Double voting rights within DCUSA

In both of their consultations, the DCP 295 ‘CVA Registrants acceding to the DCUSA’ Working Group sought views from Parties on whether additional clarity was needed in the legal text to specify that an existing Supplier, DNO or IDNO Party cannot be treated as a CVA Registrant as well. Some respondents suggested that clarity would be of benefit, whilst others suggested that the current drafting was sufficient. Therefore, in drafting their Change Report and finalising the draft legal text, the Working Group agreed that the drafting of the legal text was appropriate in its current state, however, sought advice from the DCUSA legal advisors on this matter.

The legal advisors, upon returning the legal text to the Working Group, noted that if a Party is in more than one Party Category, then that Party can vote in both Party Categories. It should be noted that this is the current case if a Supplier Party is also a DG Party. It was noted that this is either/both cases where Parties vote on CPs under clause 12, and/or vote to elect Panel members under clause 6.

The Working Group discussed this existing anomaly, specifically if it is appropriate for a single entity to have a vote in more than one Party Category but noted that they hadn’t realised that this already exits with Supplier and DG Parties. The Working Group agreed that DCP 295 doesn’t change the status quo but that it has been uncovered as they have worked through the modification process.

The Working Group concluded that making changes to the legal text that impact upon the voting arrangements for CPs and Panel Elections is outside the scope of DCP 295. It was agreed that the Panel should be made aware of this matter so they can consider it in more detail and reach a decision on whether anything needs to change in the current arrangements.

When raised at the DCUSA Panel in December 2018, Panel members agreed that the current drafting of the legal text does allow for a Party to vote under more than one Party Category and to amend this was out of scope of the DCP 295 Working Group. It was suggested that the SIG members should look at this Issue and develop a solution.