to consider not just national security, but also “national economic security” and “social order” when reviewing transactions. China has not disclosed any instances in which it invoked this formal review mechanism.

Local commerce departments are responsible for flagging transactions that require a national security review when they review them in an early stage of China’s foreign investment approval process. Some provincial and municipal departments of commerce have published online a Security Review Industry Table listing non-defense industries where transactions may trigger a national security review, but MOFCOM has declined to confirm whether these lists reflect official policy. In addition, third parties such as other governmental agencies, industry associations, and companies in the same industry can seek MOFCOM’s review of transactions, which can pose conflicts of interest that disadvantage foreign investors. Investors may also voluntarily file for a national security review.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce report on Approval Process for Inbound Foreign Direct Investment: .

Draft Foreign Investment Law

In January 2015, MOFCOM issued for public comment a new Foreign Investment Law. This law, if enacted, would unify and supersede the three governing foreign investment laws established by the State Council. It also would abolish the case-by-case approval system for foreign investment and replace it with a system that gives foreign investors “national treatment,” or treats foreign investors the same as domestic investors, except in the limited number of industries enumerated on the “negative list.” The draft law called for streamlining the approval process for foreign investment in some sectors, but contains a number of troubling provisions – e.g., broadening the definition of foreign investor, expanding the role of the national security review mechanism, increasing reporting requirements, and threatening the structure of variable interest entities (VIEs) – that could facilitate discriminatory treatment against foreign investment. In addition to transforming the current foreign investment regime, the aforementioned MOFCOM draft Foreign Investment Law would also establish a broad and potentially intrusive national security review mechanism. As it is currently envisaged, the national security review could be used to hinder market access and increase the financial burden of foreign investment in China. While Chinese officials have noted future plans for a unified foreign investment law, the timeline and the content of the new law is unclear.

China also issued in 2015 the Interim Measures on the National Security Review of Foreign Investment in Free Trade Zones. The definition of “national security” is broad, implicating investments in military, national defense, agriculture, energy, infrastructure, transportation, culture, information technology products and services, key technology, and manufacturing.

In addition, MOFCOM issued the Administrative Measures for the Record-Filing of Foreign Investment in Free Trade Zones, outlining the streamlined process that foreign investors need to follow to register investments in the FTZs.

Competition and Anti-Trust Laws

China uses a complex system of laws, regulations, and agency specific guidelines at both the central and provincial levels that impacts an economic sector’s makeup, sometimes as a monopoly, near-monopoly, or authorized oligopoly. These measures are particularly common in resource-intensive sectors such as electricity and transportation, as well as in industries seeking unified national coverage like fixed-line telephony and postal services. The measures also target sectors the government deems vital to national security and economic stability, including defense, energy, and banking. Examples of such laws and regulations include the Law on Electricity (1996), Civil Aviation Law (1995), Regulations on Telecommunication (2000), Postal Law (amended in 2009), Railroad Law (1991), and Commercial Bank Law (amended in 2003), among others.

Anti-Monopoly Law

China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) went into effect on August 1, 2008. The AML delegates antitrust enforcement to three agencies: MOFCOM to review concentrations (M&As); the NDRC to review cartel agreements, abuse of dominant position, and abuse of administrative powers centered on product pricing; and the SAIC to review the same types of activities as NDRC when those activities are not directly price-related. In addition, the AML established the Anti-Monopoly Commission to provide oversight, expertise, and coordination among different stakeholders and enforcement agencies. After the AML was enacted, the need to clarify parts of the law became apparent, leading MOFCOM, NDRC, SAIC, and other Chinese government ministries and agencies to formulate implementing guidelines, departmental rules, and other measures. Generally, the AML enforcement agencies have sought public comment on proposed measures and guidelines, although comment periods can be less than 30 days.

During the National People’s Congress (NPC) in March 2018, the CCP announced that the three AML agencies would be consolidated under the newly-established State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR). Details and timelines for this new announcement have not yet been provided.

In 2016, the three AML enforcement agencies drafted guidelines on six enforcement areas: anti-monopoly guidelines for the automobile industry, guidelines on determining illegal incomes and fines, guidelines on the “leniency” system in horizontal monopoly agreements, guidelines on AML settlement cases, guidelines for IP abuse, and guidelines on monopolistic agreement exemptions. While these guidelines may provide greater clarity and business predictability for foreign investment, they have yet to be finalized by the State Council.

In addition, the State Council in June 2016 issued guidelines for the Fair Competition Review Mechanism that targets administrative monopolies created by government agents, primarily at the local level. The mechanism not only requires government agencies to conduct a fair competition review prior to issuing new laws, regulations, and guidelines, to certify that proposed measures do not inhibit competition, but also requires government agencies to conduct a review of all existing rules, regulations, and guidelines, to eliminate existing laws and regulations that are competition inhibiting. In October 2017, the State Council, SCLAO, Ministry of Finance, and three AML agencies issued implementation rules for the fair competition review system to strengthen review procedures, provide review criteria, enhance coordination among government entities, and improve overall competition-based supervision in new laws and regulations. While it is too early to estimate the impact of the mechanism on competition and in breaking up administrative monopolies, Chinese academics in particular are optimistic that this development signals a more prominent role for competition in future economic decisions.

