June 23, 2021
Although non-fungible tokens (NFTs) have been around for some time, they were recently in the headlines for the astronomical sums people have paid to own them. For example, a NFT issued by digital artist Beeple sold for US$69 million and the NFT of the tweet sold by Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey for US$2.9m. What Is An NFT? An NFT is a unique cryptographic asset linked to an object, such as a piece of art or in-game item. In economics, a fungible asset is something with units that can be readily interchanged – like money. However, if something is non-fungible it means it has unique properties so it cannot be interchanged with something else. For instance, Bitcoin has an interchangeable supply. One Bitcoin is worth the same amount as any other Bitcoin, no matter which Bitcoin you’re holding. A one-of-a-kind trading card, however, is not interchangeable. If you traded it for a different card, you’d have something completely different. An NFT is a digital certificate of authenticity placed on the blockchain and when you buy an NFT, you (typically) hold the right to claim ownership of the NFT itself and the right to exclude others from claiming ownership of the NFT. However, ownership of an NFT will not entitle you to ownership of the digital asset, the underlying artwork, or any other object – unless the relevant contractual terms allow otherwise. By itself, an NFT is not an IP right. It is not a patent, for example. But even if an NFT itself does not easily fall into an existing category of IP, it does not mean there are no IP... May 6, 2021
Introduction https://www.inhousecommunity.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/In-House-Counsel-Pandemic-Insights.mp4 Now that we’re in Q2 of 2021, and 2020 is firmly in the past (but the hangover remains), it’s time to put the “Year of the Coronavirus” into perspective. Few companies emerged from last year unscathed. But as the old saying goes, no one becomes rich in the good times – wealth is generated in the bad times. Legal firms across the Asia Pacific and MENA weathered the Covid-19 storm and worked tirelessly to keep their clients satisfied. And judging by the scuttlebutt out there, nearly everyone in the profession was run off their feet in 2020 performing work ranging from M&A, Insolvency, Restructuring, and HR disputes to personnel rearrangements and advising on critical multi-million-dollar business deals. Some of the important legal work was done in the office, but most of it had to be done at home due to varying levels of lockdowns that forced people’s daily routines to adapt to a “New Normal.” On top of the wider business disruption, the constraints of working from home added plenty of extra pressure and learning curves. According to data from Citi Private Bank, demand for lawyer time fell only 1% in the first half of 2020, dropping by 4.2% in the second quarter – significantly lower than in 2019. But the lawyers who managed to stay busy had plenty of work to do. Jump straight to: Methodology Winner’s Updates Pandemic Insights from Results South Africa VILAF Raymond Goh – China Tourism Group China South Korea Khaitan & Co Carina Wessles – Alexander Forbes Hong Kong UAE Navrita Kaur – Omesti Group India Vietnam Stanley Lui – TI... May 6, 2021
On March 26, Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte signed into law the Corporate Recovery and Tax Incentives for Enterprises (CREATE) Law, with several line-item vetoes of the version of the bill endorsed by the legislature. CREATE (Republic Act No. 11534) significantly amends further the provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code (Tax Code) after its overhaul by the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion Act (TRAIN) which took effect on January 1, 2018. CREATE also amends or repeals various laws granting tax incentives to investors, including incentives under the Omnibus Investments Code, the Special Economic Zone Act, and the charters of special economic zones. Except for the specific provisions in the law which provides its effectivity, CREATE is set to take effect 15 days after its publication in the Official Gazette or other media. Highlights of CREATE Amending Tax Code: Effective from July 1, 2020, the income tax rates of domestic corporations, in general, and resident foreign corporations are reduced from 30% to 25%. For domestic corporations with taxable income not exceeding ₱5 million and with total assets not exceeding ₱100 million, the income tax rate is reduced from 30% to 20%. Effective January 1, 2021, the income tax rate of nonresident foreign corporations is reduced from 30% to 25% of gross income. Additionally, regional operating headquarters (ROHQs), previously subject to the preferential income tax rate of 10% of taxable income, will be subject to the regular corporate income tax rate of 25% of taxable income; Capital gains on the sale of shares in a domestic corporation by foreign corporations are now taxed at 15% of net capital gains, on... April 28, 2021
This Q&A was published in IHC eMagazine Vol1, Issue 1. to read the full magazine, please click here. IHC speaks to Anuj Shah (partner) and Jean Muller (director of strategy) of Indian law firm, Khaitan & Co about the firm’s recent move to open an office in Singapore. Despite the pandemic, Khaitan & Co opened an office in Singapore. What drove drivers that decision? Jean: Over the last two decades, India has gradually integrated into the global economy and now legal advisors here do a lot of cross-border work. Singapore is the preferred hub in the Asia-Pacific for deal-making since it hosts a critical mass of advisors, decision-makers and providers of capital. We wanted to help our clients address this increasingly complicated world and so acted accordingly. We are seeing unparalleled demand for Indian legal services in Singapore. So, this decision made perfect sense. It took a couple of years to carefully plan our first foray overseas but we believe the market has reached a point where we can add value for our clients by setting up a local presence. Why is Singapore so important to Indian businesses? Anuj: We see a convergence of factors. Singapore’s financial markets were always critical to Indian businesses, even more so nowadays with new sources of funds to tap for stressed and distressed players. Another factor is the Indian corporate environment is highly litigious. Given the delays to get justice in India, international arbitration has become prevalent, with Singapore-seated arbitrations getting the lion’s share of that market. Today, a majority of SIAC cases involve an Indian party, and many of the... April 28, 2021
In the recent case of Byers and others v Chen Nanning [2021] UKPC 4, the UK Privy Council examined the duties of a director in relation to an insolvent British Virgin Islands (BVI) company. Liquidators of Pioneer Freight Futures Ltd (PFF), an insolvent company incorporated in the BVI, brought a claim against Ms Chen, who was a director of the company, for breach of fiduciary duties. Ms Chen was a director and the ultimate beneficial owner of PFF, via its parent company. PFF had been experiencing financial difficulties since 2008. In May 2009, PFF borrowed $US13 million from Zenato Investments Ltd (Zenato), a company belonging to a business acquaintance of Ms Chen. PFF repaid Zenato the $US13 million loan in full with interest in November 2009 (Zenato Payments). At the time of making the Zenato Payments, PFF was insolvent. On 17 December, PFF applied for the appointment of joint provisional liquidators (which later became liquidators) in the BVI on grounds of insolvency. The liquidators subsequently brought proceedings against Ms Chen for breach of a director’s fiduciary duties for making the Zenato Payments. A Director’s Duties The liquidators commenced proceedings in the BVI High Court, claiming Ms Chen breached her duties as a de jure, de facto or shadow director of PFF, or as someone whose role in the affairs of PFF justified the imposition of fiduciary duties. The liquidators also sought an order against Ms Chen on the basis that the Zenato Payments constituted an unfair preference and a voidable transaction under §§.244 and 245 of the Insolvency Act 2003. After failing to prevail both at first instance and... November 19, 2020
DFDL’s William Greenlee sets out the data protection regulatory framework in Malaysia and its recent developments ... Upcoming Events
Recent Past Events














