AI, risk and transformation are no longer separate conversations. As businesses adapt to technological change, changing regulation and global uncertainty, IR Global members offer practical insight into the issues defining a new advisory era.
August 2026
YOUR GUIDE to navigating a complex and ever-changing global business environment from professional service firms across the globe
19 IR Global members
EXPERT VIEW “The world will look different within two to three years,
share their insights on key issues facing businesses today
and investment decisions need to account for that reality.” Isabella Bertani BERTANI p6
THE AI ADVANTAGE Rebecca Torrey explains why, even with AI’s power, litigation skill remains the real advantage in California
EXPERT VIEW Shilpen Savani and N V Saisunder explore global AI governance through both UK and Indian perspectives
THE RISK RESET Amani Cibambo details how investors can manage risk in the DRC’s fast-moving mining economy
INTEGRITY IMPACT QUALITY
FROM THE EDITOR Before risk reveals itself
IR Global is a multi-disciplinary professional services network that provides legal, accountancy and financial advice to both companies and individuals around the world. Our membership consists of the highest quality boutique and mid-sized firms who service the mid-market; firms which are focused on partner led, personal service and have extensive cross-border experience. Represented in 165+ jurisdictions, covering over 60 unique practice areas, we are perfectly placed to offer the highest quality bespoke advice that meets the needs of the most complex client requirements. Since 2010, our community has grown to 1,500+ members worldwide based on the principles of friendship, trust and a shared belief in going beyond the traditional role of the adviser. Today we exist as the ‘go-to’ network for forward- thinking clients looking for creative, pragmatic and cost-effective solutions.
Annie Elsmore
annie@irglobal.com
The obvious risk is often waiting at the front door, while the real exposure enters quietly through the side. AI is visible; the harder questions lie in governance, liability and trust. Geopolitical instability makes the headlines; its consequences are felt in investment decisions, contracts, supply chains and financing. Regulation is expected, but its speed and reach are harder to predict. Each edition of The Visionaries is shaped by the questions clients are asking at that moment. This year, those questions are particularly difficult to separate. AI, risk and transformation are no longer separate conversations. Each influences the others, and together they are now part of the same advisory reality: the visible issue is often only the starting point, and few questions sit neatly within a single jurisdiction or area of expertise. Across the submissions in this edition, one common denominator stands out: early intervention. Whether the subject is financial distress, AI governance, regulatory change or investment strategy, the resounding advice is to act before pressure becomes a crisis. That sounds simple enough. But how does one intervene early when the assumptions underpinning today’s decisions may look very different tomorrow? The answer lies partly in visibility.
Highest quality bespoke advice, meeting the needs of the most complex client requirements
Organisations must understand where exposure is building and when specialist advice is needed. An AI tool introduced for efficiency may raise questions about liability or confidentiality. A transaction may be shaped by political risk as much as price. A restructuring conversation may need to begin while the business still looks stable. Once considered the hallmark of a well-run business, proactivity can now be the difference between preserving value and running out of options. That is also where adaptability becomes essential. Not as a vague business virtue, but as a practical discipline: the ability to test assumptions, update governance and take heed of expert advice before those options narrow. In tandem, the role of the advisor is changing. Good advice always has and always will require technical expertise and good judgement, but it now also
“Whether the subject is financial distress, AI governance, regulatory change or investment
Thomas Wheeler Founder of IR Global
“The group’s founding philosophy was based on cultivating a giving mentality and creating a system which is ethical, sustainable and always puts clients’ interests first.”
strategy, the resounding
advice is to act before pressure becomes a crisis.”
For further information, please contact:
IR Global is a multi-disciplinary professional services network that provides legal, accountancy and financial advice to companies and individuals around the world.
requires the ability to help clients act before certainty arrives. Clients rarely require answers confined to one legal, tax or commercial discipline. They need someone who can understand how those questions interact, bringing in the right expertise where required without losing the close, practical judgement expected from a trusted advisor. In the following chapters, IR Global members offer practical insight for a new advisory era. Their contributions do not pretend that uncertainty can be removed, but instead show how clients and their advisors can meet it with better judgement, stronger structures, and the confidence to adapt.
Rachel Finch Digital & Sponsorships Director rachel@irglobal.com
Annie Elsmore Content Marketing Manager annie@irglobal.com
JOIN OUR NETWORK
WWW.IRGLOBAL.COM
irglobal | 3
In this issue:
THE AI ADVANTAGE
EXPERT VIEW CANADA – EAST, CANADA – QUEBEC Isabella Bertani BERTANI p6
THE RISK RESET
p16 US – CALIFORNIA, NEVADA Ismail Amin, TALG
p18 MAURITIUS, SEYCHELLES Vimal Damry, Premier Financial Services Limited p20 TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS Dominique Gardiner, Wilson Wells
p40 US – MASSACHUSETTS, TEXAS, NEW YORK, CONNECTICUT, OKLAHOMA, NEW MEXICO, ARKANSAS, COLORADO Thomas H. Curran, Thomas H. Curran Associates, LLC
p30 ENGLAND
Rana Chatterjee, Colman Coyle
p34 DR CONGO
Amani Cibambo, Amani Law Firm
p36 AUSTRALIA
p44 ITALY
p22 GERMANY
James Conomos, JCL Law Partners
Tina Gullì, Studio Gullì
Renate Schnürch, Kanzlei Schnürch
p24 US – CALIFORNIA
Rebecca Torrey, The Torrey Firm
EXPERT VIEW
p6
CANADA – EAST, CANADA – QUEBEC Isabella Bertani, BERTANI
p12 ENGLAND, INDIA
Shilpen Savani & N V Saisunder, gunnercooke llp, Eshwars Advocates
p26 SWEDEN
Cristina Bergner, Case IQ
US – OKLAHOMA Edward G. Lindsey The Oklahoma Arbitration Center EXPERT VIEW
p32 US – OKLAHOMA Edward G. Lindsey,
The Oklahoma Arbitration Center
ENGLAND AND INDIA Shilpen Savani, gunnercooke llp N V Saisunder, Eshwars Advocates p12 EXPERT VIEW
p38 MEXICO
Martha Villalobos & Hector Noriega, Wong Fleming
p42 URUGUAY
p32
Sofía Sorhuet, Sorhuet & Sapelli Business Consulting
p46 DOMINICAN REPUBLIC León Patiño, Patiño Cáceres
irglobal | 5
4 | irglobal
| EXPERT VIEW
CANADA – EAST, CANADA – QUEBEC
The 2028 reset window for global investment decisions
“For investors, the significance lies in recognising how heavily financial markets are shaped by uncertainty.”