While procedural developments such as those outlined above are seen as generally positive, the actual enforcement of competition laws and regulations is uneven. Inconsistent central and provincial enforcement of antitrust law often exacerbates local protectionism by restricting inter-provincial trade, limiting market access for certain imported products, using measures that raise production costs, and limiting opportunities for foreign investment. Government authorities at all levels in China may also restrict competition to insulate favored firms from competition through various forms of regulations and industrial policies. The ultimate benefactor of such policies is often unclear; however, foreign companies have expressed concern that the central government’s use of AML enforcement is often selectively used to target foreign companies, becoming an extension of other industrial policies that favor SOEs and Chinese companies deemed potential “national champions.”

MOFCOM currently is responsible for M&A review. However, with the reorganization of AML enforcement now under SAMR, a new division within SAMR will take over M&A review in 2018. Since the AML went into effect, the number of M&A transactions MOFCOM has reviewed each year has continued to grow. U.S. companies and other observers have expressed concerns that MOFCOM needs to consult with other agencies when reviewing a potential transaction and that other agencies can raise concerns that are not related to competition to either block, delay, or force one or more of the parties to comply with a condition in order to receive MOFCOM approval. There is also suspicion that Chinese regulators rarely approve “on condition” transactions involving two Chinese companies, thus signaling an inherent AML bias against foreign enterprises.

The NDRC has made some procedural progress in AML enforcement on price-related cases by releasing aggregate data on investigations and publicizing case decisions. However, many U.S. companies complain that NDRC discourages companies from having legal representation during informal discussions or formal investigations and that the investigative process lacks transparency or specific guidance on evidence gathering or other practices. Observers also worry about future “dawn raids” and express concerns that NDRC regulators, along with the other AML regulators, can at any time use competition law to promote China’s industrial policy goals by targeting foreign firms to limit competition. Observers further worry that despite commitments by Chinese officials to protect commercial secrets obtained during an AML investigation, access to secret and proprietary information could nevertheless be given to a Chinese competitor.

In bilateral dialogues, China continues to express its commitment to protect and enforce IPR across a wide range of industry sectors. While U.S. companies see this as a positive development, there is growing concern on how China handles IPR protection that intersects with antitrust concerns. Enforcement practice, along with the draft guidelines that Chinese officials have issued for public comment on IP abuse, disproportionately impact foreign firms by requiring a company to license IP technology to local competitors, at a “fair price” that does not abuse the company’s “dominant market position.” Foreign companies have long complained that such a view of antitrust serves industrial policy goals to force technology transfer to local competitors under the guise of the AML.

Another consistent area of concern from foreign companies is how the AML applies to SOEs and other government monopolies permitted in some industries. All three AML enforcement agencies have provided assurance that AML enforcement applies to SOEs, and there have been some AML punitive actions taken by NDRC and SAIC against provincial-level SOEs in recent years. However, the AML explicitly protects the lawful operations of SOEs and government monopolies in industries deemed nationally important. While SOEs have not been entirely immune from AML investigations, when considering the number of SOE investigations compared to the role SOEs play in China’s economy, the numbers are not commensurate. The CCP’s proactive orchestration of mergers and consolidation of SOEs in industries like rail, marine shipping, metals, and other strategic sectors, which in most instances only further insulates SOEs from both private and foreign competition, signals that enforcement against SOEs will remain limited despite potential negative impacts on consumer welfare.

Expropriation and Compensation

Chinese law prohibits nationalization of foreign-invested enterprises, except under “special circumstances.” Chinese officials have said these circumstances may include when there is a national security component or when an investment presents an obstacle to achieving a large civil engineering project. However, Chinese law does not define what special circumstances would lead to nationalization of a foreign investment. Chinese law, while requiring compensation of expropriated foreign investments, does not say what method or formula to use to calculate the value of the foreign investment. The Department of State is not aware of any cases since 1979 in which China has expropriated a U.S. investment, although the Department has notified Congress through the annual 527 Investment Dispute Report of several cases of concern.

Dispute Settlement

ICSID Convention and New York Convention

China is a contracting State to the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention) and has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention). The domestic legislation that provides for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards related to these two Conventions includes the Arbitration Law adopted in 1994, the Civil Procedure Law adopted in 1991 (later amended in 2012), the Law on Chinese-Foreign Equity Joint Ventures adopted in 1979 (amended most recently in 2001), and a number of other laws with similar provisions. China’s Arbitration Law has embraced many of the fundamental principles of The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law’s Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.

International Commercial Disputes and the Chinese Legal System

Chinese officials typically urge private parties to resolve commercial disputes through informal conciliation. If formal mediation is necessary, Chinese parties and the authorities typically promote arbitration over litigation. Many contract disputes require arbitration by the Beijing-based China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC). Established by the State Council in 1956 under the auspices of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT), CIETAC is China’s most widely-utilized arbitral body for foreign-related disputes. Some foreign parties have obtained favorable rulings from CIETAC, while others question CIETAC’s fairness and effectiveness.

