DOCSLIB.ORG

Singapore Exchange July 2018 – June 2019

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Singapore Exchange July 2018 – June 2019 Singapore Exchange July 2018 – June 2019 Annual Report 2019 01 Corporate Information Board of Directors Board Committees Registered Offi ce Chairman Audit Committee Singapore Exchange Limited Mr Kwa Chong Seng Chairman 2 Shenton Way #02-02 Mr Kevin Kwok SGX Centre 1 Chief Executive Offi cer Singapore 068804 Mr Loh Boon Chye Members t +65 6236 8888 Ms Jane Diplock AO f +65 6535 6994 Members Mr Liew Mun Leong w sgx.com Mr Thaddeus Beczak Ms Chew Gek Khim Nominating & Ms Jane Diplock AO Governance Committee Place of Incorporation Mr Kevin Kwok Chairman Mr Liew Mun Leong Mr Kwa Chong Seng Singapore Mr Lim Chin Hu Ms Lim Sok Hui (Mrs Chng Sok Hui) Members Mr Ng Wai King Ms Chew Gek Khim Company Registration No. Appointed on 20 September 2018 Mr Kevin Kwok Mr Subra Suresh Mr Liew Mun Leong 199904940D Appointed on 20 September 2018 Mr Lim Chin Hu Appointed on 20 September 2018 Mr Subra Suresh Date of Incorporation Company Secretaries Appointed on 20 September 2018 21 August 1999 Ms Ding Hui Yun Remuneration & Mr Seah Kim Ming Glenn Staff Development Committee Investor Relations Chairman Share Registrar Mr Kwa Chong Seng For enquiries on SGX’s business performance, contact the Boardroom Corporate & Members Investor Relations team at Advisory Services Pte. Ltd. Ms Chew Gek Khim e [email protected] 50 Raffl es Place #32-01 Mr Liew Mun Leong Singapore Land Tower Mr Ng Wai King Singapore 048623 Appointed on 20 September 2018 Sustainability t +65 6536 5355 f +65 6438 8710 Risk Management e [email protected] e [email protected] Committee w boardroomlimited.com Chairman Ms Lim Sok Hui (Mrs Chng Sok Hui) Auditor Members PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Mr Thaddeus Beczak 7 Straits View Ms Jane Diplock AO Marina One East Tower Mr Kevin Kwok Level 12 Mr Lim Chin Hu Singapore 018936 t +65 6236 3388 w pwc.com/sg Partner-in-Charge Ms Deborah Tan Yang Sock (Mrs Deborah Ong) Appointed on 1 July 2014 Singapore Exchange 02 Asia's Most International Exchange Headquartered in AAA-rated Singapore, with offices in nine cities around the world, SGX is a global multi-asset exchange operating equity, fixed income, currency and commodity markets to the highest regulatory standards. Annual Report 2019 03 Singapore Exchange 04 Contents 08 Equities and Fixed Income 10 Business Derivatives Financial Highlights & at a Glance Market Data and Connectivity Performance Review Equities and Derivatives Fixed Income Issuer 9% Services 11% Issuer Services $459.7m 20% $79.7m Securities Market Data Trading and Clearing Revenue and Connectivity 38% $910m Securities Trading and Clearing 8% from $845m $182.1m $102.5m 51% 9% Post Trade Services Post Trade Services $85.7m 12 SGX Bull Charge Corporate Social has raised Responsibility $32m Number of charities aided 50 Annual Report 2019 05 Performance Overview 06 Our International Network 08 Business at a Glance 09 Financial Performance Summary 10 Financial Highlights & Performance Review 12 Corporate Social Responsibility Group Overview 16 Letter from the Chairman and the CEO 20 Board of Directors 26 Executive Management Committee 30 Organisation Value Creation & Sustainability 34 How We Create Value 36 Key Trends 38 Strategic Priorities 40 Risk Management 44 Creating Sustainable Value Governance 58 Corporate Governance Report 78 Remuneration Report 84 Self-Regulatory Organisation Governance Report 91 Report of Independent Committees 16 Financials Letter from the Chairman and the CEO 98 Directors’ Statement 108 Independent Auditor’s Report 112 Statements of Comprehensive Income 114 Statements of Financial Position FY2019 was one of our best-performing years as we 116 Statements of Changes in Equity delivered a net profit of S$391.1 million, our highest in 119 Statement of Cash Flows 11 years. Revenue of S$909.8 