Isabella Bertani, BERTANI
Isabella Bertani, FCPA, FCA Founder and Chief Client Strategist BERTANI
T he world will look different within two to three years, and investment decisions need to account for that reality. By the end of the decade, many of today’s political leaders will be leaving office, facing succession challenges, or governing with weaker mandates. Donald Trump will have left office by January 2029, closing a chapter in which American politics was defined by his influence. In Europe, Viktor Orbán’s recent electoral loss suggests the current cohort of strongman politicians may also be receding. Narendra Modi in India and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey face growing uncertainty ahead of their next elections, while Xi Jinping, though entering a fourth term, may see the CCP begin positioning a successor for the term after 2028. Together, these shifts point to a generational transition in political leadership across many major powers, and the world is heading into a new global leadership era.
By 2028-2029, several conflicts that have defined the post-Covid era may also have found resolution. The Russia-Ukraine war could move towards a ceasefire, frozen conflict, or militarised settlement, even if a clean peace remains elusive. Conflicts involving Israel, Palestine, and Iran are also likely to reach some conclusion, whether or not the outcome is desirable. For investors, the significance lies in recognising how heavily financial markets are shaped by uncertainty.
New geographies of conflict
Isabella Bertani, FCPA, FCA is the Founder and Chief Client Strategist of BERTANI, a Toronto-based audit, tax, and advisory firm specialising in foreign direct investment (FDI). She has advised private and public companies on growth, investment, and cross-border business strategies for over 25 years.
A calmer geopolitical climate could produce a limited ‘post-war boom’, particularly across Europe and parts of the Middle East, with strong opportunities in reconstruction, power grids, nuclear energy, liquefied natural gas, defence, logistics, industrial parks, ports, rail, urban housing, and digital infrastructure. Emerging markets
+1 416 363 8404 isabella.bertani@bertaniglobal.com irglobal.com/advisor/isabella-bertani
irglobal | 7
6 | irglobal
|
EXPERT VIEW
CANADA – EAST, CANADA – QUEBEC
ABOUT US...
WHERE DOES CANADA STAND IN ALL OF THIS?
intelligence should also become clearer. Investors may know by then whether AI represents the transformative technology many expect, or whether it proves an intermediate stage before a further breakthrough such as quantum computing. If AI meets current expectations, it could significantly alter the balance of capabilities, and in turn, power among nations, opening new avenues for international conflict, as countries currently behind in development leapfrog economic and military capacity through AI. If instead AI turns out to be more like the pager before the mobile phone, an interim stage of technological progress, the more important shifts may come from industrial reorganisation and new forms of international cooperation. Two focal shifts: Sovereign energy and non-trade barriers One of the clearest lessons of recent instability, following the Strait of Hormuz blockade shock, has been the vulnerability created by energy dependence. The crisis has spurred new energy sourcing contracts worldwide and pushed nations to search more aggressively for alternatives. As long as solar panel supply chains remain concentrated in China, uptake of solar and EV technology may lag expectations, and countries, while still expanding solar capacity, will push harder for sovereign energy sources such as nuclear power, where national governments can exert more direct control. Australia, Kazakhstan, Canada, Russia, and other countries with uranium, thorium, and zirconium deposits and enrichment capacity stand to gain leverage. A second shift is moving concern from free trade agreements towards non-tariff barriers. Following US tariffs, many countries have signed new trade agreements, and more are likely in the next two to three years, but there is growing recognition that signing FTAs alone is not sufficient to grow trade. The India-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement, the Greater Arab Free Trade Area, the Australia- United States Free Trade Agreement,
Canada occupies a particularly strong position in this emerging landscape,
with political stability, strong property rights, predictable regulation, deep capital markets, and privileged access to both American and European markets. In a world increasingly divided between competing blocs, Canada may emerge as a preferred partner for countries seeking to diversify away from less predictable suppliers while remaining within trusted security and regulatory frameworks.
combining several attributes likely to become more valuable during the 2028-2030 reset window. As competition increasingly centres on energy security, critical minerals, supply chain resilience, and regulatory trust, Canada is one of the few jurisdictions offering all four at once . It holds significant reserves of uranium, potash, nickel, cobalt, copper, and rare earth elements needed for electrification, advanced manufacturing, defence technology, and AI infrastructure, while remaining one of the world’s largest and most reliable exporters of oil, natural gas , hydroelectric power, and agricultural products .
Founded in 2001, BERTANI specialises in inbound and outbound foreign direct investment involving Canada, as well as advising companies pursuing growth, expansion, and international opportunities. The firm combines audit, tax, and advisory expertise to help clients evaluate opportunities, manage risk, and execute cross-border growth strategies. As a member firm of IR Global, BERTANI is connected to 1,500 collaborative member firms in over 165 jurisdictions across the globe, helping our clients to pursue outward global expansion strategies. This article is an excerpt from a longer publication. To read the full article, follow BERTANI FDI Compass on LinkedIn.