CIETAC also had four sub-commissions located in Shanghai, Shenzhen, Tianjin, and Chongqing. In 2012, CCPIT, under the authority of the State Council, issued new arbitration rules that granted CIETAC headquarters significantly more authority to hear cases than the sub-commissions; CIETAC Shanghai and CIETAC Shenzhen then declared their independence from the Beijing authority and issued their own rules and changed their name. As a result, CIETAC disqualified its former Shanghai and Shenzhen affiliates from administering arbitration disputes. This jurisdictional dispute between CIETAC in Beijing and the former sub-commissions raised serious concerns among the U.S. business and legal communities, particularly regarding the validity of arbitration agreements specifying particular arbitration procedures and the enforceability of arbitral awards issued by the sub-commissions. In 2013, the SPC issued a notice clarifying that any lower court that hears a case arising out of the CIETAC split must report the case to the SPC before making a decision. However, the SPC notice is brief and lacks detail on certain issues, including the timeframe for the lower court’s decision to reach the SPC and for the SPC to issue its opinion.

There are also many provincial and municipal arbitration commissions, like the Beijing Arbitration Commission and the Shanghai Arbitration Commission, that have emerged as serious domestic competitors to CIETAC. A foreign party may seek arbitration from an offshore commission. Foreign companies often encounter challenges in enforcing arbitration decisions issued by Chinese and foreign arbitration bodies. In these instances, foreign investors may appeal to higher courts in such cases.

The Chinese government and judicial bodies do not maintain a public record of investment disputes. The SPC maintains a count of the annual number of cases involving foreigners tried in China, but does not specify the types of cases, identify civil or commercial disputes, or note foreign investment disputes. Rulings in some cases are open to the public.

International Commercial Arbitration and Foreign Courts

The recognition and enforcement of judgments issued by foreign courts in the Chinese court system is governed by Articles 281 and 282 of the Civil Procedural Law. The law states that a Chinese court must review China’s treaty obligations, reciprocity principles, basic Chinese law, Chinese sovereignty, Chinese social and public interests, and national security before determining if the validity of a judgment from a foreign court should be recognized. As a result, there are few examples of a Chinese court recognizing and enforcing a foreign court judgment, and China’s recognition of U.S. court judgments has been inconsistent, according to anecdotal reports. China has concluded 27 bilateral agreements on the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments, but none with the United States.

Article 270 of China’s Civil Procedure Law states that time limits in civil cases do not apply to cases involving foreign investment. According to the 2012 CIETAC Arbitration Rules, in an ordinary procedure case, the arbitral tribunal shall render an arbitral award within six months (in foreign-related cases) from the date on which the arbitral tribunal is formed. In a summary procedure case, the arbitral tribunal shall make an award within three months from the date on which the arbitral tribunal is formed.

Bankruptcy Regulations

China’s primary bankruptcy legislation is the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law, which was promulgated on August 27, 2006, and took effect on June 1, 2007. The 2007 law applies to all companies incorporated under Chinese laws and regulations, including private companies, public companies, SOEs, foreign invested enterprises (FIEs), and financial institutions. It is commensurate with developed countries’ bankruptcy laws and provides for potential reorganization or restructuring, rather than liquidation. Due to uncertainty about authorities and procedures, lack of implementation guidelines, and the limited number of cases providing precedent, the law has never been fully enforced, and most corporate debt disputes are settled through negotiations led by local governments. Companies are disincentivized from pursing bankruptcy because of the potential of local government interference and fear of losing control. Chinese courts lack capacity to handle bankruptcy cases, and bankruptcy administrators, clerks, and judges all lack experience.

In the October 2016 State Council Guiding Opinion on Reducing Enterprises’ Leverage Ratio, bankruptcy was identified as a tool to manage China’s corporate debt problems. This was consistent with increased government rhetoric throughout the year in support of bankruptcy. For example, in June 2016, the SPC issued a notice to establish bankruptcy divisions at intermediate courts and to increase the number of judges and support staff to handle liquidation and bankruptcy issues. On August 1, the SPC also launched a new bankruptcy and reorganization electronic information platform: .

The number of bankruptcy cases has continued to grow since 2015. The SPC reported that in 2017, 9,542 bankruptcy cases were accepted by the Chinese courts, representing a 68.4 percent year-on-year increase from 2016, and 6,257 cases were closed, representing a 73.7 percent year-on-year increase from 2016. The SPC has continued to issue clarifications and new implementing measures to improve bankruptcy procedures.


1. Openness To, and Restrictions Upon, Foreign Investment

Policies Towards Foreign Direct Investment

Croatia is open to foreign investment and the Croatian government continues to prioritize attracting foreign investors. All investors, both foreign and domestic, are guaranteed equal treatment by law. There are no laws or practices that discriminate against U.S. investors; however, bureaucratic and political barriers remain. Investors agree that an unpredictable regulatory framework, lack of transparency, duration of administrative procedures, lack of structural reforms, and unresolved property ownership issues weigh heavily upon the investment climate. The Agency for Investment and Competitiveness, a Croatian government entity, provides investors with various services intended to help with implementation of investment projects. For more information, go to: . The Strategic Investment Act helps investors streamline large projects by gathering all necessary information the investor needs to implement the project and then fast-tracking the necessary procedures for implementation of the project, including acquiring permits and help with location. Various business groups, including the American Chamber of Commerce, Foreign Investors’ Council and the Croatian Employers’ Association, are in dialogue with the government about ways to make doing business easier and keep investment retention as a priority.

