The ICC Banking Commission Technical Meeting took place in Rome from 7-9 November, 2016. Your voice from the ground floor, DCW will be filtering through the information from the meeting to bring you key takeaways in the upcoming Nov/Dec double issue.
In the meantime, here are some notes from the event for those who weren't able to attend:
- 182 participants from 43 countries attended the Banking Commission Technical Meeting in its first time in Rome. The ICC Banking Commission Chair could not attend, nor could 3 other chairs of working groups.
- Participants were provided paper copies of the ICC’s just-released “2016 Rethinking Trade & Finance”. At 180 pages, this annual study analysing developments in trade and trade finance grows larger each year.
- This year’s ICC Trade Register – a report produced annually since 2009 – will be launched 8 Dec 2016.
- ICC’s cross-industry initiative to formulate Standard Definitions for Supply Chain Finance techniques has had a good response, but not much interaction. Attendees were informed that a website of Q&A of for Supply Chain Finance techniques is under construction.
There were some major issues on the minds of attendees of this meeting. Some promises were made, and other issues left unsolved. Some of these include:
There are several reasons why the Bail-In measures under Article 55 of the EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive threaten trade. Initial attempts to exempt trade finance were not well-received, however optimism was expressed in Rome. Although not a hard promise, it likely there will be news of an amendment to Art. 55 sometime in 2017.
In an effort to spur use of arbitration on a broader scale, ICC has announced a new set of expedited rules. In Rome, speakers emphasized “creature of contract” nature of arbitration – parties must agree to it and what type is desired.
Discussion of electronic bills of lading dominated in the Q&A period at close of day 1 morning session. Will there be a legal opinion on the eB/L? Not anytime soon. Also, legal opinions from multiple jurisdictions will be necessary. Without legal certainty of the eB/L, banks need to decide on their own what form is best.