Not known to many, the Supreme Court rendered a sequel to Gamboa vs Teves, a 2011 decision affirmed in 2012, that defined the term “capital” for purposes of determining whether a public utility complies with the foreign ownership limit under the Constitution. This is the case of “In the Matter of the Corporate Rehabilitation [...]
On March 18, 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (Fatca).
THE UNIVERSITY Athletic Association of the Philippines (UAAP) Board recently approved a new rule which requires a two-year residency for an incoming collegiate athlete who is a high school graduate from another UAAP member university.
In a recent column, I discussed the tax and non-tax consequences arising from delisting publicly listed companies for non-compliance with the 10 percent minimum public ownership (MPO) rules of the Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE).
With the advent of globalization and the continually increasing integration of economies, domestic legal systems have become more complex. Laws are no longer just intended to promote and maintain order in society. They now serve as catalyst, directly or indirectly, of economic growth.
Listing a company with the Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE) is one thing; maintaining the company’s status as a listed one is another.
About three weeks ago, I asked: Who will take up the cudgels for the minority shareholders who stand to suffer from higher taxes and administrative burdens imposed by Revenue Regulation No. 16-2012 (“RR 16-12”)?
Sometime in 2010, the Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE) issued a new Rule on minimum public ownership (MPO), effective Nov. 30, 2010 (2010 Rule), requiring that publicly listed companies maintain a minimum public ownership of at least 10 percent of their issued and outstanding shares, exclusive of any treasury shares, or as such percentage that may be prescribed by the Exchange (Section 3(a), Article XVIII, Continuing Listing Requirement).
The Securities and Exchange Commission is now in the midst of public consultations on a proposed circular that will determine the allowable level of foreign ownership of companies engaged in nationalized activities.
The proposed legislation seeking to impose higher excise taxes on liquor and tobacco products, more popularly known as the sin tax bill, is one of the most controversial pieces of legislation that ever crossed the halls of Congress.
In June 2011, the Supreme Court, in Gamboa vs Finance Secretary (G.R. No. 176579), handed down a decision of far-reaching importance.
The criticism on the cybercrime law has not waned. Cases have been filed against it. Recently, the Supreme Court issued a 120-day temporary restraining order against its implementation on the basis of allegations of violation of freedom of expression.
