October 21, 2021
In this edition, noting the ever-expanding risks of cyberattacks around the world we unpack how in-house counsel play a crucial part in preparing for and dealing with cyberattacks against their companies. We also reveal the details of Thailand’s comprehensive data protection laws, look at how South Korea is thinking about AI and personal information and outline the steps Vietnam is taking to update its robust cybersecurity legislation. And much more...
September 30, 2021
Litigating to recover money is a long and burdensome process, and it gets worse if a win in court does not translate to getting your money back. A good litigation strategy plans backwards from an ideal end game. In this article, we explore how judgments, arbitral awards and liquidation processes can be recognized and enforced against counterparties, particularly those with assets across jurisdictions. Recognition of foreign judgments and awards Foreign judgments and arbitral awards have no direct force in Hong Kong unless they are formally recognized as a local judgment. Court Judgments Hong Kong recognizes final money judgments from the superior courts of Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Brunei, France, Germany, India, Israel, Italy, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Singapore and Sri Lanka by way of registration under the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap.319), or FJREO. A similar registration mechanism also exists between Hong Kong and Mainland China under the Mainland Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 597), or MJREO. Judgments outside the scope of the FJREO and the MJREO (e.g. Japan, UK, US) may be recognized in Hong Kong at common law by bringing a fresh action based upon the foreign judgment, in which case, the judgment debt awarded by the foreign court will form the cause of action of the Hong Kong action. The plaintiff (the judgment creditor of the foreign judgment) may then proceed to apply for a default judgment if the defendant/judgment debtor does not defend, or a summary judgment if the defendant/judgment debtor does not have an arguable defense based on the limited defenses available to such an enforcement action. Arbitral awards Hong Kong is one...
September 19, 2021
Republic Act No. 11232, otherwise known as the Revised Corporation Code of the Philippines (RCC), came into force on 23 February, 2019. One of its salient features is the provision on institutionalizing arbitration of intra-corporate disputes – conflicts arising from intra-corporate relations, relationships between or among stockholders of the same corporation, or relationships between the stockholders and the corporation. A significant portion of the cases clogging the Philippine courts are intra-corporate in nature. Intra-corporate disputes are under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts (RTC). But even if such cases are usually handled by courts designated by the Supreme Court as Special Commercial Court, by their sheer number alone, even regular RTCs are made to handle them. It is good that Section 181 of the RCC now allows an Arbitration Agreement to be provided in the articles of incorporation or bylaws of a corporation to enable the parties to refer to arbitration the disputes between the corporation, its stockholders or members arising from the implementation of the articles of incorporation or bylaws, or from intra-corporate relations. The institutionalization of arbitration of intra-corporate disputes gives life to the State policy to encourage and actively promote the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) to achieve speedy and impartial justice and to declog court dockets. The RCC says an Arbitration Agreement in the company’s articles of incorporation or bylaws shall be binding on the corporation, its directors, trustees, officers and executives or managers. Enforceability and Enforcement of the Arbitration Agreement To be enforceable, the Arbitration Agreement should 1) indicate the number of arbitrators, 2) indicate the procedure for the appointment of the...
April 28, 2021
Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou is currently fighting extradition from Canada to the US to face charges of bank fraud in connection with transactions undertaken by Huawei in Iran allegedly in violation of US sanctions. The case has attracted global attention and the final commitment hearings will be held soon. Robert Lewis, Senior International Consultant with Chance Bridge Partners in Beijing, recently published an in-depth analysis of the Meng case.  IHC interviewed Lewis to learn more. This is a highly detailed look at the Meng case. Why did you write it and who is your intended audience?   As I followed the progress of the case, I realised that most reports were piecemeal in nature and scope and for the most part written from a journalistic perspective. With the key hearings in the extradition case scheduled for April and May, it was timely to provide a more comprehensive overview as a backdrop against which the upcoming court rulings could be better understood. I also wanted to approach this from a more professional legal perspective for a professional audience, including in-house counsel and compliance officers.   For people who have not followed this case closely, how did the case arise and what is the status? This is a complex case but the simple answer is as follows: Meng is the chief financial officer of Huawei and the daughter of Huawei founder Ren Zhenfei. Meng and Huawei are alleged, among other charges, to have committed bank fraud in connection with communications with HSBC in August 2013 in a meeting in a private room at the back of a restaurant in Hong Kong....