Canada’s opportunity, then, is not merely to export commodities but
to position itself as a strategic platform for Western energy security, critical mineral processing, AI infrastructure, advanced manufacturing, and supply-chain resilience. If governments increasingly prioritise economic security alongside efficiency, Canada could become one of the most strategically valuable jurisdictions in the Western economic system.
Equally important is Canada’s position within the Western alliance system.
Unlike many resource-rich jurisdictions, Canada combines resource abundance
The demographic divide
Grey rhinos: Taiwan blockade and a right-wing Europe Alongside these trends, two grey rhino risks could reshape the investment landscape. The first is a Chinese blockade, quarantine, or sustained pressure campaign against Taiwan. Even without a full invasion, such an event could disrupt semiconductor production, shipping routes, electronics manufacturing, AI hardware supply chains, and global trade, driving global inflation. The second is Europe’s rightward turn, already becoming visible. A more nationalist Europe would grow more protectionist and security-driven, tightening foreign investment screening and controls on outward investment, favouring local content, supporting domestic manufacturing, and slowing aspects of the Green Deal.
offering scale and strategic usefulness could benefit from renewed capital flows and a new cycle of global market integration. Yet geopolitical competition will not disappear. The US-China rivalry is unlikely to be resolved by then and may intensify, dividing the world more clearly into spheres of influence around Beijing and Washington. Countries able to manage ties with both may find that space shrinking, but with Russia’s war-making capacity exhausted, the new competitive equilibrium centred on Beijing and Washington could mean less violent competition even as the geography of conflict shifts from Eastern Europe and the Middle East towards Africa and Latin America. Control over critical minerals is becoming a strategic imperative for both economic and national security policy. China’s near monopoly over deposits and refining capacity across Latin America and Africa means that, having addressed conflicts in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, Washington and its allies will need to confront the risks of near- universal dependence on Beijing.
and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership all show that bilateral, regional, and mega-regional agreements often struggle to deliver rapid gains, because tariff liberalisation alone cannot overcome deeper constraints such as limited domestic firm capacity, restrictive rules of origin, cumbersome customs procedures, and persistent regulatory barriers. The next phase of trade politics will therefore shift from signing agreements to addressing non-tariff barriers, focusing on rules of origin, intellectual property law, product standards, sanitary and phytosanitary rules, carbon reporting, licensing systems, customs delays, certification costs, procurement restrictions, data rules, visa constraints, and local content requirements, producing a more interventionist trade politics. The winners will be countries and firms with compliance capacity, testing infrastructure, logistics depth, customs efficiency, standards recognition, digital documentation, and the ability to meet carbon, labour, health, and security requirements in destination markets.
shifts reshape global markets, with institutional stability emerging as the key differentiator, resource and energy assets becoming strategic instruments of state policy, and regulatory interoperability serving as the main gateway to market access, dynamics that grey rhino pressures such as Taiwan tensions or a rightward-shifting Europe could intensify by redrawing manufacturing maps, fragmenting regulatory blocs, and slowing industrial and green transition timelines. The overarching implication is that investors who prioritise administrative resilience, resource security politics, and cross-bloc regulatory compatibility will be best positioned to capture the upside of a world entering a new cycle of reconstruction, competition, and institutional reordering. Canada, Australia, and select Nordic and Gulf states may prove particularly attractive, combining resource endowments, political stability, and institutional capacity at a moment when all three are becoming scarce and valuable at once.
Demographics will also shape future winners and losers. Many developed countries, including much of Europe, China, Japan, South Korea, and Russia, face ageing populations, shrinking workforces, and rising fiscal pressure from healthcare and pensions. By contrast, India, Indonesia, Vietnam, Nigeria, and parts of Africa continue to benefit from younger populations and expanding labour pools. This divergence will shape migration policy, housing demand, consumer markets, productivity growth, and capital flows. Countries with ageing populations may recalibrate investment, social security, and immigration policy, while those with youth-driven growth will see this translate into progress or conflict depending on whether their youth bulge is absorbed productively into the labour market.
Technology’s defining role
A reset window
By 2028-2029, the practical impact of technologies such as artificial
The 2028-2030 window marks a turning point as several structural
irglobal | 9
8 | irglobal
FEATURING...
p12 ENGLAND, INDIA
Shilpen Savani & N V Saisunder gunnercooke llp, Eshwars Advocates
p16 US – CALIFORNIA, NEVADA Ismail Amin TALG
p18 MAURITIUS, SEYCHELLES Vimal Damry Premier Financial Services Limited
p20 TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS Dominique Gardiner Wilson Wells
The AI advantage
p22 GERMANY
Renate Schnürch Kanzlei Schnürch
p24 US – CALIFORNIA Rebecca Torrey The Torrey Firm
p26 SWEDEN
Cristina Bergner Case IQ
AI has transformed professional services, but its real advantages lie less in automation than in how well organisations govern, verify and apply it. Across jurisdictions, our members explore a changing advisory landscape where efficiency is valuable, but judgement remains essential. Renate Schnürch examines how AI is reshaping tax advisory work in Germany by automating routine tasks and creating space for higher-value strategic advice. Her contribution highlights the need for digital literacy and human accountability as firms comply with the EU AI Act, GDPR and professional confidentiality obligations. Dominique Gardiner stresses that AI-generated work cannot replace professional responsibility, particularly where local law, confidentiality and court submissions are
concerned. For lawyers and advisors both in the Turks and Caicos Islands and elsewhere, careful verification remains essential. In the US, Ismail Amin presents AI as a powerful starting point for legal research and document review, provided professionals understand its limits and avoid over-reliance. Members also consider the wider regulatory picture, including European governance expectations, cross-border AI rules and emerging questions around intellectual property, employment and data. Together, their insights show that the AI advantage belongs to organisations that combine innovation with oversight, and speed with sound professional judgement.