million was also the 120 Notes to the Financial Statements highest since our listing in 2000. Others Our robust and resilient performance shows that we 183 Statistics of Shareholdings have taken the right strategy to serve the world as 184 Notice of Annual General Meeting a trusted and efficient global multi-asset exchange, 190 Supplemental Information on providing a single point of access into Asia. Directors Seeking Re-election Online Annual Report http://investorrelations.sgx.com/ fi nancial-information/annual-reports Performance Overview Singapore Exchange 06 Our International Network 08 04 07 05 06 02 03 01 Legend SGX Offices & Members SGX Offices SGX Members 11 Offices 01 San Francisco 03 New York 4 Palo Alto Square 340 Madison Avenue, Suite 1919 3000 El Camino Real, Suite 200 New York 10173, USA 17 Cities Palo Alto, CA 94306, USA SGX is Asia’s most international and connected exchange, with established linkages across the world. We will continue to cement our position as a multi-asset exchange, while growing our 02 Chicago 04 London international presence and widening 155 North Wacker Drive 38 St Mary Axe our partnerships and networks. Suite 4250, Chicago London EC3A 8BH IL 60606, USA 05 France 06 Switzerland 07 Germany 08 Netherlands 09 United Arab Emirates Annual Report 2019 07 Performance Overview 15 16 17 14 Group Overview Group 09 12 13 10 11 Value Creation & Sustainability 10 Mumbai 12 Hong Kong 15 Beijing 9th Floor Platina (Regus) Unit 12B, 12/F No. 6 Wudinghou Street G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex No. 33 Des Voeux Road Central Excel Centre, Unit 1905-A Bandra (East) Hong Kong Xicheng District Mumbai – 400 051, India Beijing 100032, China Governance 11 Singapore 13 Taiwan 16 South Korea 2 Shenton Way 14 Shanghai 17 Tokyo #02-02 SGX Centre 1 Singapore 068804 Room 2829, 28F Level 14, Hibiya Central Building Financials Shanghai World Financial Center 1-2-9 Nishi Shimbashi 11 North Buona Vista Drive 100 Century Avenue, Pudong Minato-ku, Tokyo #06–07 The Metropolis Tower 2 Shanghai 200120, China 105-0003 Japan Singapore 138589 Others Performance Overview Singapore Exchange 08 Business at a Glance 5% 5% Market data Listing 6% 4% Corporate Connectivity actions and other Issuer 9% Services Market Data and Connectivity 11% 20% Securities Trading and Equities Clearing 15% and Fixed Revenue Income Securities 38% clearing $910m 4% Access 8% from $845m 1% Derivatives Collateral 9% management, Post Trade membership 51% Services and other 32% 8% Equity and Commodities Securities settlement 19% 1% Collateral management, Depository licence, membership management and other Operating Profi t Net Profi t 9% from $425m 8% from $363m $461m $391m Earnings per Share Dividend per Share Return on Equity 8% from 33.9¢ Unchanged 2% pts from 34% 36.5¢ 30¢ 36% All comparatives are for the year earlier. Annual Report 2019 09 Financial Performance Summary ($million) FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 Statement of Income Performance Overview Revenue 779 818 801 845 910 Expenses 377 409 399 420 449 Operating profit 402 409 402 425 461 Profit before tax and share of results of associated companies and joint venture 410 416 409 436 475 Net profit attributable to equity holders 349 349 340 363 391 Statement of Cash Flows Cash flows from operating activities 429 423 378 427 418 Overview Group Statement of Financial Position Total assets 1,801 2,105 2,041 2,115 2,132 – Unrestricted cash and cash equivalents 633 598 520 550 446 – Committed for derivatives clearing fund 150 200 200 200 150 – Committed for securities clearing fund 60 60 60 60 60 – Committed for National Electricity Market of Singapore 7 8 16 22 11 Total liabilities 825 1,115 1,009 1,019 1,041 Total equity 976 990 1,032 1,096 1,091 – Includes proposed final dividend of 171 139 139 161 80 Value Creation & Sustainability Capital expenditure 76 75 67 65 58 No. of shares issued (million) 