NOVEMBER 2016 ASIA EDITION MCI (P) 158/01/2016 ISSN 0219 – 6875 KDN PPS 1867/10/2015(025606) THE MACALLAN ALB HONG KONG LAW AWARDS 2016: MAYER BROWN JSM BIGGEST WINNER BRINGING IT BACK We look closer at Indonesia’s tax amnesty programme PAGE 40 AGAINST THE STATE The risks and benefits of investor-state dispute settlement PAGE 14 CRYSTAL BALL As the year draws to a close, offshore firms offer predictions for 2017 PAGE 18 INSIDE APPOINTMENTS 3 4 6 12 THE BRIEFING DEALS NEWS ASIA’S TOP 50 LARGEST LAW FIRMS
Transcript
NOVEMBER 2016ASIA EDITION
MCI (P) 158/01/2016ISSN 0219 – 6875
KDN PPS 1867/10/2015(025606)
THE MAC ALL AN ALB HONG KONG L AW AWARDS 2016: MAYER BROWN JSM BIGGEST WINNER
BRINGING IT BACKWe look closer at Indonesia’s tax amnesty programme
PAGE 40
AGAINST THE STATEThe risks and benefi ts of investor-state dispute settlement
PAGE 14
CRYSTAL BALLAs the year draws to a close, offshore fi rms offer predictions for 2017
PAGE 18
INSIDE
APPOINTMENTS
3
4
6
12
THE BRIEFING
DEALS
NEWS
ASIA’S TOP 50 LARGEST LAW FIRMS
30 NOVEMBER 2016HONG KONG
For more information about this event, please visitWWW.LEGALBUSINESSONLINE.COM/CONFERENCES/HK_COMPETITION_ORDINANCE
Has the Hong Kong Competition Ordinance change the way your business is conducted? Is your organisation compliant with the ordinance? The ALB Hong Kong Competition Ordinance is a comprehensive event that brings together leading legal/ compliance professionals to discuss the current trends and challenges of the ordinance. This conference highlights the importance of the ordinance and how it is impacting business today in Hong Kong. Register now and have the opportunity to join us in our interactive Roundtable Discussion which will equip you with practical and quintessential insights related to the ordnance.
Staying compliant with the Hong Kong Competition Ordinance
To book, please visit WWW.REGONLINE.COM/HK_COMPETITION_ORDINANCE
For Speaking Opportunities, contact Lynda Lim at [email protected] or call +65 6870 3521For Sponsorship Opportunities, contact Amantha Chia at [email protected] or call +65 6870 3917
Roundtable Discussion Session
This session aims to provide an opportunity to audience to engage in a lively informal discussion and obtain immediate feedback from their peers on different key concerns related to the ordinance. Participants are encouraged to exchange ideas and voice opinions to ensure a fruitful session.
ROUNDTABLE 1: Competition Law and Business: Is it a Sword or Shield?ROUNDTABLE 2: How Your Business Can Achieve Compliance with Competition Law?ROUNDTABLE 3: Investigation and Enforcement: What You Need to Know and Expect
Get Advice from Our Expert Speakers
• WONG YONG KAI, Managing Director, Head of Legal & Compliance, CITIC Capital Holdings Limited
• HUGO NGAW, Group Legal Counsel, Convoy Global Holdings Limited
• PROFESSOR KELVIN KWOK, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Hong Kong, Barristers, Des Voeux Chambers
• PROFESSOR SANDRA MACRO COLINO, Assistant Professor, The Chinese University of Hong Kong
EXCLUSIVE FOR OUR ATTENDEES
ONLY!
REGISTER NOWand
SAVE UP TO 30%for the "Practical Guide
to the Hong KongCompetition Ordinance"
book (U.P. US$160)
PROUDLY PRESENTED BYSUPPPORTING ORGANISATIONS
BRIEFS— The Briefi ng— Deals Spotlight— News— Appointments
346
12
NEWS
40
“CLIENTS ARE ENTHUSIASTIC TO JOIN THE TAX AMNESTY PROGRAMME. THIS WILL BE THE LAST CHANCE FOR TAX DODGERS TO REPORT OR DISCLOSE ALL OF THEIR OFFSHORE ASSETS OR THEY WILL HAVE TO FACE THE FULL FORCE OF THE GOVERNMENT’S TAX REGIME CHASING AFTER THEIR ASSETS.”Zippora Siregar,Siregar & Djojonegoro
Against the stateThe rise of international commercial arbitration in Asia is coupled with the growth of investor-state dispute settlements (ISDS). Chris Thomson talks to lawyers about Asian responses to ISDS as well as the risks and benefits they bring to companies
2017: The view from offshoreFollowing a slow 2016, what kind of opportunities and challenges will the new year bring? Christopher Horton speaks with offshore lawyers to fi nd out
Bringing it backIndonesia’s tax amnesty bill is expected to recover billions of dollars stashed away in foreign jurisdictions and boost the country’s economy. The initiative has seen a positive
14
18
40
response so far, with law firms seeing an exponential increase in client interest and participation, finds Raj Gunashekar
Threat? What threat?International law firm Dentons recently launched its 280-member Nextlaw Global Referral Network, aiming to provide an alternative to the more traditional legal networks. However, the latter don’t see any reason to get worried just yet, reports Ranajit Dam
The Macallan ALB Hong Kong Law Awards 2016Mayer Brown JSM won three awards at The Macallan ALB Hong Kong Law Awards 2016, while Slaughter and May Herbert Smith Freehills also landed key honours
46
54
FEATURES
COVER STORY
30Asia’s Top 50 Largest Law Firms 2016ALB’s annual list of the largest law firms in Asiahighlights the biggest in each jurisdiction, as well asthose with the most lawyers across the region.In Indonesia, Lubis Ganie Surowidjojo moves up the list,while Kim & Chang continues to rule the roost in South Korea. Research by ALB; text by Raj Gunashekar.
CONTENTS 1WWW.LEGALBUSINESSONLINE.COM: @ALB_Magazine : Connect with Asian Legal Business
54Scenes from The Macallan ALB Hong Kong Law Awards 2016
ASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS is available by subscription. Please visit WWW.LEGALBUSINESSONLINE.COM for details.
Asian Legal Business has an audited average circulation of 11,402 as of 30 September 2016.
Copyright is reserved throughout. No part of this publication can be reproduced in whole or part without the express permission of the editor. Contributions are invited, but copies of work should be kept, as ALB can accept no responsibility for loss.
THOMSON REUTERS18 Science Park Drive Singapore 118229 / T (65) 6775 5088 / F (65) 6333 090010/F, Cityplaza 3, Taikoo Shing, Hong Kong / T (852) 3762 3269www.thomsonreuters.com
Does size really matter? It is a question we are asked (and we ask our-selves) whenever we begin to compile our annual Asia Top 50 rankings. The short answer is not always: When it comes to the quality of a firm, and the standard of services it provides, size is not necessarily the best
indicator. Smaller firms have unique advantages in that they can be nimble and flexible. And in some cases, they can also offer closer, more personalised atten-tion to their clients compared to their larger counterparts. Bigger firms come with issues of their own – keeping a large workforce happy and engaged is just one of them – and I personally know lawyers who have swapped a 100-attorney firm for a 10-person outfit, and have been happier as a result.
But size can be – and please note the use of can – an indicator of not just the breadth of services provided by the firm, but also how well it is doing in a specific market. Success usually leads to expansion, and an established brand showing stable growth can be an attractive destination for younger attorneys. Clients are also left happier with the “one-stop shop” that has all the answers as opposed to firm that has some of the answers, and then refers them elsewhere for others. Geographical reach is also a bonus. So despite the caveats mentioned in the previ-ous paragraph, size does have its undeniable advantages, and it is those that we celebrate in our annual list of Asia’s largest firms.
A MATTER OF
SIZE
3BRIEFSINSIDE DEALS 4 / NEWS 6 / APPOINTMENTS 12
11.2016
Solo practitioners and lawyers in small firms spend almost half their time not practicing law, according to the 2016 Thomson Reuters Small Firm Report. The study also said that attorneys in small firms reported spending just 61 percent of their time on practicing law, with the number dropping to 55 percent for solo practitioners. Meanwhile, legal software company Clio offers an even lower number: the average utilisation rate, or the time lawyers actually spend on cli-ent work, is only 28 percent.
Using technology such as practice manage-ment software is vital in order for smaller law firms to work more efficiently. And this is certainly catching on: According to the latest American Bar Association Legal Technology Survey Re-port, there has been an increase in the use of technology by U.S. law firms of all sizes. Unsurprisingly, the lead is being taken by the smaller guys – nearly 40 percent of small-firm lawyers reported using law practice manage-ment software, with solo practitioners coming in at 30 percent. And more half of all law firms surveyed also use legal software to collaborate with clients.
FOR SMALL FIRMS, TECHNOLOGYIS VITAL TO SUCCESS
Clifford Chance last month rolled out a pilot video game intended to evaluate trainee applicants. The game, which can “offer unique insight into candidates’ decision making abilities,” according to a spokesperson for the firm, is more evidence that firms are working harder to recruit, engage and retain the millennial generation. According to a report from consultancy Deloitte cited in the Financial Times, millennials are more interested in people than in money, prefer collaborative working structures, and value being able to work irregular hours as it suits them. And as their demands for work-life balance grow increasingly louder, law firm leaderships are sitting up and taking notice. Expect to see more relaxed law firms in the future.
HOOKING IN MILLENNIALS
QUOTE UNQUOTE
“Donald J. Trump isa Libel Bully but also
a Libel Loser.”The headline of an article by the American BarAssociation which alleges that despite having
“been involved in a mind-boggling 4,000 lawsuits,”the businessman-turned-politician has never won a
free speech-related case.
IN THE NEWS
The ink on the merger agreement that created global mega law firm CMS Cam-eron McKenna Nabarro Olswang (CMS) may not have dried yet, but there is already talk of another merger, this time with U.S. outfit Hunton & Williams. Ac-cording to media reports, merger talks are already in the late stage.
A team from Holman Fenwick Willan, including Hong Kong partner George Lamplough, has helped with the release of 26 hostages held by Somali pirates for four-and-a-half years. The HFW team is working with Compass Risk Management and the NGO Oceans Beyond Piracy, with the aim of releasing a total of 48 hostages.
India’s Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas and Dorothy Thomas, the former head of its Chennai office, have reached a settle-ment, according to Legally India. The firm had sued Thomas, alleging that she resigned along with 11 other employees to join rival firm Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas in “flagrant breach” of the partnership agreement.
THE BRIEFING
YOUR NEED-TO-KNOW FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBERCompiled by Ranajit Dam
BY THENUMBERS
The number ofBritish solicitors who
have registered topractice in the
Republic of Irelandfollowing the
Brexit referendum.
The difference incompensation between
male and female partnersat large U.S. law fi rms,according to a surveyconducted by recruiter
Major, Lindsey & Africa.Men average $949,000,
while women average$659,000.
Number of jobs inthe UK’s legal industry
that are expected tobe automated in
the next 20 years,according to Deloitte.
4 BRIEFS ASIAN LEGAL BUSINESSNOVEMBER 2016
DEAL NAME FIRM JURISDICTION VALUE(US$ MLN) DEAL TYPE
Russian-led consortium’s purchase of Essar Oil
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer India, Russia 12,900 M&A
Herbert Smith Freehills India, Russia 12,900 M&A
Linklaters India, Russia 12,900 M&A
Slaughter and May India, Russia 12,900 M&A
Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas India, Russia 12,900 M&A
J. Sagar Associates India, Russia 12,900 M&A
Talwar Thakore & Associates India, Russia 12,900 M&A
Ascendas’ establishment of EMTN programme
Allen & Gledhill Singapore 2,150 DCM
Avolon’s acquisition of CIT Group’s aircraft leasing business
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer UK, U.S., China 10,000 M&A
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz UK, U.S., China 10,000 M&A
Weil Gotshal Manges UK, U.S., China 10,000 M&A
Cision’s purchase of PR Newswire from UBM
Ashurst India, U.S., UK 841 M&A
Kirkland & Ellis India, U.S., UK 841 M&A
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius India, U.S., UK 841 M&A
Kochhar & Co India, U.S., UK 841 M&A
Trilegal India, U.S., UK 841 M&A
Blackstone Group’s sale of its stake in Hilton to HNA Group
Weil Gotshal Manges Hong Kong, U.S., China 6,500 M&A
Slaughter and May Hong Kong, U.S., China 6,500 M&A
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
Hong Kong, U.S., China 6,500 M&A
ZTO Express’ IPO on the New York Stock Exchange
JunHe China, U.S. 1,300 IPO
Kirkland & Ellis China, U.S. 1,300 IPO
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom China, U.S. 1,300 IPO
Zhong Lun China, U.S. 1,300 IPO
Maples and Calder China, U.S. 1,300 IPO
ASIA DEALS: YOUR MONTH AT A GLANCE
$12.9 BILLIONM&ARUSSIAN-LED CONSORTIUM’S PURCHASE OF ESSAR OIL• Aninvestorgroupledby
Rosneft has bought a 98 percent stake in India’s Essar Oil.
• Theagreementisreportedtobe the largest-ever FDI deal into India and the biggest outbound acquisition by Russia.
$6.5 BILLIONM&ABLACKSTONE GROUP’S SALE OF ITS STAKE IN HILTON TO HNA GROUP• China’s HNA Group has secured
a $6.5 billion stake in Hilton Worldwide Holdings from Blackstone.
• The deal comes months after HNA acquired Carlson Hotels, owner of Radisson hotels.
• Chinesebusinessesare ramping up hotel acquisitions to capitalise on mainland China tourists.
$10 BILLIONM&AAVOLON’S ACQUISITION OF CIT GROUP’S AIRCRAFT LEASING BUSINESS• Ireland-basedAvolonHoldings,
is a subsidiary of Chinese conglomerate HNA Group.
• Thedealisexpectedtodoublethe scale of Avolon’s business and will create the world’s third-biggest aircraft leasing platform.
5BRIEFSWWW.LEGALBUSINESSONLINE.COM: @ALB_Magazine : Asian Legal Business
ASIA DEALS: YOUR MONTH AT A GLANCE
DEAL NAME FIRM JURISDICTION VALUE(US$ MLN) DEAL TYPE
SOMPO’S buyout of U.S. insurer Endurance
Shearman & Sterling U.S., Japan 6,300 M&A
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
U.S., Japan 6,300 M&A
CR Pharma’s IPO on the Hong Kong Stock Market
Clifford Chance Hong Kong, China 1,005 IPO
Ji Yuan Law Offices Hong Kong, China 1,005 IPO
King & Wood Mallesons
Hong Kong, China 1,005 IPO
King & Wood Mallesons, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
Hong Kong, China 1,005 IPO
ACR Capital Holdings’ sale to two Chinese state-owned investment firms
Allen & Overy Singapore, China 1,000 M&A
Clyde & Co Singapore, China 1,000 M&A
Kim & Chang Singapore, China 1,000 M&A
Lee & Li Singapore, China 1,000 M&A
Trilegal Singapore, China 1,000 M&A
Kadir Andri & Partners
Singapore, China 1,000 M&A
JR Kyushu’s IPO
Anderson Mori Japan 3,900 IPO
Mori Hamada & Matsumoto Japan 3,900 IPO
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett Japan 3,900 IPO
Sullivan & Cromwell Japan 3,900 IPO
Merger of India-based travel websites MakeMyTrip and Ibibo
Cravath, Swaine & Moore
India, South Africa, China 720 M&A
$6.3 BILLIONM&ASOMPO’S BUYOUT OF ENDURANCE• Japan’sSOMPOHoldingshas
acquired U.S.-based property and casualty insurer Endurance Specialty Holdings for $6.3 billion.
• SOMPO’stakeoverofEndurance is the latest in a series of acquisitions among Japanese insurers facing a swiftly maturing domestic market.
$1 BILLIONM&AACR CAPITAL HOLDINGS’ SALE• ThefirmsareShenzhen
Qianhai Financial Holdings and Shenzhen Investment Holdings.
• ACRCapitalistheholdingcompany of Asia Capital Reinsurance Group, Singapore’s largest reinsurer.
• Thetransactionisthebiggestin the Southeast Asian financial sector in 2016, according to Reuters.
Company is also involved in the construction, retail, real estate, and restaurant industries.
• ThissharesaleisJapan’slargest rail IPO in over 10 years and is one of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s initatives to boost citizens’ interest in investing some of their 1,700 trillion-yen household savings in the stock market.
6 BRIEFS ASIAN LEGAL BUSINESSNOVEMBER 2016
INDUSTRY INSIGHTS
LEGAL ISSUES RELATING TO CROSS-BORDER DIVORCE
PATRICK TAN Chief Executive Officer T: (65) 6645 4500 E: [email protected]
Fortis Law Corporation24 Raffles Place, #29-05 Clifford Centre, Singapore 048621T: (65) 6535 8100F: (65) 6535 3700E: [email protected]
There is an increasing number of marriages involving couples of different nationalities (i.e. cross-border marriages). In Singapore, the diverse profiles of persons residing here have contributed to a rising number of cross-border marriages. However, there are instances where a cross-border marriage breaks down and couples decide to divorce.
Cross-border divorces can involve complex legal elements and could therefore be more complicated than one would expect. The divorce process is also a difficult one for both parties. It is therefore advisable that couples intending to carry out a cross-border divorce have a clear understanding of all the legal issues involved. This article aims to provide a quick overview of the common legal issues involved in a cross-border divorce.
1. Child Custody One of the biggest issues that come with cross-border divorce in
Singapore is making a decision on child custody (if applicable). In most occasions, when couples divorce, relocating to a new place is the first decision that they make. However, this is far from straightforward given the need to decide on the issue of custody. Moving a child to another country without prior notice to the ex-spouse or the Singapore courts, or even flouting a court order as to the child’s custody would be unlawful and can amount to child abduction. In deciding the child’s custody, the Singapore courts consider the child’s welfare to be of utmost importance.
2. Spousal Maintenance If a divorce order is granted, there will be a need to make
decisions on spousal maintenance. Previously, the husband would be required to provide maintenance for his ex-wife, but this has changed with recent amendments in law. Currently, either spouse may be ordered to maintain the other depending on the condition of either spouse.
3. Eligibility for divorce Eligibility for divorce is another uncommon legal issue related to
cross-border divorce. In Singapore, the court only has jurisdiction for divorce proceedings if one of the parties to a marriage is habitually resident in Singapore for 3 years immediately prior to the application for divorce, or if either party is ‘domiciled’ in Singapore. Consequentially, if the above-mentioned requirements are not met, parties are not able to apply to the Singapore courts for a divorce.
4. Division of Property The couple’s properties would generally be divided after the
divorce. The Singapore Courts will determine whether the property in question is a matrimonial asset. In determining the share of matrimonial property awarded to each side, the Singapore courts typically consider the financial and non-financial contributions of each party to the marriage.
NEWS
Duane Morris opens officein Taiwan
Duane Morris has es-tablished an office in Taipei, Taiwan, through its Singa-
pore joint law venture Duane Morris & Selvam (DMS), after securing approval from the Ministry of Justice.
The new office will focus on intellectual property in Taiwan’s technology, pharma-ceutical and bio-tech indus-tries, as well as in commercial and corporate transactions, anti-trust and regulatory com-pliance, white collar litiga-tion and investigations, and foreign trade and investment.
Though this will be its first office in the jurisdiction, Duane Morris has a history of representing Taiwanese companies, such as Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, whose ex-general counsel Richard Thurston will work in the firm’s Taiwan office.