irglobal | 11
10 | irglobal
EXPERT VIEW
ENGLAND AND INDIA
Regulate, innovate, or both? How the UK and India are responding to the AI revolution
The UK perspective: Shilpen Savani Partner gunnercooke llp T he AI landscape has changed at unprecedented pace in 2026. A year ago, the UK’s approach was one of deliberate restraint, with the government’s AI Opportunities Action Plan setting out an ambitious growth agenda and Prime Minister, Starmer, framing the UK’s position as one of seizing opportunities rather than overregulating. The international context raises the stakes: President Trump’s decision on his first day back in office to revoke the Biden administration’s Executive Order on AI signals a decisive shift towards a market-led, largely unregulated environment in the United States, while the EU has moved firmly in the opposite direction. Twelve months on, these divergences cannot be ignored by any business operating across borders. Crucially, the EU AI Act is now
in force and its significance for UK businesses comes down to one straightforward reality: market access. The EU remains the UK’s largest trading partner and the Act follows the same extraterritorial logic that made GDPR a global compliance standard. Under Article 2, any provider or deployer of AI systems whose output is used in the EU falls within scope regardless of where they are established – expressly including third-country providers. A UK business whose AI system is used by EU customers, integrated into EU-regulated processes, or deployed by an EU-based subsidiary must comply because the EU demands it as a condition of doing business in the bloc. The UK’s own legislative picture remains unresolved. The Artificial Intelligence (Regulation) Bill, which proposed a statutory AI Authority and mandatory impact assessments, was not government backed and has not progressed. The government’s preference remains for existing sectoral regulators to apply five core principles: safety and security; transparency and explainability; fairness; accountability and governance; and contestability. In principle this is sensible, but in practice, it leaves
businesses navigating a fragmented and fast-developing landscape without a map. As N V Saisunder addresses, this extraterritorial reality extends beyond UK businesses. Indian businesses expanding into the EU, or servicing UK clients with EU operations, face the same compliance obligation under the AI Act regardless of where they are based. Despite the absence of primary AI legislation, the UK’s practical environment is shifting rapidly. The Data Protection Act 2018 (Code of Practice on Artificial Intelligence and Automated Decision-Making) Regulations 2026 place the ICO under a statutory obligation to produce a code of practice on AI and automated decision- making. Simultaneously, the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 has replaced the former Article 22 UK GDPR framework with a new regime, redefining when a decision is ‘solely automated’ for the purposes of the enhanced safeguards that must be applied. The Employment Rights Act 2025, which will reduce the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from two years to six months, brings AI-assisted hiring, disciplinary and redundancy decisions squarely within statutory scrutiny.
N V Saisunder is a Partner at Eshwars Advocates, in Chennai, India, leading the intellectual property, media and technology law practice and with an active practice before the various High Courts in India. He is a WIPO-empanelled UDRP arbitrator, a NIXI-empanelled INDRP arbitrator and is part of IR Global’s Technology, Media and Telecom practice group in India.
Shilpen Savani is a Partner at gunnercooke LLP, specialising in employment law and dispute resolution. He advises businesses in the UK and internationally on managing legal risk, resolving disputes and challenges arising from new technology. He is a CEDR-accredited mediator and an active member of IR Global’s Employment Group.
+44 203 375 6066 shilpen.savani@gunnercooke.com irglobal.com/advisor/shilpen-savani
+91 44 42048335 saisunder@eshwars.com irglobal.com/advisor/n-v-saisunder
irglobal | 13
12 | irglobal
EXPERT VIEW
ENGLAND AND INDIA
“If your business has EU exposure, map your AI systems against the EU AI Act’s risk tiers now. Do not wait for domestic legislation.”
On intellectual property, the government consulted on expanding text and data mining exceptions to permit AI training on copyright- protected works, then stepped back under creative industry pressure. The position remains unresolved, with no legislative clarity on whether training an AI model on copyright-protected content without a licence is lawful under UK law. Businesses operating across the UK, EU and other jurisdictions face a growing patchwork of obligations with no domestic anchor for their compliance. There is also an equivalence risk: the UK’s data adequacy status with the EU depends on ongoing alignment with EU data governance standards. If your business has EU exposure, map your AI systems against the EU AI Act’s risk tiers now. Do not wait for domestic legislation. Audit your AI vendor contracts, because liability allocation, data processing terms and IP indemnities are frequently underdeveloped in standard terms. Finally, build governance structures that can flex, because this landscape will keep evolving at a blistering pace.
has reserved judgment on whether training a model on copyrighted news content infringes the Copyright Act, 1957, the first substantive test of AI training data before an Indian court. Although neither decision is final, they mark the beginning of a judicial answer to questions the legislature is yet to address. For foreign businesses, two further points are worth noting. First, India places no AI-specific restriction on foreign investment and the DPDPA’s approach to cross-border data transfer is markedly more permissive than the EU’s adequacy-based model. Second, for multinationals running AI development, training or data annotation operations through Indian subsidiaries or delivery centres, the unresolved copyright position illustrated by the ANI Media litigation means that contracts governing the use of India-sourced or India-processed training data should expressly allocate IP risk, rather than assume the position is settled. The lesson from India is the same as in the UK: do not wait for dedicated AI legislation. Agreements should expressly address liability, data processing terms and IP indemnities under Indian law, consent practices should be tested against the DPDPA and governance should be built to accommodate change.
ABOUT US...
gunnercooke LLP is a UK-based corporate and commercial law firm founded in 2010 to deliver a more flexible and transparent approach to legal services. With legal professionals across offices in the UK, Europe and the US, the firm advises businesses and financial institutions on a range of legal and commercial matters.
