Challenge

Alber & Geiger was tasked with the challenge of navigating the sensitive contours of Europe’s environmental consciousness to safeguard its client’s industry. A EU-wide ban on plastic bags was in the pipeline. Papier-Mettler was the largest producer of plastic bags in the EU. Such a measure would have had dramatic implications on our client’s business. Papier-Mettler turned to Alber & Geiger for help.

Strategy

We adopted an expansive macro-strategy. Its multi-faced argumentation had scientific, legal, political, social and economic elements. It utilized the framework of environmental consciousness. In doing so, it demonstrated that certain plastic bags provided the better choice for the environment, economy and the wider community. In particular, we showed that the majority of plastic bags produced in Europe were not “single-use” and caused fewer greenhouse gasses compared to paper and cotton bags.

Results

The source of Alber & Geiger’s ultimate success in this mandate was the expedience with which the firm transmitted its methodology through an environmental paradigm. As a consequence of our persistent lobbying efforts we halted the EU wide ban. In addition, we thwarted the approval of several discriminatory national legislations in the Member States.

Challenge

The EU imposed onerous penalties on our client, the Republic of Bulgaria. €825 million of pre-accession funds were frozen. It was a response to its alleged failure to combat corruption, organized crime and misuse of EU funds. Funds worth up to €7 billion over the next six years were also at risk. The Bulgarian government turned to Alber & Geiger for help.

Strategy

Alber & Geiger’s multi-faceted approach involved sophisticated legal analysis calibrated through a dynamic, institution sensitive communications strategy. It incorporated practical considerations like staff changes in the Bulgarian government as well as larger semantic and structural reasons for misunderstandings.

Results

Alber & Geiger was able to restore trust and confidence between the European Commission and the Bulgarian government. The result was the unfreezing of the €500 million in EU funds and the de-jeopardizing of the rest of the €7 billion.

Challenge

Alber & Geiger represented Panama in the aftermath of the “Panama papers” with regard to the new EU anti money laundering blacklist. As a result of the “Panama papers” the EU decided for the first time to set up its own blacklist. Before that, the EU would copy the international Financial Action Task Force (FATF) lists.

In Summer 2019, Panama was added to the grey list of FATF, at a time when the country was finalizing its reforms. Alber & Geiger was called to halt the result in FATF from spilling over in the EU and to weigh in the new EU methodology and the procedural gaps in the EU listing. Panama was caught in a timing paradox: Its automatic EU listing would be followed by a potential delisting from FATF, without clear assurances that the latter would be reflected in an EU delisting.

Strategy

Our goal was straightforward: raise awareness for Panama’s advances in combating money laundering and through that ensure that the EU will not unjustly list Panama as a high risk third country. Our message had to circle in the three key EU institutions. The architect of the procedure and list of high risk third countries, the European Commission, and the gatekeepers of the procedure, the European Parliament and the Member States.

Our message was tailor made for each front, appealing the several working levels and directorates of the Commission, the Committees of the European Parliament and different levels of organization in the Member States. Alber & Geiger grasped the opportunity of the drafting of the new methodology for the EU listing of high risk third countries, to engage with the different Commission directorates involved in the process and apply Panama’s position. In the Parliament, we focused on rewarding a third country such as Panama, which is determined to turn a bad precedent into a success story and we stressed upon the bilateral relationships of Panama towards the Member States.

Results

The EU did not implement its list and methodology as planned. Panama being listed by the EU as a high risk third country within the EU anti money laundering framework now is based on an automatic listing/delisting process with FATF. Our lobbying efforts enhanced the visibility and acknowledgement of Panama’s efforts in modernizing its anti-money laundering regime and changed the original EU methodology draft according to the demands of Panama.