The DMS venture was launched in 2011. Apart from a presence in Singapore, Duane Morris also has Asia offices in Vietnam, Myanmar and China, the latter two being established through DMS.
Yoon & Yang set to openHo Chi Minh City office
Korean Big Six law firm Yoon & Yang is set to launch its second overseas office in Vietnam’s Ho Chi Minh City. The firm’s first overseas outpost, opened in 2008, is located in Tashkent, the capital of Uzbekistan.
The new office, which will open in November, will provide legal services to Korean and foreign clients, and work in col-laboration with the firm’s head office in Seoul. It will be headed by Zunu (Joon-Woo) Lee, head of Yoon & Yang’s Southeast Asian practice. Partner HyongKun Kim, who joined the firm in August 2016, will also be based there.
The firm’s Ho Chi Minh office is intended to be used as a hub to enable the firm to expand within Southeast Asia, and is expected to provide a gateway to jurisdictions such as Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong.
REUTERS/Simon Kwong
7BRIEFSWWW.LEGALBUSINESSONLINE.COM: @ALB_Magazine : Asian Legal Business
Singapore International ArbitrationCentre releases costs, duration stats
The Singapore International Arbitra-tion Centre (SIAC) has revealed that the average cost of arbitration at the centre is S$109,729 ($80,337),
while the average duration is 13.8 months.The data was gathered from 98 cases
commenced and administered under the SIAC Rules 2013 during the period from Apr. 1, 2013 to July 31, 2016 where a final award was issued.
Of course, there is a difference in costs between arbitrations involving a sole arbi-trator and those involving three. The former costs S$53,418 on average, compared to S$211,089 for the latter.
The total costs of arbitration included the SIAC’s administration fees and expenses as well as the tribunal’s fees. However, legal
fees and other costs, emergency arbitra-tor’s fees, costs of challenges, and the tribunal’s expenses and applicable taxes were excluded in the study.
The SIAC was established in July 1991 as a not-for-profit NGO.
Japan’s Nishimurato open in Dubai
Japanese law firm Nishimura & Asahi will open a representative office in Dubai in December this year, after receiving a licence from the United
Arab Emirates Free Zone.The office is intended to strengthen
the firm’s Middle East practice, especially with regard to services relating to Iran, as well as serving as a gateway to Africa for Japanese clients.
Nishimura & Asashi currently has nine other overseas offices, in Bangkok, Beijing, Shanghai, Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, Jakarta, Singapore, Yangon and Hong Kong.
Japanese companies have ramped up their investment in the Middle East in recent times, particularly in areas like in-frastructure, industry and energy.
REUTERS/Edgar Su
Kuala Lumpur Johor Bharu Singapore
8 BRIEFS ASIAN LEGAL BUSINESSNOVEMBER 2016
EVIDENTIARY ISSUES IN ARBITRATION
Arbitration has become an increasingly preferred mode of dispute resolution in the Philippines in the recent years. The importance of alternative dispute resolution, particularly arbitration, as a means of actively promoting party autonomy in the resolution of disputes and achieving speedy justice is recognized state policy. The legal framework for arbitration is clearly established, as arbitration is governed by the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act (Republic Act No. 9285), the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, and the Arbitration Law (Republic Act No. 876), among other issuances by the relevant government
agencies. Moreover, as a party to the New York Convention, recognition and enforcement of covered arbitral awards are recognized as binding upon petition with the trial courts.
In resolving disputes in arbitration, questions arise as to how evidence is presented, assessed for relevance and competence, and protected during arbitration proceedings. Current laws aim to address these significant concerns.
Confidential InformationThe law expressly provides for confidentiality in arbitration proceedings. The proceedings, including the records, evidence and the arbitral award are privileged and confidential. They may not be published, except with the consent of the parties; or for the limited purpose of disclosing to a court relevant documents in cases where resort to the court is allowed. A party, counsel or witness may likewise seek a protective order from the court, when there is a need to enforce confidentiality of the information obtained, or to be obtained, in arbitration proceedings. Further, confidential information are not subject to discovery and are inadmissible in any adversarial proceeding, apart from arbitration.
Court Assistance in Taking EvidenceWhile the arbitral tribunal is given the power to determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality, and weight of any evidence, the court may assist in taking evidence. The rules expressly provide that the arbitral tribunal or any party (with the approval of the arbitral tribunal) may request from a court assistance in taking evidence, to be taken at any time during the course of the arbitral proceedings. The court may then execute the request within its competence and according to the rules on taking evidence.
When seeking assistance, the court may, among others, direct any person to comply with a subpoena, to appear as a witness for the taking of deposition upon oral examination or by written interrogatories, allow the physical examination of the condition of persons, and to allow the inspection of things or premises.
SyCipLaw Center105 Paseo de Roxas, Makati City, Metro Manila, Philippines 1226T: (63) 2 982-3500F: (63) 2 817-3896www.syciplaw.com
NEWS
U.S. watchdog expandsscope of its scrutiny tomore Chinese deals
Insurance mergers and acquisitions rarely raise red flags with U.S. national security watchdogs. China’s Fosun In-ternational Ltd took that history to heart last year when it paid $1.84 billion for the remaining 80 percent stake
of U.S. property and casualty insurer Ironshore Inc that it did not already own.
But in December 2015, one month after Fosun completed the acquisition, it was approached by officials at the Com-mittee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), a government panel that scrutinizes deals over national security concerns, according to people familiar with the matter who asked not to be identified because these details are not public.
CFIUS was concerned about how Fosun would operate Ironshore’s Wright & Co, a provider of professional liability coverage to U.S. government employees such as law enforce-
ment personnel and national security officials, including the Central Intelligence Agency, according to these sources.
CFIUS operates a voluntary filing system for companies engaged in a deal. Such an instance of the panel approaching companies after they complete a deal is rare. But the recent U.S. scrutiny of Fosun - which did not seek CFIUS approval for the Ironshore deal - is just one example of a new impetus by CFIUS to target what it refers to as “non-notified transac-tions” - or deals that did not seek CFIUS approval in advance.
In the last twelve months CFIUS has stepped up its pursuit of these non-filers over concerns that some deals were falling through the cracks, according to sources with direct knowledge of the panel’s inner workings. This previously unreported push by CFIUS has the potential to delay some deals and raises the risk of them being thwarted altogether.
A Chinese national flag (L) flies in front of a building of the headquarters ofFosun International, in Shanghai, China. REUTERS/Aly Song
9BRIEFSWWW.LEGALBUSINESSONLINE.COM: @ALB_Magazine : Asian Legal Business
Simmons in SGjoint law venture
Simmons & Simmons has entered into a joint law venture (JLV) in Singapore with its erstwhile “best friend,” boutique firm JWS Asia
Law Corporation. The new entity will be known as Simmons & Simmons JWS.
JWS Asia Law, which has three direc-tors, focuses on the asset management and investment funds sectors. The JLV is expected to help UK-headquartered firm offer an integrated service to clients in those sectors, as well as financial institu-tions, in Singapore.
The London-heaquartered Simmons & Simmons opened its Singapore office, its fifth in Asia, in 2013. It developed its “best friends” relationship with JWS Asia Law last year.
Latham & Watkins sets up Seoul office
Latham & Watkins has opened an office in Seoul, South Korea, ex-panding its presence in Asia with its sixth branch in the region.
The U.S.-headquartered firm has been advising Korean clients for over two de-cades. With its latest office, Latham hopes to deepen its practices in the banking, energy, entertainment, sports and media, infrastructure, life sciences, semiconductor and automotive sectors.
Joseph Bevash has been appointed as office managing partner in Seoul. A special-ist in international project finance, he also serves as office managing partner in Tokyo.
The firm’s Asian presence includes offic-es in Beijing, Hong Kong, Seoul, Shanghai, Singapore and Tokyo, as well as practices covering Australia, India, Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand.
Police officers walk past Korean palace Gyeongbokgungduring snowy weather in Seoul. REUTERS/Han Jae-Ho
10 BRIEFS ASIAN LEGAL BUSINESSNOVEMBER 2016
REGIONAL UPDATESINGAPORE
Earlier this year, the Singapore Companies Act (the “Companies Act”) was amended to remove the one-share-one-vote rule in public companies, paving the way for the Singapore Exchange Securities Trading Limited (“SGX”) to consider permitting dual-class shares (“DCS”) to be listed in Singapore.
Following the latest Companies Act amendments, the Listing Advisory Committee (“LAC”) of SGX had on 29 August 2016 indicated that it is in favour of allowing the listing of DCS, subject to appropriate safeguards. SGX believes that such a move will increase Singapore’s attractiveness as a listing venue for quality companies, thereby providing investors’ access to a greater variety of companies and sectors.
Briefly, a DCS structure will give certain shareholders voting power or other related rights disproportionate to their
shareholdings. For instance, a company may have one class of shares that carry one vote each and another class of shares that carry multiple votes each. A DCS structure allows holders of multiple-voting shares, typically the founders or owners managing the company, to have voting control without the corresponding financial investment risk.
SGX recognises that there are risks associated with DCS structures, and has proposed the following measures to mitigate such risks.
Safeguards against risks associated with DCS structures(i) Safeguards against risks of poor quality listing The LAC was in favour of SGX conducting a holistic assessment of the
listing applicant when determining whether it is suitable to list using a DCS structure, by taking into account the company’s industry, size, operating track record and whether sophisticated investors have participated in any fund raising by the company. During the initial period after the establishment of a DCS listing framework, SGX also proposed referring listing applications of companies with a DCS structure to the LAC for its review and advice, provided that SGX first conducts an assessment of such listing applicant’s suitability to list.
(ii) Safeguards against entrenchment risks SGX highlighted the risk of owner managers entrenching themselves
and their voting rights in the company. To mitigate this risk, the LAC was in favour of SGX restricting the DCS structure to a maximum voting differential of 10:1 (a commonly adopted voting differential in other jurisdictions) and prohibiting post-listing issuance of multiple-voting shares.
(iii) Safeguards against expropriation risks To minimise the risks of owner managers seeking to extract excessive
private benefits from the company to the detriment of minority shareholders, LAC has backed SGX’s recommendation to enhance the independence element and presence of independent directors in companies with a DCS structure. This will provide some level of assurance that there is independent scrutiny of the owner manager’s decisions.
(iv) Safeguards against risk of lack of clarity SGX proposes to increase investor awareness with regards shareholder
rights in DCS structures, by requiring companies to provide clear disclosure of shareholder rights, and implement investor education initiatives.
SGX will now consider LAC’s advice, and consult with stakeholders and the public before any rules permitting DCS structures are implemented.
LISTING ADVISORY COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDS THE LISTING OF DUAL-CLASS SHARES ON THE SGX
Singapore companies, highly exposed to slowing global trade and a lackluster commodity market, face a fi-nancing scramble in 2017, as more than $12 billion of their bonds falls due and banks grow wary of lending
to the resources sector.That could trigger more blood-letting in a market that has
already seen some high-profile corporate defaults, such as oil services firm Swiber Holdings, which hit the skids in July and went into judicial management this month.
It has also seen an increase in the number of bond issuers trying to renegotiate the terms of their credit to stay afloat, a disturbing signal in a market skewed to retail buyers and smaller issues subject to light scrutiny.
Corporate leverage has risen to increasingly risky levels, according to credit analysts and investors, while banks are becoming more circumspect about extending financing as the quality of their loan books causes concern.
Between now and the end of 2017, according to Reuters data, $12.4 billion of bonds falls due, but corporate balance sheets in the city state are looking strained.
A Reuters study of 228 non-financial companies’ half-year earnings shows that 74 had net debt more than five times their core profit, a level that usually prompts concern among credit analysts, and more than a third of that group were at least twice that level.
“We had not seen Singapore dollar corporate defaults since 2009, but suddenly we see a pick-up in defaults in 2015-2016. This is a warning sign about a refinancing confidence crisis across many sectors, not just commodity-related ones,” said Raymond Chia, Head of Credit Research for Asia ex-Japan at Schroders Investment Management.
The structure of Singapore’s capital markets has left them particularly vulnerable as global trade cools and Chinese growth slows.
Joggers run past as the skyline of Singapore’s financial districtis seen in the background. REUTERS/Edgar Su
11BRIEFSWWW.LEGALBUSINESSONLINE.COM: @ALB_Magazine : Asian Legal Business
As committed to your success as you areWe share your commitment to the success of your business and work alongside you to achieve your goals.
www.shlegal.com
Hogan Lovells forms strategic alliancein Shanghai FTZ
Hogan Lovells has entered into a strategic alliance with Xiamen-headquartered Fujian Fidelity Law Firm in the Shanghai Free
Trade Zone.Partners Andrew McGinty and Zhen (Ka-
tie) Feng will handle the Fidelity tie-up for Hogan Lovells, and they are expected to promote the joint services from both firms to clients. With the addition of this new association, Hogan Lovells now has 10 offices in Asia.
Established in 1989, Fidelity has around 170 lawyers and focuses on corporate M&A, insolvency and liquidation, financial secu-rities, real estate and construction, and arbitration and litigation work.
This formal alliance follows a trend of
HK IPO regulatorprobes UBS
Swiss bank UBS has said Hong Kong’s securities regulator is in-vestigating its role as sponsor of certain unnamed stock market
listings in the city.The disclosure by UBS made it the first
major bank to say it was being probed since Hong Kong’s Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) introduced tougher rules for listing sponsors.
The SFC’s scope for action means UBS could face financial penalties, and may even be stripped of its ability to provide corporate finance advisory services in Hong Kong for a period of time.
The regulator confirmed separately an investigation was “under way into the role of UBS as a sponsor of certain IPOs.”
international law firms entering into alli-ances in the Shanghai FTZ. These include Holman Fenwick Willian, which partnered with Wintell & Co, and Baker & McKenzie (with FenXun Partners).
A man walks at the entrance of the Shanghai Free Trade Zone inPudong district, in Shanghai. REUTERS/Carlos Barria
12 BRIEFS ASIAN LEGAL BUSINESSNOVEMBER 2016
APPOINTMENTSAPPOINTMENTS
FELICIATAN
Allen &Gledhill
Ince LawAlliance Litigation Singapore
FRIVEN YEOH O’Melveny & Myers Sidley Austin Arbitration Hong Kong
STEPHEN ADAMS Bedell Cristin Collas Crill OffshoreCorporate Singapore
ADAM CHENG Skadden, Arps, Slate,Meagher & Flom JunHe Law Offi ces Corporate Shanghai
HEIDI LEE Ashurst Howse WilliamsBowers Corporate Hong Kong
SARIKA RAICHUR YutiLaw
Kochhar& Co Corporate India
SIENG DELINE ANZ Royal R&T Sok & Heng Banking & Finance Cambodia
LADASHELKOVNIKOVA Al Tamimi & Co. Withers KhattarWong Hotel and
Hospitality Singapore
LATERAL HIRESNAME LEAVING GOING TO PRACTICE LOCATION
Ashurst Howse WilliamsBowers
YutiLaw
Kochhar& Co
Collas Crill OffshoreCorporate
GOING TO PRACTICE
FELICIATAN
Allen &Gledhill
SHELKOVNIKOVA
Ince LawAlliance Litigation
Sidley Austin Arbitration
13BRIEFSWWW.LEGALBUSINESSONLINE.COM: @ALB_Magazine : Asian Legal Business
More than a hundred noted arbi-trators and arbitration lawyers from across the Asian region and beyond congregated in
the picturesque Indonesian island of Bali last month for the Asia Pacific Regional Arbitration Group’s (APRAG) biannual con-ference. Held from Oct. 6-8, the conference hosted by Indonesia’s BANI Arbitration Centre attracted such noted experts on arbitration as Yu Jianlong, vice-chairman and secretary general of the China Inter-national Economic and Trade Arbitration
APRAG Conference 2016 held in Bali
Commission (CIETAC); Michael Pryles, presi-dent of the SIAC Court of Arbitration; and Michael Hwang, chief justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts. The theme of the conference was “The Rise of International Commercial Arbitration and Developments In Investment Treaty Arbitration: Asia’s Response.” M. Husseyn Umar, chairman of BANI and president of APRAG, said the theme had been chosen as much of the world, and Asia in particular had witnessed a tremendous growth in international commercial arbitration. “This
rise is an interesting development but also a challenge especially for the arbitration institutions in the Asia,” he said. “In addi-tion, the regions have also witnessed the growth of investment arbitration disputes and how the countries in disputes have shown their resistance to the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism.” The con-ference also discussed hot-button issues like diversity and unification of arbitration practices, third-party funding, and issues related to arbitration within the new ASEAN Economic Community.
M. Husseyn Umar, chairman of BANIand president of APRAG, delivers thewelcome address of the conference
Dr. HM Syarifudin SH, MH, Vice-Chief Justiceof Indonesia’s Supreme Court on JudicialMatters, officially opens the conference
A panel discussion during theAPRAG Conference 2016
The opening address by Yu Jianlong,vice-chairman of CIETAC and a pastpresident of APRAG
The audience listens toa panel discussion
The opening ceremony
ARBITRATION14 ASIAN LEGAL BUSINESSNOVEMBER 2016
AGAINST THE STATETHE RISE OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION IN ASIA IS COUPLED WITH THE GROWTHOF INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTE SETTLEMENTS (ISDS). CHRIS THOMSON TALKS TO LAWYERS ABOUT
ASIAN RESPONSES TO ISDS AS WELL AS THE RISKS AND BENEFITS THEY BRING TO COMPANIES
REUTERS/Toby Melville
Investor-state dispute settlements (ISDS) clauses were initially used by companies investing in foreign jurisdic-tions to protect themselves from less
robust legal systems in case incidents such as a coup occurred. Since then, they have arguably been used by said companies to unjustly get the upper hand, seeking more favourable outcomes when attempting to impose their will in a foreign jurisdiction.
As was highlighted recently during the annual Hong Kong Arbitration Week (Oct. 17 to 21), ISDS is a type of commercial
arbitration that has been gaining notoriety in Asia Pacific. It is not new to the region, but has evolved of late to include many provisions and protections companies are taking advantage of.
“ISDS cases in or involving Asia Pacific are on the increase, across countries and across sectors,” says Brenda Horrigan, Herbert Smith Freehills’ head of international arbitration, Australia. This trend has become obvious across jurisdictions, points out Christopher Boog, partner and managing director at
Schellenberg Wittmer. “Singapore has seen a growing number of investor-state arbitrations over the past few years, both in terms of investment treaty arbitrations being seated in Singapore and related proceedings being heard by the Singapore courts.” he notes.
PROTECT YOURSELFIt’s important to know what you’re getting yourself into for before taking the plunge. Before making any investment, companies should check whether there is a trade
ARBITRATION14 ASIAN LEGAL BUSINESSNOVEMBER 2016
SPONSORED ARTICLE 15WWW.LEGALBUSINESSONLINE.COM: @ALB_Magazine : Asian Legal Business
SCHELLENBERG WITTMER
On 1 August 2016, the revised Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC Rules”) entered into force. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the new SIAC Rules apply to arbitrations commenced on or after 1 August 2016.
Since commencing operations in 1991, SIAC ar-bitration has experienced phenomenal growth. In 2015, SIAC recorded the highest ever number of cases filed, highest ever number of administered cases and highest ever total sum in dispute in the history of SIAC.1 SIAC’s case filings have increased by over 250 per cent in the past ten years.2
While SIAC has a proven track record of provid-ing quality and neutral arbitration services in a very pro-arbitration and stable jurisdiction, there was a common desire of users and practitioners alike to update the 2013 SIAC Rules, not only to reflect current trends in international arbitration, but to set new standards.