1,072 1,072 1,072 1,072 1,072 No. of shares held as treasury shares (million) 1 2 2 2 2 Financial Indicators Revenue growth (%) 13.5 5.1 (2.1) 5.5 7.7 Governance Operating profit margin (%) 51.6 50.0 50.2 50.3 50.7 Cost-to-income ratio (%) 48.4 50.0 49.8 49.7 49.3 Net gearing NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL Operating cash flow per share (cents) 40.1 39.6 35.3 39.9 39.0 Net asset value per ordinary share as at 30 June (dollars) 0.91 0.93 0.96 1.02 1.02 Based on net profit attributable to equity holders Net profit margin (%) 44.3 42.1 41.9 42.4 42.4 Financials Return on equity (%) 36.7 35.5 33.6 34.1 35.8 Dividend payout ratio (%) 86.0 85.9 88.2 88.4 82.1 Basic earnings per share (cents) 32.6 32.6 31.7 33.9 36.5 Others Performance Overview Singapore Exchange 10 Financial Highlights & Performance Review Equities and Equities and Fixed Income revenue decreased $59.1 million or 15% to $347.5 million Fixed Income ($406.6 million), accounting for 38% (48%) of total revenue. Issuer Services Securities Trading and Clearing Post Trade Services Revenue decreased $6.5 million or 7% to Revenue decreased $39.0 million or 18% to Revenue decreased $13.6 million or 14% to $79.7 million ($86.2 million), accounting for $182.1 million ($221.1 million), accounting for $85.7 million ($99.3 million), accounting for 9% (10%) of total revenue. for 20% (26%) of total revenue. 9% (12%) of total revenue. Contribution to total revenue: 9% Contribution to total revenue: 20% Contribution to total revenue: 9% Revenue 7% from $86.2m Revenue 18% from $221.1m Revenue 14% from $99.3m $79.7m$182.1m$85.7m Securities clearing 76% Access 19% Listing 57% Securities Collateral settlement 89% Corporate management, actions membership Depository and other 43% and other 5% management 11% Type of Revenue $m % change Type of Revenue $m % change Type of Revenue $m % change Listing 45.8 -11% Securities clearing 138.9 -19% Securities settlement 76.6 -13% Corporate actions Access 34.3 -16% Depository management 9.1 +10% and other 34.0 -2% Collateral management, membership and other 9.0 -6% There were 1,066 bond listings raising Securities daily average traded value Securities settlement revenue declined $451.7 billion, compared to 1,154 listings (SDAV) decreased 17% to $1.04 billion due to a downward re-pricing of our raising $481.9 billion a year earlier.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 7. Civil Procedure
    (2008) 9 SAL Ann Rev Civil Procedure 143 7. CIVIL PROCEDURE Cavinder BULL SC MA (Oxford), LLM (Harvard); Barrister (Gray’s Inn), Attorney-at-Law (New York State); Advocate and Solicitor (Singapore). Jeffrey PINSLER SC LLB (Liverpool), LLM (Cambridge), LLD (Liverpool); Barrister (Middle Temple), Advocate and Solicitor (Singapore); Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore. Appeals Leave to appeal 7.1 In Blenwel Agencies Pte Ltd v Tan Lee King [2008] 2 SLR 529, the Court of Appeal held that where the High Court has refused leave to appeal against a decision of the District Court, there can be no further recourse after the High Court has adjudicated on the matter. This case was an extension of the Court of Appeal’s previous judgment in SBS Transit Ltd v Koh Swee Ann [2004] 3 SLR 365, which concerned an application for leave to appeal against the decision of a Magistrate’s Court. 7.2 Andrew Phang JA reiterated the fundamental principle that where a legal decision cannot be appealed against as of right but requires express permission from a named authority before it can be appealed against, the decision of that authority as to whether or not to grant leave to appeal is final (Blenwel Agencies Pte Ltd v Tan Lee King [2008] 2 SLR 529 at [14]). It is clear from s 21(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) that the High Court is the authority with the final say as to whether to grant or refuse leave to appeal against a decision of the Subordinate Courts.