Limits on Foreign Control and Right to Private Ownership and Establishment

Croatian law allows for all entities, both foreign and domestic, to establish and own businesses and to engage in all forms of remunerative activities. The Croatian government restricts foreign ownership or control of services for inland waterways transport, maritime transport, rail transport, air ground-handling, freight-forwarding, publishing, education, and ski instruction. Otherwise, there is no sector-specific legislation that discriminates against market access, apart from professional (architect, auditor, engineer, lawyer, and veterinarian) requirements. Over 90 percent of the banking sector is foreign-owned and there are no investment screening mechanisms for inbound foreign investment. Article 49 of the Constitution states all entrepreneurs have equal legal status.

Other Investment Policy Reviews

The World Bank Group published a “Doing Business” Economic Profile of Croatia in 2017. Please find the report at .

Business Facilitation

The government’s e-government initiative “” ( ) provides 24-hour on-line business registration, although registering on weekends and holidays can delay registration for several days. offices are located in more than 60 Croatian cities and towns. In order to begin business activities, a company needs to register with the Commercial Court, Notary Public, Tax Administration, Health and Pension agencies, and the State Statistics Bureau to obtain a company identification number. It can take from one to three days to register a business, depending on the efficiency of the local Commercial court, which processes the registration.

The Global Enterprise Agency Rated Croatia’s Business Registration Process 4 out of 10, while the World Bank Ease of Doing Business report has Croatia as 87th out of 190 countries in the category of registering a business, an improvement of eight spots from 2017.

The business facilitation mechanism provides for equitable treatment to all interested in registering a business, regardless of gender or ethnicity.

Outward Investment

There is not a government-based mechanism for incentivizing outward investment. There are no restrictions on domestic investors who wish to invest abroad.

3. Legal Regime

Transparency of the Regulatory System

All investors, foreign or domestic, are guaranteed equal treatment under all forms of market-related legislation. Croatian legislation, which is harmonized with European Union legislation (acquis communautaire), affords transparent policies and fosters a climate in which all investors are treated equally. Nevertheless, bureaucracy and regulation can be complex and time-consuming, although the government is working to remove unnecessary regulations.

The Croatian Parliament adopts all national legislation, which is implemented at every level of government throughout the country, although local regulations vary from county to county. Members of Government and Members of Parliament, through working groups or caucuses, are responsible for presenting legislation. Responsible ministries draft and present new legislation to the government for approval. When the Government approves a draft text, it is sent to Parliament for approval. The approved act becomes official on the date defined by Parliament. Citizens maintain the right to initiate a law through their district Member of Parliament. New legislation and changes to existing legislation which have a significant impact on citizens are made available for public debate. The Law on the Review of the Impact of Regulations defines the procedure for impact assessment, planning of legislative activities, and communication with the public, as well as the entities responsible for implementing the impact assessment procedure. There are no informal regulatory processes, and investors should rely solely on government issued legislation to conduct business.

Croatia uses international accounting standards and abides by international practices through the Accounting Act, which is applied to all accounting businesses.

Croatian courts are responsible for ensuring that laws are enforced correctly. If an investor believes that the law or an administrative procedure is not implemented correctly, the investor may initiate a case against the government at the appropriate court. Judicial remedies are often ineffective because of timing and political influence. All legislation is published both on-line and in in the National Gazette, available at: .

The Enforcement Act defines the procedure for enforcing claims and seizures carried out by the Financial Agency (FINA), the state-owned company responsible for offering various financial services to include securing payment to claimants following a court enforcement order. FINA also has the authority to seize assets or directly settle the claim from the bank account of the person or legal entity that owes the claim. The Enforcement Act was amended in August 2017 and has incorporated European Union Parliament and Council provisions for making cross-border financial claims easily enforced in both business and private instances. More information can be found at . Various types of regulation exist, which prescribe complicated or time-consuming procedures for businesses to implement.

Croatia has been a member of UN Conference on Trade and Development since 1992.

International Regulatory Considerations

Croatia, as an EU member, adopts all EU legislation. Domestic legislation is applied nationally and there is no locally based legislation that overrides national legislation. Local governments oversee zoning for construction and can therefore delay investment projects. International accounting, arbitration, financial and labor norms are incorporated into Croatia’s regulatory system.

Croatia has been a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) since 2000 and maintains obligations to the WTO. There are no cases of dispute involving Croatia as complainant, respondent or third party.

Legal System and Judicial Independence

The legal system in Croatia is civil and provides for ownership of property and enforcement of legal contracts.

The Commercial Company Act defines the forms of legal organization for domestic and foreign investors. It covers general commercial partnerships, limited partnerships, joint stock companies, limited liability companies and economic interest groupings. The Obligatory Relations Act serves to enforce commercial contracts and includes the provision of goods and services in commercial agency contracts.