The revision process was run by the SIAC Rules Revision Executive Committee in collaboration with a number of subcommittees. They were sup-ported by the SIAC Users’ Council, composed of arbitration practitioners and corporate counsel from over 30 jurisdictions. Finally, in order to al-low the broadest possible input from users around the globe, draft Rules were released in December 2015 for an extensive 6-month public consultation process.
The most remarkable amendment to the SIAC Rules is the introduction of a procedure for the early dismissal of claims and defences. The ab-sence of explicit provisions regarding summary judgment procedures in international arbitration is a concern for businesses across industries. SIAC has now addressed this concern. In line with its pioneering role in international arbitration, SIAC is the first major arbitration centre to provide for such a procedure in international commercial arbi-tration. The new provision has the potential of sig-nificantly reducing time and costs in arbitrations conducted under the SIAC Rules. It also sets the SIAC Rules apart from other institutional rules and will serve as another selling point for SIAC arbitra-tion.
Furthermore, the revised SIAC Rules take into account the increasing number of complex dis-putes involving multiple contracts and/or multiple parties. The new provisions concerning claims deriving from multiple contracts, joinder of ad-ditional parties and consolidation of two or more arbitrations generally reflect current best practice in international arbitration, but are noteworthy in that they in some aspects go beyond what other institutions offer and grant parties to SIAC arbi-
trations greater flexibility in dealing with complex arbitrations than other sets of arbitration rules do.
The 2016 SIAC Rules have also introduced a number of changes aimed at further optimizing the arbitral process under the SIAC Rules. These changes relate, inter alia, to improvements to the existing emergency arbitrator and expedited pro-cedures, for instance by shortening the overall schedule of the emergency arbitrator proceedings so as to allow parties to SIAC arbitrations to obtain urgent interim relief even more efficiently than un-der the 2013 Rules; or by allowing more cases to be submitted to the popular expedited procedure under the SIAC Rules, by raising the monetary threshold for the applicability of that procedure from SGD 5 million to SGD 6 million.
Moreover, by clarifying that the seat of the arbi-tration need not be in Singapore, the revised Rules underscore SIAC’s role as more than a regional, but rather a truly international arbitral institution, operating alongside other leading arbitral insti-tutions and providing truly international dispute resolution services.
Finally, it is worth noting that the 2016 revi-sion of the SIAC Rules will be accompanied by an entirely new set of rules specifically designed for investment disputes: the SIAC Investment Arbi-tration Rules. These are based on the SIAC Rules but are tailored to the particularities of investment arbitration. At the time of writing, the consultation process is in its final stages and the SIAC Invest-ment Arbitration Rules are expected to enter into force at the end of 2016.
In sum, with the adoption of the 2016 SIAC Rules, SIAC successfully tackles the growing com-plexity of disputes subject to international arbitra-tion. Moreover, the new SIAC Rules contain inno-vative changes that confirm SIAC’s role as one of the world’s leading international arbitration cen-tres. The SIAC Rules now enable parties to resolve, where appropriate, all relevant disputes in a single arbitration, preventing the duplication of work and the risk of contradictory or conflicting results. SIAC has also made state-of-the-art changes to improve time efficiency and cost effectiveness of the arbi-tral process. By introducing an innovative manner to allow for the early dismissal of claims and de-fences – and soon a whole new set of Investment Arbitration Rules – SIAC positions itself not only as a leading arbitral institution but as a pioneer in the development of international arbitration practice.
THE 2016 SIAC RULES – FOR AN EVEN MORE EFFICIENT ARBITRAL PROCESS
Dr. Christopher Boog Managing Director/Partner (65) 6580 2248 [email protected]
1 SIAC Annual Report 2015 available at www.siac.org.sg/2013-09-18-01-57-20/2013-09-22-00-27-02/annual-report.
2 SIAC Annual Report 2015 available at www.siac.org.sg/2013-09-18-01-57-20/2013-09-22-00-27-02/annual-report.
agreement or treaty providing investor protections such as ISDS between the host country and its home country. “If there is no such agreement, it is advisable to carefully structure the investment so as to guarantee such protection, be it by investing through a jurisdiction that has the required treaties with the host nation in place, or providing for an adequate contractual regime,” says Boog.
This type of protection is becoming more globalised. “As Asia-Pacific investors increasingly expand outside their domestic markets, they need the protections, and more countries are realising that,” explains Horrigan. This simply means that you’re more likely to come across a situation in which you are protected, but in no way means that said protection is a given.
This realisation, as Horrigan puts it, “is seen in the development of treaty provisions over the years. Countries once anxious to draft clauses that would limit actions against them are pushing for more generous clauses that will give their businesses the power to fight disputes overseas.”
RISING ARBITRATIONBefore looking at how ISDS disputes have evolved in the region, it’s important to understand why Asian investors are now increasingly on the offensive, and “are taking advantage of these provisions to protect themselves,” as Horrigan describes it.
On a global scale, ISDS has been incorporated into the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreements. As such, their influence expands into the 12-member organisation that accounts for close to 40 percent of global GDP.
“Criticism of ISDS has affected international trade agreements that
contain provisions for such mechanism of dispute resolution, such as TTIP or the TPP, leading to lengthy negotiations, talk of alternative dispute resolution models such as standing investment courts, and even public protests.” says Boog.
He continues: “What is worrisome is that the debate has been conducted on a very emotional and oftentimes very polemic level, with little regard to the facts – particularly the bigger picture of international investment – and the protections necessary to ensure that such investment takes place. The arbitration community as a whole has been slow to react, and some have recently voiced that it may be too late to defend ISDS.”
Boog also believes that the emergence of third-party disputes funding in Asian hubs such as Hong Kong and Singapore will contribute to the growth of ISDS as it allows parties to share the financial risk, and not just the impecunious ones.
SYSTEMIC BIASISDS has evolved and worked many of its predecessors’ kinks out, but it is not without controversy and drawbacks. “The criticism has mainly been focused on the existence of a perceived systemic bias in favour of investors and a lack of transparency, along with an alleged closed ‘club’ of arbitrators known for their views and being systematically appointed for these views either by states or investors,” claims Boog. Moreover, he says that “the system has also been criticised for becoming a lucrative business, attracting those who want to benefit from its financial rewards.”
This makes alternatives such as litigation and mediation seem more appealing, especially to governments. The Australian government, in particular, has frequently spoken out against ISDS for its bias against governmental institutions.
Regarding alternatives, Boog admits that mediation is often quicker than arbitration, but stresses that this is only in circumstances in which both parties comply with the mediated settlement, as if they don’t they have to start over again.
Litigation can be faster as well, but it may could take multiple instances before a final decision is reached. But when arbitration is done in the right forum, says Boog, it could “provide a final award with very limited grounds for setting aside in one single instance.”
Furthermore, the advantages of arbitration include neutrality of venue for the resolution of disputes involving parties from different countries, flexibility as to choice of procedure, freedom of choice of arbitrator and the 150-jurisdiction enforcement of the New York Convention, according to Boog.
ISDS certainly has its imperfections, and in recent history its clauses have discouraged deals such as Australia’s potential bilateral trade agreement with Korea. And examples go beyond this, with 568 challenges made under ISDS clauses between 1993 and 2014 internationally.
Neutrality is a word often bandied around by arbitration advocates, but arbitration panels are often made up of people who double as panellists and representatives of investors, who are often paid by the hour. As such, they also benefit from cases that span years.
Companies can greatly benefit from ISDS, so being aware of the issues and ensuring protection from potential problems are imperative. In fact, according to Horrigan, these issues are so vital that “companies should be looking at ISDS protections at the structuring stage of an investment. These days, treaty structuring should be up there with tax planning.”
“THE CRITICISM HAS MAINLY BEEN FOCUSED ON THE EXISTENCE OFA PERCEIVED SYSTEMIC BIAS IN FAVOUR OF INVESTORS AND A LACKOF TRANSPARENCY, ALONG WITH AN ALLEGED CLOSED ‘CLUB’ OFARBITRATORS KNOWN FOR THEIR VIEWS AND BEING SYSTEMATICALLYAPPOINTED FOR THESE VIEWS EITHER BY STATES OR INVESTORS.”Christopher Boog, Schellenberg Wittmer
SPONSORED ARTICLE 17WWW.LEGALBUSINESSONLINE.COM: @ALB_Magazine : Asian Legal Business
In Indonesia, enforcement of arbitral awards requires the leave of the court. The enforcement process is conducted in the same manner as en-forcement of court judgments, in accordance with the civil procedural rules. Particularly for arbitral awards made outside the jurisdiction of Indonesia, an exequatur from the District Court of Central Jakarta is re-quired to initiate the enforcement process.
The Law of the Republic of Indonesia number 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (“Arbitration Law”) and the Indo-nesian civil procedural rules do not provide certain period for the issu-ance of exequatur and the enforcement of arbitral awards. Therefore, it is diffi cult to estimate the time needed to enforce arbitral awards in Indonesia.
Foreign and domestic arbitral awardsThe Arbitration Law does not provide clear defi nitions of foreign and domestic arbitral awards. It only defi nes international arbitral award as a decision handed down by an arbitration institution or individual arbi-trator outside the jurisdiction of Indonesia, or decision of arbitration in-stitution or individual arbitrator which, according to Indonesian laws, is deemed as an international arbitral award. Accordingly, arbitral awards made in Indonesia shall be regarded as ‘domestic arbitral awards’, re-gardless of the nationality of the parties or the arbitration institution.
Enforcement of international (foreign) arbitral awards in IndonesiaThe enforcement of an international arbitral award is initiated by fi rstly submitting an application for exequatur with the District Court of Cen-tral Jakarta. Whereas, the enforcement process of domestic arbitration award can be initiated directly after issuance of the award. Hence, com-
pared to the enforcement of domestic arbitral awards, the enforcement of international arbitral awards in Indonesia is more complicated and likely to be more lengthy, not to mention the available legal remedies if the application for exequatur is denied.
Choosing Indonesia as the seat of arbitrationIf the enforcement of an arbitral award is likely to be sought in Indonesia, choosing Indonesia as the seat of arbitration may help to simplify the enforcement process. It means the juridical seat of arbitration is Indone-sia and the Indonesian law would be the lex arbitri or the law that gov-erns the arbitration. Having Indonesia as the seat of arbitration does not mean that all hearings and meetings must be held in Indonesia or pre-vent referring dispute to international or non-Indonesian arbitration in-stitution. Arbitration institution such as ICC or SIAC may still be referred to administer the arbitration, subject to the applicability of their rules.
By choosing Indonesia as the seat of arbitration, the arbitral award should be deemed to be made in Indonesia. And since the award is made in Indonesia, it will be enforced as a domestic arbitral award under sim-pler process than the enforcement of an international arbitral award.
Things to be considered when choosing Indonesia as the seat of ar-bitrationIf Indonesia is chosen as the seat of arbitration, the conduct of arbitra-tion must adhere to the provisions of Indonesian law including formali-ties in the making of the award. Application of the arbitration rules must also be considered, if the parties submit to the rules of non-Indonesian arbitration institution. In addition, grounds for setting aside an arbitral award in Indonesia must also be taken into consideration by the parties.
INDRAWAN DARSYAH SANTOSO
CHOOSING INDONESIA AS THE SEAT OF ARBITRATION - A WAY TO SIMPLIFY THE ENFORCEMENTOF ARBITRAL AWARDS IN INDONESIA
FOLLOWING A SLOW 2016, WHAT KIND OF OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES WILL THENEW YEAR BRING? CHRISTOPHER HORTON SPEAKS WITH OFFSHORE LAWYERS TO FIND OUT
OFFSHORE18 ASIAN LEGAL BUSINESSNOVEMBER 2016
The past year was a somewhat slug-gish one for offshore legal counsel in Asia, although it also did not have the distracting volatility that
reverberated from China in 2015. As the region looks forward to what 2017 has in, there are also questions on the hori-zon: China’s struggle to maintain its “new normal” of more than 6 percent growth, the impact of King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand’s passing, and an uncertain future for the Philippines under President Rodrigo Duterte, to name a few.
Let’s start with the big question: How does 2017 look for Asian markets from an offshore law firm perspective?
“The Asian legal market place will con-tinue to remain competitive for offshore law firms in 2017. There have been several new entrants looking to break into the market, largely based on price, and we think that pricing pressure will continue into 2017,” says Nicholas Plowman, a partner at Ogier. “We feel China will continue to be the strongest market for offshore law firms in the region next year, and we would like to think that Japan’s economy will turn a corner in 2017, with an uptick in new work coming through in their asset management space. Southeast Asia remains a challenge for the offshore law firms, with the market remaining fickle and over-lawyered.”
Jonathan Culshaw, managing partner at Harneys Asia, says that 2016 was actually quite good for his firm, with both trans-actional and litigation revenues up quite substantially over 2015. “Having said that, offshore services the general Asian econo-mies, and [it] has been hit by diminished M&A activity across the region, some weak-ness particularly in ASEAN markets, and the tightening of currency restrictions in PRC following market shocks there earlier in the year,” Culshaw says.
Partners at Maples and Calder have dif-ferent takes on what to expect in the coming year. “On the finance side, China seems to be revving up,” says Mark Western,
REUTERS/Daniel Munoz
2017: THE VIEW FROM OFFSHORE
LEGAL EXPERTISE
For more information please contact:
Top-tier Offshore Legal Expertise and Corporate Services around the Globe
BERMUDA BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS CAYMAN ISLANDS DUBAI HONG KONG LONDON MAURITIUS SINGAPORE
conyersdill.com
Conyers Dill & Pearman is an international law firm advising on the laws of Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands and Mauritius. Through our global network we provide responsive, sophisticated, solution-driven advice to clients on corporate, finance, litigation, restructuring and insolvency, and trust and private client matters. Conyers’ affiliate, the Codan group of companies, provides a range of trust, corporate secretarial, accounting and management services.
2016_06_GLB_HK_ASIALEGALBUSINESS_FINAL.indd 1 6/28/2016 11:11:28 AM
OFFSHORE20 ASIAN LEGAL BUSINESSNOVEMBER 2016
“CHINA’S GROWTH RATE IS PREDICTED TO SLOW FROM 7 PERCENT TO6.3 PERCENT IN 2017. THIS IS ATTRIBUTED TO THE CONSTRUCTIONSLOWDOWN, STAGNANT INDUSTRIAL AND MINING SECTORS, ANDSLOW INVESTMENT AND GDP GROWTH. POLICY SUPPORT FROM THEGOVERNMENT [I.E. FISCAL STIMULUS] IS ANTICIPATED TO MITIGATEHARM. MOODY’S IS EXPECTING A GRADUAL SLOWDOWN ANDREBALANCING – RATHER THAN A LARGE DISRUPTION – AND DOESNOT EXPECT SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON GLOBAL ECONOMIC GROWTH.”Christopher Bickley, Conyers Dill & Pearman
joint managing partner in Hong Kong. “Indonesia and Malaysia continue to be slow, but Korea [outbound capital] and Japan [unit trusts] are showing more signs of life. The Philippines and Myanmar are the jurisdictions to watch for opportuni-ties next year.”
Anthony Webster, partner and head of investment funds in Hong Kong, has a fund-focused view of the near term. “The volume of new funds being formed – in both the hedge fund space and private equity space – has been on a steady in-crease with sponsors from Hong Kong, Japan and the mainland PRC continuing to start fundraising and form new vehicles,” Webster says.
“For corporate, the outlook remains pretty much the same, with the various macro-economic factors exerting some negative drag on confidence but the un-
derlying trend remaining upwards,” says Greg Knowles, Maples and Calder partner and head of corporate in Hong Kong.
Acknowledging China’s continued cen-tral role in the region, Knowles explains there are additional sources of offshore work in the coming months. “In terms of other areas, we see potentially continuing consolidation in the TMT space providing M&A opportunities as well as a continu-ing need for capital giving rise to bond issues and other debt-raising,” he says. “International PE houses will continue to invest strategically and opportunistically in growing PRC sectors such as technol-ogy, Internet, healthcare, consumer, etc.”
STILL DOMINANTAs Asia’s largest economy and its most significant driver of demand for offshore legal counsel, China is of course on ev-
eryone’s mind. A high debt-to-GDP ratio, lacklustre trade figures and a weakening renminbi may be a source of concern in other sectors, but offshore firms are gener-ally sanguine about the short-term future of Chinese offshore demand.
“China’s growth rate is predicted to slow from 7 percent to 6.3 percent in 2017,” says Christopher Bickley, a part-ner and head of the Hong Kong office at Conyers Dill & Pearman. “This is at-tributed to the construction slowdown, stagnant industrial and mining sectors, and slow investment and GDP growth. Policy support from the government [i.e. fiscal stimulus] is anticipated to mitigate harm. Moody’s is expecting a gradual slowdown and rebalancing - rather than a large disruption - and does not expect significant impact on global economic growth.”
“We expect that the introduction of the Shenzhen-Hong Kong Connect scheme later in the year will boost the attrac-tiveness of the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong by allowing PRC investors further trading access to shares of Hong Kong listed companies,” Bickley adds.
Knowles at Maple and Calder says he sees China’s underlying strength and the direction of its economy primed to gener-ate more corporate work moving forward.
“China should continue to deliver op-portunities for us in the offshore sec-tor,” he says. “Cayman [Islands] and BVI [British Virgin Islands] continue to be the preferred [offshore] choices for significant corporate transactions in the PRC for all the usual reasons: investor recognition, service levels, political stability, legal infrastructure, value, [and the] ability of service providers to deliver work product in Mandarin in the Chinese business day.
Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Chief Executive Charles Li speaks during a news conference introducing Shenzhen-Hong Kong Stock Connect, at the Hong Kong Exchanges in Hong Kong August 16, 2016. REUTERS/Bobby Yip
OFFSHORE 21WWW.LEGALBUSINESSONLINE.COM: @ALB_Magazine : Asian Legal Business
There is no reason for PRC companies to go elsewhere for offshore product.”
Knowles and his colleagues will end 2016 on a high note with the recently announced ZTO Express initial public of-fering, where the firm acted as Cayman Islands counsel. The offering was expected to raise as much as $1.5 billion, which would make it the largest U.S. IPO of 2016 and also the biggest by a PRC company after the $25 billion IPO of Alibaba Group Holdings in 2014.
The ZTO Express IPO represents a very significant capi-tal raising in the U.S. And it is interesting to note that the U.S. capital markets and a Cayman vehicle were selected rather than domestic ones. This IPO is the latest example of a PRC company listing in the U.S. to avoid the red tape associated with launching IPOs in mainland China and to make it easier for existing shareholders to monetise their stakes, Knowles says.
“We think U.S.-listed Cayman companies [that] might profit from a return to the PRC will have made that move by now and we expect a slowdown in that type of transaction,” he adds. “There may very well be a return to U.S. capital markets using Cayman vehicles and the ZTO Express IPO may be a weathervane for that.”
The introduction of the Delaware-style LLC in Cayman will also increase its attractiveness, Knowles adds. “Other jurisdic-tions will continue to struggle in terms of legal infrastructure profile with no ability to offer a real price advantage,” he says. “Ireland’s DTT with China and low tax regime make it a good base for China outbound deals, especially into Europe.”
