eOASIS is Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP's legal information website for clients, containing business and legal information prepared from a practitioner's viewpoint. It has four different modules, updated regularly, and materials range from commentaries on the latest legal developments to key legal and business information.
One of the key changes introduced by the Companies (Amendment) Act 2017 is the introduction of an inward re-domiciliation regime in Singapore to boost Singapore's competitiveness as an international business hub. Under this regime, a foreign corporate entity ("FCE") will be allowed to transfer its registration to Singapore. Once re-domiciled, the FCE will become a Singapore company registered under the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority of Singapore, and will be required to comply with the provisions of the Companies Act.
It is anticipated that the provisions relating to the inward re-domiciliation regime will come into force in the first half of 2017. This update provides an overview of the inward re-domiciliation regime.
The National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China (the "PRC") passed the General Provisions of the PRC Civil Law (in Chinese, 中华人民共和国民法总则) (the "General Provisions") on 15 March 2017, which will take effect on 1 October 2017. The General Provisions are the opening chapter of the PRC civil code planned to be enacted in 2020, covering principles of civil law, definitions of terms in the civil legal system, civil rights, basic rules for civil acts, agency, civil liability, and litigation. In this Update, we set out some key highlights of the General Provisions.
The confidentiality of and legal professional privilege over documents and communications are key concerns of any client. They are also of concern to corporate entities with in-house counsel who provide legal advice to management. These issues take on a new dimension in an age when the security of computers is threatened as never before. In the case of Wee Shuo Woon v HT S.R.L.  SGCA 23, the Singapore Court of Appeal had to consider whether advice that had been accessed by hacking the client’s email account and then posted on WikiLeaks were in the public domain and no longer entitled to legal protection.