Breaking news

Ensuring Transparent And Fair Value In Privatisation

State Aid Commissioner Stella Michaelidou has reiterated that the bidding process in all privatisations must be conducted in an open, transparent manner that ensures equal access to information and avoids any conditions that might depress the final sale price. This principle is especially critical in the forthcoming privatisation of the Cyprus Stock Exchange.

Open And Transparent Bidding Process

Commissioner Michaelidou emphasized that competitive tenders should be free from restrictions that could lower the ultimate valuation of the asset. Speaking with the Cyprus News Agency, she clarified that the tender process for the Cyprus Stock Exchange must be rigorously assessed under EU state aid rules. This assessment will be carried out by her office and, if necessary, by the European Commission, ensuring that market standards are maintained.

Independent Valuation And Fair Pricing

The Commissioner stressed the necessity of an independent valuation conducted by a certified firm to ascertain fair market value. “The sale must be conducted at a price that reflects fair value, without being undervalued,” she stated. This insistence on an unbiased valuation prevents any mispricing that could arise from state-imposed conditions or undisclosed arrangements.

Safeguarding The Market Economy Principle

Michaelidou made it clear that the privatisation process must avoid incorporating elements that represent state intervention post-sale, such as special privileges or exclusive rights. She noted that retaining a state stake allows the government to monitor and influence the new owner’s management, contrary to the market economy investor principle where conditions that could lead to state aid should be avoided.

Mitigating State Aid And Ensuring Legal Certainty

Highlighting the broader framework of EU state aid rules, the Commissioner advised that each privatisation case be examined based on its specific data. Conditions imposed in the tender documents must be assessed to ensure they do not translate into state aid. Michaelidou referred to legal precedents where private investors would not impose such conditions, thereby reinforcing the necessity for market-compliant processes.

Ensuring Competitive And Unbiased Tenders

In addition to rigorous evaluations, potential conditions such as tax benefits, guarantees, or debt conversions must be scrupulously examined to ensure they do not provide undue advantages. The assessment should consider realistic market behaviors, risk profiles, and expected returns. The Finance Ministry has been advised to subject any tender conditions to this evaluative process, with the option of using the European Commission’s preliminary notification process to secure legal certainty.

In summary, Commissioner Michaelidou’s guidance underlines the importance of adhering to market standards. By ensuring that bids are invited in an open, transparent manner and that the sale is underpinned by an independent valuation and free of state intervention, the privatisation process can maximise revenues while maintaining fair competition and legal clarity for all parties involved.

Copyright Law Struggles To Keep Up With AI Training

Courts Are Still Applying Old Copyright Rules To AI

AI companies train models on enormous amounts of published material, including books, articles and academic research. Whether using that content without authors’ permission violates copyright law remains unresolved.

Much of the debate centres on fair use, which allows copyrighted material to be used without permission in certain circumstances. Courts consider factors such as the purpose of the use, how much material was involved and its impact on the original market.

Anthropic Case Sets An Important Precedent

A major case involving Anthropic and a group of authors provided one of the clearest rulings so far. Judge William Alsup found that using copyrighted books to train AI models was lawful, comparing the process to people reading and studying literature before creating something new.

Anthropic was nevertheless ordered to pay $1.5 billion in a settlement. The penalty concerned books the company had obtained from illegal online libraries rather than the AI training itself.

For AI companies, that distinction could prove significant because it separates studying copyrighted material from directly copying it.

Competition Could Be The Key Issue

A case involving Thomson Reuters and Ross Intelligence offers a different perspective. A court ruled that Ross could not claim fair use after using Reuters’ copyrighted material to develop a competing AI-powered legal research platform.

The decision suggests courts may be less willing to consider AI training fair use when copyrighted content is used to build a product that directly competes with the original.

For authors, an unresolved question is whether AI-generated content should be considered competition for the works used to train these models.

The Law Has Yet To Catch Up

US copyright law predates generative AI by decades, leaving courts to apply old principles to new technology. Questions also remain over copyright protection for AI-generated works. In Thaler v. Perlmutter, a court ruled that material created entirely by AI cannot receive copyright protection.

Major AI companies remain involved in copyright litigation, and different courts could reach different conclusions. For now, there is no universal rule: the legality of AI training will depend on the circumstances of each case and how courts ultimately interpret copyright and fair use.

The Future Forbes Realty Global Properties
eCredo
Uol
Aretilaw firm

Become a Speaker

Become a Speaker

Become a Partner

Subscribe for our weekly newsletter