Knowles’ colleague Webster says that in the funds space, he anticipates continued growth in the alternative investment space in China. The renminbi’s internationalisation combined with market expectations of increased RMB volatility and high asset prices in mainland China relative to overseas assets should continue to drive demand from PRC for foreign cur-rencies and foreign assets, he noted. That would be beneficial to the Hong Kong and offshore fund industry.
Maples and Calder also expects more additional funds will be established to target the increasing flow of monies from Chinese private or high-net worth clients. Some of these new funds may offer access to either other funds that would normally be offered only to institutions or to high-profile capital market or private equity deals.
According to Knowles, some of the allocators that have traditionally fuelled the funds market in China – particularly on the PE side – are not investing in the same volume as in prior years. However, there is slow-burn consolidation in certain segments of the market as well as interest in invest-ing in China from other places, including Japan, he says.
In addition, Maples’ Western sees possibilities in business aviation, a rapidly growing industry that still has plenty of room for expansion. On one hand, China’s domestic business jet market is expected to develop steadily for several years to come. On the other hand, ambitious global acquisitions by Chinese companies on every continent are driving demand for mid- and long-range aircraft.
“In finance, Chinese aircraft lessors will continue to be very acquisitive and ambitious, and that will also drive business in the offshore markets as they look for the most tax-efficient ways to deploy aircraft,” points out Western.
applebyglobal.com
Intelligent and insightful offshore legal advice and services. Offshore is our domain.
OFFSHORE REACH
OFFSHORE22 ASIAN LEGAL BUSINESSNOVEMBER 2016
WALKING A TIGHTROPEWith regard to capital outflows and inter-national investment, Chinese regulators are walking a tightrope by simultaneously encouraging China Inc’s global buying spree while also doing everything possible to curb unwanted capital flows. Ogier’s Plowman notes that this poses a challenge to offshoring, but it will be mitigated by other industry staples.
“The restrictions on outbound capital flows in China have put pressure on the ability to establish new offshore structures from within the PRC. However, we remain confident that China will continue to grow in 2017, even if that is at a gradually slower pace,” Plowman says. “Dispute resolu-tion, corporate, and asset management work remain the service lines that will be the strongest for the offshore law firms, and Ogier is well positioned to deliver in these areas with our Chinese language capability.”
Harneys’ Culshaw says he doesn’t see China’s importance in Asian offshore wan-ing anytime soon, while noting the impor-tant role that Hong Kong can still play.
“China, including Hong Kong, is by far the most important market for offshore in Asia, and I don’t see that changing any time soon,” Culshaw says. “This is partly a function of the size of its economy relative to other economies in the region, but [it] also reflects how embedded offshore is in usual business dealings here – it is rare to see any material transaction without an offshore element.”
Culshaw says he anticipates the number of instructions coming from PRC itself relative to Hong Kong to continue to grow, driven by increasing interest in offshore fund products in key financial markets within mainland China, along with an in-
crease in the sophistication and number of outbound transactions where offshore structuring can often play a useful role.
“Of course, the amount of work coming out of China will, to some extent, depend on the strength of underlying economic activity,” he says. “Should markets take a turn for the worst, we are hedged by having the largest offshore restructuring and litigation teams in Asia.”
BOOM OR BUST?The other Asian region where there is significant offshore interest is the ASEAN, which launched the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) a year ago to cautious optimism. The 10-nation unified market is not as unified as perhaps anyone would like at this point in time, and although it boasts a total population of 600 million people – slightly less than half of China’s
population – it is far from being viewed as a bloc by offshore firms.
Two different groupings have emerged in ASEAN. One comprises the large, fast-growing economies of Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam, while the other includes the so-called “frontier economies” of Myanmar, Cambodia and Laos. Different types of investment favour different mar-kets, but in general, the higher the popula-tion, the higher the interest. And for the second grouping, Myanmar is attracting more attention than Cambodia or Laos.
Singapore’s role as a regional finance and legal hub makes it an ideal conduit for offshore work in these growing mar-kets. Meanwhile, Thailand is suffering from investor doubts due to political questions raised by the rule of the current junta government and the forthcoming year of mourning, while Brunei is struggling to
Buildings are pictured in Beijing’s central business district. REUTERS/Jason Lee
“CHINA, INCLUDING HONG KONG, IS BY FAR THE MOST IMPORTANTMARKET FOR OFFSHORE IN ASIA, AND I DON’T SEE THAT CHANGINGANY TIME SOON. THIS IS PARTLY A FUNCTION OF THE SIZE OF ITSECONOMY RELATIVE TO OTHER ECONOMIES IN THE REGION, BUT [IT]ALSO REFLECTS HOW EMBEDDED OFFSHORE IS IN USUAL BUSINESSDEALINGS HERE – IT IS RARE TO SEE ANY MATERIAL TRANSACTIONWITHOUT AN OFFSHORE ELEMENT.” Jonathan Culshaw, Harneys
OFFSHORE 23WWW.LEGALBUSINESSONLINE.COM: @ALB_Magazine : Asian Legal Business
Anguilla Bermuda British Virgin Islands Cayman Islands
CyprusHong KongLondonMauritius
MontevideoSao Paulo ShanghaiSingapore
TokyoVancouver
Harneys Shanghai provides a client liaison function for a range of legal transactional, restructuring and litigation as well as fiduciary services in the PRC.
wean its economy off of its petroleum dependence in the face of low oil prices.
“Offshore is not quite as embedded in ASEAN economies as it is in China, with
some of the economies not generating much sophisticated cross-border activity, local funds markets much smaller than China and offshore more infrequently used
as a listing vehicle of choice,” Culshaw says. “Having said that, our Singapore office saw an increase in workflows in 2016, and we are hopeful of that continuing into 2017.”
Similarly, Plowman at Ogier also sees consistent work coming from the region, although with some significant caveats beyond the region’s control.
“We don’t feel ASEAN will surge, but there will likely continue to be a steady flow of work for the offshore law firms from the ASEAN countries,” he says. “However, if interest rates rise at the end of 2016 or early 2017 and there continues to be a squeeze on liquidity generally, this will naturally have a bigger impact on the de-veloping ASEAN economies where capital is likely to retreat more quickly.”
Michael Gagie, managing partner at Maples and Calder’s Singapore office, de-scribed ASEAN as a market where offshore is more likely to operate through back doors – namely, Singapore or Hong Kong.
“It is difficult for us to have a clear view on this given the jurisdictions that we practice in Southeast Asia as typi-
REUTERS/Adrees Latif
OFFSHORE24 ASIAN LEGAL BUSINESSNOVEMBER 2016
“WE DON’T FEEL ASEAN WILL SURGE, BUT THERE WILL LIKELYCONTINUE TO BE A STEADY FLOW OF WORK FOR THE OFFSHORELAW FIRMS FROM THE ASEAN COUNTRIES. HOWEVER, IF INTERESTRATES RISE AT THE END OF 2016 OR EARLY 2017 AND THERECONTINUES TO BE A SQUEEZE ON LIQUIDITY GENERALLY, THIS WILLNATURALLY HAVE A BIGGER IMPACT ON THE DEVELOPING ASEANECONOMIES WHERE CAPITAL IS LIKELY TO RETREAT MORE QUICKLY.”Nicholas Plowman, Ogier
REUTERS/Jason Lee
cally, for inter-ASEAN deals, there will be no “offshore” aspect – such as BVI or Cayman – to the structure and there-fore, [we] are unlikely to be advising on those deals,” Gagie says. “What we do see though is an expectation among lawyers in the region that there will be an in-crease in transactional activity over time. One trend that we have observed is the increasing use of Singapore- or Hong Kong-domiciled vehicles as the conduit through which investment is being made between businesses in different Southeast Asian countries.”
The geographical proximity of those ju-risdictions, coupled with confidence in their legal systems and the potential benefits of a double-taxation treaty network, are all reasons why those jurisdictions are being used, according to feedback received by Maple and Calder, he added.
SEEKING ACTIONThere is also a diversity of opinions when it comes to which practice areas will be hot in 2017, as well as the kind of work that offshore law firms can expect to get.
“I would expect to see dispute resolu-tion and restructuring and insolvency work continue to remain strong for the offshore law firms as we see disputes rise, with the stress placed on existing offshore struc-tures in Asia,” says Ogier’s Plowman. “I would also expect the asset management industry in China to continue to evolve and grow as Chinese asset managers and brokerages look to build out their asset management platforms.”
Corporate work should remain steady in the region, Plowman adds, with the possibility of private work coming back on stream as valuations for Asian companies listed on foreign exchanges continue to
reduce and make it less viable for these businesses to remain publicly listed.
For its part, the firm of Conyers Dill & Pearman noted that that although Asia is experiencing slow growth, the firm contin-ues to see a large volume of work from the M&A, capital markets and banking sectors, and it expects this trend to continue in 2017.
“We advise nearly 60 per cent of the Cayman companies listed on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong and provide Corporate Services to over 70 per cent of those companies,” says Bickley. “We also advise on the buy side in a high percentage of all public company M&A transactions, including the largest to date, the take-private of Qihoo 360 Technology Company.”
Culshaw at Harneys sees the cornerstone policy of China’s president, Xi Jinping, as a major catalyst for workflow in 2017.
“We are expecting offshore funds work sourced from China to start to pick up again to 2015 levels and beyond, and are hope-ful that the continued liberalisation of the Chinese economy, and focus on increased outbound activity under the ‘One Belt, One Road’ policy, will lead to increased transactional offshore work sourced from China,” he says.
Maples’ Western provides a shortlist of where he sees the action taking place in 2017, including “IPOs, as the logjam built over the last year is released, aircraft financing – driven by both the order books of the airlines in the region and the growth of Chinese lessors – and securitisations, if the pricing for unsecured corporate bonds increases.”
INTERESTING TIMESSimilar to Harneys’ Culshaw, Western’s colleague Webster also sees an upward trend in fund work as being likely in the coming year.
Legal services in British Virgin IslandsCayman IslandsGuernseyHong KongJerseyLuxembourgShanghaiTokyo
ogier.com
To the p int.
We get straight to the point, managing complexity to get to the essentials. It is a collaborative approach. We listen actively, asking the right questions, focused on what really matters. We deliver targeted, pragmatic advice with absolute clarity.
OFFSHORE26 ASIAN LEGAL BUSINESSNOVEMBER 2016
“IN THE FUNDS SPACE, WE ANTICIPATE THAT 2017 WILL SEESIGNIFICANT ACTIVITY ACROSS A NUMBER OF PRODUCT TYPES,AND IN A NUMBER OF JURISDICTIONS IN ASIA, WITH NOPARTICULAR SPACE TAKING A DOMINANT POSITION… WE SEENO SIGNS OF A SLOWING IN THE NUMBER OF NEW PLAYERSSTARTING UP FUND MANAGEMENT BUSINESS IN HONG KONG,WHICH WILL CONTINUE TO BE FUELLED BY MAINLAND PRCMANAGERS SETTING UP SHOP IN THE SAR.”Anthony Webster, Maples and Calder
“In the funds space, we anticipate that 2017 will see significant activity across a number of product types, and in a number of jurisdictions in Asia, with no particular space taking a dominant position,” he says. “With the economic climate in Japan, the very low or negative interest rates are causing banks and pension funds to rebal-ance their massive portfolios in a search for yield. We have already seen the early stages of this with these Japanese institu-tional investors moving away from holding low-yielding government debt and invest-ing instead in higher-yielding alternative assets, using offshore investment vehicles in order to obtain such exposure, and we expect this trend to continue in 2017. This has been reflected with a number of large fundraises in the PE space from Japanese sponsors which we see continuing well into 2017.”
In Hong Kong, Webster says he is seeing early signs of an increase in new hedge fund managers coming to the market, with existing players also set to raise funds in 2017.
“We see no signs of a slowing in the number of new players starting up fund management business in Hong Kong, which will continue to be fuelled by mainland PRC managers setting up shop in the SAR,” he adds.
Like any predictions or prognostications, these views on how 2017 will play out for offshore in Asia are likely but far from guaranteed. There are numerous external variables – most notably the outcome of the U.S. presidential election – that could affect regional and global investor sentiment as well as the Fed’s posture. That said, Asia looks likely to stay on a steady course, with the possibility of some interesting surprises.
COMPANIES PUT $221 BILLION INTO LOW-TAX JURISDICTIONS IN 2015: U.N.
Companies put $221 billion into countries with low tax last year, chiefly Luxembourg and the Netherlands, while $72 billion of investment went into two British tax havens - the British Virgin Islands and Cayman Islands, the U.N. has revealed.
However, they took billions out of Luxembourg and the Netherlands in the final quarter of 2015 after the two countries imposed new EU rules to crack down on abusive tax practices.
The flows into the British Virgin Islands and the Caymans were roughly in line with historical averages but their source has shifted from rich to developing countries in recent years, the U.N. thinktank UNCTAD’s report said.
From 2010 to 2014, Hong Kong, the United States, Russia and China were the top four sources.
Companies shuffling money between jurisdictions to save on tax remained “a key concern for policy makers”, the U.N. report said, noting that firms from a sample of 26 developed countries registered more profits in Bermuda than in China in 2014.
The report said companies’ “special purpose entities” (SPEs) were typically subsidiaries that had little connection to the local economy but held assets or liabilities or raised capital.
Quarterly flows to the SPEs in the Netherlands reached $148 billion in the third quarter, the highest since 2007, driven by investment from Luxembourg and Britain, but then sharply reversed.
Flows to Luxembourg, associated with funds financing investments in the United States, surged in the first three quarters of 2015, triple on the same months of 2014, but turned negative with a net divestment of $115 billion in the final quarter.
“The tight interrelation between SPE flows in Luxembourg and the Netherlands highlights the existence of dense and complex networks of these entities in both countries, with capital flowing rapidly among them in response to financing needs and tax planning considerations,” the report said.
By Wakako Sato and Junko Fujita of Reuters
REUTERS/Carlo Allegri
SPONSORED ARTICLE28 ASIAN LEGAL BUSINESSNOVEMBER 2016
MAXWELL CHAMBERS
‘OUR STRONG BELIEF IS IN BRINGING VALUE TOOUR CLIENTS’
hearings. We are also fully equipped with hearing rooms and preparation rooms that can be cus-tomised to suit clients’ needs.
Lastly, Maxwell Chambers offers what we refer to as the “Singapore Advantage”. Non-resident arbitrators who are appointed for arbitration work in Singapore are eligible for tax exemption.
I believe these factors play an important role in attracting international companies to conduct arbitration hearings in Singapore.
What have been some of the trends Maxwell Chambers has seen in the past year or so? What priorities are you currently focusing on?Maxwell Chambers has always placed great em-phasis on providing world-class facilities and ser-vices. Our global standing and branding in the in-dustry today are testament of our constant strive for excellence. In the past year, we have seen an increase in demand for office space with Maxwell Chambers, which is an affirmation of our hard work all these years.
At this juncture, our priority is to create an international arbitration hub that will be imple-mented together with our expansion plan. With the new premises, we are focusing on increasing the number of legal institutions and practitioners under one roof.
How do you feel your client needs have changed in the past few years, and how are you looking to address them?Our clients’ needs have indeed changed over the years. They are more price-sensitive now, and prefer to compare prices across various hotels and business centers before making a decision. And as most of our clients are international law-yers and arbitrators, their expectations and stan-dards are naturally much higher.
In terms of the complete customer experience, we are definitely more value for money as com-pared to other venues. Besides providing excep-tional customer service, we are committed to the security and privacy of our clients as each room in Maxwell Chambers is securely locked and sepa-rated by acoustically-treated walls.
We are constantly reviewing our operations to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of our work processes. The IT infrastructure at Maxwell Chambers is also upgraded regularly to provide state-of-the-art facilities and services to our cli-ents.
Maxwell Chambers opened its doors in January 2010. What are some of your memories of the early days?Maxwell Chambers was established as an arbi-tration center in July 2009. As the first of its kind in Asia, I must say one of the biggest challenges that we face as an international business hub, is the immense pressure to make Maxwell Cham-bers a great success.
Our pioneer team started with only 11 staff and that number has almost doubled since then. I re-membered having to deal with issues like getting manpower and improving work processes to en-sure that operations ran smoothly. Although the pioneers were from different backgrounds, our camaraderie and cohesiveness has worked well together to overcome the obstacles in our path.
What have been some of the key developments at the venue since then?Maxwell Chambers has registered steady growth in the number of arbitration cases held on its premises over the years, and it is largely due to Singapore becoming an increasingly popular des-tination for international corporate arbitration in Asia.
Driven by this demand for a world-class dis-pute resolution complex, we will be expanding our premises to another building in the vicinity. The expected date of completion for the new proj-ect is early 2019.
Another key development is that we now pro-vide authentication and certification of arbitra-tion awards seated in Maxwell Chambers. The move is in line with our strong belief in bringing value to our clients.
What have been some of the important ways in which you believe Maxwell Chambers has helped to shape the ADR scene both in Singa-pore as well as regionally?Singapore is already recognised as a preferred venue for ADR in Asia because of our neutral-ity, and impartial judicial system. With our stel-lar reputation as a one-stop establishment that provides world-class facilities and houses top global ADR institutes under one roof, Maxwell Chambers is attracting even more organisations to settle their disputes in Singapore.
Moreover, Maxwell Chambers provides a con-ducive environment with a full suite of services to complement the requirements of arbitration
Katherine Yap Chief Executive
SPONSORED ARTICLE 29WWW.LEGALBUSINESSONLINE.COM: @ALB_Magazine : Asian Legal Business
MAXWELL CHAMBERS
The Swiss Arbitration Association’s recent move to set up its first Southeast Asian branch in Singapore would also help provide a platform for legal practitioners to interact and im-prove ties between the two countries.
In addition, the number of foreign law firms and practi-tioners has significantly grown in Singapore over the years. I think with the increase in competition and diversity in the international legal community, firms have to find more ways to differentiate themselves among their peers. This indicates the growing sophistication of the ADR market in Singapore, and it’s a positive sign that nobody is resting on one’s laurels amid the globalization of markets.
On our end, we are really excited about the developments Maxwell Chambers has in the pipeline for the next 3 years. It’s definitely going to be an uphill battle for us, but we are going to emerge much stronger and become a force to be reckoned with.
We are proud of what we have accomplished after 7 years in the business, and we look forward to many more 7 years to come.
What are some of the ways in which Maxwell Chambers is looking to set itself apart from competitor venues, both in Asia as well as globally?The standard of service quality and the setup of the arbitra-tion center differentiates us from our competitors. We pro-vide world-class hearing facilities and outstanding customer service at Maxwell Chambers. Our diligence in keeping up with technology and corporate knowledge also gives us an edge in this industry.
What does the next year look like for both Singapore’s ADR market, and as well as Maxwell Chambers?With the establishment of Singapore International Com-mercial Court (SICC) in January 2015, the legal community is generally optimistic about its potential, especially with the praise that they received regarding the first written judge-ment issued earlier this year. So I would say that the com-plementary relationship between SICC and Singapore Inter-national Arbitration Centre (SIAC) would help to drive more international corporate work into Singapore next year.
COVER STORY ASIAN LEGAL BUSINESSNOVEMBER 201630
ASIA’STOP 50
LARGESTLAW FIRMS
NOTE: In the instance where a law fi rm did not make a submission, fi gures were obtained either from the fi rm’s website, an offi cial Law Society resource, or from last year’s submission.