The Croatian constitution provides for an independent judiciary. The judicial system consists of courts of general and specialized jurisdictions. Core structures are the Supreme Court, County Courts, Municipal Courts, and Magistrate/Petty Crimes Courts. Specialized courts include the Administrative Court and High and Lower Commercial Courts. A Constitutional Court determines the constitutionality of laws and government actions and protects and enforces constitutional rights. Municipal courts are courts of first instance for civil and juvenile/criminal cases. The High Commercial Court is located in Zagreb and has appellate review of lower commercial court decisions. The Administrative Court has jurisdiction over the decisions of administrative bodies of all levels of government. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the country and, as such, enjoys jurisdiction over all civil and criminal cases. It hears appeals from the County, High Commercial, and Administrative Courts. The government continues efforts to reform the judiciary, including reducing the backlog of cases, reforming the land registry, training court officers and reducing the backlog and length of bankruptcy procedures. Although reforms are underway, investors often face problems with lengthy court procedures, legal certainty, contract enforcement, and judicial efficiency.

Regulations and enforcement actions are appealable and adjudicated in the national court system.

Laws and Regulations on Foreign Direct Investment

There are no specific laws aimed at foreign investment. Both foreign and domestic market participants in Croatia are protected under the same legislation. The Company Act defines the forms of legal organization for domestic and foreign investors. The following entity types are permitted for foreigners: general partnerships; limited partnerships; branch offices; limited liability companies; and joint stock companies. The Obligatory Relations Act regulates commercial contracts.

The Agency for Investments and Competitiveness ( ) facilitates both foreign and domestic investment and is available to all interested investors for assistance. Their website offers relevant information on business and investment legislation and includes an investment guide.

Competition and Anti-Trust Laws

The Competition Act defines the rules and methods for promoting and protecting competition. In theory, competitive equality is the standard applied with respect to market access, credit and other business operations, such as licenses and supplies. In practice, however, state-owned enterprises and “strategic” firms may still receive preferential treatment. The Croatian Competition Agency is the country’s competition watchdog, determining whether anti-competitive practices exist and punishing infringements. It has determined in the past that some subsidies to state-owned firms constituted unlawful state aid. Information on authorities of the Agency and past rulings can be found at . The website includes a “call to the public” inviting citizens to provide information on competition-related concerns.

Expropriation and Compensation

There have been no cases of expropriation of foreign investments by the government since Croatia’s independence in 1991. Article III of the U.S.-Croatia BIT covers both direct and indirect expropriations. The BIT bars all expropriations or nationalizations except those that are for a public purpose, carried out in a non-discriminatory manner, in accordance with due process of law, and subject to prompt, adequate and effective compensation.

Croatian Law on Expropriation and Compensation gives the government broad authority to expropriate real property under various economic and security-related circumstances, including eminent domain. The Law on Strategic Investments also provides for expropriation for projects that meet the criteria for “strategic” projects. However, it includes provisions that guarantee adequate compensation, in either the form of monetary compensation or real estate of equal value to the expropriated property, in the same town or city. The law includes an appeals mechanism to challenge expropriation decisions by means of a complaint to the Ministry of Justice within 15 days of the expropriation order. The law does not describe the Ministry’s adjudication process, and the fact that the Ministry of Justice represents the government, which initiates expropriations, could be an area of potential concern. Parties not pleased with the outcome of the Ministry decision can take administrative action against the decision, but no appeal to the decision is allowed.

Dispute Settlement

ICSID Convention and New York Convention

There is no specific legislation that refers to the ICSID, however Article 19 of the Act on Enforcement, states that judgments of foreign courts may be executed only if they “fulfill the conditions for recognition and execution as prescribed by an international agreement or the law,” and would be applied after an ICSID ruling.

Investor-State Dispute Settlement

Croatia is a signatory to the following international conventions regulating the mutual acceptance and enforcement of foreign arbitration: the 1923 Geneva Protocol on Arbitration Clauses; the 1927 Geneva Convention on the Execution of Foreign Arbitration Decisions; the 1958 New York Convention on the Acceptance and Execution of Foreign Arbitration Decisions; and the 1961 European Convention on International Business Arbitration. In 1998 Croatia ratified the Washington Convention that established the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). The Croatian Law on Arbitration is implemented for both national and international proceedings in Croatia. Parties to arbitration cases are free to appoint arbitrators of any nationality or professional qualifications and Article 12 of the Law on Arbitration requires impartiality and independence of arbitrators. Croatia recognizes binding international arbitration, which may be defined in investment agreements as a means of dispute resolution. For example, the Croatian government has two open arbitration cases with a private investor MOL in the national oil company INA. Article X of the U.S.-Croatia BIT sets forth several mechanisms for the resolution of investment disputes, defined as any dispute arising out of or relating to an investment authorization, an investment agreement, or an alleged breach of rights conferred, created, or recognized by the BIT with respect to a covered investment. There is not a history of extra-judicial action against foreign investors. There are currently three cases regarding U.S. investor claims before Croatian courts. The cases are in regard to privatization and the real estate sectors, and have all been pending for years.

International Commercial Arbitration and Foreign Courts

Alternative dispute resolution is implemented at the High Commercial Court, at the Zagreb Commercial Court and and at the six municipal courts around the country. In order to reduce the backlog, non-disputed cases are passed to public notaries.

Although underutilized, both mediation and arbitration services are available through the Croatian Chamber of Economy. The Chamber’s permanent arbitration court has been in operation since 1965. Arbitration is voluntary and conforms to UNCITRAL model procedures. . The Chamber of Economy’s Mediation Center has been operating since 2002 – see . The Arbitration Act covers domestic arbitration, recognition and enforcement of arbitration rulings, jurisdictional matters. Once an arbitration decision has been reached, the judgment is executed by court order. If no payment is made by the established deadline, the party benefiting from the decision notifies the Commercial Court, which becomes responsible for enforcing compliance. Arbitration rulings have the force of a final judgment, but can be appealed within three months.

In regard to implementation of foreign arbitral awards, Article 19 of the Act on Enforcement states that judgments of foreign courts may be executed only if they “fulfill the conditions for recognition and execution as prescribed by an international agreement or the law.” The Act on Enforcement serves to decrease the burden on the courts by passing responsibility for the collection of financial claims and seizures to the Financial Agency (FINA), which is responsible for paying claimants once the court has rendered a decision ordering enforcement. FINA also has the authority to seize assets or directly settle the claim from the bank account of the person or legal entity that owes the claim. More information can be found at . The Ministry of Justice continues to pursue a court reorganization plan intended to increase efficiency and reduce the backlog of cases.

The World Bank Ease of Doing Business 2016 report commended Croatia for making enforcing contracts easier by introducing an electronic system to handle public sales of movable assets and by streamlining the enforcement process as a whole.

There are no major investment disputes currently underway involving state-owned enterprises, other than the dispute between the Croatian government and Hungarian oil company MOL over implementation of the purchase agreement of Croatian oil and gas company INA. There is no evidence that domestic courts rule in favor of state-owned enterprises.

Bankruptcy Regulations

Croatia’s Bankruptcy Act is internationally harmonized and corresponds to the EU regulation on insolvency proceedings and United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency. All stakeholders in the bankruptcy proceeding, foreign and domestic are treated equally in terms of the Bankruptcy Act. The World Bank Ease of Doing Business 2018 rating for Croatia in the category of resolving insolvency was 60, down four spots from the 2017 ranking of 54. Bankruptcy is not considered a criminal act.

The Financial Operations and Pre-Bankruptcy Settlement Act helps expedite proceedings and establish timeframes for the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings. One of the most important provisions of pre-bankruptcy is that it allows a firm that has been unable to pay all its bills to remain open during the proceedings, thereby allowing it to continue operations and generate cash under financial supervision in hopes that it can recover financial health and avoid closure. In April 2017, the Croatian government passed the “Law on Extraordinary Appointment of Management Boards for Companies of Systematic Importance to the Republic of Croatia,” when it became clear that Croatia’s largest corporation, Agrokor, was in crisis and would likely go bankrupt. The Law allows the Government to install an Emergency Commissioner, who leads the process of maintaining and restructuring a company that satisfies the criteria for application of the law.

The Commercial Court of the county in which a bankrupt company is headquartered has exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy matters. A bankruptcy tribunal decides on initiating formal bankruptcy proceedings, appoints a trustee, reviews creditor complaints, approves the settlement for creditors, and decides on the closing of proceedings. A bankruptcy judge supervises the trustee (who represents the debtor) and the operations of the creditors’ committee, which is convened to protect the interests of all creditors, oversee the trustee’s work and report back to creditors. The Act establishes the priority of creditor claims, assigning higher priority to those related to taxes and revenues of state, local and administration budgets. It also allows for a debtor or the trustee to petition to reorganize the firm, an alternative aimed at maximizing asset recovery and providing fair and equitable distribution among all creditors.

Czech Republic

1. Openness To, and Restrictions Upon, Foreign Investment

Policies Towards Foreign Direct Investment

The Czech government actively seeks to attract foreign investment via policies that make the country an attractive destination for companies to locate, operate, and expand. Act No. 72/2000 allows the Czech government to give investment incentives to investors who make new investments or expand their existing investments in the country. CzechInvest, the government investment promotion agency that operates under the Ministry of Trade and Industry, negotiates on behalf of the Czech government with foreign investors. In addition, CzechInvest provides: assistance during implementation of investment projects, consulting services for foreign investors entering the Czech market, support for suppliers, and assistance for the development of innovative start-up firms.

The Czech Republic is a recipient of substantial foreign direct investment (FDI). As a medium-sized, open, export-driven economy, the Czech economy is strongly dependent on foreign demand, especially from the Eurozone. In 2017, almost 80 percent of Czech exports went to fellow EU member states, with more than 60 percent of this volume shipped to the Eurozone and 40 percent to the Czech Republic’s largest trading partner, Germany, according to the Czech Statistical Office. The global economic crisis pulled the Czech Republic into its longest historical recession and highlighted its sensitivity to economic developments in the Eurozone. Since emerging from recession in 2013, the economy has enjoyed some of the highest GDP growth rates of the European Union. In 2015, GDP growth reached 5.3 percent, followed by 2.6 percent in 2016. The 2017 GDP growth rate of 4.6 percent was the second best performing year in the last decade, according to the Czech Statistical Office.

The Czech trade balance has been positive every year since 2005, and in 2016 and 2017 rose substantially, with surpluses of around USD 20.5 billion and USD 18.9 billion, respectively. Export revenues were just over 83.2 percent of GDP in 2016, according to the Czech Statistical Office. The main export commodities are automobiles, machinery, and information and communications technology.

