Insight into: Ajay Sahni & Associates

Ajay Sahni & Associates (ASA) is a boutique corporate law practice focused on intellectual property, innovation and technology. The firm was founded in 1983 with the objective of rendering creative, robust and effective strategic legal advice and representational services.

ASA is committed to delivering out-of-the-box, avant garde solutions to complex problems faced by its clients. The team strives to work with its clients as partners, helping them manage risk and navigate challenging legal and business landscapes.

ASA has a very strong disputes and enforcement practice with over 100 reported judgments in leading law journals and reports to its credit. The firm handles large IP portfolios for many Fortune 500 clients (both Indian and international) on the prosecution side. It has various awards and listings to its credit, such as the International Client Choice Award (Trademark), World Trademark Review (Leading firm and individual in enforcement & litigation as well as prosecution & strategy categories), Thomson Reuters Asian Legal Business IP Rankings (Tier 1 firm for Trademark and Copyright, Tier 2 firm for Patent) and Thomson Reuters Asian Legal Business India Rising Stars 2019, among others. Its members serve on various committees and expert groups in international associations, as well as government bodies.

ASA works with a sophisticated artificial intelligence and automation based in-house trademark portfolio management system to manage compliances, monitor threats and alerts for clients. It is also the first law firm in India to offer blockchain-based IP protection services.

ASA is led by its founder Ajay Sahni, who has been practising IP law since 1983 at the Supreme Court, high courts, district courts and tribunal levels across India. He has argued numerous landmark cases, many of which have been reported in leading law reports and journals. His dispute resolution experience covers a wide spectrum of industries, including pharmaceutical, retail, infrastructure, real estate, automotive, finance, fast-moving consumer goods, power, telecommunications, education, chemical and industrial products.

A strong founder

Mr Sahni’s experience is evident in the number of key positions he holds or has held:

  • former vice president at Intellectual Property Attorneys Association, New Delhi;
  • former vice president at Asian Patent Attorneys Association (India Chapter);
  • invited by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat (upper house of the Parliament of India) and examined as an expert witness by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce in relation to the Trademarks (Amendment) Bill 2007;
  • member on the Advisory Board of The Patents and Trademarks Cases, a leading monthly journal of IP case law in India;
  • regular speaker on IP laws at the Institute of Company Secretaries, the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Haryana Police Academy and the Export Promotion Council of India; and
  • formerly appointed as a senior panel counsel in the High Court of Delhi for conducting central government cases.

In addition, Mr Sahni has written extensively on the subject of IP law, including as:

  • a revising author of Lal’s Commentary on the Indian Copyright Act, 1957; and
  • a co-author of seven volumes of the book titled Cases and Materials on Trademarks and Allied Laws.

Firm’s key service offerings

Litigation, enforcement and dispute resolution

  • Handling civil, criminal and regulatory cases on infringement of patent, trademark, copyright, design, trade secrets, unfair competition; commercial mediation and arbitration
  • IP dawn raids, enforcement cases and domain name disputes
  • Dispute strategy, risk assessment, drafting of submissions, preparation of documentation, evidence, witnesses

Prosecution, compliance and audit

  • IP prosecution
  • Entry assistance: clearance searches, landscape studies, freedom-to-operate searches
  • IP audits and health checks
  • IP compliance management services
  • Cutting-edge tools based on automation and AI for 360-degree IP monitoring, threat assessment and compliance management services

Transactional

  • Acquisition and commercialisation of IP assets
  • IP valuation
  • Technology transactions and licensing
  • Safeguarding IP assets in mergers, acquisitions and joint ventures Advisory and public policy

Advisory and public policy

  • Anti-counterfeit investigations, forensics and enforcement strategy
  • Customs border protection assistance and strategy
  • Branding, advertising, marketing, packaging and labelling strategies
  • Drug and pharma regulatory filings, representation and support
  • Data protection and privacy
  • Public policy advisory, advocacy and strategic litigation support

Baker McKenzie Reshuffles Asia Practice

Baker McKenzie has appointed new leaders for seven of its Asia Pacific practice and industry groups. The new heads will join 12 other continuing practice and industry group leaders in the region on July 1.

