Alliance Boots v War on Want and Change to Win

Overview

NCP Decision Rejected
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 28/11/2013
Date Closed 19/05/2014
Case Duration 24 weeks and 4 days
Host Country UK  (OECD member)
Issue(s) Tax avoidance; information transparency
Provisions Cited III.1  XI.1  XI.2   
Case Description In November 2013, War on Want and Change to Win submitted a case to the UK NCP against Alliance Boots concerning violations of the disclosure (Chapter II) and taxation (Chapter XI) provisions of the OECD Guidelines. The complaint contended that between 2009 and 2013, Alliance Boots Executive Chairman engaged in a series of transactions with insider-controlled entities trading in the company's debt, which may have significantly enriched those connected with the entities at the expense of the company and taxpayers. The complaint also alleged that Alliance Boots failed to disclose important information that would allow the public to gauge the fairness and transparency of the terms of the transactions and the adequacy of its corporate governance. The complaint also contended that Alliance Boots had failed to act in the spirit of UK taxation laws by shifting profits to offshore tax havens.
Outcome The UK NCP rejected the case.

Organisations

Lead NCP UK NCP : Bi-ministerial plus Multi-stakeholder Independent Board 

Complainants

Lead Complainant War on Want
Lead Complainant Change to Win : National Centre 

TUAC Analysis

Did the NCP publish its initial assessment? status-icon
Did the case involve parallel proceedings? status-icon
Was the existence of parallel proceedings an obstacle to the NCP accepting the case? status-icon
Was the businsess relationship other than that of a subsidiary? status-icon
Was the nature of the business relationship an obstacle to the NCP accepting the case? status-icon
Did the NCP inform other relevant government departments about its acceptance of this case? status-icon
Did the NCP offer mediation or conciliation? status-icon
Did the company accept the offer of mediation or conciliation? status-icon
Did the complainant(s) accept the offer of mediation or conciliation? status-icon
Was mediation or conciliation held? status-icon
Was mediation or conciliation conducted by a professional mediator? status-icon
Did the parties reach agreement? status-icon
If yes, did the NCP publish this agreement following the consent of the parties? status-icon
If mediation was refused or failed did the NCP make an assessment of whether the company had breached the Guidelines? status-icon
Did the NCP conduct in-host country fact finding? status-icon
Did the NCP make recommendations to the company on the future implementation of the Guidelines? status-icon
Did the NCP publish its final statement or report? status-icon
Did the NCP provide for follow-up of the agreement/recommendations? status-icon
Did the NCP inform other relevant government departments about its final statement or report? status-icon
Did the NCP inform public pension funds about its final statement or report? status-icon
Did the NCP apply any consequences in this case? status-icon
Did the NCP follow the indicative timescales set out in the procedural guidance? status-icon
Was there a positive outcome for the workers involved in this case? status-icon
Did the filing of the case under the Guidelines have a positive impact for the workers involved? status-icon
Did the lead NCP play a positive role? status-icon
If different, did the home NCP play a positive role? status-icon