Search results

Since the collapse of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) there has been a plethora of BCCI related litigation. This article considers the latest developments in the BCCI saga while focusing on the current state of litigation in both the UK and the USA. It appears that creditors of BCCI will finally be receiving some of their money which was lost as a result of the closure of BCCI on 5th July, 1991. A compensation package requiring the approval of courts in England, the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg, the three jurisdictions where BCCI headquarters operated from has finally received the requisite approval (the High Court approved the compensation scheme on 19th December, 1994; a Cayman Islands' court gave its approval on 13th January, 1995; a Luxembourg court approved the package on 31st January, 1995). Under the scheme BCCI's majority shareholders, the Government and ruling family of Abu Dhabi, must pay $1.8bn towards a global settlement fund over a period of three years. The courts' decision states that Abu Dhabi will be subject to the same terms as other creditors and will not be absolved from any future legal action brought by creditors as a result of the present compensation agreement. The initial payment of $1.55bn is calculated to reimburse some 250,000 creditors with payments equal to 20 per cent of their losses by this summer, however, such estimates are subject to a separate agreement worth $425m between BCCI's liquidators and the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia which will not be decided upon by Luxembourg courts until 14th March at the earliest; if this deal is delayed the first payment could drop to 15 per cent. It is anticipated that the final dividend that creditors can expect to receive will be between 20 and 40 per cent, however, this is far from guaranteed due to on‐going litigation and problems in assessing the total number of creditors' claims.

Is suing the international criminal the same as or different from suing the domestic criminal? The question assumes at least part of the answer. Many of the practical problems are readily apparent. There is the problem with obtaining legal jurisdicton over the malefactor's person and assets, the problem of finding both, and, of course, the prohibitive expense of an international litigation. Each country has its own procedural and substantive idiosyncracies, resulting in an uphill battle for any international litigant. But there are more subtle queries to be answered.

This is the second of a two‐part paper, the first part of which was published in The International Journal of Regulatory Law & Practice Volume 1 Number 2, pp. 170–184. This part considers some of the multinational initiatives that have been undertaken for the supervision of international banks both within the EC and outside it. Deficiencies in the international arrangements for bank supervision are noted before some suggestions for reform are set out. The author concludes with a timetable of events outlining BCCI's history.

ACC Limited, under Project 30-30, had targeted to produce and sell 30 million tons (mt) of cement in the year 2011. In May 2011, the Head of Central Logistics had found the target of the project to have become increasingly difficult to achieve. He believed that to sell 30 mt of cement, 30 mt had to be transported, thereby, advancing the role of the logistics function from that of a mere facilitator to a critical actor. As possible opportunities to increase sales, issues at the Bulk Cement Corporation (India) Limited (BCCI), and the plant at Wadi are being discussed in the case. The head of BCCI had raised concerns about the decreased logistical capacity of BCCI post a mandate from the Indian Railways on transporting 58-wagon rakes against 41-wagon rakes. A common belief was that with more wagons per rake, the quantity transited from Wadi would be higher. However, this was not the case and a capacity addition was being proposed. The President of Wadi Cluster had expressed that as an effort to reduce the transit time between Wadi and BCCI, priority was given to loading for BCCI. Though an improvement was observed with the introduction of 58 wagons per rake, Wadi was facing issues. This had affected Wadi's ability to serve other markets. The focus of the case is on analysing the options being considered by ACC to increase market presence, logistics capacity at BCCI, and the overall throughput at Wadi.

This paper is published in two parts. The first, which is published here, starts by considering the background to UK banking supervision and examining the effectiveness of the Bank of England and BCCI's auditors in the supervision of BCCI. The author then assesses the suitability of the Banking Act 19.87 following which is a list of recommended reform measures. The first part of the paper concludes with a consideration of banking supervision in Luxembourg. Part two of the paper examines deficiencies in the international supervision of banking and will be published in the next issue of The International Journal of Regulatory Law and Practice, Volume 1 Number 3.

The game of cricket that originated in Britain thrives on passion and the following it generates in India and other South Asian countries is tremendous. The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is the apex governing body that controls all cricketing events in the India. Being the richest such body, BCCI is the most powerful national body among similar organizations across countries where cricket is played. The world of cricket saw a sea change with the introduction of the Indian Premier League (IPL) due to its unprecedented commercial success. The case describes the betting scandal that hit IPL, BCCI and its promoter in the middle of 2013. The scandal involved the son-in-law of the President of BCCI. The events following the scandal saw the Supreme Court of India, the highest judicial body in the country, to indict BCCI and its President of serious misgovernance. Set in this backdrop, the case highlights governance issues in the functioning of not for profit organizations such as BCCI. The case provides an opportunity to reflect on and discuss as to how such quasi-public bodies ought to be governed.