The Tokyo office will see most changes in this round of leadership shuffle; four of the five incumbent practice and industry leaders in the office will step down leaving one Tokyo partner among the newly appointed leaders. Singapore-based Emmanuel Hadjidakis will replace Tokyo-based Gavin Raftery as Asia Pacific chair of banking and finance, while Kuala Lumpur-based Brian Chia will replace Tokyo-based Hideo Norikoshi as regional M&A chair.

Singapore-based Nandakumar Ponniya will take over from Tokyo-based Yoshiaki Muto as regional dispute resolution chair, while Sydney-based Anne Petterd will succeed Tokyo-based Kana Itabashi as regional chair of the firm’s international commercial and trade practice.

The one remaining Tokyo-based regional head will be Yaeko Hodaka, chair of the Asia Pacific industrials, manufacturing and transportation industry group. Hodaka will now share her duties with Shanghai-based Cherrie Shi, who works under Baker McKenzie’s special alliance with local firm FenXun Partners in the Shanghai Free Trade Zone.

Shi will join Shanghai-based Brendan Kelly, regional chair of the firm’s tax practice, and Beijing-based Bee Chun Boo, regional chair of the energy, mining and infrastructure industry group, to make a total of three regional heads in China.

The Singapore office will see its importance boosted with the addition of two new heads to make a total of five, the three other partners continuing in their leadership roles being Stephanie Magnus, Kelvin Poa and Martin David, regional chairs of the financial institutions industry group, private equity, and projects respectively.

The number of practice and industry leaders in Hong Kong office will be unchanged at four, with three regional heads there continuing in their positions, namely Ivy Wong, Stephen Crosswell and LokeKhoon Tan, chairs of capital markets, antitrust and competition, and the consumer goods and retail industry group respectively. The only change there involves a shift in role for Isabella Liu, who will replace Bangkok-based Say Sujintaya as regional chair of the firm’s intellectual property and technology practice following a stint as regional chair of the healthcare and life science industry group.

The healthcare and life science group will be led by Sydney-based Elisabeth White, who along with Petterd will bring the number of regional heads in Australia up to five. The three continuing regional heads are Adrian Lawrence, Michael Michalandos and Bruce Webb, chairs of TMT, employment, and real estate respectively.

“I am delighted to welcome our new practice and industry group leaders to the leadership team. What is particularly exciting is that among the seven new Asia Pacific leaders, four are women,” said Baker McKenzie’s Asia Pacific chair Ai Ai Wong.

Wong was appointed to her current position in 2018 when Baker McKenzie reshuffled its overall leadership in Asia Pacific. There have been changes among those leaders since then. Last year, Hong Kong partner Milton Cheng, then managing partner for the firm’s Hong Kong and mainland China offices, became the firm’s first-ever Asia-based global chairman. The China offices are now run by Hong Kong-based partner Steven Sieker, who previously led the firm’s regional tax practice.

 

Thailand Postpones Effective Date of Data Privacy Law

Background

The Thai Cabinet, on May 19, 2020, approved a Royal Decree on Organizations and Businesses which shall be exempted from compliance with the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (“Royal Decree“) to delay the enforcement date of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (“PDPA“). The Royal Decree has been published in the Royal Gazette on May 21, 2020 and will be effective from May 27,2020 to May 31, 2021. It provides exemptions to data controllers listed under the Royal Decree to certain chapters and section under the PDPA which include:

–          Chapter 2 (data controllers’ obligations relating to the use, collection, and disclosure of personal data, privacy notices, consent requirements, exemptions and cross-border of data privacy);

–          Chapter 3 (data subject rights, data protection officer and record of processing);

–          Chapter 5 (complaints and administrative punishments);

–          Chapter 6 (civil penalties and punitive damages);

–          Chapter 7 (criminal liabilities and administrative punishments); and

–          Section 95 (transitional matter).

Data controllers who shall obtain the exemptions under the Royal Decree are as follows:

1)      Government authorities;

2)      Foreign public authorities and international organizations;

3)      Foundations, associations, religious organizations, and non-profit organizations;

4)      Agricultural businesses;

5)      Industrial businesses;

6)      Commercial businesses;

7)      Medical and public health businesses;

8)      Energy, steam, water and waste disposal businesses, including their related business;

9)      Construction businesses;

10)  Repair and maintenance businesses;

11)  Transportation, logistic, and warehouse business;

12)  Tourist businesses;

13)  Communication, telecommunication, computer, and digital businesses;

14)  Financial, banking and insurance business;

15)  Real estate businesses;

16)  Professional businesses;

17)  Management and support services business;

18)  Scientific and technological, academic social welfare and artistic businesses;

19)  Educational businesses;

20)  Entertainment and recreational businesses;

21)  Security business; and

22)  Household and community enterprise businesses whose activities cannot be clearly classified.

