- What is the Corporate Counsel 100
- How to nominate in-house counsel
- Top 100: Africa
- Top 100: Asia Pacific
- Top 100: Deutschland
- Top 100: Ireland
- Top 100: Latin America
- Top 100: Middle East
- Top 100: Russia
- Top 100: United Kingdom
- Top 100: United Kingdom - Rising Stars
- Top 100: United States
- Top 100: United States - Rising Stars
- How do the awards work?
- The Legal 500 United Kingdom Awards 2014
- The Legal 500 United States Awards - In-house winners
- The Legal 500 United States Awards - Law firm winners
- The Legal 500 Latin America Awards (coming soon)
- Microsite The Legal 500 Germany Awards (coming soon)
- Frequently asked questions
Search News and Articles
Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to
The Singapore Accounting Standards Council ( ASC ) announced in late May 2014 that all Singapore-incorporated companies on the Singapore Exchange ( SGX ) must apply a new financial reporting framework identical to the International Financial Reporting Standards ( IFRS ) for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2018. This translates into a lead time of more than 3 years to embrace the new financial reporting framework.
Privately held Indian companies now have a two year window (which begun on 11 October 2013) to raise capital by directly listing on overseas markets without first listing in India. Despite the scheme being limited to International Organization of Securities Commission or Financial Action Task Force compliant jurisdictions, or those with which the Securities & Exchange Board of India ( SEBI ) has signed bilateral agreements, this marks a return to the Indian position in the 1990s and early 2000s. When the regulation changed in 2005, Indian companies had to satisfy the criteria of simultaneous or prior listing in India in order to undertake fund-raising abroad.
Are Damages for Loss of Profits from Termination of One Contract Recoverable in an Action for BreachAre damages for loss of profits from termination of ONE contract recoverable in an action for breach of A second INTER-RELATED contract?
Our previous article in the November 2013 edition of the Chronicle introduced the genesis of the Asia Region Funds Passport project, being a framework to allow collective investment schemes ( CIS ) established and regulated in a passport member economy (the home economy ) to be offered to investors in other passport member economies (the host economy )  . The working group members 2 have since released a consultation paper 3 setting out proposals relating to the application process and supervision / enforcement regime for the ARFP, as well as substantive criteria relating to the eligibility of passport funds, licensing of the passport fund operator, operation of the passport fund and investor interactions.
The theory of universality in insolvency, along with globalisation, has gained much traction across many jurisdictions in recent years. Briefly, the universality theory proposes that an insolvency proceeding has worldwide effect over all the assets of the insolvent company, wherever they may be.
We have compiled below a series of responses to questions which we frequently encounter in the course of advising our clients, and we hope that these will be useful for your planning purposes.
In the previous issue, we explored the English court's approach to challenges mounted by a party against an arbitrator's independence or impartiality under the UK's legislative framework for arbitration in the context of commercial arbitration. In this issue we will compare how similar challenges are resolved before arbitral tribunals in the context of investment treaty arbitration.
Penalty clauses are unenforceable under both English and Singapore law. A distinction has traditionally been drawn between liquidated damages clauses and penalty clauses: while the former provides for a genuine, pre-determined compensation for a breach of contract and is upheld, the latter goes beyond compensation, seeks to deter parties from breaching a contract by penalizing that party and is unenforceable (see the seminal case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Limited v New Garage and Motor Company Limited ).
Disgruntled employees and customers can sometimes wreak havoc in businesses.