T he extraterritorial logic described by Shilpen Savani has a clear Indian counterpart. To the extent that an AI service provider processes the personal data of individuals in India, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDPA) applies wherever that processing relates to the offering of goods or services to individuals within India, regardless of where the provider is established. India’s approach to AI stands in deliberate contrast to its treatment of personal data. Like the UK, India has no dedicated AI statute and governs the technology through existing legislation. Two enactments carry the substantive burden: the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act), which addresses the platform and content dimension, and the DPDPA, which governs personal data and is constructed around consent. The DPDPA permits non- consensual processing only within a closed list of ‘legitimate uses’, among them employment, state benefits, medical emergencies and public health and contains no open ‘legitimate interests’ ground. Critically for AI developers, none extends to the training of an AI model, so consent remains the operative basis even where the underlying data is publicly available. Entities processing personal The Indian perspective: N V Saisunder Partner – IPR, Media & Technology Law Eshwars Advocates
data at scale assume heightened obligations, including impact assessments, independent audits and reporting to the newly constituted Data Protection Board. Under the IT Act, the position turns on Section 79, which confers conditional ‘safe harbour’ on intermediaries, an immunity from liability for third-party content they host, provided they observe prescribed due-diligence obligations. Generative AI fits uneasily within that scheme, as a system that produces original, synthesised output is not merely hosting content created by others. Rather than enact a specific AI statute, the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2026 brought synthetically generated information within intermediaries’ due diligence duties, requiring it to be labelled and tagged with metadata and putting safe harbour at risk where a platform knowingly permits unlawful synthetic content. However, this strategy regulates AI by treating the platforms that generate it as intermediaries, when it is contestable whether a generative AI system is an intermediary at all. In the absence of legislative clarity, the question has fallen to the courts and an AI jurisprudence is slowly beginning to take shape. In IndiaMart Intermesh Ltd v. OpenAI Inc (Calcutta High Court, May 2026), the Court considered this question at the interim stage, taking the prima facie view that ChatGPT is an ‘originator’ rather than an ‘intermediary’ under the IT Act, while leaving the point to be decided finally at trial and noting that a statute drafted before generative AI will ultimately require legislative, not merely administrative, intervention. In ANI Media Pvt Ltd v. OpenAI OpCo LLC, the Delhi High Court
“Contracts governing the use of India-sourced or India-processed training data should expressly allocate IP risk, rather than assume the position is settled.”
gunnercooke.com
Eshwars Advocates is a full-service commercial and intellectual property law firm with offices across India. Established in 2006, the firm advises domestic and international clients on corporate, technology, data protection, intellectual property and dispute resolution matters.
REGULATE, INNOVATE, OR BOTH? A SHARED ANSWER:
From London to Chennai, the regulatory picture shares the same essential shape: AI is transforming business faster than legislators can respond and businesses cannot afford to wait for the law to catch up. Although the UK and India have approached AI regulation from different starting points and have so far favoured adapting existing legal frameworks rather than introducing dedicated AI legislation, both face the same reality that the EU AI Act is increasingly operating as a global compliance benchmark for organisations
with European exposure. The common challenge is how to govern a fast-evolving technology that is already deeply embedded in commercial and employment relationships. For businesses operating across both jurisdictions, the message is clear: AI governance should not be viewed as a compliance exercise triggered by legislation. Build it now, build it proportionately and build it to be flexible. In AI regulation, as in AI itself, the ability to adapt is the most valuable capability of all.
eshwars.com LinkedIn
irglobal | 15
14 | irglobal
| THE AI ADVANTAGE
US – CALIFORNIA, NEVADA
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Let AI start the work, but don’t rely on it to finish
that retains prompts or uses inputs for training. From a governance standpoint, that inconsistency is dangerous. Vetting should include a careful review of the provider’s terms of use, privacy policy, data retention practices, security protocols and confidentiality commitments. Firms should understand where data is stored, whether it may be reviewed by humans, whether it may be used to improve the model and what contractual remedies exist if the platform mishandles information. Finally, there should be written AI use policies in place to guide employees on responsible AI use. These policies need to address which platforms may be used, what information may or may not be uploaded, when human review is required and who is responsible for approving AI-assisted work before it is circulated externally. A policy that simply sits in a file and is never explained is not enough. Employees should be trained on it, and the policy should be updated in practice as the technology develops.
inaccurate description of controlling law can create professional embarrassment, sanctions exposure and client harm. But the risk is not limited to obvious hallucinations. Sometimes the greater danger is context. AI may generate a response that is partially correct but incomplete, or accurate in one jurisdiction but wrong in another. It may miss a factual nuance, overlook an exception or apply the wrong legal standard. For that reason, professionals should never treat AI-generated analysis as final advice. It should be treated as nothing other than a starting point in this context. Attorneys remain responsible for their work product, their advice and their filings. The fact that a machine generated the first draft does not transfer responsibility away from the professional. I am also hesitant to see professionals over-rely on AI because doing so may influence research creativity and advocacy. Legal analysis is not always about retrieving information. Judgement, strategy, interpretation and persuasion are all skills which legal professionals must continue to hone. AI is powerful and useful, but it must assist professional work, not replace professional responsibility.
AI is a win for efficiency, but professional judgement is indispensable. AI is helping lawyers streamline research, organise complex information, and automate routine administrative tasks. However, its real value depends on professionals who can critically evaluate outputs, verify sources, understand legal context, and recognise the technology’s limitations rather than accepting results at face value. Effective AI governance starts with data protection and clear, frequently revisited policies. Firms should adopt approved AI platforms with robust privacy safeguards and ensure sensitive information is never exposed through public tools. Ideally one vetted and approved platform should be permitted, with written AI use policies supported by regular staff training.