If there is any question as to whether particular organizations or businesses are fallen under the above list, the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) shall consider and render its final decision at its sole discretion.

The main reason as specified in the Royal Decree is to provide more time for the business operators, which shall be regarded as data controllers by the PDPA, to prepare themselves to be fully compliant with the PDPA. The Royal Decree further specifies that business operators, including private and government sectors, are not ready to be in compliance with the PDPA. This was mainly due to requests from the private sector filed with the government indicating problems with the economy and within their organizations, such as the economic impact and other restrictions due to Covid-19 situation.

The extension is not to be interpreted that the Government of Thailand is relaxing its readiness to implement the PDPA. An essential action by the Thai government is that the PDPC committee has been appointed and will start the process of formulating regulations and an enforcement culture surrounding the PDPA.  The list of the PDPC members approved by the Cabinet as announced by the government’s spokesperson on 19 May 2020 are as follows (note that this list is not official until published in The Government Gazette):

1)      The Chairman: Mr. Thienchai Na Nakorn

Professor of faculty of law, Sukhothai Thammatirat Open University

Former Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC)

Former senior member of various committees (e.g. Committee of Official Information Commission, Committee of National Institute of Educational Testing Service (NIETS) and secretary-general of Political Development Council).

2)      Senior committee (personal data protection): Mr. Nawanan Theera-Ampornpunt

Technocrat on health informatics;

Deputy dean on practitioner level of faculty of medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital.

3)      Senior committee (consumer protection): Pol.Lt.Col Thienrath Vichiensan

Senior committee of Official Information Commission;

Former chief of inspector of Prime Minister Office;

Director of the Official Information Commission.

4)      Senior Committee (Information and communication technology): Mr. Pansak Siriruchatapong

Former Vice Minister of Ministry of Digital Economy and Society;

Former director of National Electronics and Computer Technology Center (NECTEC)

5)      Senior committee (social science): Asst. Prof. Tossapon Tassanakunlapan

Professor and researcher of faculty of law, Chiang Mai University

6)      Senior committee (legal): Ms. Thitirat Thipsamritkul

Teacher of faculty of law, Thammasat University

7)      Senior committee (legal): Prof. Supalak Pinitpuvadol

Professor of faculty of law, Chulalongkorn University

8)      Senior committee (health): Prof. Prasit Watanapa

Dean of faculty of medicine, Siriraj Hospital

9)      Senior Committee (finance): Ms. Ruenvadee Suwanmongkol

Secretary-general of the Securities and Exchange Commission

10)  Senior Committee (Government Information Management): Mrs. Methinee Thepmanee

Former secretary-general, Office of the Civil Service Commission (OCSC);

Former permanent secretary, Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (ICT).

In addition to the abovementioned members, please note that the PDPA requires that the PDPC must appoint permanent secretary of the MDES as the vice-president of the PDPC, together with 5 additional board members which include (i) the permanent secretary of the Prime Minister Office, (ii) the secretary-general of the juridical council, (iii) the secretary-general of the office of consumer protection board, (iv) the director-general of the Rights and Liberties Protection Department, and (v) the attorney-general. Please note that as of the writing of this article 27 May 2020, the official list of the PDPC members are not yet published in The Government Gazette.

The above is for general information purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice.

Vietnam’s Automobile Industry and Opportunities for EU Investors

Vietnam’s automobile industry has grown significantly in recent years. The average growth rate of domestically assembled vehicles was approximately 10 percent per year in the 2015-2018 period. With major manufacturers such as Toyota, Honda, Ford, Nissan, and Kia in the Vietnamese market, the number of spare parts suppliers have also invested in the industry giving the sector a much-needed boost.

The motorbike is ubiquitous to Vietnam, but with the country’s fast-growing middle class, car ownership is steadily rising. This growth, however, is likely to be stunted in the short term due to the COVID-19 pandemic but expected to resume in the long run as Vietnam reopens its economy.