    [Show full text]
  • Minlaw) Invited Applications for the Second Round of Qualifying Foreign Law Practice (QFLP) Licences on 1 July 2012
    PRESS RELEASE AWARD OF THE SECOND ROUND OF QUALIFYING FOREIGN LAW PRACTICE LICENCES The Ministry of Law (MinLaw) invited applications for the second round of Qualifying Foreign Law Practice (QFLP) licences on 1 July 2012. Twenty-three applications were received by the closing date of 31 August 2012. 2 QFLP licences will be awarded to the following four firms (listed in alphabetical order): Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher; Jones Day; Linklaters, and Sidley Austin. 3 The firms will have up to six months from 1 April 2013 to commence their operations as QFLPs, and their licences will be valid for an initial period of five years from the respective start dates. Background 4 The QFLP scheme was introduced in 2008 following the recommendations of the Committee to Develop the Legal Sector chaired by Justice V K Rajah. The Committee, which included senior lawyers from top local firms, assessed that local firms and local lawyers would benefit from the increased foreign presence and competition over time. 5 The QFLP licences allow Foreign Law Practices (FLPs) to practise in permitted areas of Singapore law1. The scheme seeks to support the growth of key economic sectors, grow the legal sector, as well as to offer additional 1 Permitted areas are all areas except domestic areas of litigation and general practice, for example, criminal law, retail conveyancing, family law and administrative law. The QFLPs can practise the permitted areas through Singapore-qualified lawyers with practising certificates or foreign lawyers holding the foreign practitioner certificate. 1 opportunities for our lawyers. A total of six FLPs2 were awarded QFLP licences in the first round in 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • Grounds of Decision
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE [2020] SGHC 208 Originating Summons No 980 of 2018 Between Republic of India … Plaintiff And Vedanta Resources plc … Defendant GROUNDS OF DECISION [Arbitration] — [Confidentiality] — [Documents] [Arbitration] — [Confidentiality] — [Evidence used in other proceedings] [Arbitration] — [Interlocutory order or direction] — [Court’s power] [Arbitration] — [Arbitral tribunal] — [Competence] [Arbitration] — [Conduct of arbitration] — [Preliminary issues] [Arbitration] — [Declaratory relief] TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1 BACKGROUND FACTS ................................................................................4 THE CAIRN GROUP RESTRUCTURING...............................................................4 INDIA ISSUES ASSESSMENT ORDERS.................................................................4 COMMENCEMENT OF THE ARBITRATIONS ........................................................5 THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNALS ISSUE PROCEDURAL ORDERS ................................6 Cairn Arbitration Procedural Order No. 10..............................................7 Vedanta Arbitration Procedural Order No. 3............................................9 Vedanta Arbitration Procedural Order No. 6..........................................10 Vedanta Arbitration Procedural Order No. 7..........................................11 THE PRELIMINARY QUESTION .............................................................12
    [Show full text]
  • SCMA Distinguished Speaker Series 2014 10 November 2014 Maxwell Chambers MAKING WAVES in ARBITRATION – the SINGAPORE EXPERIENCE Justice Steven Chong
    SCMA Distinguished Speaker Series 2014 10 November 2014 Maxwell Chambers MAKING WAVES IN ARBITRATION – THE SINGAPORE EXPERIENCE Justice Steven Chong I INTRODUCTION 1. Singapore’s rise in prominence in the international arbitration scene has been nothing short of remarkable. It was not more than 20 years ago that we were, in the frank assessment of others, a jurisdiction “naïve of the needs of international commercial arbitration” – a country that “just didn’t get it”.1 Today, however, international opinion about us could not be more different. Take a glance at the recent literature around you and this is immediately apparent. From international surveys to legal bulletins, Singapore has been completely recast as a “regional leader in Asia”,2 a “world-class trailblazer”,3 and a country now firmly finding her place “within a magic circle of global arbitration players”.4 Such admirable recognition certainly gives one a sense of how far we have come, but I believe there is really no better way to appreciate the scale of Singapore’s achievements than to look at the numbers which bear this out. 1 See the anecdotal evidence of Cavinder Bull, SC in “A Hotbed for Arbitration Talent” reported in The Business Times dated 18 May 2011 2 Queen Mary, University of London and White & Case LLP, 2010 International Arbitration Survey: Choices in International Arbitration at p 2 3 Lucy Reed, Mark Mangan and Darius Chan, “Follow the Leader - The Rise of Singapore as a World- Class Arbitration Centre” accessible at <http://www.legalweek.com/legal- week/feature/2221770/follow-the-leader-emulating-singapores-success> 4 Richard Tan, “The Emergence of Singapore as a Global Arbitration Hub: Reasons for its Success” (2013) 79(4) Arbitration 436 1 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Dinner Hosted by the Judiciary for the Forum of Senior Counsel
    DINNER HOSTED BY THE JUDICIARY FOR THE FORUM OF SENIOR COUNSEL FRIDAY, 14 MAY 2010 REMARKS BY CHIEF JUSTICE CHAN SEK KEONG Ladies and Gentlemen: My colleagues and I warmly welcome you to tonight’s dinner, the second that the Judiciary is hosting for the Forum of Senior Counsel. In particular, I would welcome my predecessor as AG, Mr Tan Boon Teik who, instead of relaxing at home, has taken the trouble to join us tonight. The presence of so many Judges of the Supreme Court and Senior Counsel augurs well for this annual series of dinners evolving into a tradition that will continue to strengthen the bonds between the Bar and the Judiciary. 2. This dinner is not meant to be an occasion for long boring speeches, so I will keep my remarks short and make only three points. First, the Institute of Legal Education is in the process of developing a framework for Continuing Professional Development (CPD) in Singapore. Justice V K Rajah and his committee have been working very hard to set up a CPD programme that will be effective and meaningful to the Bar. It will be a serious programme, under which we will drag unwilling horses to the trough to drink. But we hope that the CPD programme will provide a true learning experience and not be a wasteful imposition on the Bar. It will be a great achievement if members of the Bar welcome this programme and not dismiss it as being a PR exercise. 2 3. When the CPD programme is finalised, we will need Senior Counsel and leading members of the corporate Bar to become lecturers, instructors and mentors.