Q1 How is AI changing the skills expected of professionals in your jurisdiction? AI is already changing the skills expected of professionals, including attorneys. I believe it is making lawyers more efficient by providing useful roadmaps to statutes, precedent and transactional templates. It is also making it easier to quickly complete more mundane tasks (such as creating a table of contents or authorities). Ismail Amin Founder / Partner TALG
My favourite aspect of AI is its ability to efficiently condense voluminous amounts of information into granular detail. For example, in a complex legal case, AI can assist in generating timelines from thousands of pages of documents. In an M&A transaction, it can help create a workable diligence or closing checklist. These tasks can save counsel invaluable amounts of time and resources. However, the professional skill required is not knowing how to use AI. It is knowing how to use it well. AI may provide a starting point, but attorneys must still verify sources, review outputs, assess context and determine whether the answer provided is legally and factually sound. In that sense, AI is not reducing the need for professional expertise. It is, however, increasing the need for disciplined review.
When professionals understand the technology’s limitations and use it as a tool to enhance independent judgement, it is a massive timesaver. The issues arise when it is trusted blindly. In California and Nevada, attorneys remain bound by their professional obligations regardless of the technology used. AI can assist with research and organisation, but it does not alter the lawyer’s duties of competence and confidentiality. Q2 What governance or supervision structures are firms and businesses putting in place to manage AI responsibly? Firstly, firms should carefully ensure that prompts provided to any large language model (LLM) are not retained or shared with third parties – including being retained by the platform for recursive learning, model training or self-improvement. This is especially important where prompts may contain privileged, confidential, proprietary or otherwise sensitive information. Second, we recommend that firms and businesses pick a platform, thoroughly vet it and then stick with it consistently throughout the firm or business. Permitting different employees to use different AI tools without oversight creates unnecessary risk. One employee may use a platform with strong privacy protections, while another may use a public tool
Be cautious of over-reliance. Hallucinations, incomplete legal analysis,
confidentiality breaches, and over-reliance on AI can lead to client harm, sanctions, and reputational damage. Lawyers remain responsible for the accuracy of their advice and should continue to hone their interpretation and persuasion skills.
Q3 What liability or risk issues arise when professionals
“AI is not reducing
the need for professional expertise. It is, however, increasing the need for disciplined review.”
ABOUT US... talglaw.com
rely on AI-generated analysis or advice?
The biggest risks involve breaches of professional obligations, including duties of confidentiality and attorney- client privilege. If a lawyer or client uploads privileged communications into a public AI platform, those protections may be lost or severely weakened. Even if privilege is not automatically waived in every circumstance, the risk is substantial enough that professionals should proceed with extreme caution. There is also significant work- product risk if the results of a prompt are not thoroughly reviewed and vetted for accuracy. LLMs have become notorious for producing responses that contain errors, unsupported assumptions and hallucinations. In the legal context, that can be especially dangerous. A fabricated case citation, incorrect statutory summary or
Ismail Amin is a multi-jurisdictional practitioner with substantial experience in business, securities, and biotechnology transactions and disputed matters. Ismail has handled disputes all over the world and throughout the United States on behalf of Fortune 500 companies and mid-sized privately held companies in diverse fields such as biologics, biotechnology, banking, financial services, and securities regulation. Ismail has considerable trial and arbitration experience, having been involved in over 85 trials and arbitration across multiple jurisdictions from the inception of his legal career. He is admitted to practice law in California, Nevada, Texas, North Carolina, and New York.
TALG is a multi-jurisdictional law firm that solves complex problems, leveraging cutting-edge technology for clients, whether in the courtroom or boardroom. We’re forever grateful for outstanding clients with whom we’ve been fortunate to build long-term relationships. Because of these relationships, we have established a strong presence as a trusted legal team in California, Nevada, Texas, North Carolina, and New York. We are outside-the-box thinkers who use experience and practical know-how combined with advanced technology to guide our strategies and give our clients every edge possible. We have perfected the art of aggressive representation while maintaining integrity and strict adherence to an ethical code of conduct.
All of this sits against California’s developing AI and privacy framework. The California Consumer Privacy Act already places significant emphasis on data handling, while newer AI legislation (including SB 53) reflects California’s focus on transparency, risk management and accountability in AI use. Here, having these internal policies is especially important.
+1 702 954 3861 iamin@talglaw.com irglobal.com/advisor/ismail-amin
irglobal | 17
16 | irglobal
| THE AI ADVANTAGE
MAURITIUS, SEYCHELLES
KEY TAKEAWAYS AI is transforming fiduciary workflows. From client onboarding and KYC reviews to AML screening, document drafting and financial analysis, AI is streamlining routine processes, reducing manual work and improving efficiency across fiduciary and corporate services.
The future of fiduciary services isn’t fully automated
approved AI tools under a clear AI Use Policy, supported by robust training and mandatory human oversight for decisions involving professional judgement. Fiduciary responsibility cannot be delegated. AI can support analysis and administration, but it cannot assume fiduciary duties or professional accountability. Professionals remain responsible for applying judgement and making decisions that can withstand regulatory or judicial scrutiny.
Q3 What liability or risk issues arise when professionals
rely on AI-generated analysis or advice?
Governance is as important as technology. Firms should adopt
The main point is that AI cannot, on its own, assume a fiduciary responsibility, however good the AI model may be. Human intervention is a must. Professional decisions or advice are the product of many factors, situations and other important considerations that AI simply cannot weigh. Professionals should assume responsibility for the decisions they take. In the event their decisions come under review by a regulatory authority or a court, the use of a particular AI model in arriving at a decision cannot be used as an excuse. It should not be forgotten that fiduciary duties require professionals to act with care and skill. Using AI as a means of dispensing with that duty would be a mistake. Fiduciaries will run the risk of a breach of fiduciary duty. In short, AI should be a tool only and remain as such – it need not replace the professional in the decision-making process. Regulators require fiduciary firms to have effective systems and controls in place. That does not mean sole reliance on AI tools, but rather that such tools should be used carefully as a support to the fiduciary function. While the use of AI is proving extremely valuable to the fiduciary services industry, it is fast becoming a necessity rather than a choice. AI operates at remarkable speed and with capabilities that are humanly impossible to match. Its use drives efficiency, reduces human error, and delivers real savings in both cost and time. That said, it is a support to professionals, not a replacement for their thinking. When AI is combined with professionals applying their own mind and judgement, it creates a genuine industry breakthrough. There is no doubt more is to come, as we are yet to reach the limits of what this technology can achieve.
understanding of what the software is achieving and, just as importantly, where its limitations lie. Without this grounding, it is difficult to judge which processes genuinely require human intervention and judgement, whatever AI model is being used. A significant part of fiduciary and corporate services work requires professional judgement and review. Many matters call for the professional to weigh the facts against applicable laws, rules and regulations, and to apply their own professional judgement in arriving at a fiduciary decision. No professional can rely entirely on an AI model, however advanced it may be. Fiduciary decisions are not standardised outcomes; they vary from case to case. They carry a fiduciary duty and a responsibility that AI cannot assume on the professional’s behalf. The professional skill, experience and judgement required here simply cannot be found in any AI software. AI and professional expertise are complementary – not substitutes for one another. Q2 What governance or supervision structures are firms putting in place to manage AI responsibly? To start with, the use of AI itself should be governed by a defined policy: an ‘AI Use Policy’. This policy should set out which tools may be used, and for what purpose, whether that is drafting emails or documents, summarising documents, KYC/AML checks, transaction
monitoring, or other tasks. No AI tool should be used outside those approved in the AI Use Policy. This includes public or freely available tools, which should not be authorised for firm use. Even where an authorised AI tool is used, human approval should be mandatory. As explained earlier, professional judgement is required in many fiduciary decisions, whether these relate to client acceptance, advice, or other matters. The AI tools deployed should be properly vetted, with strong confidentiality controls and independent testing. Inappropriate use, or the use of unapproved AI tools, could be very risky and should be avoided at all costs.
• Drafting agreements, research and risk assessment. • Document summarising. • Accounts preparation, financial analysis and forecasting. When you consider the wide range of processes where AI is involved, it is clear it is of great help and assistance. In Mauritius, the government is focusing a lot on AI for future developments in the country as the industry grows exponentially. That said, firms must ensure that professionals using these AI tools are properly trained, not only in how to use the technology, but in recognising where a task should be handed back or taken over by a professional. Using AI tools comes with its challenges, with the main one being exactly how they should be used. Professionals must have the appropriate skills to use these tools but equally know when human intervention and oversight is required. This starts with training on the AI software itself; a full
Q1 How is AI changing the skills of fiduciary and corporate services professionals? Artificial intelligence is reshaping the fiduciary and corporate services industries. Automation is increasingly being used across a growing number of processes – this shift is not just on the horizon, it is visible today. Usually, client onboarding is the first step in fiduciary services, and this process in itself is a good example of how AI is being used. Identity verification is now largely automated through biometric checks, and a Vimal Damry Managing Director Premier Financial Services Limited
range of API-driven software tools plug directly into the onboarding workflow to carry out continuous screening, generate registers, prepare incorporation documents and board resolutions, and monitor transactions. Bringing these processes together in this way has delivered real savings in both time and cost. Not so long ago, these were separate tasks performed manually, a process that without question consumed considerably more time and resources. AI has transformed this workflow across fiduciary and corporate services firms. Today we see AI already at work for many other processes for fiduciaries such as in: • Drafting emails, reports and presentations, and summarising online meetings. • Client onboarding, KYC review and chatbots. • AML screening, sanctions monitoring and transaction monitoring.
ABOUT US...
premierfinservices.com
Vimal Damry is the Managing Director, CEO, and Founder of Premier Financial Services Limited (since September 2007) which is an FSC-licensed management company based in Mauritius. He is also a director of UHY Premier Financial Services Limited which is an FSA Seychelles-licensed Corporate Service Provider and Trustee (since June 2014). He has been in the global business and financial industry for more than 25 years. Vimal’s commitment to excellence is evident in his meticulous approach to managing complex financial structures and his ability to navigate the intricate landscape of international regulations.
Premier Group operates mainly through three licensed companies. One based in Mauritius via a Trust and Management Licence from the Financial Services Commission. A second in Seychelles via an International Corporate Service Provider (ICSP) and International Trustee Services Providers (ITSP) by the Financial Services Authority. The third in Dubai, UAE via a Corporate Service Provider (CSP) Licence by the Dubai Multi Commodities Centre (DMCC) and as an Approved Registered Agent of Ras Al Khaimah International Corporate Centre (RAK ICC). It is supported by its representative office in South Africa.
+ 230 245 6703 vimal@premierfinservices.com irglobal.com/advisor/vimal-damry
irglobal | 19
18 | irglobal
| THE AI ADVANTAGE
TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS
KEY TAKEAWAYS AI increases rather than replaces the value of professional judgement. While AI can rapidly research, summarise information and draft documents, professionals remain responsible for assessing accuracy, reliability and context. In jurisdictions such as the Turks and Caicos Islands, where local laws, business practices and relationships matter, critical thinking and independent judgement are more important than ever.
‘The AI said so’ is not a defence
and confidentiality safeguards to manage risks. Human review of AI-generated work is essential, particularly in regulated sectors where accountability for decisions and advice cannot be delegated to technology.
From a litigation perspective, the increasing use of AI is likely to give rise to new areas of dispute, including those arising from decisions made in reliance on inaccurate AI-generated content, misuse of confidential information, professional negligence and regulatory breaches. AI undoubtedly offers significant benefits and has the potential to improve efficiency across many disciplines. However, technology does not alter professional responsibility. Professional judgement, accountability and independent thinking remain fundamental, regardless of how sophisticated the technology becomes.