Vietnam’s Industrial Policy and Strategy Institute predicts 750,000 to 800,000 vehicles will be sold annually by 2025 up from 288,683 in 2018.

The automotive industry is a major contributor to the GDP of many countries in the world:

Auto industry GDP

As displayed above, with such a high share in Vietnam’s GDP, the automotive industry has always received special attention from the government. There are currently many large automotive assembly and production projects in Vietnam with the aim of not only meeting domestic demand but also tapping into the regional market.

Local conglomerate Vingroup officially inaugurated its Vinfast factory on June 14, 2019, making it the first domestic automobile factory in Vietnam. The factory is not only state-of-the-art but also in line with Industry 4.0 standards.

However, the Vietnamese automotive industry faces stiff competition. Part of the reason for this is the zero-tariff policy between ASEAN countries that Vietnam is part of. Thus imports are cheaper than domestically produced vehicles.

Although Vietnam is one of the four largest automobile manufacturers in Southeast Asia, it has one of the lowest average localization rate in this region (only around 10-15 percent, and is still far behind Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia).

In addition, the local automobile industry has not been able to invest in core and high technology products such as engine production and transmission systems. Localized parts are mostly of low technology products such as tires, seats, mirrors, glasses, cable harnesses, batteries, and plastic products.

About 80-90 percent of the main raw materials used to manufacture components are still imported. As a result, companies are required to import approximately US$2 billion to US$3.5 billion in components and parts for vehicle manufacturing, assembly, and repair each year.

For this reason, domestic automobile production costs are 10-20 percent higher than in other countries in Southeast Asia. As a result, the cost of cars produced domestically are at a disadvantage compared to completely build units (CBUs) that are imported.

Increasing car ownership

Vietnam imported more than 109,000 CBUs in the first nine months of 2019 with a turnover of US$2.4 billion as per official statistics. Compared to the same period in 2018, imported cars increased by 267 percent in volume and 257 percent in value.

Cars with less than nine seats led imports – with about 75,848 vehicles valued at US$1.5 billion. This shows the increasing purchasing power and the changing demands of customers. In addition, the vehicles imported from the EU mainly come from Germany. As per the General Department of Vietnam Customs in 2018, 1,197 imported cars from Germany were registered in Vietnam. Germany’s ZF Friedrichshafen inaugurated its first plant producing chassis modules for cars in Haiphong in November 2019.

[Read more]

—————————

This article is produced by Vietnam Briefing, a premium source of information for investors looking to set up and conduct business in Vietnam. The site is a publishing arm of Dezan Shira & Associates, a leading foreign investment consultancy in Asia with over 27 years of experience assisting businesses with market entry, site selection, legal, tax, accounting, HR and payroll services throughout the region.

China introduces new Hong Kong security law

China introduced a controversial national security law Thursday that could place restraints on the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong.

The law prohibits acts of “sedition, foreign interference, terrorism and secession.” China cited national security concerns for implementing the measure, but many warn the law will be interpreted broadly and cover protests.

China’s legislature begins its annual National People’s Congress meeting on Friday, where it could pass the law without deliberation from the legislature in Hong Kong.

Under the institution of “one country, two systems,” such a measure would need to pass the Hong Kong legislature. The legislature attempted to pass national security legislation earlier this year, but failed after being met with opposition from protesters.

The summer of 2019 marked a significant resistance to the Chinese government from pro-democracy protestors. The movement has since subsided in the form of public protest as the COVID-19 outbreak has spread throughout the world, including in Hong Kong.

Pro-democracy leaders are speaking out against the proposal and its procedure. “This is the end of Hong Kong. This is the end of ‘One Country, Two Systems.’ … Beijing has completely breached its promise to the Hong People. A promise enshrined … in the basic law,” declared lawmaker Dennis Kwok.

Vietnam Issues Investment Incentives for SMEs

As the outbreak of COVID-19 hampers business activity, Vietnam introduced Decree No. 37/2020/ND-CP (Decree 37) on March 30 to update the list of sectors and industries access to investment incentives under Decree 118/2015/ND-CP. The move underlines the government’s efforts to support businesses and particularly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) affected by COVID-19.

Decree 37 will take effect on May 15.