2016Rank
From2015 Firm Headquarters Partners Associates Total No.
of Lawyers*
1 = Baker & McKenzie U.S. 297 568 950
2 = Clifford Chance UK 82 352 434
3 = Linklaters UK 55 285 340
4 +3 Herbert Smith Freehills UK/Australia 53 182 257
48 NEW Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison U.S. 7 27 35
49 +1 Weil, Gotshal & Manges U.S. 10 16 32
50 -2 Sullivan & Cromwell U.S. 7 18 25
TOP 50 INTERNATIONAL LAW FIRMS
COVER STORYWWW.LEGALBUSINESSONLINE.COM: @ALB_Magazine : Asian Legal Business 31
U.S. law firms account for 28 of the 50 largest international firms in Asia, though only two feature in the top ten list. However, UK firms make up 19 of the 50 largest international law firms in Asia, with five in the top ten. Law firms with joint head-quarters including Herbert Smith Freehills (UK/Australia), DLA Piper (UK/U.S.), and Hogan Lovells (UK/U.S.) feature in the top ten.
With 950 lawyers, Baker & McKenzie takes the crown for the third year run-ning as the largest international firm by headcount in Asia. This year too, UK’s Clifford Chance and Linklaters occupy the second and third spots as last year with 434 and 340 lawyers in Asia respectively. Kennedys, Berwin Leighton Paisner and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison are the new entrants in this year’s top 50 international law firms.
Mayer Brown slips down from #4 to #8 this year with 209 lawyers, replaced by Herbert Smith Freehills (257) this year. Clyde & Co falls down by nine spots to #27 from #18, while Stephenson Harwood moves from #18 from #25 last year. Ashurst is up by three spots at #10 with 199 lawyers.
*Total No. of lawyers is the total number of partners and associates, as well as other counsel, consultants and foreign counsel. Paralegals, trainees and pupils
2016Rank
From2015 Firm Headquarters Partners Associates Total No.
of Lawyers*
1 +1 Yingke Law Firm China 1581 2966 4547
2 -1 Dentons Dacheng China 1417 2712 4129
3 +2 DeHeng Law Offi ces China 381 1278 1659
4 +2 AllBright Law Offi ces China 410 1048 1465
5 +3 Zhong Lun Law Firm China 328 1038 1376
6 -3 Zhong Yin Law Firm China 237 1103 1350
7 = Grandall Law Firm China 340 953 1320
8 +1 King & Wood Mallesons China/Australia 297 645 1087
9 +2 Long An Law Firm China 203 805 1020
10 +15 Zhong Lun W&D Law Firm China 372 601 993
11 -7 Kim & Chang South Korea N/A N/A 816
12 -2 Guanghe Law Firm China 147 563 710
13 +3 Beijing DHH Law Firm China 91 599 690
14 +19 JunHe China 171 453 652
15 NEW Beijing Tiantai law Firm China 217 357 642
16 +3 Rajah & Tann Singapore 219 382 601
17 -4 Cyril Armarchand Mangaldas India 88 509 601
18 = Tahota Law Firm China 122 432 554
19 +3 Bae, Kim & Lee South Korea 181 246 520
20 -4 Lee & Ko South Korea 150 363 513
21 +2 Sichuan Mingju Law Firm China 72 436 508
22 -7 Nishimura & Asahi Japan 113 335 488
23 +1 Khaitan & Co India 104 381 485
24 NEW Hiways Law Firm China 86 353 457
25 +12 Jincheng Tongda & Neal China 195 250 453
26 +3 Allen & Gledhill Singapore 173 269 443
27 -7 Jointide Law Firm China 128 295 439
28 +3 Shardul Armarchand Mangaldas & Co India 84 346 430
29 -3 Guantao Law Firm China 110 312 424
30 +3 Fangda Partners China 79 323 402
31 -4 Shin & Kim South Korea 151 198 393
32 -17 Yulchon South Korea 142 235 388
33 NEW JunZeJun Law Offi ces China 68 315 383
34 -1 Mori Hamada & Matsumoto Japan 102 278 380
35 +4 AZB & Partners India 65 310 375
36 NEW Guangdong ETR Law Firm China 101 272 373
37 = WongPartnership Singapore 116 229 354
38 = Yoon & Yang South Korea 113 167 353
39 -12 Anderson Mori Tomotsune Japan 117 230 340
40 -5 Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu Japan 88 216 337
41 +5 Luthra & Luthra India 61 275 336
42 -1 King & Capital China 109 207 326
43 = Hylands Law Firm China 97 174 310
44 = Global Law Offi ce China 73 237 310
45 -32 Tian Yuan Law Firm China 104 201 305
46 -6 J. Sagar Associates India 84 106 302
47 NEW East & Concord Partners China 83 217 300
48 -14 TMI Associates Japan 89 175 273
49 -4 Drew & Napier Singapore 82 111 264
50 NEW Lantai Partners China 37 195 240
TOP 50 ASIAN LAW FIRMS
ASIA’S TOP 50
OUR RESEARCH• Firms were contacted in September
2016 and were asked to provide partner and lawyer numbers across their Asian offi ces as of Sept. 1, 2016.
• ‘Total No. of Lawyers’ refers to the total number of partners, associates, counsel, consultants and foreign counsel. Paralegals, trainees and pupils were not included in this fi gure.
• In the instance where a fi rm did not make a submission, fi gures were obtained either from the fi rm’s website, an offi cial Law Society resource, or from last year’s submission. ALB takes no responsibility for the accuracy of these fi gures.
• The research did not include Australia and New Zealand. Only lawyers and partners based in Asia were taken into account for this research.
• In the instance where two fi rms had the same number of total lawyers, the fi rm with the greater number of partners was ranked higher.
COVER STORY ASIAN LEGAL BUSINESSNOVEMBER 201632
NOTE: In the instance where a law fi rm did not make a submission, fi gures were obtained either from the fi rm’s website, an offi cial Law Society resource, or from last year’s submission.*Total No. of lawyers is the total number of partners and associates, as well as other counsel, consultants and foreign counsel. Paralegals, trainees and pupils
Both DLA Piper and Hogan Lovells have moved up two spots to #6 and #7, respectively. Bird & Bird climbs up by five spots to reach #22 and Eversheds is up by 10 spots to #26 this year. Reed Smith, O’Melveny & Myers and Winston & Strawn retain their same position this year at #16, #40 and #46 respectively.
Squire Patton Boggs is down by three spots at #34 with 77 lawyers. Sullivan & Cromwell occupies the last spot in the list with 48 lawyers.
In the top 50 Asian law firms category, the top seven firms are Chinese, with Yingke Law Firm (4,547 lawyers) topping the chart as the biggest law firm in China, up from second position last year. It swaps
positions with Dentons Dacheng (4,129), while DeHeng Law Offices (1,659) is the third largest law firm in China – up from its fifth position last year.
Zhong Lun W&D Law Firm firmly rises to #10 from #25 with a total of 993 lawyers. Kim & Chang, fourth last year, is knocked out of the top 10 by a wave of Chinese firms, while India’s Cyril Armarchand Mangaldas is down four spots to #16, where it is tied with the fast-expanding Rajah & Tann. Chinese firm Grandway Law Offices oc-cupies the fiftieth spot with 212 lawyers.
Out of the top 50 Asian law firms, 26 firms are from China, six each from South Korea and India, five from Japan and four from Singapore.
Five new entrants made it to this year’s top 50 Asian law firms, namely Beijing Tiantai Law Firm (642), Hiways Law Firm (457), JunZeJun Law Offices (383), Guangdong ETR Law Firm (373) and East & Concord Partners (300).
CHINA DOMESTIC
2016Rank
From2015 Firm Partners Associates Total No.
of Lawyers*
1 +1 Yingke Law Firm 1581 2966 4547
2 -1 Dentons Dacheng 1417 2712 4129
3 +1 DeHeng Law Offi ces 381 1278 1659
4 +1 AllBright Law Offi ces 410 1048 1465
5 +1 Zhong Lun Law Firm 328 1038 1376
6 -3 Zhong Yin Law Firm 237 1103 1350
7 = Grandall Law Firm 340 953 1320
8 +3 King & Wood Mallesons 297 745 1087
9 = Long An Law Firm 203 805 1020
10 +6 Zhong Lun W&D Law Firm 372 601 993
11 -3 Guanghe Law Firm 147 563 710
12 = Beijing DHH Law Firm 91 599 690
13 +5 JunHe 171 453 652
14 NEW Beijing Tiantai law Firm 217 357 642
15 -1 Tahota Law Firm 122 432 554
16 -1 Sichuan Mingju Law Firm 72 436 508
17 NEW Hiways Law Firm 86 353 457
18 = Jincheng Tongda & Neal 195 250 453
19 -6 Jointide Law Firm 128 295 439
20 -3 Guantao Law Firm 110 312 424
21 -1 Fangda Partners 79 323 402
22 NEW JunZeJun Law Offi ces 68 315 383
23 NEW Guangdong ETR Law Firm 101 272 373
24 -3 King & Capital 109 207 326
25 -1 Hylands Law Firm 97 174 310
26 -3 Global Law Offi ce 73 237 310
27 -17 Tian Yuan Law Firm 104 201 305
28 NEW East & Concord Partners 83 217 300
29 NEW Lantai Partners 37 195 240
30 NEW Grandway Law Offi ces 40 148 212
CHINA INTERNATIONAL
2016Rank
From2015 Firm Partners Associates Total No.
of Lawyers*
1 = Clifford Chance 10 77 87
2 = Baker & McKenzie 20 54 80
3 +1 Hogan Lovells 13 51 66
4 -1 Freshfi elds Bruckhaus Deringer 4 6 60
5 +1 DLA Piper 10 49 59
6 -1 Linklaters 9 32 47
7 +5 Herbert Smith Freehills 7 37 46
8 +9 CMS, China 7 36 43
9 -2 Pinsent Masons 9 33 42
10 +15 Bird & Bird 16 22 38
11 -2 Mayer Brown JSM 8 30 38
12 -4 Jones Day 18 19 37
13 +3 Allen & Overy 7 22 29
14 +4 Sidley Austin 9 14 27
15 +9 K&L Gates 12 14 26
16 -1 Reed Smith 7 8 25
17 +3 Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe 6 9 25
18 -8 Clyde & Co 6 15 24
19 = White & Case 5 18 23
20 NEW Skadden Arps 4 19 23
21 -7 Norton Rose Fulbright 7 9 21
22 NEW Ropes & Gray 4 17 21
23 -2 Taylor Wessing 4 16 20
24 NEW Winston & Strawn 15 3 18
25 NEW Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 8 8 16
Both Clifford Chance (87 lawyers) and Baker & McKenzie (80 lawyers) retain their spots at #1 and #2, respectively, as the biggest international law firms in China. Hogan Lovells (66) replaces Freshfields Bruckhaus
NORTH ASIA
COVER STORYWWW.LEGALBUSINESSONLINE.COM: @ALB_Magazine : Asian Legal Business 33
Asian Legal Business is proud to announce the 2017 edition of its popular handbook ALB Guide to Hong Kong IPOs. The handbook will be published in English and
Simplified Chinese, and is intended to have a one-year shelf life.
NOTE: In the instance where a law fi rm did not make a submission, fi gures were obtained either from the fi rm’s website, an offi cial Law Society resource, or from last year’s submission.*Total No. of lawyers is the total number of partners and associates, as well as other counsel, consultants and foreign counsel. Paralegals, trainees and pupils
JAPAN DOMESTIC
2016Rank
From2015 Firm Partners Associates Total No.
of Lawyers*
1 = Nishimura & Asahi 113 335 488
2 = Mori Hamada & Matsumoto 102 278 380
3 = Anderson Mori Tomotsune 117 230 340
4 = Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu 88 216 337
5 = TMI Associates 89 175 273
6 +1 Oh-Ebashi PLC and Partners 52 93 145
6 -1 City-Yuwa Partners 45 100 145
8 = Atsumi & Sakai 47 68 115
9 +1 Nakamura & Partners 38 41 79
10 -1 Kitahama Partners 30 46 76
JAPAN INTERNATIONAL
2016Rank
From2015 Firm Partners Associates Total No.
of Lawyers*
1 = Baker & McKenzie 48 97 169
2 = Morrison Foerster 38 56 110
3 = Jones Day 14 34 48
4 = White & Case 15 32 47
5 +1 Herbert Smith Freehills 9 31 43
6 -1 Clifford Chance 8 34 42
7 +1 Linklaters 6 30 36
8 +3 Hogan Lovells 8 25 34
9 -2 Squire Patton Boggs 11 20 31
10 = Freshfi elds Bruckhaus Deringer 8 22 30
11 -2 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 9 20 29
12 = Ashurst 6 15 26
13 +2 DLA Piper 4 17 21
14 -1 K&L Gates 8 12 20
15 -1 Allen & Overy 5 14 19
SOUTH KOREA DOMESTIC
2016Rank
From2015 Firm Partners Associates Total No.
of Lawyers*
1 = Kim & Chang N/A N/A 816
2 +1 Bae, Kim & Lee 181 246 520
3 -1 Lee & Ko 150 363 513
4 = Shin & Kim 151 198 393
5 = Yulchon 142 235 377
6 = Yoon & Yang 113 167 353
7 = Barun Law N/A 217 217
8 +1 DR & AJU 6 150 156
9 -1 Jipyong 54 68 122
10 = Hwang Mok Park 47 73 120
SOUTH KOREA INTERNATIONAL
2016Rank
From2015 Firm Partners Associates Total No.
of Lawyers*
1 = Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton 3 12 17
2 = Herbert Smith Freehills 3 6 9
3 +3 Ropes & Gray 3 3 6
4 +2 Simpson Thacher 2 4 6
4 +4 Convington & Burling 2 4 6
6 -3 Paul Hastings 4 1 5
6 +2 Sheppard Mullin 4 1 5
8 NEW White & Case 3 2 5
9 -4 Clifford Chance 1 4 5
10 -4 Baker & McKenzie 2 1 4
Deringer (60) in the third position from last year. Bird & Bird has made significant headway to occupy the tenth spot, from its previous #25. However, Mayer Brown JSM has moved down to #24 from its ninth spot previously. Herbert Smith Freehills is at #7, climbing up by five spots, while CMS, China, moves up to #8 from #17 with 43 lawyers, and K&L Gates jumps up to #15 from #24. While, White & Case remains at #19, while Clyde & Co drops to #18 from its tenth spot last year.
New entrants to this list include Skadden Arps, Ropes & Gray and Winston & Strawn. Sidley Austin moves up by four spots to #14
and Allen & Overy goes up by three spots.In the Hong Kong domestic chart,
Deacons once again retains the top spot as the largest domestic firm with 49 part-ners and 145 associates, followed by Woo Kwan Lee & Lo at #2. Stevenson Wong & Co holds spot #5, a major jump from #11 in 2015. At #3 is Howse Williams Bowers. Wilkinson & Grist is down by two spots to #6, while ONC Lawyers and Robertsons slip four spots, hitting #11 and #14 respectively. Smyth & Co takes the last spot at #15 with 4 partners and 6 associates.
In the Hong Kong International table, Mayer Brown JSM and Clifford Chance re-
tain their reigning positions at #1 and #2. King & wood Mallesons replaces Baker & McKenzie at the third spot with 149 lawyers. Eversheds climbs from last year’s #24 to #15 this year. Davis Polk & Wardwell drops down six spots to #17 from #11. However, Sidley Austin remains at the same spot at #12 with 78 lawyers. The new entrant in this list this year is Slaughter and May at #23 with 11 partners and 35 associates.
Japanese law firms do not seem to display any change in this year’s positions from their previous rankings. With 488 lawyers, Nishimura & Asahi dominates the #1 spot as the largest law firm in Japan,
COVER STORYWWW.LEGALBUSINESSONLINE.COM: @ALB_Magazine : Asian Legal Business 35
followed by Mori Hamada & Matsumoto (380), Anderson Mori Tomotsune (340) and Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu in the sec-ond, third and fourth positions respectively. TMI Associates, with 273 lawyers, retains its #5 spot. This year, Oh-Ebashi PLZ and Partners climbs one spot up pushing City-Yuwa to #7. Atsumi & Sakai remains at the eighth spot as last year. Nakamura & Partners and Kitahama Partners gain one spot and lose one respectively. Abe Ikubo & Katayama, the new entrant in this list, occupies the last position.
In the Japan International table, the top four spots remain untouched, with Baker & McKenzie ruling the list with 169 lawyers followed by Morrison Foerster (110), Jones Day (48) and White & Case (47). Herbert Smith Freehills displaces Clifford Chance at #5, while Freshfields and Ashurst remain untouched at #10 and #12. Hogan Lovells gains three spots to #8 and Squire Patton Boggs loses its #7 spot to Linklaters.
In the South Korean region, Kim & Chang leads the list at #1 with 816 lawyers. Bae, Kim & Lee dislodges Lee & Ko from
its #2 spot. Shin & Kim, Yulchon, Yoon & Yang and Barun Law remain solid in their previous positions at #4, #5, #6 and #7 respectively. Hwang Mok Park stays at #10 with 47 partners and 73 associates.
Lee & Li retains its #1 spot again this year as the largest Taiwanese firm. Baker &
McKenzie descends one spot, making way for Formosa Transnational at #2. K&L Gates and Lin & Partners are the new entrants to this list this year. Jones Day remains steady at #9 with 20 lawyers.
The top 10 list has two new entrants - K&L Gates and Lin & Partners.
TAIWAN
2016Rank
From2015 Firm Partners Associates Total No.
of Lawyers*
1 = Lee & Li 60 39 183
2 +1 Formosa Transnational 17 53 76
3 -1 Baker & McKenzie 34 35 69
4 = LCS & Partners N/A N/A 66
5 = Tsar & Tsai 19 33 63
6 = Chien Yeh Law Offi ces 23 N/A 53
7 = Formosan Brothers 16 N/A 48
8 +2 Lee, Tsai & Partners 5 8 35
9 = Jones Day N/A N/A 20
10 NEW K&L Gates 9 9 18
10 NEW Lin & Partners 2 N/A 18
KOREA’S PREMIER LAW FIRM
www.kimchang.com
Asia’s Top 50 Largest Law Firms - Asian Legal Business (2016)
1200+Number of professionals
NO.11In Asia’s Top 50by Asian Legal Business
GLOBAL 68The only Korean law firm inThe American Lawyer’s Global 100
COVER STORY ASIAN LEGAL BUSINESSNOVEMBER 201636
INDIA
NOTE: In the instance where a law fi rm did not make a submission, fi gures were obtained either from the fi rm’s website, an offi cial Law Society resource, or from last year’s submission.*Total No. of lawyers is the total number of partners and associates, as well as other counsel, consultants and foreign counsel. Paralegals, trainees and pupils
SOUTH/SOUTHEAST ASIAIndia’s Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas retains its crown as India’s largest law firm with 601 lawyers while Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co occupies #3 with 430 lawyers. Khaitan & Co retains its #2 spot this year too. Luthra & Luthra displaces J Sagar Associates from its fifth position. AZB & Partners occupies the fourth spot with 65 partners and 310 associates, and Trilegal is at #7.
In Indonesia, it’s a heated battle at the top. Ali Budiardjo, Nugroho, Reksodiputro (ABNR) drops from the top spot this year, making way for Assegaf Hamzah & Partners; ABNR is in a virtual tie with Lubis Ganie Surowidjojo (LGS), which was at #6 last year, at 110 lawyers. As a re-sult, Hadiputranto, Hadinoto & Partners loses its second position and occupies #4, though not too far behind at 106 lawyers. Hiswara Bunjamin & Tandjung and Hanafiah Ponggawa & Partners (HPRP Lawyers) drop a spot each, while Makarim & Taira S. gains one. AYMP Atelier of Law enters the list for the first time this year with 38 lawyers.
In Malaysia, ZICO Law tops the list with 168 lawyers, retaining its crown as Malaysia’s biggest law firm. Skrine re-places Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill at #2. Shearn Delamore is one spot down to #4. But Zul Rafique & Partners and Shook Lin & Bok (Malaysia) are in the same spot at #5 and #6. Wong & Partners and Rahmat Lim & Partners lose one spot respectively. Kadir Andri & Partners oc-cupies the tenth position with 11 partners and 21 associates.
With 57 partners and 99 associ-ates Philippines’ ACCRALAW steals the crown from SyCip, Salazar, Hernandez & Gatmaitan, pushing it to #2 this year. Romulo Mabanta Buenaventura Sayoc & De Los Angeles, Picazo Buyco Tan Fider & Santos and Quisumbing Torres see no changes for this year, occupying #3, #4 and #5 spots. Puno & Puno Law Offices gains three spots to #6. PJS Law Firm stays at the same #10 spot for 2016.
Yet again, Allen & Gledhill stands tall as the biggest domestic law firm in Singapore.
INDONESIA
2016Rank
From2015 Firm Partners Associates Total No.
of Lawyers*
1 +2 Assegaf Hamzah & Partners 18 92 115
2 -1 Ali Budiardjo, Nugroho, Reksodiputro (ABNR) 17 75 110
COVER STORYWWW.LEGALBUSINESSONLINE.COM: @ALB_Magazine : Asian Legal Business 37
SINGAPORE DOMESTIC
2016Rank
From2015 Firm Partners Associates Total No.
of Lawyers*
1 = Allen & Gledhill 148 228 377
2 = Rajah & Tann 145 198 343
3 = WongPartnership 116 214 339
4 = Drew & Napier 82 111 264
5 = Dentons Rodyk & Davidson 94 107 206
6 = Shook Lin & Bok 35 69 104
7 +1 RHTLaw Taylor Wessing 30 34 76
8 NEW TSMP Law Corporation 10 60 70
9 -2 Morgan Lewis Stamford 17 50 69
10 -1 Colin Ng & Partners 17 32 49
SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL
2016Rank
From2015 Firm Partners Associates Total No.
of Lawyers*
1 = Baker & McKenzie.Wong & Leow 25 68 107
2 +1 Clifford Chance 22 77 99
3 -1 Withers KhattarWong 35 31 78
4 +1 Allen & Overy 15 44 66
5 -1 Norton Rose Fulbright 22 41 65
6 = Linklaters 9 39 52
7 +1 Herbert Smith Freehills 10 37 51
8 +3 Clyde & Co 15 24 46
9 +7 Pinsent Masons 13 29 42
10 -1 Ashurst 12 18 39
11 -1 Hogan Lovells 9 30 39
12 +2 White & Case 11 25 36
13 -1 Latham & Watkins 10 22 34
14 -1 Jones Day 15 19 34
15 = Kennedys 13 19 32
16 +2 Holman Fenwick Willan 12 18 31
17 -10 Stephenson Harwood 10 20 30
18 +1 Watson, Farley & Williams Singapore 10 20 30
19 -2 Sidley Austin 8 15 29
20 +1 Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy 6 19 28
“Responsive, Efficient & Cost Effective”
The Law on Your Side
LGS Online provides an enormous legal database compiled by LGSof its interna�onal corporate prac�ce in Indonesia and the region.With a simple click, members of LGS Online will be able to accessnecessary informa�on and data on how to protect their business interest in Indonesia
Menara Imperium 30th F loorJ l . HR Rasuna Said Kav.1, KuninganJakarta 12980Telp: (+62-21) 8315005, 8315025Fax: (+62-21) 8315015, 8315035
NOTE: In the instance where a law fi rm did not make a submission, fi gures were obtained either from the fi rm’s website, an offi cial Law Society resource, or from last year’s submission.*Total No. of lawyers is the total number of partners and associates, as well as other counsel, consultants and foreign counsel. Paralegals, trainees and pupils
THAILAND
2016Rank
From2015 Firm Partners Associates Total No.
of Lawyers*
1 = Tilleke & Gibbins 19 84 103
2 = Siam Premier International Law Offi ce 20 69 89
3 = Baker & McKenzie 54 28 84
4 = Weerawong C&P 15 60 75
5 = SCL Law Group (Siam City) 12 50 62
6 +1 Rajah & Tann Thailand 14 35 49
7 +1 DLA Piper 7 36 43
8 +1 Chandler & Thong-ek Law Offi ces 12 29 43
9 +1 Watson Farley & Williams (Thailand) 5 24 29
10 NEW Apisith & Alliance 4 21 25
VIETNAM
with 377 lawyers. In fact, the top six firms in Singapore remain unchanged, with Rajah & Tann Singapore (343), WongPartnership (339), Drew & Napier (264), Dentons Rodyk & Davidson and Shook Lin & Bok all hold-ing on to their positions. The new entrant into the top 10 this year is TSMP Law Corporation, which comes in at #8 with 70 lawyers in total.
On the Singapore International table, Baker & McKenzie.Wong & Leow occu-pies the first place like last year with 25 partners, 68 associates and 107 lawyers in total. Withers KhattarWong loses its
#2 spot to Clifford Chance which boasts of 99 lawyers. Allen & Overy displaces Norton Rose Fulbright from the fourth position. Clyde & Co climbs three spots to #8 and Pinsent Masons occupies #9, up from from its sixteenth position last year. Jones Day and Latham & Watkins both have 34 lawyers each.
With 19 partners and 84 associates, Thailand’s Tilleke & Gibbins retains its top spot from last year as the country’s biggest firm. Siam Premier International Law Office (89) steals the second spot, while Baker & McKenzie (84) falls to #3,
and Weerawong C&P rests retains its #4 position. Rajah & Tann (49) Thailand takes spot #6 and DLA Piper (43) at #7. Chandler & Thong-ek Law Offices (43), Watson Farley & Williams (Thailand) (29) and new entrant Apisith & Alliance (25) take the last three spots in the list.
Vietnam’s Vision & Associates again tops the list as Vietnam’s largest law firm. YKVN replaces VILAF from its #2 spot last year. LuatViet Advocates & Solicitors climb six spots to #4. It is once spot down for Baker & McKenzie which is in #6 this year. S&B Law (30) rounds out the list.
MALAYSIA
2016Rank
From2015 Firm Partners Associates Total No.
of Lawyers*
1 = ZICO Law 56 112 168
2 +2 Skrine 42 68 115
3 -1Lee Hishamuddin Allen &
Gledhill30 72 105
4 -2 Shearn Delamore 48 50 98
5 = Zul Rafi que & Partners 38 54 94
6 = Shook Lin & Bok (Malaysia) 28 57 85
7 +1 Azmi & Associates 17 50 84
8 -1 Wong & Partners 12 53 71
9 +1 Rahmat Lim & Partners 25 41 66
10 -1 Raja, Darryl & Loh 22 42 64
11 +2 Adnan Sundra & Low 14 47 61
12 = Christopher & Lee Ong 23 33 56
13 +1 Jeff Leong, Poon & Wong 10 29 39
14 +1 Albar & Partners 14 22 36
15 -4 Kadir Andri & Partners 11 21 32
PHILIPPINES
2016Rank
From2015 Firm Partners Associates Total No.
of Lawyers*
1 +1 ACCRALAW 57 99 156
2 -1SyCip, Salazar, Hernandez &
Gatmaitan41 79 142
3 =Romulo Mabanta
Buenaventura Sayoc & De Los Angeles
42 56 98
4 =Picazo Buyco Tan Fider &
Santos31 28 60
5 = Quisumbing Torres 20 36 56
6 +3 Puno & Puno Law Offi ces 13 39 52
7 +2Villaraza & Angangco (V&A
Law)13 38 51
8 -2Castillo Laman Tan Pantaleon
& San Jose Law Offi ces (CLTPSJ)
22 26 50
9 -2Siguion Reyna Montecillo &
Ongsiako27 19 47
10 = PJS Law Firm 13 26 39
2016Rank
From2015 Firm Partners Associates Total No.
of Lawyers*
1 = Vision & Associates 13 63 78
2 +1 YKVN 11 56 67
3 -1 VILAF 12 46 58
4 +6 LuatViet Advocates & Solicitors 5 44 49
5 -1 LNT & Partners 7 37 44
6 -1 Baker & McKenzie 9 29 44
7 -1 Bizlink Lawyers & Consultants 6 20 36
8 = Tilleke & Gibbins 2 34 36
9 +2 PBC Partners & RHTLaw 5 20 30
10 -1 S&B LAW 7 20 27
SPONSORED ARTICLE 39WWW.LEGALBUSINESSONLINE.COM: @ALB_Magazine : Asian Legal Business
LAW SENATE
International Arbitration has unified the world, regarding commercial dispute resolution through International arbitrations. The New York convention on Recognition and Enforce-ment of an international arbitration awards and UNCITRAL model law have made this possible. The said Conventions have successfully brought in 149 countries to a broad understanding, that each of those member countries will recognise and enforce the international arbitration award passed in another member country along with an effective statutory mechanism supported by the National courts of the member countries.
India is one of the big contributors of interna-tional arbitration cases but many foreign lawyers and parties have a strong apprehension about the efficiency of the enforcement mechanism available in India to enforce a foreign arbitra-tion award. The endeavour of the article is to ex-plain how the enforcement mechanism in India has improved after 2015. India’s arbitration law which governs the procedure for enforcement of a foreign award is Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, which is enacted in the lines of UNCIT-RAL model law. Later Supreme Court of India while interpreting the above said Act in Bhatia International Vs Bulk Trading SA, held that if the parties while entering into an arbitration agree-ment did not expressly exclude the powers of In-dian courts from interfering in a foreign seated arbitration, the courts in India will have the pow-ers to entertain a challenge to an international Arbitration award passed in a foreign seat.
The above said interpretation of the Supreme Court of India, ended up in courts testing the va-lidity of a foreign award under S.34 of the said Act which in fact is applicable only to India seat-ed Arbitrations. In view of the above said judg-ment the High Courts also had to handle appeals arising out of the appeals with regard to enforce-ment matters. Later, a larger bench of the Su-preme Court of India prospectively over ruled the above said judgment on 6th September 2012, while deciding Bharat Aluminium Co Vs Kaiser Aluminium Technical services case and held that the courts in India do not have any power to pass any order relating to a foreign seated arbitra-tion. After this judgment the Courts in India do not entertain any challenge to a foreign award in India.
Enforcement of an award can be refused on certain technical grounds, which include viola-
tion of Public policy, incompetency while en-tering an arbitration agreement, formation of the tribunal is not according to the arbitration agreement between the parties, violation of natural justice etc., Supreme Court of India has prescribed a different and narrow approach for applying the scope of public policy, while rec-ognising the arbitration awards arising out of International Arbitrations conducted in foreign seats.
In the year 2015, the parliament of India en-acted amendment to the original arbitration Act, namely Arbitration and Conciliation (Amend-ment) Act, 2015, which brought in many chang-es to the above said arbitration Act. The said Act brought in many important changes among which three of the changes relevant to the pres-ent Article. The first one is restricted interpreta-tion with regard to public policy. Section. 57 of the Act is restricting the powers of the Courts while recognising a foreign award, to apply pub-lic policy principle only to three situations, which include arbitral award obtained by corruption or fraud, contravention with the fundamental policy of India,, and the award conflicts with the most basic notions of mortality. More over the amendment clearly restricts the powers of the courts to enter into the merits of the case, on the ground of public policy. More over as per the amended S.56 of the Act, the enforcement of a foreign award can be directly instituted in a High court having jurisdiction over the Respon-dent. Prior to this amendment, the enforcement of a foreign award has to be initiated in a District court. The District court judges were not having a proper understanding about the principles and law relating to enforcement of foreign awards and hence they kept the enforcement matters pending for a longer time which was a big chal-lenge faced by the foreign parties. The High court judges are comparatively better trained to handle international arbitration matters. The High Courts are situated in the State capitals and hence finding competent lawyers to handle such matters is also easier. Hence the enforce-ment of international arbitration awards after 2015, arising out of foreign seated Arbitrations has become much easier and as of today and an enforcement proceeding can be completed in 24 months from the date of filing of an application, if filed by lawyers having sufficient knowledge and experience in handling such matters.
ENFORCING A FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARD IN INDIA HASBECOME EASIER AFTER 2015
BRINGING IT BACKINDONESIA’S TAX AMNESTY BILL IS EXPECTED TO RECOVER BILLIONS OF DOLLARS STASHED AWAY
IN FOREIGN JURISDICTIONS AND BOOST THE COUNTRY’S ECONOMY. THE INITIATIVE HAS SEENA POSITIVE RESPONSE SO FAR, WITH LAW FIRMS SEEING AN EXPONENTIAL INCREASE IN
CLIENT INTEREST AND PARTICIPATION, FINDS RAJ GUNASHEKAR
In July this year, the Indonesian govern-ment implemented an audacious tax amnesty programme to boost its its tax revenues and bring back billions
of dollars stashed away in other coun-tries. One of the biggest beneficiaries is believed to be tax havens like Singapore, with around $900 billion of Indonesian money estimated to be have been squir-reled away in such places.The tax amnesty has been a tremendous success so far, and one of the reasons behind this has been the incredibly low penalty. In addi-tion, industry experts believe the amnesty programme will have a far-reaching impact on Indonesia’s economy.
RIGHT TIME?Law firms like Ivan Almaida Baely & Firmansyah (IAB&F) believe the bill will impact the acceleration of Indonesia’s economic growth, reformation of its tax systems and increase in its tax revenue. “A lot of funds parked offshore will come back to Indonesia, and this is good for the country’s economy,” says IAB&F partner Ivan F. Baely. “We believe that the bill was introduced at the right time since a lot of businessmen wish to legally bring their funds back to Indonesia without being subject to potential sanctions. And these businesses have direct legal ownership to their assets instead of using nominee arrangements, which Indonesian law does not expressly recognise.”
The money repatriated into Indonesia has to be kept in the country for at least three years and invested based on a stipulated list of permissible investments. This list includes gold, real estate, infrastructure projects, government securities, marketable securities, banking
products, private company bonds and real estate investment trusts.
MARKET REACTIONThe tax amnesty programme was introduced in July and will continue till March 2017. It has been divided into three stages. The redemption payment rates for declared assets or funds repatriated into Indonesia are 2 percent for declarations done before the end of September 2016; 3 percent before the end of December 2016; and 5 percent at the end of March 2017. The redemption payment rates for declared assets and funds which continue to be maintained overseas are 4 percent, 6 percent and 10 percent, respectively.
Since the introduction of the bill, the Indonesian market has responded positively, says Zippora Siregar, founder
of Indonesia-based law firm Siregar & Djojonegoro. As of October, taxes worth $7.45 billion were paid by Indonesian citizens, reaching up to 60 percent of the $12.6 billion (165 trillion rupiah) target. Some $293 billion of assets were also declared. “The stock market index and the price of Indonesian government bonds have been increasing as a result,” says Siregar.
LEGAL WORKAccording to Baely, there will be more investments in the country as a result of funds coming back to Indonesia,. “The clients are very happy with the tax amnesty,” he says. “They will use this opportunity to bring back the funds into Indonesia and conduct their businesses in a proper way, in accordance with the prevailing laws and regulations.”
A man walks past a large display of a one hundred thousand rupiah banknote insidethe Bank Indonesia complex in Jakarta, Indonesia. REUTERS/Garry Lotulung
SPONSORED ARTICLE 41WWW.LEGALBUSINESSONLINE.COM: @ALB_Magazine : Asian Legal Business
1) What have been your fi rm’s key work highlights in the past year or so?We believe in an honest practice and conducting all of our services in accordance with the prevailing laws and regulations. With this ap-proach, we have managed to attract foreign and domestic compa-nies, who also apply the same principles that we adhere to. Here are some cases which I regard as some of the fi rm’s key achievements till date, where we represented the clients named:- Indonesia AirAsia in relation to a tort claim related to aircraft
crash QZ8501;- The subsidiaries of Churchill Mining PLC in relation to a tort claim;- A subsidiary of Mitsubishi Corporation in relation to a tort claim;- Symrise AG, a public listed company on the German Stock Ex-
change in relation to a tort claim;- A subsidiary of Tata Power Company Ltd in relation to a tort
claim;- Subsidiaries of Qatar Telecommunications in relation to a class
action claim;- PT Semen Gresik (Persero) Tbk in relation to an administrative
and anti-monopoly claim;- PT. Jakarta International Container Terminal in relation to citizen
lawsuit claim;- PT. Gozco Plantation Tbk. in relation to tort claim;
2) What are the major growth areas for your fi rm at this point? What industries and practices are you focusing on?Our fi rm has been heavily involved in commercial litigation cases,
such as a lawsuit fi eld by the legal heirs of the Indonesian debtor against our client, a foreign company which lend more than $20 mil-lion to the debtor and also IDR 131 billion dispute between our client, a subsidiary of public listed company against its opponents. In avia-tion matters, our fi rm has not only represented aviation companies in court hearings but also dealt with the legal heirs of the victims of aircraft incidents such as Air Asia and Trigana Air and provided them with compensation available under law.
3) What are some of the trends you have seen in terms of your clients’ needs in the past year? How is your fi rm adapting to meet the same?In the past year, our clients are expecting a fast and precise way of work. By the support of our solid lawyer team we do not have any trouble in achieving the need and expectation of our clients. To be working fast and precisely, it has become our working habit. We will keep implementing our main principles i.e. integrity, knowledge, and reliability. We believe that God’s favor and grace will be key to our fi rm’s growth. Our fi rm will be like a tree planted by the water with its roots by the stream, it does not fear when the heat comes; its leaves are always green. It has no worries in a year of drought and never fails to bear fruit.
4) What kind of work do you expect to be doing more of in the next year or two?In the next year or two, our fi rm is expecting to be working in the fi eld of commercial litigation and also aviation sectors.
Indonesia is also ready to implement the Automatic Exchange of Information (AEOI) framework with tax haven countries by 2018, a move that will allow its tax office to have greater access to its citizens’ financial records in countries like Singapore, Mauritius or the British Virgin Islands (BVI). “Clients are enthusiastic to join the tax amnesty programme. This will be the last chance for tax dodgers to report or disclose all of their offshore assets or they will have to face the full force of the government’s tax regime chasing after their assets,” says Siregar.
Ever since the bill’s implementation, clients of law firms have been keen to understand what the programme is all
about. “A lot of our clients are seeking our advice and asking us to assist them in this matter. We see increasing enquiries from the clients related to the tax amnesty,” says Baely.
Lawyers observe that clients are approaching them for guidance in terms of procedures to obtain tax amnesty, advice on legal impact of the tax amnesty on their companies, and the corresponding assistance dealing with the bill.
Siregar notes that clients are also seeking advice on the interpretation of certain provisions under the tax amnesty law. Clients are also increasingly seeking explanations relating to the confidentiality of the taxpayers’ information, acceptable
Private banks in Singapore are sharing with local police the names of clients embracing an Indonesian tax amnesty, three banking sources tell Reuters, a move that could undermine the amnesty and damage the banks’ business with their biggest client pool.
Singapore’s Commercial Affairs Department (CAD), a police unit that deals with financial crime, told banks last year they must file a suspicious transaction report (STR) whenever a client took part in a tax amnesty scheme, the sources say.