Liability remains with the professional, not the AI. AI can generate convincing
but inaccurate information, creating risks ranging from professional negligence to regulatory breaches and confidentiality violations. Courts and regulators expect professionals to verify all AI-generated content – ‘the AI said so’ is not a defence when errors lead to legal, financial or reputational harm.
Responsible AI use requires strong governance and human oversight.
Dominique Gardiner Associate Attorney Wilson Wells
Organisations are introducing AI policies, approval processes, training programmes
Q1 How is AI changing the skills expected of professionals in your jurisdiction?
“Courts expect practitioners to verify the authorities and evidence upon which they rely, regardless of the tools used to prepare them.”
fully appreciate. While AI can assist with reviewing documents and analysing large volumes of information, lawyers remain responsible for applying the law correctly and advising clients on the practical realities of their situation. Technical knowledge remains essential, but so too does the ability to evaluate information critically, understand context and exercise independent judgement. Q2 What governance or supervision structures are firms and businesses putting in place to manage AI responsibly? As AI becomes more accessible, businesses are increasingly recognising that its use requires appropriate oversight. Globally, organisations are beginning to implement internal policies governing how AI may be used, who may use it and the types of information that can be entered into AI systems. These measures are driven by concerns surrounding confidentiality, data security, regulatory compliance and risk management. For professional services firms, confidentiality remains a significant consideration. Before information is entered into any AI platform, practitioners must consider where it will be stored, who may have access to it and whether its use could compromise client confidentiality or legal privilege.
Many organisations have introduced governance frameworks requiring human review of AI-generated work, supported by internal approval processes, training programmes and acceptable use policies. While AI is a valuable tool for research, drafting and administrative tasks, responsibility for the final work product remains with the individual or organisation using it. This is particularly important in regulated industries, where decisions relating to legal advice, lending, employment and regulatory compliance continue to require human oversight and accountability. The objective is not to prevent the use of AI, but to ensure it is used responsibly, protects clients and supports professional standards. Q3 What liability or risk issues arise when professionals The obvious risk is that AI can produce answers that appear convincing while being entirely wrong, a phenomenon commonly referred to as ‘hallucinations’. AI-generated content should never be accepted without verification, as information that appears accurate at first glance may contain factual errors, omissions or incorrect assumptions. For legal professionals, the risks can be particularly significant. In the rely on AI-generated analysis or advice?
Turks and Caicos Islands, legal analysis often requires careful consideration of legislation, local case law and persuasive authorities from other jurisdictions. While AI can assist with research, it cannot be relied upon to determine whether a particular authority is applicable or whether legislation has been amended. From a dispute resolution perspective, one of the greatest ‘AI nightmares’ is inaccurate AI-generated content finding its way into court documents, witness statements or legal submissions. Courts expect practitioners to verify the authorities and evidence upon which they rely, regardless of the tools used to prepare them. In court, ‘the AI said so’ is not a defence. Lawyers remain responsible for the legal advice they give, accountants for the financial advice they provide and consultants for the recommendations they make. If inaccurate AI-generated content or advice contributes to financial loss, regulatory breaches or negligence claims, responsibility is unlikely to shift to the technology itself. Confidentiality presents another notable risk. Uploading client information, commercially sensitive documents or personal data to AI platforms without appropriate safeguards may expose businesses and professionals to legal, regulatory and reputational consequences. There are also continuing concerns surrounding bias, transparency and intellectual property, particularly as questions regarding the ownership of AI-generated content continue to be debated.
Artificial intelligence is no longer a concept of the future. It has become part of everyday professional practice, with professionals in law, finance, government and many other fields using AI-powered tools to research issues, draft documents and analyse information. The immediate impact has not been to replace human expertise. Instead, it has increased the importance of professional judgement. Clients can now access information instantly and documents can be summarised in seconds. Draft contracts, reports and correspondence can now be produced with remarkable speed. However, speed does not necessarily equate to accuracy. As a result, legal professionals are spending less time gathering information and more time assessing whether that information is reliable, complete and appropriate to the circumstances. Critical thinking, sound judgement and the ability to identify errors have therefore become even more important. This is particularly true in a jurisdiction such as the Turks and Caicos Islands, where legal and commercial decisions are often shaped by local legislation, industry practice and business relationships that an AI system cannot
ABOUT US... wilsonwells.com
Dominique Gardiner is an Associate Attorney at Wilson Wells, practising primarily in litigation and dispute resolution. She advises clients on a broad range of contentious and commercial issues, including debt recovery, employment disputes, insolvency proceedings and contractual claims. Prior to joining Wilson Wells, Dominique served as Crown Counsel at the Attorney General’s Chambers of the Turks and Caicos Islands, where she gained valuable experience in public sector legal advisory work and regulatory matters. A member of the Turks and Caicos Islands Bar since 2018, Dominique is also recognised as a Rising Star within the IR Global network.
Wilson Wells is a full-service law firm in the Turks and Caicos Islands, advising local and international clients on litigation and dispute resolution, real estate and development, banking and finance, corporate and commercial matters, employment law, immigration and regulatory issues. We believe legal advice should be practical, commercially minded and focused on achieving results. Our clients come to us with challenges that require solutions, whether that involves resolving a dispute, navigating a complex transaction, structuring an investment or managing day-to-day legal matters. Whatever the issue, our goal is to provide our clients with responsive service and clear guidance.
+1 649 339 4130 dag@wilsonwells.com irglobal.com/advisor/dominique-gardiner
irglobal | 21
20 | irglobal
Page 1 Page 2-3 Page 4-5 Page 6-7 Page 8-9 Page 10-11 Page 12-13 Page 14-15 Page 16-17 Page 18-19 Page 20-21 Page 22-23 Page 24-25 Page 26-27 Page 28-29 Page 30-31 Page 32-33 Page 34-35 Page 36-37 Page 38-39 Page 40-41 Page 42-43 Page 44-45 Page 46-47 Page 48-49 Page 50Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker