- 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
On 11 September 2014, the Personal Data Protection Commission (" PDPC ") issued the finalised:
This update discusses the amendments brought about by the Companies (Amendment) Bill in the following key categories of corporate transactions and the potential issues which stakeholders may face in practice:
This update reports recent developments on employment law and practice in Singapore.
As the invited authors of the Singapore Chapter in Getting the Deal Through - Data Protection & Privacy 2015 , Head of TMT Lim Chong Kin and Director Charmian Aw share further updates on developments in Singapore's data protection regime, as well as the growing impact of the Personal Data Protection Act 2012 on organisations and individuals alike.
This update discusses the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014 (" Bill "), which was passed by Parliament on 8 July 2014.
This update discusses a consultation paper published by the Monetary Authority of Singapore on proposals to enhance its regulatory framework for safeguarding investors' interests. The proposals are in the following three key areas: (a) extending to investors in non-conventional investment products the current regulatory safeguards available to investors in capital markets; (b) requiring investment products to be rated for complexity and risks, and for these ratings to be disclosed to investors; and (c) refining the non-retail investor classes including providing accredited investors the option to benefit from the full range of capital markets regulatory safeguards that are applicable for retail investors.
In this edition's feature article "CCS airline industry market study", we discuss CCS findings from an airline industry market study which CCS commissioned to examine whether certain joint ventures between airlines operating through Singapore have actually resulted in net economic benefits.
In light of the Personal Data Protection Act coming into force, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (" MAS ") published a consultation paper proposing amendments (" Personal Data Amendment ") to MAS notices on prevention of money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (" ML/CFT Notices "). The Personal Data Amendment aimed to clarify that for the purposes of meeting anti-money laundering / countering the financing of terrorism requirements, financial institutions may collect, use and disclose personal data without customer consent, as per existing practice. Following the receipt of feedback, MAS made further amendments to the Personal Data Amendment and published its response discussing the further amendments in light of feedback received. This update is a follow up to our earlier update on the Personal Data Amendment and discusses MAS' response.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (" MAS ") recently published a consultation paper proposing a regulatory framework for systemically important banks in Singapore. This update discusses MAS' proposals, including, an overview of the proposed regulatory framework, the assessment methodology for identifying systemically important banks in Singapore, the policy measures to be applied toward such banks and the implementation timeline for the proposed regulatory framework. 29_july14_proposed_framework_for_systemically_important_banks_in_singapore
One of the guerrilla tactics sometimes deployed to undermine an international arbitration is a party's wrongful attempt to invoke the jurisdiction of a national court to resolve a dispute. Often this is done because the party anticipates, or can improperly secure, a favourable outcome before its ‘home' court. This may be a pre-emptive strike in anticipation of an arbitration being commenced by the other party, or it could be done to frustrate an existing arbitration. How can you effectively combat such tactics and uphold the dispute resolution process you had bargained for?