The regulation expands the list of business lines eligible for investment incentives. This includes four types of SME business lines which are:

  • Small and mediums sized enterprises (SMEs) supply chains;
  • Business incubators for SMEs,
  • Technical support facilities for SMEs; and
  • Co-working spaces of SMEs.

The aforementioned businesses will now be eligible for import duty exemptions on fixed assets as well as other exemptions based on location.

SMEs continue to play a major role in Vietnam, accounting for 98 percent of all enterprises, 40 percent of GDP, and 50 percent of employment or 1.2 million jobs. As per the Ministry of Finance, Vietnam has more than 600,000 firms, with nearly 500,000 private and 96 percent being small and micro-enterprises.

However, SMEs continue to face problems such as access to finance, market access, and competition with foreign firms. We highlight three issues faced by SMEs below.

Access to finance

Credit access is a major concern for the Vietnamese SMEs. Banks providing commercial loans prefer to allocate their resources to larger firms rather than SMEs. According to banks, higher default risks, lack of financial transparency, and lack of assets for a mortgage are the major factors for not providing loans to SMEs. SMEs have to increase transparency and introduce newer production technologies, to reduce risks and increase efficiency to increase their chances of acquiring commercial loans.

Global supply chains

A study by the International Finance Corporation shows that only 21 percent of Vietnamese SMEs are linked with global supply chains, much lower than 30 percent and 46 percent in Thailand and Malaysia respectively. Integrating further with global supply chains in terms of procurement, operations, and sales will allow firms to manage competition, reduce risks, and reduce production costs, which currently is 20 percent higher than those of neighboring countries, such as Thailand and China.

[Read more]

—————————

This article is produced by Vietnam Briefing, a premium source of information for investors looking to set up and conduct business in Vietnam. The site is a publishing arm of Dezan Shira & Associates, a leading foreign investment consultancy in Asia with over 27 years of experience assisting businesses with market entry, site selection, legal, tax, accounting, HR and payroll services throughout the region.

COVID19 – Restriction on fee hike by private schools

In the wake of spread of COVID-19 pandemic, India is heading towards a new paradigm in conducting business, running offices, organising social distancing and managing supplies to needy and poor. The current lockdown is crippling Indian economy, making the state and industry coffers empty and also keeping the doors of learning institutions closed till further orders.

The educational institutions, especially private schools and colleges are, however, working overtime to adopt technology to bring online learning modules to the homes of their students. Most schools are conducting online classes, providing assignments, clearing doubts and assuring parents that students will not suffer academic loss. Schools are also continuing to pay staff salaries and raise school fee from parents albeit with various relaxations and with no late fee penalties. However, many parents are facing severe financial hardship which is further compounded by fee hikes announced by various schools. Thus, the Union Human Resource Minister, Mr. Ramesh Pokhriyal urged the private schools to reconsider their decision regarding the increase in the school fee during the academic session 20-21 and ease the fees burden by collecting it on a monthly basis during the lockdown period and directed the state education departments to come-up with a solution that works in the best interest of both the schools and the parents.

Followed by the above request, the Central Board of Secondary Education (“CBSE”) issued a notification dated April 17, 2020 regarding payment of fees by parents in private unaided schools during lockdown period (“CBSE Notification”). The CBSE Notification empowered the state education departments to examine the issue of lumpsum payment of school fees and teachers’ salaries and authorised the state education departments of all states and union territories to decide the manner in which the fees can be collected during the lockdown period.

Pursuant to the CBSE Notification, various state education departments have issued circulars/orders notifying private schools the manner in which they are entitled to charge fees from parents. Some of the circulars/orders issued by the state education departments are discussed herein below:

Haryana Education Department: The Directorate of Secondary Education, Government of Haryana issued the notification dated April 23, 2020 regarding collection of school fees during COVID-19 situation. The said notification directs the private schools to charge tuition fees on a per month basis from the students and other charges including building and maintenance funds, admission fees, computer fees and any other such funds and fees should not be charged from the parents.

The schools were further directed not to increase the monthly tuition fee and not to include any hidden charges in the monthly tuition fees. The schools were directed not to charge transportation fee from the parents during the lockdown period and no changes will be made in the school uniforms, text-books, work-books, practice books and practical files. Non-payment of fee should not lead to striking off the name of any student from the school or to deny any student from receiving online education.

Any school found violating the above directions would be liable to penal action under rule 158 of Haryana Education Rules, 2003.