    [Show full text]
  • Rankine Bernadette Adeline V Chenet Finance
    Rankine Bernadette Adeline v Chenet Finance Ltd [2011] SGHC 79 Case Number : Suit No 971 of 2009 (Registrar's Appeal No.122 of 2010) Decision Date : 31 March 2011 Tribunal/Court : High Court Coram : Kan Ting Chiu J Counsel Name(s) : Cavinder Bull SC and Gerui Lim (Instructed) (Drew & Napier LLC), and Dawn Tan (Eldan Law LLP) for the Plaintiff; N Sreenivasan and K Gopalan (Straits Law Practice) for the Defendant. Parties : Rankine Bernadette Adeline — Chenet Finance Ltd CIVIL PROCEDURE – summary judgment 31 March 2011 Kan Ting Chiu J: 1 In this action, the Defendant, Chenet Finance Limited, was given conditional leave to defend the claim of the Plaintiff, Rankine Bernadette Adeline. The Defendant has appealed against my order. In the meantime, final judgment has been entered after the Defendant failed to comply with the condition imposed. The claim 2 The Plaintiff was a holder of 1,000,000 shares of a company Berlian Ferries Pte Ltd (“Berlian”) in May 2004. The Plaintiff discovered that those shares in Berlian (“the shares”) had purportedly been sold by her with consideration paid to her, and that the Defendant was the purchaser of the shares. As the Plaintiff had not agreed to sell the shares to the Defendant and had not received any consideration from the Defendant, she sought from Berlian copies of any transfer of shares signed by her. Berlian in turn informed the Defendant that it (Berlian) did not have the transfer forms relating to the shares. Berlian also informed the Defendant that as the Defendant’s representatives had inspected and made copies from the secretarial files of Berlian, the Defendant should reply to the Plaintiff, but the Defendant had not supplied copies of the transfer forms to the Plaintiff.
    [Show full text]
  • Engaging New Media: Challenging Old Assumptions, Is Our First
    // ENGAGING NEW MEDIA / / CHALLENGING OLD ASSUMPTIONS A report by the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS) December 2008 // ENGAGING NEW MEDIA / / CHALLENGING OLD ASSUMPTIONS A report by the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society Singapore December 2008 Published December 2008 ISSN 1793-8961 © Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanised, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the copyright holder. TABLE OF CONTENTS p 2—3 // Foreword / p 5—9 // Introduction / p 11—25 // Executive Summary / p 27—49 Chapter 1 // E-Engagement / / Trends in New Media / Why Engage Online? / Embarking on E-Engagement / E-Participation / Barriers to E-Engagement / Reasons for E-Engagement / Risk Assessment / Public Feedback / Recommendations Following Public Feedback / Conclusion p 51—78 Chapter 2 // Online Political Content / / Background / Review of Light-touch Policy / Online Election Advertising in Other Countries / Proposed Recommendations in the Consultation Paper / Public Feedback / Recommendations Following Public Feedback / Conclusion p 80—107 Chapter 3 // Protection of Minors / / Risks to Minors / How are these Risks Managed? / The Key Lies in Education / What is Being Done in Singapore / Proposed Recommendations in the Consultation Paper / Public Feedback / AIMS' Views / Recommendations Following Public Feedback
    [Show full text]
  • 7. Civil Procedure
    (2007) 8 SAL Ann Rev Civil Procedure 99 7. CIVIL PROCEDURE Cavinder BULL SC MA (Oxford), LLM (Harvard); Barrister (Gray’s Inn), Attorney-at-Law (New York State); Advocate and Solicitor (Singapore). Jeffrey PINSLER SC LLB (Liverpool), LLM (Cambridge), LLD (Liverpool); Barrister (Middle Temple), Advocate and Solicitor (Singapore); Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore. Accounts 7.1 Where a party renders accounts in compliance with the terms of a judgment, it is not appropriate for the opposing party (who contests the accounting period relied upon) to make an application by summons for the purpose of determining the correct accounting period. This is a matter which must be left to the determination of the registrar at the inquiry into those accounts. Such an application was made pursuant to a consent judgment in Seiko Epson Corp v Sepoms Technology Pte Ltd [2007] 3 SLR 225. The High Court considered O 43 r 3 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) in conjunction with O 38 r 8 and concluded that an application for an interlocutory hearing by summons was misconceived (at [14]–[15]). Appeals Court’s discretion to waive security deposit 7.2 In Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party [2008] 1 SLR 757, the Court of Appeal held that the provision for security deposit stipulated in O 57 r 3(3) is mandatory and therefore cannot be waived by the court. 7.3 Waiving the provision for security deposit, even for a bankrupt, would effectively allow the applicant a right of appeal free from any need to compensate the plaintiffs if his appeal fails.