After initial resistance from the banks, worried they might lose clients, that message was reinforced this year by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), the country’s central bank, when Indonesia launched a tax amnesty aimed at wooing back some of the cash its wealthy citizens have stashed in Singapore, the sources said. “We are filing the STR and hope others are doing it, too,” says one senior private banker when asked about clients responding to the Indonesian amnesty.
“Banks have filed STRs,” says another banking source, adding that clients should not be informed about the filing.
After the Reuters story was published, the MAS confirmed in a statement that it has advised banks in Singapore to encourage their clients to use tax amnesty programs to regularize their tax affairs.
“Banks are required to adhere to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) standard of filing a suspicious transaction report (STR) when handling tax amnesty cases, similar to the practice in other jurisdictions,” it said last month.
The FATF is a global body that conducts regular evaluations of countries’ anti-money laundering standards. The MAS said that participation in a tax amnesty program, in and of itself, would not attract criminal investigation in Singapore. “The expectation for an STR to be filed on account of a client participating in a tax amnesty program should therefore not discourage clients from participation.”
Singapore, where Indonesians hold an estimated $200 billion in private banking assets - 40 percent of the island’s total private banking assets - made tax evasion a money-laundering offence in 2013. It is toughening up the implementation of the law after an investigation into state-backed fund 1MDB in neighboring Malaysia.
The STR requirement on suspected tax crimes is part of that process. “In light of the toughening regulatory environment, banks need to conduct more proactive checks on the effectiveness of their internal controls and procedures,” says Wilson Ang, a partner in the Singapore office of Norton Rose Fulbright.
SINGAPORE BANKS REPORT TAX AMNESTYINDONESIANS TO POLICEBy Saeed Azhar and Anshuman Daga of Reuters
“WE BELIEVE THAT THE BILL WAS INTRODUCED AT THE RIGHT TIME SINCE A LOT OF BUSINESSMEN WISHED TO LEGALLY BRING THEIR FUNDS BACK TO INDONESIA WITHOUT BEING SUBJECT TO POTENTIAL SANCTIONS.”Ivan F. Baely,Ivan Almaida Baely & Firmansyah
evidence to support the existence of assets, and taxpayers’ legal protection under the programme.
BETTER THAN SUNSETIn the past, similar programmes have been implemented in other countries like Australia, Germany, India, Italy and Russia. The idea of a tax amnesty bill is not new even in Indonesia, as it had been introduced before. In 2008 and 2015, the country rolled out the so-called Sunset
Policy, but it did not yield the desired results.
Legal professionals, however, are quite optimistic about Indonesia’s recent amnesty reforms. “We believe that this bill will be successful and possibly more successful than the Sunset Policy,” says Baely. “The amnesty bill does not demand payment of any taxes but only a penalty that must be paid, and the penalty is very low compared with the tax that actually must be paid.”
SPONSORED ARTICLE 43WWW.LEGALBUSINESSONLINE.COM: @ALB_Magazine : Asian Legal Business
Nowadays, technology is an essential part of people’s life, for instance using applications for transportation to beat Jakarta’s traffic is already a routine activity. Ideally such lifestyle should be sustained with certain laws and regulations to facilitate and con-trol the usage of technology, especially for application providers or legally known as an electronic system operator (“ESO”). ESO is defined as any person, state administrator, business entity, and communities that provide, manage, and/or operate an electronic system individually or jointly to the user of electronic systems for its own requirements and/or the requirements of any other par-ties.
Minister of Communication and Informatics Regulation No. 36 of 2014 regarding Procedures of ESO Registration (“MOCI Reg 36”) differentiates ESO into ESO for public services and ESO for non-public services, whereas an ESO for public services must conduct registration, while an ESO for non-public services may conduct reg-istration (which suggest registration is not mandatory).
MOCI Reg 36 specifically states that ESOs for public services are legal entities related with the government for example state insti-tutions, government agencies, corporations in the form of state-owned enterprises, regional government-owned enterprise, or other legal entities in relation with state’s mission.
ESO for non-public services are not specifically defined under MOCI Reg 36, but in general other legal entities that are not related with
government, such as private corporations, can be classified as ESOs for non-public services.
However, the regulators interpret ‘public service’ in regards to ESO pur-suant to Government Regulation No. 96 of 2012 regarding Implemen-tation of Law No. 25 of 2009 regarding Public Service (“GR No. 96”).
GR No. 96 defines Public Service as an activity or chain of activities in term of fulfilling the service needs in accordance with the law and regulation for every citizen and individual on goods, services, and/or administrative services that are provided by the public service op-erator. GR No. 96 further defines Public Service Operator as every state operator institution, corporation, independent institution that are formed based on laws for public service activity, and other legal entity that are formed only for the public service activity.
In relation to the above, an ESO for non-public services falls under the corporation (non-government related legal entity) and providing service for every citizen/individual, therefore, an ESO for non-public services is also considered as public services pursuant to GR No. 96.
Consequently, all ESO whether for public services or non-public services must conduct registration. This interpretation causes con-fusion to the ESOs. Along with the rapid development of technol-ogy in Indonesia, the government is urgently urged to issue official clarification regarding this matter in order to boost more confidence of investors in the field of electronic system.
A: Intiland Tower 9th Floor Jl. Jenderal Sudirman 32 Jakarta Pusat 10220
W: www.iab-net.com
AMBIGUITY OF ELECTRONIC SYSTEM OPERATOR REGISTRATION
An officer assists a tax amnesty participant at the country’s tax headquarters in Jakarta, Indonesia. REUTERS/Darren Whiteside
In addition, participants in the tax amnesty bill do not have to face any audits, while the Sunset Policy contained no such guarantee. The Sunset Policy failed because of “bureaucracy characterised by bureaucratic chaos, inadaptability, complicated and inefficient procedures which became a part of the many obstacles
in the policy implementation,” comments Siregar.
PAST LESSONSSiregar also feels that the Indonesian government has learnt its lessons from its botched Sunset Policy of 2008. “Compared to the previous policy, the recent bill offers
protection and certainty to taxpayers that any information gathered may not be used as basis [to] launch any tax investigation – preliminary or otherwise – or other types of criminal prosecution against the taxpayer concerned,” she says.
She adds: “Further, any government official involved in the implementation of the amnesty is prohibited from divulging, distributing or sharing information [about] a participating taxpayer with any third party, with the breach of such confidentiality obligation rendering the guilty party liable to a prison term of up to five years.” Siregar notes that this time, the tax amnesty has been well organised and covers all levels of taxpayers. “This represents the strong political will of the government of Indonesia to make this tax amnesty programme a success,” she explains.
Following the tax amnesty, law firms are calling on the government to issue tax policies that are more favorable to the business communities, such as lowering tax rates and enabling businesses to transact directly in Indonesia without having to restructure the transaction through offshore vehicles to save on taxes as is prevalent at the moment.
LEGAL NETWORKS44 ASIAN LEGAL BUSINESSNOVEMBER 2016
THREAT?WHAT THREAT?
INTERNATIONAL LAW FIRM DENTONS RECENTLY LAUNCHED ITS280-MEMBER NEXTLAW GLOBAL REFERRAL NETWORK,
AIMING TO PROVIDE AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE MORE TRADITIONALLEGAL NETWORKS. HOWEVER, THE LATTER DON’T SEE ANY
REASON TO GET WORRIED JUST YET, REPORTS RANAJIT DAM
Announced in April this year, Dentons’ Nextlaw Global Referral Network is finally up and run-ning. Boasting access to 18,600
lawyers and more than 280 law firms across about 160 countries, Nextlaw is the “world’s broadest, deepest legal referral network”, according to Dentons, and the initial talk has been about innovation as well as disruption of the status quo.
“The challenge for clients with today’s referral networks is that they are ‘pay-to-play’ – you do not get the right firm for the client’s particular need, just the firm willing to pay to be part of the refer-ral network,” Joe Andrew, the outspoken global chairman of Dentons, said at the time of its launch. “Nextlaw Global Referral Network is different because it is free, so clients will get the best lawyers for their need, without exception.”
As the summer rolled on, a war of words erupted between Dentons and a number of law firm network leaders over which was the superior model, as well as the model that delivered the most to its members and clients. Without going too much into detail, the gist is that Dentons claimed it had a “game-changing initiative” on its hands, one that was set to shake up the referral industry like never before. On their part, traditional networks have stressed that the Nextlaw network idea is new but hardly revolutionary – and far from a threat.
“Nextlaw appears to be an online list of law firms,” says Carl Anduri, president of Lex Mundi. “There are many law firm lists – both online and in print, – that companies can use to identify law firms. None of these is a threat to the Lex Mundi model.”
DIFFERENT OBJECTIVESAnduri’s assertion that Nextlaw is not a threat to legal networks is echoed by Robert Falvey and Maricarmen Trujillo, global ambassador and COO, respectively, of World Services Group (WSG), a network with 144 member firms in 106 countries. “The structure being presented as a net-work appears to be a directory listing of firms deemed worthy by Dentons, whereas the legal network industry is successful due to the standards, parameters and ap-proach each network deems strategically an important focus for the type of market and client being targeted,” they say. “In this case, the market being targeted is the firm Dentons, not the client, addressing completely different business objectives.”
They add that no industry is contingent upon one approach or ranking that an-nounces they are the best. “To build and provide a significant and sustainable ap-proach there must be qualified, objective and always reliable standards that are useful to the procurer. This is precisely why different networks exist,” say Trujillo and Falvey.
Meanwhile, Michael Siebold, chair of network Interlaw, says Nextlaw may prove to be a pale imitation of a genuinely col-laborative international platform for the practice of law. ““When it comes down to it, Dentons truly is attempting to mimic the existing network model, only minus some of the benefits currently available to members of other networks and their clients,” he says.
He adds: “Dentons seems to be in denial about the fact that its ‘innovative’ Nextlaw model owes an awful lot to existing le-gal networks, but simply removes the fee-paying element despite there being unavoidable costs attached to running it. If Nextlaw’s member firms aren’t paying the overheads of administration, marketing
LEGAL NETWORKS 45WWW.LEGALBUSINESSONLINE.COM: @ALB_Magazine : Asian Legal Business
and so on, who is picking up the tab? Will Dentons be looking to reduce its annual PEP or will, in fact, the cost for this global infrastructure be passed onto the clients – the same clients who want high quality yet cost-effective legal advice?”
Moreover, Siebold says he finds the aversion to fees concerning. “When did fees become a dirty word for lawyers?” he asks. “The very modest fees our member firms pay – as part of our not-for-profit business model – are a vital part in maintaining a nimble yet necessary infrastructure for the network to work efficiently and effec-tively for the benefit of both clients and members. Importantly, firms don’t have to pay to apply to or join our network, it is only after a thorough due diligence
process has been completed that fees are charged quid pro quo for direct and indirect services rendered.”
RECIPE FOR RESILIENCEWSG’s Falvey and Trujillo say that tradi-tional networks can focus on getting to know the cross-border and local needs of the client purposefully, strategise to achieve the desired result for the client, and most importantly, seamlessly adjust to specific requirements in each location with the local experts as needed for each client. “The very best independent law firms want to stay independent because the best law firms and lawyers are successful as representatives and as a brand by uphold-ing credibility and success over time,” they
say. “As information and communication becomes more available so too does the accessibility and awareness for clients. There will always be a need for the best, most well-connected independent firm.”
They add that the network space for independent law firms like that of the legal industry is made up of many different needs for both the firm and the client. “As long as firms see benefit in engaging in a network, there will likely be a forum to fill those needs,” say Falvey and Trujillo. “Any network with the intent to have longevity in this industry should always be reviewing their policies for membership and consider the wants of their own members. The deci-sion to participate in a network should be reflective of values and benefits received
LEGAL NETWORKS46 ASIAN LEGAL BUSINESSNOVEMBER 2016
for all parties in the transaction, and the firms’ commitment to the representation of the group as a whole.”
For Anduri, the critical point is how ef-fective a network is in enabling member firms and their lawyers to provide effec-tive service and deliver value to clients. “Networks that are really nothing more than directories of lawyers or firms pro-vide very little, if any, value,” he says. “A network that has one of the top law firms in each jurisdiction as a member, that has an active professional development function and resources to facilitate the continuous improvement of member firms and member firm lawyers, and whose member firms work together seamlessly and collaboratively to serve clients will be able to deliver value to clients.”
Siebold asserts that the network model, which has been around for more than 30 years now, has the legs to go further. “Our due diligence and ongoing quality-control checks ensure that only the best firms are accepted into – and continue to be part of – our elite network,” he says. “It’s very unfortunate that networks and their growth over the years don’t seem to have captured the imagination of the press in the same way as some of the mega mergers [among law firms have].”
He adds that as businesses demand local expertise on a global scale, the fact that network firms are true experts in the cultural nuances of their jurisdiction and in that jurisdiction’s law, means they can continue to adapt quickly to and evolve alongside the changing needs of clients.
CONSTANT IMPROVEMENTTrujillo and Falvey at WSG acknowledge that the industry today is clearly facing a client-driven environment. “The key to sustainable success and growth is to not only continue to identify, address and expand the services provided to clients, but to utilise the unique strengths and opportunities provided by a network like WSG to differentiate firms and stay ahead of the competition,” they say. “As a WSG member, you have access to global and multidisciplinary resources including those in regions not typically or adequately cov-ered by international firms. WSG provides members the resources and technology to find and connect with experts, share knowledge and build relationships enabling members to deliver comprehensive and seamless solutions ensuring differentiation and success.”
They add that the network space, like that of the legal industry, is constantly progressing and is made up of many dif-ferent needs, categories and areas. “WSG has continued to stay ahead in the mar-ketplace, determine trends, evolve those ideas and then develop and deliver the environment in which our members and their clients can thrive,” say Falvey and
Trujillo. “WSG’s focus was and continues to be evolving and perfecting a multifaceted and comprehensive approach for indepen-dent firms to deliver on their own unique objectives to meet changing client needs.”
Anduri notes that in the past year, Lex Mundi has focused on several key concerns, including working with member firms to help develop their client feedback
programmes, enhancing their legal project management skills, growing and enhancing their knowledge management capabili-ties, and developing thought leadership materials in the areas of competition law, mergers and acquisitions and investment in Africa. “We are now beginning our strategic planning for the period 2018-20,” Anduri says. “We will continue to do more to make the organisation more client-facing and to enable member firms to serve clients even more cost-effectively. We will look closely at technologies that member firms and Lex Mundi can employ for that purpose.”
Siebold says the past year has been a busy one at Interlaw, with the network now expanding its reach to 133 cities fol-lowing the additions of new member firms in Russia, Greece and Lebanon. “We have been able to focus on shaping our offer-ing around the client’s increasing need for a truly international, high standard of quality legal expertise in both estab-lished and emerging markets,” he says. “We have also focused on addressing the needs of member firms through significant investment in our brand and through col-laborative events, where our lawyers have the opportunity to share knowledge and best practice.”
He says that the network is striving for constant improvement. “We will continue to focus on expanding the network to new jurisdictions to give clients the specific on-the-ground expertise we pride ourselves on,” says Siebold. “Additionally, in response to clients’ needs to make it easier to refer work non-domestically – as well as build-ing on our reputation as a network at the cutting edge of the delivery of global legal services – we are developing more and more innovative digital solutions, including a digital client management and feedback system tool. It will allow member firms and clients to manage their international matters in real-time, while enabling mem-bers, clients and the organisation to get instant feedback on project delivery and quality from both fellow member firms and clients.”
He adds that the network will also continue to invest in its brand and clients and develop its Special Business Teams, in which representatives from member firms come together to focus on specific areas of law. “In this way, we will continue to ensure that our firms remain at the fore-front of the latest legal developments in their sectors,” notes Siebold of InterLaw.
“THE VERY BEST INDEPENDENT LAW FIRMS WANT TO STAY INDEPENDENT BECAUSE THE BEST LAW FIRMS AND LAWYERS ARE SUCCESSFUL AS REPRESENTATIVES AND AS A BRAND BY UPHOLDING CREDIBILITY AND SUCCESS OVER TIME. AS INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION BECOMES MORE AVAILABLE SO TOO DOES THE ACCESSIBILITY AND AWARENESS FOR CLIENTS. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A NEED FOR THE BEST, MOST WELL-CONNECTED INDEPENDENT FIRM.”Maricarmen Trujillo and Robert Falvey,World Services Group
BRAND X
BRAND X
BRAND X
BRAND X
BRAND X
BRAND X
BRAND X
BRAND X
BRAND X
BRAND X
BRAND X
BRAND X
BRAND X
BRAND X
BRAND X
BRAND X
BRAND X
BRAND X
EXPERT GLOBALIZATION
VS.
WorldServicesGroup.com
EXPERTS WHO MAKE A BUSINESS OUT
OF KNOWING EACH OTHER TO BUILD A
GLOBAL SOLUTION.
EXPERT GLOBALIZATION
Accelerate BusinessBeyond Boundaries
One secure enterprise platform for simplefile sync & share, collaborative team
workspaces, large-scale virtual data roomsfor mergers and acquisitions.
SPECIAL INSERT 49WWW.LEGALBUSINESSONLINE.COM: @ALB_Magazine : Asian Legal Business
In the last decade or so, technological innovation in the legal industry has focused on review and analysis platforms for electronic discovery or disclosure. We have come a long way in our ability to sort through massive amounts of potentially responsive data efficiently and cost-effectively and to deal with the daunting complexities presented by diverse data sets.
A NEW STAGE INTHE EVOLUTION OF
LITIGATION TECHNOLOGYBut now legal technology appears to have entered a new stage in its evolution. The next phase will focus on tools that help lawyers organise and analyse the case materials and evidence that matter to a case. While many lawyers in jurisdictions across the globe may not realise it, purpose-built tools designed specifically to help legal teams organise case materials and develop winning case strategies already exist. For example,
Opus 2 Magnum, a cloud service for end-to-end e-bundle management and evidence analysis, provides geographically dispersed team members with 24/7 access to key case-related documents via a single web-based user interface—creating a virtual “war room” where teams can confer in real time, collaborate on strategy and execute casework without copying or printing paper documents. Authorised users can log on from any location to a secure interface offering a complete toolset for the collaborative, substantive casework that legal teams perform every day. This includes evidence management, witness preparation, transcript management and more—not to mention services for trials and hearings like real-time transcription and evidence presentation tools.
Why don’t more of us know about these capabilities? It’s only a matter of time. Recent surveys of legal professionals show that most lawyers use some form of mobile technology in their practice, but few have fully integrated that technology into legal workflows. The concept of a “virtual law practice” is attractive to many, but still consists
largely of a grab-bag of point solutions for activities like telecommuting, web- or portal-based interactions with clients, or uploading and accessing documents through consumer-oriented cloud services.1 Such activities are a small piece of the puzzle as we gradually modernise legal workflows, but they are far from a comprehensive technological solution for legal teams who require more efficient ways to collaborate as they strive to organise and understand complex case-related materials, develop case strategy and build effective legal arguments—nor do they address the need for greater efficiencies in courtrooms and hearing rooms.
TRANSFORMINGLEGAL PRACTICEVIA THE CLOUD
The rapidly increasing adoption of cloud technology in a broad range of industry sectors is an important global business trend, and it is almost certain to
Charlie HarrelInternational Development Director andSenior Legal Consultant
1 For an overview of technology trends among attorneys in the US, see ABA TECHREPORT 2015: http://www.americanbar.org/publications/techreport/2015.html.
