Legislative Update: Market Operators in Singapore – Cryptocurrency and Digital Token Exchanges

Singapore Law; Legal; Lawyer
Updated: Cryptocurrency and digital token exchanges may be market operators or digital payment token exchange Cryptocurrency and digital token exchanges (“Token Exchanges”) which allow the trading and exchange of any token which are “capital markets products”, that is securities, shares, bonds, debentures, units in collective investment schemes, regulated under the SFA would likely be deemed to be market operators: see Case Study 6 of the Guide to Digital Token Offerings issued on 14 November 2017, revised on 30 November 2018 (the “DTO Guide”). Token Exchanges which do not allow trading of any capital markets products regulated under the SFA would not be deemed market operators. However, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (“MAS”) will regulate such exchanges which allow trading of cryptocurrency and digital payment tokens (or virtual currencies) that are not security tokens under a proposed new Payments Services Act (“PSA“): see analysis of the Payment Services Bill here. Operators of Token Exchanges that allow trading of “capital markets products” will need to obtain MAS’s approval, recognition or exemption under the SFA. Operators of Token Exchanges that allow trading of digital payment tokens that are not security tokens or “capital markets products” will need to apply for a licence from MAS under the PSA. Exchanges licensed under the PSA to perform such activities will be required to comply with AML/CFT requirements, including those relating to identification and verification of customer, ongoing monitoring, screening for ML/TF concerns, suspicious transaction reporting and record keeping. More information on this will emerge subsequently. Continue reading “Legislative Update: Market Operators in Singapore – Cryptocurrency and Digital Token Exchanges”

Case Update: Lee Chen Seong Jeremy v Official Assignee [2018] SGCA 51 – Court of Appeal clarifies law on abandonment of property

Singapore Law; Legal; Lawyer

Significance: Singapore Court of Appeal clarifies the law on abandonment of property. It was held that abandonment would be made out when there has been a unilateral relinquishment of a particular property, whether tangible or intangible. 

Continue reading “Case Update: Lee Chen Seong Jeremy v Official Assignee [2018] SGCA 51 – Court of Appeal clarifies law on abandonment of property”

Case Update: Bumi Armada Offshore Holdings Ltd and another v Tozzi Srl [2018] SGCA(I) 5 – Singapore Court of Appeal clarifies tort of inducement of breach of contract by a parent company or shareholder

Singapore Law; Legal; Lawyer

Significance: Singapore Court of Appeal, hearing an appeal against a Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) decision, clarifies when the tort of inducement of breach of contract by a parent company or shareholder may apply.

Continue reading “Case Update: Bumi Armada Offshore Holdings Ltd and another v Tozzi Srl [2018] SGCA(I) 5 – Singapore Court of Appeal clarifies tort of inducement of breach of contract by a parent company or shareholder”

Case Update: Shanghai Turbo Enterprises Ltd v Liu Ming [2018] SGHC 172 – floating governing law and jurisdiction clause held unenforceable

Significance: Singapore High Court held that a floating governing law and jurisdiction clause was invalid and unenforceable. Citing Prof Yeo Tiong Min’s Halsbury’s Laws of Singapore volume on Conflict of Laws, the Court held that if the proper law of a contract cannot be determined from a governing law clause at the time of the formation of the contract, then that clause does not satisfy as an express proper law. The Court then found that it could not sever the unenforceable governing law portion from the jurisdiction clause. The clause in the case effectively said that the governing law and jurisdiction was “laws of Singapore /or People’s Republic of China” and “Courts of Singapore /or People’s Republic of China”. It would do well for parties take proper legal advice on the validity of such important clauses, and not assume they can simply gamble this as a compromise of some sort or as some option for one party later on.

Case Update: China Medical Technologies, Inc (in liquidation) v Wu Xiaodong [2018] SGHC 178 – Mareva Injunction in aid of foreign proceedings granted

Singapore Law; Legal; Lawyer

Significance: Singapore High Court held that the Court is empowered under s 4(10) of the Civil Law Act (“CLA“) to grant a Mareva injunction (injunction to freeze assets) in aid of foreign court proceedings, subject to certain prerequisites. Notably, prior to this, there are 2 conflicting High Court decisions, and a Court of Appeal decision which did not definitively decide, on this issue. The High Court granted such a Mareva injunction in aid of Hong Kong court proceedings on the facts.

Continue reading “Case Update: China Medical Technologies, Inc (in liquidation) v Wu Xiaodong [2018] SGHC 178 – Mareva Injunction in aid of foreign proceedings granted”

Case Update: Ricardo Leiman v Noble Resources [2018] SGHC 166 – Contractual Discretion and Legal Doctrine of Penalties

Singapore Law; Legal; Lawyer

Significance: Singapore High Court held that contractual discretion in employment contract is subject to an implied term that the discretion is exercised rationally, not arbitrarily or capriciously, in good faith, and consistent with its contractual purpose. Further, the Court applied the new UK Supreme Court test for penalty clauses in Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi [2016] AC 1172 (UKSC) (“Cavendish“), observing that the clause in question is not a straightforward damages clause, hence the usefulness in applying the Cavendish test.

Continue reading “Case Update: Ricardo Leiman v Noble Resources [2018] SGHC 166 – Contractual Discretion and Legal Doctrine of Penalties”

Shareholders Agreement Drafting Questionnaire

Singapore Law; Legal; Lawyer

What is a Shareholders Agreement?

A shareholders agreement is a legal document setting out the rights and obligations of the shareholders in a company. Shareholders agreements are often used in private companies or joint ventures. Unlike the company constitution, the shareholder agreement is not mandatory under the Companies Act. The Companies Act is the main governing legislation for companies incorporated in Singapore. If there is no shareholders agreement, the relationships of shareholders as between themselves and with the company are governed by the constitution or articles of association of the company.

Continue reading “Shareholders Agreement Drafting Questionnaire”

Case Update: Tan Kok Yong Steve v Itochu Singapore Pte Ltd [2018] SGHC 85 – High Court upholds 2-year non-compete clause, grants injunction

Singapore Law; Legal; Lawyer

Significance: the Singapore High Court (Coram: Tan Siong Thye J) upheld a two-year restraint of trade, non-competition, clause and ordered an injunction against an ex-employee. The Court also held there was a valid agreement for a severance package which was not predicated on the employee’s compliance with the non-competition undertaking.

Continue reading “Case Update: Tan Kok Yong Steve v Itochu Singapore Pte Ltd [2018] SGHC 85 – High Court upholds 2-year non-compete clause, grants injunction”