Madhya Pradesh Education Department: The Madhya Pradesh education department has also issued its notification dated April 24, 2020 directing the schools to provide extension of time to parents to pay school fees if they were unable to pay during the last quarter of the academic session 2019-2020 till June 30, 2020 without any late fee charges. The private schools were further directed not to increase the school fees for the academic session 2020-21 and strike off the name of the students from its register due to the inability of parents to pay the school fees. Further, the school will not be allowed to charge additional fee for providing online classes to the students at home.

West Bengal Education Department: The West Bengal education department has also issued the notification dated April 10, 2020 advising the private schools in West Bengal not to increase the annual fee during the current academic year considering the current lockdown situation and to consider the matter of non-payment of school fees by the parents, if any, sympathetically.

Delhi Education Department: The Directorate of Education, Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi vide its notification dated April 18, 2020 also directed all private unaided schools to only charge tuition fees on a monthly basis from the parents during the lockdown period. No other charges can be levied during the lockdown period as the expenses with respect to co-curricular activities, sport activities, transportation and other development related activities are almost nil due to the prevailing lockdown. The private unaided schools have also been directed to ensure that all students are provided access to the online classes and education materials regardless of the inability of the students to pay the school fees due to financial crisis. Non-compliance of the aforesaid order by the Director of Education will invite penal actions under the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973.

Others: The Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh education departments have also issued orders directing private schools not to hike school fees during the current pandemic. The Karnataka state education department has also issued a notification dated April 24, 2020 imposing restriction on increasing school fees.

Considering the unprecedented situation where most schools were unprepared for this eventuality but quickly geared up to provide continuous learning engagement through online education to their students and the continuing expenditure towards staff salaries, infrastructure, service providers on the one hand and the economic hardships faced by parents on the other hand, the need of the hour is balancing of interests by the government of both the educational institutions and the parents. This is to ensure continuity of education to students as well as survival of educational institutions across India.

For Covid 19 related legal updates, please refer to https://lexcounsel.in/newletters/newsletters-2020/ and Mondaq at https://resources.mondaq.com/mir/articles.aspx and for Covid 19 related articles, please refer to https://lexcounsel.in/articles-2020/

HONG KONG HK

Osborne Clarke latest firm to exit HK market

UK firm Osborne Clarke is set to close its Hong Kong office, with operations scheduled to come to an end by June – the second international firm to announce that it would shutter its office in the city in just over a month.

Recently, U.S. firm Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe announced it would wind down its Hong Kong operations by the end of August.

Osborne Clarke has had a presence in Hong Kong for over five years. The firm launched its office there – its first foray in Asia – after hiring two Bird & Bird partners, Marcus Vass and John Koh, who established the associated Hong Kong firm Koh Vass & Co. Since February 2019, the firm had been trading as Osborne Clarke.

However, the last 12 months have been very disruptive for law firms in Hong Kong, with first the political protests, and then the coronavirus pandemic, negatively impacting business conditions.

Osborne Clarke’s Hong Kong office has eight members, including two partners and two associates.

Following the closure of Hong Kong operations, the firm will refocus its regional growth plans on its Shanghai and Singapore offices, as well as its association with Indian firm BTG Legal.

singapore

SIAC registers record number of new cases in 2019

The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) has set a new annual record for new cases after notching up 479 new filings in 2019.It marked the third consecutive year in which SIAC registered more than 400 cases. SIAC recorded 452 and 402 in 2017 and 2018, respectively. About 95 percent of the cases, while the remainder were ad hoc appointments.Additionally, in 2019, SIAC’s total sum in dispute was S$10.91 billion ($8.09 billion), a 14.6 percent increase compared to the amount in the previous year.The year saw parties from 59 jurisdictions arbitrate cases at the SIAC. According to the centre, “while India, China and the U.S. retained their top foreign user rankings, other significant contributors to SIAC’s caseload included new entrants from Brunei, the Philippines, Thailand, Switzerland, UAE and the UK, which is testament to SIAC’s global appeal to users from diverse legal systems and cultures.”

Davinder Singh, SC, SIAC chairman, said, “We are delighted that so many from around the world have placed their trust in us. We remain committed to ensure that SIAC will provide the best service ever in this field.”

Rajah & Tann Asia “The Lawyers Who Know Asia”