SPECIAL INSERT50 ASIAN LEGAL BUSINESSNOVEMBER 2016
transform the conduct of litigation in the near future. In the US, for instance, about a third of lawyers currently use cloud services, but the focus is on consumer cloud offerings like Dropbox, Google Apps, iCloud and Evernote,2 none of which are designed with the specialised requirements of litigation and arbitration in mind. In fact, the use of these tools can actually inhibit secure, effective legal collaboration. They do nothing, for instance, to halt the unnecessary printing and circulation of hardcopy bundles or to prevent the risky practice of lawyers downloading and storing copies of sensitive documents on local or mobile devices—which is still a common practice. And they are a long way from providing what today’s legal teams sorely need: a single, centralised online workspace where team members can store, organise, annotate and discuss key documents and audio/video files using purpose-built tools designed specifically for lawyers.
In an age of pervasive mobility and increasingly international litigation, Ma gnum ’s p r i v ate - c lo u d-bas e d collaboration platform ushers in a whole
new world for legal teams struggling to keep pace. Because all case materials are housed, accessed, tagged and marked up within a single online workspace, you eliminate the security risk of having copies of sensitive documents on local or portable devices which can be hacked, lost or stolen. Access is never limited by the platform you’re using; whether you connect to the web via a PC, a Windows-based laptop or notebook, an iMac or iPad, an Android phone or iPhone, easy and convenient access is achieved with Magnum’s virtual workspace, and there is even the potential to integrate with disclosure platforms via APIs.
CLOUD COLLABORATIONFACILITATES
DIGITAL WAR ROOMSThe first major “digital war room” implementation was in a London courtroom, where a multi-billion-dollar international commercial dispute between two Russian billionaires, Roman
Abramovich and Boris Berezovsky, was conducted using Magnum—making possible a nearly paperless trial saving tens of thousands of pounds in printing costs alone. The use of “electronic trial bundle technology,” in Berezovsky also created impressive efficiencies in the proceedings: More than 100,000 pages of evidence were scanned, machine-encoded via optical character recognition and uploaded to Magnum’s virtual workspace, to which all five involved parties had round-the-clock access throughout the proceedings. Working within their own siloed and secure virtual “war rooms,” the parties pieced together the building blocks of their arguments, ultimately creating more than 19,000 live hyperlinks to establish connections between witness statements, chronologies, transcripts, disclosed documents and other case materials.3 The successful deployment of the technology in Berezovsky was instrumental in spurring an ambitious series of reforms in the UK aimed at modernising courtrooms and the criminal justice system, and the presiding judge in the case, Elizabeth Gloster, has
2 Dennis Kennedy, “Cloud Computing,” ABA TECHREPORT 2015: http://www.americanbar.org/publications/techreport/2015/CloudComputing.html.3 For more on technological aspects of the trial, see Simon Tolson, “The Paperless Trial,” Building.co.uk, 20 May 2013: http://www.building.co.uk/the-paperless-trial/5054654.article.
Realtime transcription shown within Opus 2 Magnum
SPECIAL INSERT 51WWW.LEGALBUSINESSONLINE.COM: @ALB_Magazine : Asian Legal Business
emerged as an outspoken advocate of modernisation.
In the US, large multinational firms that frequently litigate across borders have been hearing about Magnum for some time now and have begun to use the technology to manage large volumes of witness statements and hearing transcripts, to facilitate collaboration on documents in multiple languages, and to work and communicate more efficiently—in real time—across multiple offices and geographies. To help mitigate the complexity of international litigation, Opus 2 offers premium court reporting services to US clients required to travel abroad to take depositions, deploying an elite team of reporters, videographers and technical support personnel.
A TRULYELECTRONIC COURTROOM
VIS-À-VIS THE CLOUDThe global nature of much commercial arbitration, in which parties, counsel and witnesses from various corners of the world actively participate—and
For example, in Singapore, one of the most technologically progressive jurisdictions in the world, Magnum has been used in several important cases, including two recent international arbitrations at Maxwell Chambers, the world’s first integrated dispute resolution complex, widely acknowledged as the top venue in Asia for alternative dispute resolution (ADR).
Magnum’s cloud-based software and services at Maxwell Chambers enabled a thoroughly integrated digital process with electronic document services and presentation of evidence, live hyperlinking and real-time transcription. This “hearing room of the future” provided unprecedented efficiencies for arbitrators, streamlined methods of managing testimony, evidence and lawyer insight, and dramatic reductions in time to resolution.
Magnum was also deployed in a high-profile 2014 case heard in Singapore’s Supreme Court, an intellectual property dispute between Global Yellow Pages and Promedia Directories. The technology received positive media coverage for the cost savings (an estimated $40,000) it enabled during the course of the trial and the efficiency of digitising
collaboration platformushers in a whole newworld for legal teams
struggling to keep pace.
involving large numbers of documents in multiple languages—is especially well-suited to cloud-based services that can accommodate remote walk-in or log-in and facilitate real-time legal collaboration, both in preparation for and during actual proceedings.
Evidence hyperlinking also offered with Opus 2 Magnum evidence display service
SPECIAL INSERT52 ASIAN LEGAL BUSINESSNOVEMBER 2016
170,000 pages of court documents.4 Global Yellow Pages is now headed for appeal, and another key benefit of cloud-based collaboration software has already become apparent: Parties have been able to maintain their virtual workspaces with all the exhibits, documents, transcripts and notes and links from the original trial and continue to use it to prepare the appeal.
In another example, a very recent, document-intensive dispute involving one plaintiff and four defendants accused of responsibility for serious construction defects at The Seaview condominium complex was heard at the High Court of Singapore, integrating Magnum software with Opus 2’s real-time transcription and electronic presentation of evidence (EPE) services, allowing automatic hyperlinking between evidence displayed in the courtroom and the real-time transcript text indicating when it was called up in the hearing room.
Truly electronic courtrooms are now a reality in Singapore. When you integrate secure trial bundle technology with features like hyperlinking and on-screen chat, live transcription and electronic
display of evidence, you have already achieved powerful new efficiencies. If you deploy that set of tools in some of the most technologically sophisticated and ergonomic hearing rooms in the world, with bespoke “smart desks,” state-of-the art wireless presentation equipment, live video streaming and conferencing, and global log-in for participants anywhere—then you get a picture of the bright future of litigation practice.
HEARING ROOMS OFTHE FUTURE
Opus 2 has plans to fully realise that vision at the world’s newest international fi nancial center, the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM), which will refl ect the UAE capital’s commitment to encouraging closer cooperation among global regulators to facilitate cross-border fi nancial activities and uphold the integrity of the markets. Opus 2 plays a prominent role in this project with its new “fi tOut for Purpose” offering that combines world-class e-bundle software (Magnum) with
state-of-the-art hearing room facilities featuring ergonomically engineered environments that allow parties to work smarter and more effi ciently. This is the fi rst court service built from the ground up using a cloud-based legal collaboration platform, with complete integration of paperless litigation, advanced telepresence solutions for remote access by all stakeholders in litigation, wireless presentation, live transcription and interpretation booths.
Singapore’s Maxwell Chambers and Abu Dhabi are just the beginning, as other global marketplaces also strive to become premier destinations for international arbitration and litigation. Opus 2’s fitOut for Purpose hearing rooms represent the next transformative phase of innovation in legal technology, promising not only to make litigation more efficient and cost-effective, but ultimately allowing lawyers preparing for and litigating cases to forget about technology and focus on the substance of their work—understanding the facts of a case, developing a legal strategy and building compelling arguments on behalf of their clients.
4 “Lawyers Go Green to Save Paper, Time and Cost,” The Straits Times, 30 October 2014: http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/lawyers-go-green-save-paper-time-and-cost.
EVENT54 ASIAN LEGAL BUSINESSNOVEMBER 2016
Mayer Brown JSM triumphant atThe Macallan ALB Hong Kong Law Awards 2016
Now on its 15th year, The Macallan ALB Hong Kong Law Awards was held on September 9 at the Conrad Hong Kong. The largest event in the ALB awards series, the Hong Kong affair welcomed over 400 distinguished guests from the city’s legal and business community, including Winnie Tam, SC, Chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association as the evening’s Guest of Honour.
The awards are a recognition and celebration of excellence in legal matters across the region, awarding the top deals, private practice and in-house teams. This year, 39 awards categories were distributed. Mayer Brown JSM was the big winner in the area of private practice, taking the coveted title The Macallan Single Malt Scotch Whisky Award Hong Kong Law Firm of the Year, in addition to two other practice awards. On behalf of Mayer Brown JSM, Terence Tung, Senior Partner, noted, “We are deeply honoured to win the award and I would like to thank all our clients who have placed their trust and confidence in us, all our lawyers and staff for their dedication and contribution and to ALB and the panel judges for their recognition.”
The other winners in the private practice categories came from a diverse range of firms.
Managing Partner of the Year was awarded to Frances Woo
of Appleby, Deal Firm of the Year went to Slaughter and May, and Baker & McKenzie took home Wealth Management Firm of the Year for the fourth year running. Pinsent Masons was awarded Construction Law Firm of the Year for the seventh year. “In some ways, the recognition is even more gratifying, given that the infrastructure disputes on which the industry instructs us are increasingly so complex, high value and in-tense,” said Vincent Connor, Pinsent Masons’ Head of Hong Kong. “It is energising for our wider team to see how highly the judging panel regards the work they contribute to. That is underlined by ALB’s broad and deep perspective of the legal market in Hong Kong and beyond. Refreshingly, the Awards Dinner is a genuine celebration of legal industry achievement – a far preferable way of spending a Friday evening than the tired, traditional business dinner format!”
CK Hutchison Holdings stole the show on the in-house side, winning the HKCCA Award Hong Kong In-House Team of the Year and The Macallan Fine Oak Single Malt Scotch Whisky Award Hong Kong In-House Lawyer of the Year for Edith Shih. ALB also recognised Telstra International for the Paul, Weiss Award Technology, Media and Telecommunications In-House Team of the Year and the COSCO Pacific team for the Holman Fenwick Willan Award Shipping In-House Team of the Year.
EVENT54 ASIAN LEGAL BUSINESSNOVEMBER 2016
EVENT 55WWW.LEGALBUSINESSONLINE.COM: @ALB_Magazine : Asian Legal Business
WINNERS
> INDIVIDUAL CATEGORIES <
DEALMAKER OF THE YEARSimon Weller –
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
MANAGING PARTNER OF THE YEARFrances Woo – Appleby
THE MACALLAN FINE OAKSINGLE MALT SCOTCH WHISKY AWARD
HONG KONG IN-HOUSE LAWYER OFTHE YEAR
Edith Shih – CK Hutchison
WOMAN LAWYER OF THE YEARPhilana Poon – Hong Kong Jockey Club
YOUNG LAWYER OF THE YEARNima Amini – O’Melveny & Myers
> IN-HOUSE CATEGORIES <
CONSTRUCTION AND REAL ESTATEIN-HOUSE TEAM OF THE YEAR
MTR Corporation
FINANCIAL SERVICESIN-HOUSE TEAM OF THE YEAR
CITIC Capital
HOLMAN FENWICK WILLAN AWARDSHIPPING IN-HOUSE TEAM OF THE YEAR
COSCO Pacific
LEWIS SANDERS AWARDINVESTMENT BANKING
IN-HOUSE TEAM OF THE YEARChina International Capital Corporation
PAUL, WEISS AWARDTECHNOLOGY, MEDIA AND
TELECOMMUNICATIONSIN-HOUSE TEAM OF THE YEAR
Telstra International
HKCCA AWARDHONG KONG IN-HOUSE TEAM OF
THE YEARCK Hutchison
WOMAN LAWYER OF THE YEARPhilana Poon, Hong Kong Jockey Club
HOLMAN FENWICK WILLAN AWARDSHIPPING IN-HOUSE TEAM OF THE YEAR
COSCO Pacific
Presenter: George Lamplough , Partner,Holman Fenwick Willan (Left)
EVENT 59WWW.LEGALBUSINESSONLINE.COM: @ALB_Magazine : Asian Legal Business
THE MACALLAN HIGHLANDSINGLE MALT SCOTCH WHISKY AWARDHONG KONG LAW FIRM OF THE YEAR
Mayer Brown JSMPresenter: Peter Woo, Marketing Director,
Edrington Hong Kong Ltd (Left)
THE MACALLAN ALBHONG KONG LAW AWARDS 2016
GUEST OF HONOURWinnie Tam, SC, Chairman,Hong Kong Bar Association
DEALMAKER OF THE YEARSimon Weller – Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
Look Chan Ho (on behalf of Simon Weller),Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
Presenter: Amantha Chia, Publisher and Head of Sales,Legal Media Group, Thomson Reuters (Right)
IMMIGRATION LAW FIRM OF THE YEAROldham, Li & Nie
EVENT60 ASIAN LEGAL BUSINESSNOVEMBER 2016
ALB SUPPORTSASSOCIATE SPONSOR SUPP ORTING ORG ANISATIONS OFFICIAL RECRUITMENT SITE PROUDLY PRESENTED BY
EVENT PARTNER
PL ATINUM SP ONSOR
TMF GroupTMF Group helps global companies expand and invest seam-lessly across international borders. Its expert accountants and legal, HR and payroll professionals are located around the world, helping clients to operate their corporate structures, fi nance vehicles and investment funds in different geographic locations. With operations in more than 75 countries providing outsourced compliance services, TMF Group is the global ex-pert that understands local needs.
Mark O’Sullivan, Managing Director, TMF Hong Kong Limited36/F, Tower Two, Times Square, 1 Matheson Street, Causeway Bay, Hong KongTel: +852 3188 8333 / +852 3589 8899Fax: +852 3589 8555 / +852 3188 8222Email: [email protected]: www.tmf-group.com
AWARD SPONSORS
BDO LimitedBDO Limited is the Hong Kong member f irm of BDO International Limited, a global accountancy network with over 1,300 offi ces in more than 150 countries and 60,000 people providing advisory services throughout the world.
BDO Limited is served by 50 directors and a staff of 1,000. Since our establishment in 1981, we have committed ourselves to facilitating the growth of businesses by advising the people behind them. Our professional services include assurance, busi-ness services & outsourcing, risk advisory, specialist advisory and tax. We possess comprehensive knowledge of accounting standards, tax and investment regulations prevailing in Hong Kong , China and other major countries, and conduct ourselves with the highest professional standards.
Website: www.bdo.com.hk
Holman Fenwick WillanHolman Fenwick Willan is a global law fi rm advising businesses on all aspects of international commerce. With over 425 lawyers in 13 offi ces (and two alliance offi ces) across 10 countries, we
have concentrated the development of our capabilities and the growth of our expertise on a limited number of industry sectors fundamental to the way international commerce works, including aviation; construction; commodities; energy; fi nancial institutions; insurance and reinsurance; logistics; mining; ports and terminals; shipping; space; superyachts; travel, cruise and leisure. Within those sectors, we have built a fi rm that can meet all of our clients’ legal needs covering transactional, regulatory and dispute resolution services.
Henry Fung, Partner, Holman Fenwick Willan15th Floor, Tower One, Lippo Centre, 89 Queensway, Admiralty, Hong KongTel: +852 3983 7788Email: [email protected]
Lewis SandersLewis Sanders is a specialist legal recruitment consultancy of-fering a full range of recruitment solutions. Using our extensive market knowledge and expertise, we place lawyers and com-pliance professionals at all levels with international law fi rms, global fi nancial institutions and multi-national companies across Asia. Lewis Sanders has built its reputation on its core values of integrity, trust and professionalism. This approach has enabled us to establish and maintain long standing relation-ships with candidates and clients and has positioned us as one of Hong Kong’s leading and largest legal recruiters.
Paul, WeissPaul, Weiss is a world-class law fi rm with a premier Technology, Media and Telecommunications practice. Our team in Asia is consistently recognized as top of its fi eld by leading industry publications and peers, in recognition of our M&A, private equity and regulatory clients in their transactions across the region.
Jeanette K. Chan, Partner, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & GarrisonHong Kong Club Building, 12th Floor, 3A Chater Road, Central, Hong KongTel: +852 2846 0300Email: [email protected]
Sweet & MaxwellThomson Reuters is the world’s leading source of intelligent information for businesses and professionals. We combine industry expertise with innovative technology to deliver critical information to leading decision makers in the fi nancial and risk, legal, tax and accounting, intellectual property and science and media markets, powered by the world’s most trusted news organization.
Sweet & Maxwell, part of Thomson Reuters, has more than 200 years of heritage in legal publishing offering detailed and specialist knowledge across a wide range of subjects, and in various formats including books, eBooks, journals, CD-ROMs and online services. Thomson Reuters has become one of Asia’s most respected providers of resources including Westlaw Asia, Practical Law and other online products for the legal and regulatory professions.
Thomson Reuters Hong Kong Limited, 16/F Cityplaza 3, Taikoo Shing, Hong KongTel: +852 2847 2000Email: [email protected]: www.sweetandmaxwell.com.hk
WithersWithers is the world’s fi rst international law fi rm dedicated to the business, personal and philanthropic interests of successful people, their businesses, families, banks and advisers.
The fi rm has advised 42% of the top 100 UK Sunday Times Rich List and over 20% of the top 100 US Forbes Lists as well as numerous families in Asia.
Withers has 17 offi ces worldwide in Hong Kong, Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo, London, New York, New Haven, Greenwich, San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles, Rancho Santa Fe, the BVI, Geneva, Zurich, Milan and Padua. The fi rm is a member of the Withers SBL alliance, which has offi ces in Melbourne and Sydney. The fi rm has over 150 partners worldwide.
Established in 2008, our Hong Kong offi ce has US, UK, Australian, BVI and Hong Kong qualifi ed lawyers who advise on family law, wealth planning and tax structuring. Our law-yers are also expert on probate and trust work, litigation (for companies and individuals), employment, immigration and corporate fi nance transactions.
Sharon Ser, Withers20/F, Gloucester Tower, The Landmark, 15 Queen’s Road Central, Hong KongTel: +852 3711 1600Email: [email protected]
The MacallanFounded in 1824 in the heart of Speyside, The Macallan was one of the fi rst distilleries in Scotland to be legally licensed. Since then it has built a reputation as one of the world’s fi nest single malt whiskies. The story of The Macallan is built on the Six Pillars, each infl uencing the whisky in its own distinct way. From the spiritual home of Easter Elchies House; curiously small stills giving richness and fruit to the pure spirit; fi nest cut or the best of the best of the distillation to ex-ceptional oak casks which account for over 60% of the fi nal whisky; natural colour and peerless spirit, The Macallan itself.
Wood sits at the heart of The Macallan. The vital contributing infl uences of Spain, North America and Scotland, to-gether with true mastery, set it apart from the rest.
For more information on The Macallan, please follow their Facebook fan page (www.facebook.com/themacallan.hk) or Instagram (instagram.com/themacallanhk).
BACKGROUND CHECKS—WHEN YOU NEED TO KNOW MORETHOMSON REUTERS ENHANCED DUE DILIGENCE REPORTS ARE FAST, THOROUGH & DISCREET
Background checks help organizations understand who they are really doing business with. Thomson Reuters Enhanced Due Diligence Reports deliver a detailed background check on any entity or individual, no matter where they are located in the world. Common uses include anti-corruption programs (FCPA, UK Bribery Act, etc.), security of supply chain, AML enhanced due diligence, mergers and acquisitions, on-boarding high net worth individuals and when geopolitical risk analysis highlights a specific country risk.