These two appeals arose out of the 1991 collapse of BCCI and were brought by two former employees of BCCI in London who had both lost their jobs as a result of the collapse. Mr Malik had worked for BCCI for 12 years, his last position being head of deposit accounts and customer services at BCCI's Leadenhall branch. Mr Mahmud had 16 years service with the bank and was manager of the Brompton Road branch at the time he lost his job. They claimed that as well as losing their jobs they had suffered damage to their reputations, and thus future employability, as a result of their association with BCCI. In all the courts through which the claims passed the liquidators agreed that the actions should proceed upon the basis of a set of agreed facts (although the liquidators made no admission of the veracity of those facts) namely

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the shifting nature of governance reforms, both at global and national levels, in the increasingly commercialised game of cricket. The authors explore the inter-relationship and linkages between governance and commercialism, and in the process, question the contemporary reliance placed on governance as a generic counter-commercialist force and accountability aid.

The analysis is based on a comprehensive analysis of cricketing archives, newspapers and online media. The authors specifically utilise a range of review reports, governance and accounting information from annual reports and websites of the International Cricket Council (ICC) as well as different national cricket governing bodies (NCBs).

The paper vividly demonstrates the importance of recognising the specific significance of different cultural traditions and modes of organising – and not presuming a particular form of impact. The findings highlight that the adoption of a dominant market logic by cricket administrators has resulted in a shift in the balance of power in favour of non-western nations. India has emerged as the clear leader and driving force shaping the way cricket is globally governed. The consequences have been profound but not in terms of delivering, enhanced standards of transparency and accountability. Drawing on institutional theory, the paper argues that the scale of the Board of Cricket Control of India’s financial and operational control over the ICC has not only led to an increasingly commercialised game but engendered divergent and highly questionable standards of governance at the level of NCBs.

Unlike other global games, cricket has an imperialistic root, and has gone through the process of globalisation in relatively recent times. Also, the commercialisation of cricket has resulted in the global economic and power base shifting from the West to the East, giving us the opportunity to study the dynamics between commercialisation and governance in a quite different globalisation context that allows an assessment to be made of the culturally contingent nature of governance as a substantive organising force.

The factual background to this House of Lords decision lies in the 1991 collapse of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) Banking Group. The Appellants (who were the Appellants in the House of Lords) were depositors who had lost monies in the collapse of BCCI. BCCI itself was named as a Plaintiff since it was an assignee of the claims of Plaintiff depositors. The Plaintiffs (who were the Appellants in this appeal and are hereafter referred to as such) made a very large number of allegations against the Bank of England (the Bank) with regard to its exercise of its powers and discretions under the statutory scheme of Banking Supervision contained in the Banking Acts of 1979 and 1987. These allegations related to (inter alia) the Bank's decision to grant a full licence to BCCI in 1980, its failure subsequently to revoke that licence and various other acts and omissions in its supervisory role up to BCCI's collapse in 1991.

This application arose against the factual background of the ongoing litigation being brought by BCCI liquidators against the former auditors of the various BCCI companies. The defendants in that litigation are partners in Price Waterhouse and partners in Ernst & Whinney and the actions comprised in that litigation relate to the performance of their audits of BCCI companies throughout the 1980s. The legal and factual issues raised in that litigation are extremely complex and include the way in which Price Water‐house and Ernst & Whinney discharged various duties owed, including auditing duties, to BCCI companies. Discovery in that main litigation was proving a difficult and protracted process but the parties to it were attempting to agree lists of documents pertinent to the litigation which would be exchanged as part of the discovery process. Originally those lists included a considerable number of documents which had been assembled and obtained by Price Waterhouse to pass on to the Bank of England as part of its supervision and investigation of the BCCI group under the Banking Act 1987. All the parties to the main litigation agreed that those documents were of great importance to the determination of the actions involved but the legal advisers to Price Waterhouse were concerned that their inclusion in the discovery process may expose them and their clients to criminal sanctions for contravention of s.82(1) of the Banking Act 1987 which provides: