TheChek News Flow

German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble, a key figure in Berlin's handling of the euro zone crisis and Greece's bailout programs, won a ringing endorsement from his conservative party on Saturday to stand in September's federal election.

With 95 percent support, 74-year-old Schaeuble secured first place on the conservative Christian Democrats' (CDU) list of candidates in the southwestern state of Baden-Wuerttemberg for the federal election to be held on Sept. 24.

Germany has a mixed-member proportional voting system under which voters cast two ballots: one directly for a candidate in his or her constituency and the second for a party. Seats from the second vote are allocated from the parties' lists.

Schaeuble, a passionate pro-European, told CDU party members it was up to Germany to hold together the European Union, which has come under pressure from the migrant crisis, Brexit and other challenges.

He also stressed the special role of Chancellor Angela Merkel, the CDU leader, in preserving the EU: "The whole world expects that Angela Merkel can do this job, because nobody else in Germany and Europe can fulfill the role."

On Friday, Schaeuble criticized Germany's foreign minister - who is from the junior coalition partner, the Social Democrats - for saying more money should be given to Greece and the EU. Differences between the parties of the ruling coalition are becoming more visible six months before the election.

Schaeuble, who has come to personify the austerity Berlin has demanded in return for aid for Athens, said the suggestion by Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel that Greece could be given more aid "goes in the wrong direction completely".

Saying Germany must give more money to the EU would not solve the problem and would give countries the wrong incentive, Schaeuble said. He added that the problem in Europe, as in Greece too, was not money but rather how to use it correctly.

The Social Democrats have enjoyed a revival under their new leader, Martin Schulz, and threaten Merkel's bid to win a fourth term in September.

EU Antitrust Chief Says Companies May Have Misled Regulator for Merger Clearance

Unusual reassessment could lead to significant fines, follows charges against Facebook last year

BRUSSELS—The European Union’s antitrust chief said Friday that her department is reviewing a handful of recent merger clearances on suspicions companies misled investigators in securing approval.

The unusual reassessment could lead to formal charges and ultimately significant fines for the companies or—though highly unlikely and complicated—withdrawal of clearances.

In similar circumstances, the regulator leveled charges in December against Facebook Inc. In that case, the EU accused the social-media company of giving incorrect or misleading information to regulators reviewing its planned purchase of chat app WhatsApp in 2014. Facebook said it provided accurate information to the EU about its plans and technical capabilities.

In an interview, Margrethe Vestager said the European Commission, the EU’s antitrust regulator, was scrutinizing instances in which company representatives from a range of industries intentionally or negligently misinformed regulators studying proposed mergers.

“In each and every individual case…we need correct information, in order to have the very high quality of our casework that we want to have,” Ms. Vestager said. “We have found in more than one case that there was a case of misleading information.”

The EU declined to identify the companies under the microscope but indicated the cases involve merger reviews that took place within the past five years. The commissioner said the EU was still deciding whether to file formal accusations outlined in what is called a statement of objections.

If found guilty in such cases, companies face fines of up to 1% of global revenue. In an unlikely scenario, the EU could also revoke its clearance of the merger if more accurate information could have led to a different decision.

The EU has already said its case against Facebook won’t affect its clearance of the WhatsApp deal, which closed in 2014.

The commission suspects Facebook inaccurately claimed during the review in 2014 that it couldn’t routinely match Facebook and WhatsApp user accounts—something the company started doing two years later when it began combining user data across the services. The antitrust regulator is currently analyzing Facebook’s response to the accusations, Ms. Vestager said.

Such cases are rare in Europe given the threat of fines and other sanctions. Lawyers representing companies in the merger-review process can also be stripped of their licenses to practice law if they are found to have intentionally misled regulators. The EU said that prior to the Facebook case it hadn’t pursued such action since new rules that boosted fines came into effect in 2004.

Ms. Vestager said the commission over the past year looked at several cases involving misleading information, but that they wouldn’t all necessarily be formally opened or decided upon as a package.

“We have to respect the flow of each individual case, even in these areas where it’s procedural concerns that we have,” she said.

In the interview, the EU antitrust chief spoke about its three open cases against Alphabet Inc.’s Google, including one in which the EU has accused Google of skewing its online search results to favor its comparison-shopping service. Google rejects the EU’s accusations in all three cases.

On the shopping case, Ms. Vestager said the EU was approaching “a final phase” of its investigation, adding that any decision against Google likely would involve remedies that are “future-proof” and therefore likely broader in scope.

“Instead of being specific on page design or screen design, I think it’s very important [for us] to focus on how to allow competition,” she said. “If you’re very specific about what design, you may very quickly be caught up in time.”

In a statement sent last year setting out its charges against Google in the shopping case, the EU sketched out ways Google should change its business practices to assuage the bloc’s antitrust concerns.

“Remedies may require Google to position and display competitors’ comparison shopping services in the same way as it positions its own comparison shopping service in general search results,” the EU shopping charge sheet said.

The EU also has formally accused Google of violating the bloc’s rules by abusing its dominance with its Android mobile-operating system as well as its advertising service Adsense.

LONDON — A High Court judge has blocked Reuters from publishing an article about the hedge fund manager Brevan Howard Asset Management, citing the confidential nature of information at issue in the story.

In Britain, companies and individuals can seek civil injunctions to prevent journalists from publishing articles that may contain confidential information or infringe on their privacy. The tactic is often used to prevent tabloids from reporting details about the personal lives of celebrities.

But last week, Brevan Howard, one of Britain’s largest hedge funds, sought the injunction as Reuters prepared to publish an article about the firm. It is not known what information the article contained.

In a statement made public on Friday, the judge did not indicate the nature of the article but said he had issued an injunction against Reuters, its reporter and an unnamed person, or people, who “leaked investment documents belonging to the claimant.”

“I found that the information in question was confidential and that the public interest in the maintenance of confidentiality outweighed the public interest in disclosure,” Justice Andrew J. Popplewell of the High Court said in the statement.

The judge said he would provide a longer explanation of his ruling in a public judgment to be handed down soon.

A Reuters statement said the news agency’s objective was to publish articles that are in the public interest, “which we believe outweighs the confidentiality concerns put forward in this matter.”

“We are therefore deeply disappointed by this ruling and are reviewing the court’s decision,” the statement said.

Brevan Howard said it “highly values its ability to engage with its investor base on a candid and confidential basis.”

“To protect the integrity of its communications, the firm successfully sought and obtained an injunction to restrain the use of a report based on confidential information made available to investors that was obtained by Reuters in breach of confidence,” the company said in a statement.

Revenue cracks down on ability to keep offshore income out of UK net

Thousands of British expats face significant bills if they return to the UK after new “non-dom” tax rules come into force in April.

The finance bill published this week will pare back the tax perks offered to people whose permanent home or “domicile” is outside the UK, imposing new limits on their ability to keep offshore income out of Britain’s tax net.

Permanent non-dom status will be abolished for anyone living in Britain for at least 15 of the past 20 years. Non-dom status for Britons who return to the UK but claim to have a permanent home abroad will also be removed.

The changes have caused consternation in Hong Kong and Singapore, where large numbers of Britons work in finance and legal services.

Carlo Gray, head of Buzzacott, an accountancy firm in Hong Kong, said: “We have had a flurry of inquiries recently in respect to Brits returning to the UK for work or for their children’s education and these new rules are resulting in them having to think very carefully about the implications and their long-term plans.”

The measures, introduced to tackle what the government has described as “fundamental unfairness” in the non-dom regime, amount to the biggest changes to the tax rules since their introduction in 1914.

Martin Rimmer, head of tax for south-east Asia at the Fry group in Singapore, said the reforms would affect expats who had to return to Britain unexpectedly, perhaps because their parents were unwell. “Life throws curve balls,” he said. “I think it will affect thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people whether they know it or not.”

Expats affected by the change were born in the UK, started life with a British “domicile of origin”, but went overseas and put down roots, keeping their wealth outside the scope of the UK tax net even if they subsequently returned to the UK.

If they now return to the UK, they will be taxed on income and gains from any offshore trusts or companies they owned. They will also fall into the UK inheritance tax net, subject to a 12-month grace period.

A prominent example of a returning non-dom is Stuart Gulliver, chief executive of the HSBC banking group. Mr Gulliver, 58, who was born in Derby and educated in Oxford, acquired a tax domicile of choice in Hong Kong after he moved there with HSBC in 1980. This allowed him to keep his offshore income, including from a confidential Panama company, out of the British tax net.

Last week, he lost a High Court battle to stop HM Revenue & Customs investigating how he had kept a tax domicile in Hong Kong since 1999 despite working in Britain for the past 13 years. The revenue has asked him to answer 123 questions and provide 33 categories of documents relating to his personal and professional life since 1981.

Mr Rimmer said more than 100,000 British citizens emigrated every year but changes to the domicile rules would affect only a small proportion.

“The extent to which it matters depends on wealth and the extent to which they know there is a weapon that protects them from tax,” he said. People who were not “tremendously wealthy” would tend to use simpler strategies to reduce their tax bills.

Benjamin Heaton of PwC, the professional services firm, in Singapore said: “Moving country is a huge decision, and understandably, tax would only be one of many factors in making this choice. Quality of life, employment opportunities, climate and a good education system could all be factors which one would consider before tax. With that said, clearly the new rules will have a significant impact on ‘returning UK doms’ with respect to income, capital and inheritance taxes in the UK.”