The Czech Republic has no plans to adopt the EUR and instead has taken a wait-and-see approach to taking on the common currency. Economic difficulties in the Eurozone during the global downturn weakened public support for the country’s adoption of the EUR, as did the more recent Greek crisis, and the current government opposes setting a target date for accession.

Some unfinished elements in the economic transition, such as the slow pace of legislative and judicial reforms, have posed obstacles to investment, competitiveness, and company restructuring. The Czech government has harmonized its laws with EU legislation and the acquis communautaire. This effort involved positive reforms of the judicial system, civil administration, financial markets regulation, intellectual property rights protection, and in many other areas important to investors.

While there have been many success stories involving American and other foreign investors, a handful have experienced problems, mainly in heavily regulated sectors of the economy, such as media. The slow pace of the courts is often compounded by judges’ lack of familiarity with commercial or intellectual property law.

Both foreign and domestic businesses voice concerns about corruption. Other long-term economic challenges include dealing with an aging population and diversifying the economy away from an over-reliance on manufacturing and shared services toward a more high-tech, services-based, knowledge economy.

Since 1990, the Czech Republic has become one of the leading destinations for FDI in the region. Total foreign investment in the Czech Republic (equity capital + reinvested earnings + other capital) equaled USD 121.9 billion at the end of 2016, compared to USD 116.6 billion in 2015. The increased activity of foreign investors reflects the solid state of the Czech economy and recovery in Europe. Of these, CzechInvest negotiated 76 new investment projects by foreign investors in the Czech Republic in 2016, worth USD 1.95 billion.

Limits on Foreign Control and Right to Private Ownership and Establishment

Foreign individuals or entities can operate a business under the same conditions as Czechs. Some areas, such as banking, financial services, insurance, or defense equipment have certain limitations or registration requirements, and foreign entities need to register their permanent branches in the Czech Commercial Register. Some professionals, such as architects, physicians, lawyers, auditors, and tax advisors, must register for membership in the appropriate professional chamber. In general, licensing and membership requirements apply equally to foreign and domestic professionals.

As of early 2012, U.S. and other non-EU nationals can purchase real property, including agricultural land, in the Czech Republic without restrictions. Czech legal entities, including 100 percent foreign-owned subsidiaries, may own real estate without any limitations. The right of foreign and domestic private entities to establish and own business enterprises is guaranteed by law. Enterprises are permitted to engage in any legal activity with the previously noted limitations in sensitive sectors. Laws on auditing, accounting, and bankruptcy are in force, including the use of international accounting standards (IAS).

The government does not differentiate between foreign investors from different countries, and does not screen foreign investment projects other than in the banking, insurance, and defense sectors for money laundering, transparency, origin of funds, and security purposes. Following the European Commission (EC) September 2017 investment screening proposal, the Czech government is expected to launch expert discussions on developing an investment screening mechanism that would effectively combine the national screening criteria with those newly proposed by the EC.

U.S. investors are not disadvantaged or singled out by any of the aforementioned Czech policies. The U.S.-Czech Bilateral Investment Treaty contains specific guarantees of national treatment and Most Favored Nation treatment for U.S. investors in all areas of the economy other than insurance and real estate (see the section on the Bilateral Investment Treaty below).

Other Investment Policy Reviews

The Czech Republic scores well on recent “doing business” surveys. For example, the World Bank’s Doing Business 2018 Economic Profile and the Economist Intelligence Unit provide further detail on the Czech Republic’s investment climate. More information can be found at .

Business Facilitation

Individuals have a number of bureaucratic requirements to set up a business or operate as a freelancer or contractor. The Ministry of Industry and Trade provides an electronic guide on obtaining a business license, presenting step-by-step assistance, including links to related legislation and statistical data, and specifying authorities with whom to work (such as business registration, tax administration, social security, and municipal authorities), available at: . The Ministry of Industry and Trade has also established regional information points to provide consultancy services related to doing business in the Czech Republic and EU. A list of contact points is available at: .

Establishing a business requires visits to various Czech offices and on average takes nine days. The Czech Republic’s Business Register is publicly accessible and provides details on business entities. An application for an entry into the Business Register can be submitted in a hard copy, via a direct entry by a public notary, or electronically, subject to meeting online registration criteria requirements. The Business Register is publically available at: . The Czech Republic’s Trade Register is an online information system that collects and provides information on entities facilitating small trade and craft-oriented business activities, as specifically determined by related legislation. It is available online at: .

The Ministry of Industry and Trade has two organizations that promote trade and investment. CzechTrade supports the development of international trade and cooperation between Czech and foreign entities and offers information and assistance to exporters and investors to facilitate business between Czech and foreign businesses. CzechInvest, established in 1992, seeks to attract foreign investment and develop domestic companies through its services and development programs. The organization also runs a number of EU programs to promote business. The organization also has the mandate to offer investment incentives to foreign investors.

Outward Investment

While the government does not restrict domestic investors from investing abroad, the volume of outward investment remains significantly lower than incoming FDI. This is primarily due to the fact that most Czech companies have only gotten to a point in the last few years where they are mature enough and generate sufficient capital to seek out more distant markets like the United States. The Czech government does not incentivize outward investment.

