Myanmar Legal Update: Deployment of Employees in Myanmar

Reading Time: 2 minutesEmployment law in Myanmar is still a work in progress. Rather than a single labour code, a patchwork of labour legislation covers different aspects of the employment relationship. Currently, the rules and regulations regarding foreign workers are regularly changing and requirements by the authorities may vary from application to application. We understand that the Ministry […]

DDoS attack – cybercrime for misusing a victim’s computer through the victim’s website

Reading Time: 4 minutesIntroduction In a recent case HKSAR v Chu Tsun Wai [2019] HKCFA 3, the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) set out the basis to which a cyber-attacker may be found guilty for damaging the other’s property by misusing the victim’s computer through the victim’s website. Background On 12 October 2014, Mr Chu Tsun Wai (“Mr Chu”) took […]

Cambodia Tax Update: Tax Treaty with Hong Kong Signed

Reading Time: 2 minutesCambodia has signed a Double Taxation Agreement (DTA) with Hong Kong on the 26th of June 2019 as announced by the Secretary for Financial Services and Treasury, Mr James Lau, on behalf of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government. Under the DTA, double taxation will be avoided in that any tax paid in Cambodia […]

新加坡法院承认在美国进行的关于新加坡注册公司的破产程序为外国主要程序

Reading Time: 1 minutes简介 2019年3月4日,新加坡高等法院(「法院」)就Re Zetta Jet Ptd Ltd and others (Asia Aviation Holdings Ptd Ltd, intervener) [2019] SGHC 53一案颁下判词,全面承认美国破产程序为《新加坡示范法》下的外国主要程序。 背景 Zetta集团(包括Zetta Jet USA, Inc及Zetta Jet Ptd Ltd(「新加坡Zetta」))于2017年在美国破产法院被入禀申请自愿破产(「美国破产程序」)。介入人于2017年9月19日在新加坡取得了禁制令,阻止新加坡Zetta及其他人在美国破产程序中采取进一步行动(「新加坡禁制令」)。然而,美国破产程序仍继续进行。 2017年12月13日,受托人向法院申请承认美国破产程序。法院于2018年1月24日在Re Zetta Jet Pte and Others [2018] SGHC 16一案中有限度地承认了美国破产程序,但仅限为了让受托人能够申请解除新加坡禁制令。 2018年3月9日,新加坡Zetta提出要求解除新加坡禁制令的申请。新加坡禁制令于2018年7月12日经各方同意而被解除。 《新加坡示范法》 新加坡自2017年5月23日起采纳及实施了《联合国国际贸易法委员会跨境清盘示范法》(1997年5月30日)(《示范法》),具体规定载于新加坡《公司法》(第50章,2006年修订版)附表十(《新加坡示范法》)。 根据《新加坡示范法》,外国代表可向法院申请承认外国清盘程序,如果符合指定条件,且法院信纳,承认该程序不会违反新加坡的公共政策(「公共政策例外情况」),则法院则必须承认该外国清盘程序。 承认外国清盘程序为主要程序或承认其为非主要程序存在分别,两者的济助及后果各有不同。 外国主要程序比外国非主要程序可享有更广泛的济助:只有外国主要程序可自动享有《新加坡示范法》第20(1) 条下的济助。主要程序是指在债务人的主要利益中心进行的程序。 在本案中,法院需审理的主要争论点包括如何确定新加坡Zetta的主要利益中心,以及公共政策例外情况是否适用。 主要利益中心 关于新加坡Zetta的主要利益中心,法院考虑了评估主要利益中心的日期以及评估的方式。 评估日期 关于评估主要利益中心的日期,法院考虑了其他司法管辖区的做法: 英国及欧洲的做法,以及《联合国国际贸易法委员会示范法制定及诠释指引》(2013年)采取的做法:采用外国清盘程序的开始日期。 澳洲的做法:采用申请承认外国程序的聆讯日期。 美国的做法:采用申请承认外国程序的存档日期。 法院决定采纳美国的做法,认为这种做法能提供较大的确定性、更切合实际商业环境以及《示范法》条文的措词。 法院表示,在外国清盘程序开始后,容许公司酌情决定将主要利益中心转移至另一个司法管辖区以争取最大机会达致有效的重组方案(避逃刑事或类似法例除外),是无可非议的。 相关因素 《示范法》及《新加坡示范法》并无界定「主要利益中心」。根据《新加坡示范法》第16(3) 条,债务人的注册办事处所在地点被推定为债务人的主要利益中心(「该推定」)。法院裁定,该推定并非一项可被推翻的法律推定,而是视乎特定案情可被其他因素取代的起始考虑因素。 除了该推定,法院认为并无实际的法定指引,说明何谓债务人的主要利益中心。法院考虑了联合国国际贸易法委员会发出的指引,以及参考了英国、欧洲、澳洲和美国的案例。 法院认同英国、欧洲及澳洲的司法惯例,裁定上述的其他因素应该是一般能够由第三方(特别是债权人及潜在债权人)客观地确定的因素。法院应着重实际发生的事实,并进行范围广泛的查讯,以了解有关公司在某个地方的活动及与该地方的关连。在考虑这些因素时,无需严格辨别Zetta集团内的不同实体,因为确定主要利益中心并不涉及独立法团身分的概念。 法院考虑了以下因素: […]

