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.

What's new on eOASIS

MAS Proposes Refining Tier Structure Requirements and New Remuneration Restrictions for Financial Advisers
The remuneration practice of the financial advisory ("FA") industry is regulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore ("MAS"). To better align the interests of FA representatives and supervisors with those of their clients, MAS made the following key proposals on remuneration requirements:

  • Clarification on policy intent and refinement to the tier structure requirements, including defining "overriding benefits" and when they may be paid;
  • New restrictions on direct payment of remuneration to, and acceptance of remuneration by, representatives and/or supervisors of other FA firms.
MAS also suggested extending the application of the proposed refined tier structure requirements to all financial advisers, including exempt financial advisers that operate tier structures.

These proposals come on the back of MAS reprimanding a number of major insurers for failing to meet requirements on remuneration of FA supervisors in June 2021, and are set out in MAS' Consultation Paper titled "Proposals to Refine the Tier Structure Requirements and to Introduce New Requirements Relating to Remuneration”.

The consultation period is from 12 July 2021 to 13 August 2021.

Cautions against Using Statutory Demands Based on Adjudication Determinations
In Diamond Glass Enterprise Pte Ltd v Zhong Kai Construction Co Pte Ltd [2021] SGCA 61, the Singapore Court of Appeal had the occasion of considering the interaction between the temporary finality of adjudication determinations under the statutory adjudication regime in the Building and Construction Industry Security of Industry Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) and the corporate insolvency regime. The case involved winding-up proceedings against the applicant company on the basis of an unsatisfied statutory demand for payment of the sum awarded under an adjudication determination. The Court granted a stay of winding-up proceedings as the applicant had shown the prima facie existence of justiciable cross-claims.

This Update provides a summary of the decision and highlights the implications for successful claimants in statutory adjudication regarding their options for enforcement of the adjudication determination. 

CCCS Consults on Amendments to Penalty Guidelines
On 16 July 2021, the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore ("CCCS") announced a public consultation on proposed changes to the CCCS Guidelines on the Appropriate Amount of Penalty in Competition Cases ("Penalty Guidelines").

CCCS is seeking feedback on two clarificatory amendments to mitigating factors which are set out in the Penalty Guidelines. It is highly likely that these changes have been introduced following recent infringement decisions, including one which was appealed to the Competition Appeal Board.

The Consultation will run from 16 July 2021 to 5 August 2021, with feedback to be summarised and published in due course. We strongly recommend that businesses and trade associations in particular review the proposals very carefully and consider responding. 

Disagreement Over Relocation of Club Facilities: Members Awarded Nominal Damages for Failure to Prove Loss
In Meow Moy Lan and Others v Exklusiv Resorts Pte Ltd and Another [2021] SGHC 155, the Singapore High Court considered claims by a group of members of a social club against the club's owner and its indirect shareholder arising from the relocation of the club's facilities. The Court dismissed the majority of the 170 members' claims, which were brought via representative proceedings. Although the Court allowed the claim for breach of contract, it awarded nominal damages to the members as they had failed to prove that they had suffered loss as a result of the breach.

The club's owner and its indirect shareholder were represented by Vikram Nair and Foo Xian Fong of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP. This Update provides a summary and highlights the key points of the decision.  

Impending Changes to the Copyright Regime – Copyright Bill Introduced in Parliament
In February 2021, the Ministry of Law and the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore introduced and conducted a two-month long public consultation on the draft copyright bill which is set to repeal and replace the current Copyright Act (Cap. 60, Rev. Ed. 2006) as part of an overall review of Singapore's copyright regime. After incorporating the feedback received, the Copyright Bill ("Bill") was introduced for First Reading in Parliament by on 6 July 2021.

Overall, the Bill aims to ensure that copyright continues to reward the creation of works and that such works continue to be made available for the benefit of society at large, as well as to strengthen the copyright ecosystem. Amongst other things, the Bill aims to make copyright laws clear and accessible by employing plain English and by consolidating the exceptions to the rights granted to copyright owners into a "Permitted Uses" section. This Update highlights the key features of the Bill. 

Public Consultation on Proposed Amendments to Laws Governing Gambling Activities
The Ministry of Home Affairs ("MHA") is conducting a public consultation ("Consultation") on proposed amendments to the laws regulating gambling in Singapore. The amendments primarily seek to address two recent trends in the gambling landscape: (1) Advancements in technology – which have made gambling products more accessible, leading to the increase in online gambling; and (2) Blurring of boundaries between gambling and gaming, given that new business models have increasingly introduced gambling elements in products that are not traditionally not related to gambling, e.g. chance-based loot boxes in video games.

It appears that MHA intends to enact a single consolidated Act in order to streamline current provisions set out in the various disparate legislation, while simultaneously proposing updates to the law. This Update highlights the key points of the proposed amendments in the Consultation, and the implications and concerns arising from such changes. 

SGX Enhances SGX RegCo's Enforcement Powers and Disclosures on Whistleblowing Practices
With effect from 1 August 2021, Singapore Exchange Regulation ("SGX RegCo") will have a wider range of enforcement and administrative powers, including the power to require a director or executive officer to resign from an existing position with an issuer listed on the Singapore Exchange Securities Trading Limited. With effect from 1 January 2022, issuers listed on the SGX-ST Mainboard and Catalist ("listed issuers") will be required to state in their annual reports that they have put in place a whistleblowing policy, starting with their annual reports relating to financial years commencing from 1 January 2021.

These changes follow a public consultation conducted by the Singapore Exchange Limited in August 2020 on the proposals. The proposals received broad support from market participants.

This Update provides an overview of the key enhanced enforcement and administrative powers of SGX RegCo and the new requirement mandating a listed issuer to establish a whistleblowing policy.  

Commencement of Part 8C of the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act 2020
On 1 July 2021, Part 8C of the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act 2020 ("Part 8C") and the subsidiary legislation in the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Part 8C Relief) Regulations 2021 ("Part 8C Relief Regulations") came into operation. Part 8C serves to provide support to developers who face delays in the construction of properties due to the pandemic and are unable to meet the date of delivery of vacant possession to purchasers under the Sale and Purchase Agreement ("SPA"). Part 8C also allows purchasers to seek, from developers, reimbursement of certain qualifying costs (capped at 70% of the liquidated damages which the developer would originally have been liable under SPA) for expenses incurred by the purchasers as a result of the delay in delivery of possession of their units (after the delivery date/vacant possession date stated in the SPA).

This Update provides an overview of the key features of Part 8C and the Part 8C Relief Regulations. 

Contact Us