3. Legal Regime

Transparency of the Regulatory System

Tax, labor, environment, health and safety, and other laws generally do not distort or impede investment. Policy frameworks are consistent with a market economy. Fair market competition is overseen by the Office for the Protection of Competition (UOHS) . UOHS is a central administrative body entirely independent in its decision-making practice. The office is mandated to create conditions for support and protection of competition and to supervise public procurement and state aid.

All laws and regulations in the Czech Republic are published before they enter into force. Opportunities for prior consultation on pending regulations exist, and all interested parties, including foreign entities, can participate. A biannual governmental plan of legislative and non-legislative work is available online, along with information on draft laws and regulations (often only in the Czech language). Business associations, consumer groups, and other non-governmental organizations, including the American Chamber of Commerce, can submit comments on laws and regulations. Laws on auditing, accounting, and bankruptcy are in force. These laws include the use of international accounting standards (IAS) for consolidated corporate groups.

International Regulatory Considerations

Membership in the EU requires the Czech Republic to adopt EU laws and regulations, including rulings by the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

Czechoslovakia (the predecessor to the Czech Republic) was a founding member of the GATT in 1947, and a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Since the country’s entry into the EU in 2004, the European Commission – an independent body representing all EU members –oversees Czech interests in the WTO.

Legal System and Judicial Independence

The Czech Commercial Code and Civil Code are largely based on the German legal system, which follows a continental legal system where the principle areas of law and procedures are codified. The commercial code details rules pertaining to legal entities and is analogous to corporate law in the United States. The civil code deals primarily with contractual relationships among parties.

The Czech Civil Code, Act. No. 89/2012 Coll. and the Act on Business Corporations, Act No. 90/2012 Coll. (Corporations Act) govern business and investment activities. The Act on Business Corporations introduced substantial changes to Czech corporate law such as supervision over the performance of a company’s management team, decision-making process, and remuneration and damage liability. Detailed provisions for mergers and time limits on decisions by the authorities on registration of companies are covered, as well as protection of creditors and minority shareholders.

The judiciary is independent, but decisions may vary from court to court. The reason for diverse legislative approaches may well be the fact that the new civil code did not only rewrite the system, but also introduced new terminology. Consequently, the two substantive laws, the Penal Code and the Civil Code, have been adopted without a new procedural law to explain how the laws should be applied, which would allow courts to proceed according to clearly outlined jurisdictional guidelines. Regulations and enforcement actions are appealable and the judicial process is procedurally competent, fair, and reliable.

Laws and Regulations on Foreign Direct Investment

The Foreign Direct Investment agenda is governed by the Civil Code and by the Act on Business Corporations.

The Czech Ministry of Industry and Trade maintains a “doing business” website at  which aids foreign companies in establishing and managing a foreign-owned business in the Czech Republic, including navigating the legal requirements, licensing, and operating in the EU market.

Competition and Anti-Trust Laws

The Office for the Protection of Competition (UOHS) is the central authority responsible for creating conditions that favor and protect competition. UOHS also supervises public procurement and monitors state aid programs. UOHS is led by a chairperson who is appointed by the president of the Czech Republic for a six-year term.

Expropriation and Compensation

Government acquisition of property is done only for public purposes in a non-discriminatory manner and in full compliance with international law. The process of tracing the history of property and land acquisition by potential investors can be complex and time-consuming, but it is necessary to ensure clear title. Title insurance is still a relatively new concept in the Czech Republic. Investors participating in privatization of state-owned companies are protected from restitution claims through a binding contract with the government.

Dispute Settlement

ICSID Convention and New York Convention

The Czech Republic is a signatory and contracting state to the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nations of Other States (ICSID Convention). It also has ratified the convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards (New York Convention of 1958), which obligates local courts to enforce a foreign arbitral award if it meets the legal criteria.

Investor-State Dispute Settlement

In 1993, the Czech Republic became a member state to the ICSID Convention. The 1993 U.S.-Czech Bilateral Investment Treaty contains provisions regarding the settling of disputes through international arbitration.

International Commercial Arbitration and Foreign Courts

Mediation is an option in nearly every area of law including family law, commercial law, and criminal law. Mediators can be contracted between the parties to the dispute and found through such sources as the Czech Mediators Association, the Czech Bar Association, or the Union for Arbitration and Mediation Procedures of the Czech Republic. A number of other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and entities work in the area of mediation. Directive 2008/52/EC allows those involved in a dispute to request that a written agreement arising from mediation be made enforceable. The results of mediation may be taken into account by the public prosecutor and the court in their decision in a given case. The local courts recognize and enforce foreign arbitral awards issued against the government.

Bankruptcy Regulations

A significant amendment to the bankruptcy law came into force on June 1, 2017. The amendment includes provisions prohibiting insolvency tourism, restriction of voting rights of the creditors from the debtor’s group, provisions against “bullying” insolvency petitions, and stricter rules for documenting the existence of a claim when filing a creditor’s insolvency petitions. It also sets penalties for bankruptcy administrators of up to CZK5 million (USD 200,000) for serious administrative violations such as failure to state the address of the bankruptcy administrator where the administrator actually executes his activities. The 2018 edition of the World Bank’s Doing Business Report ranked the Czech Republic twenty-fifth for ease of resolving insolvency.

There is a nationwide Central Register of Credits for the Czech Republic, governed by the Czech National Bank, which serves as the country’s credit monitoring authority.