Brexit – What’s all the fuss about?

Reading Time: 4 minutesAn assessment of the implication of Brexit for Singapore businesses. You may be thinking that Brexit is no real concern of yours. You’re not based in the UK, or in any other EU state for that matter, so there’s no need to spend any more time thinking about it, right? Wrong. Astute businesses in Singapore […]

Cambodia Tax Update: VAT Update – Zero-rated Supplies

Reading Time: 3 minutesAs a general rule the Cambodia tax regulations contemplate Value Added Tax (VAT) being charged at zero percent (“zero-rated”) for services invoiced by a Cambodian taxpayer that are deemed to be performed outside of Cambodia (“exported services”). The uncertainty facing taxpayers in Cambodia centers upon what constitutes an exported service and what evidence do they […]

What marketers and business owners should know about the Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA)?

Reading Time: 5 minutesThailand has adopted the principals of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). The Personal Data Protection Act (“PDPA”) legislation was approved and published in the Royal Gazette on May 27, 2019. A one-year grace period has been given, while the committee and office are being formed, so there is only a short time to […]

Myanmar Legal Update: Foreign Companies Allowed to Export Certain Local Products

Reading Time: 2 minutesOn 6 June 2019, the Ministry of Commerce (“MOC”) issued Notification No.24/2019 (the “Notification”) that allows foreign companies to export certain local products by exercising powers under Section 13 (b) of the Export and Import Law. In order to raise the quality of Myanmar exports, boost international demand for local goods and raise earnings for […]

Myanmar Legal Update: INGOs & NGOs Conducting MFI Activities Must Be Registered as Companies and Re-Apply for Microfinance Business License

Reading Time: 2 minutesOn 4 June 2019, the Financial Regulatory Department (“FRD”) issued a letter (“Letter”) directing International Non-Governmental Organizations (“INGOs”) and Non-Governmental Organizations (“NGOs”) which carry out microfinance activities to register as companies and re-apply for Microfinance Business Operation Licenses (“MFBOL”). The FRD had previously issued MFBOLs to 3 INGO groups, 16 NGO groups, 47 foreign companies, […]

Myanmar Legal Update: New Set of Interest Rates for Microfinance Institutions

Reading Time: 2 minutesAmong recent developments happening in the banking and finance sector, the Microfinance Business Supervisory Committee (“MBSC”) issued Directive 1/2019 (the “Directive”). This Directive lays down a new set of interest rates which shall be followed by all microfinance institutions operating in Myanmar. Under the new Directive, the interest rate for microfinance loans shall be charged […]

HONG KONG: The Competition Tribunal handed down a judgment on market sharing and price fixing for the first time

Reading Time: 6 minutesIntroduction On 17 May 2019, the Competition Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) handed down two decisions for the enforcements actions initiated by the Competition Commission (the “Commission”), comprising Competition Commission v Nutanix Hong Kong Limited and Others [2019] HKCT 2 and Competition Commission v W. Hing Construction Company Limited and Others [2019] HKCT 3. Both cases involved breach of the first […]