    [Show full text]
  • Ng Chee Weng V Lim Jit Ming Bryan and Another [2011] SGHC 120 Case Number : Suit No
    Ng Chee Weng v Lim Jit Ming Bryan and another [2011] SGHC 120 Case Number : Suit No. 453 of 2009/F (Registrar's Appeal No.379 of 2010/D) Decision Date : 16 May 2011 Tribunal/Court : High Court Coram : Kan Ting Chiu J Counsel Name(s) : Tan Cheng Han SC (instructed) and Vijay Kumar (Vijay & Co) for the Plaintiff; Cavinder Bull SC, Woo Shu Yan and Lin Shumin (Drew & Napier LLC) for the Defendants. Parties : Ng Chee Weng — Lim Jit Ming Bryan and another Civil Procedure – Pleadings 16 May 2011 Kan Ting Chiu J: 1 The plaintiff Ng Chee Weng applied to amend his Statement of Claim against the defendants. Some of the amendments were dismissed by an Assistant Registrar (“AR”), and the plaintiff appealed against the dismissal. I affirmed the AR’s decision and set out my grounds. Background 2 On 26 May 2009, when the plaintiff commenced the action against the defendants, he set out the basis of his claim in para 1 of the Statement of Claim: The Plaintiff was the beneficial owner of 50% of the shareholding in Sinco Technologies Pte Ltd (the “Company”) which was held in trust for the Plaintiff by the 1st Defendant up to April 2007. The Plaintiff was therefore entitled to dividend payments made whilst he was the beneficial owner of the 50% shareholding interests in the Company. 3 The Statement of Claim went on to state that the plaintiff had sold his shares in the company to the first defendant: 17. On or about late April or May 2007, the 1st Defendant approached the Plaintiff inquiring if the Plaintiff was interested in selling all his 50% shareholding in the Company to the 1st Defendant.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the Committee to Develop the Singapore Legal Sector
    REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO DEVELOP THE SINGAPORE LEGAL SECTOR _________________________________________ FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2007 Report of the Committee to Develop the Singapore Legal Sector Table of Contents 1 BACKGROUND....................................................................................................... 1 2 LEGAL EDUCATION ............................................................................................. 2 (A) Legal Academia............................................................................................ 3 (I) Changing Legal Education Landscape......................................... 3 (II) Synergy between Academia and Industry .................................. 5 (III) Recommendations........................................................................... 5 (B) ‘A’ Level Law................................................................................................ 7 (I) Potential Benefits of Introducing ‘A’ Level Law......................... 8 (II) Costs of Implementing ‘A’ Level Law.......................................... 8 (III) Recommendation............................................................................. 9 (C) Restructuring the Present Legal Education System.............................. 9 (I) Admission Criteria for Law Schools............................................. 9 (II) Structure of the LLB Course..........................................................10 (III) Review of Content..........................................................................12
    [Show full text]
  • SAL Annual Report 2001
    SINGAPORE ACADEMY OF LAW ANNUAL REPORT Financial year 2001/2002 MISSION STATEMENT Building up the intellectual capital, capability and infrastructure of members of the Singapore Academy of Law. Promotion of esprit de corps among members of the Singapore Academy of Law. SINGAPORE ACADEMY OF LAW ANNUAL REPORT 1 April 2001 - 31 march 2002 5Foreword 7Introduction 13 Annual Report 2001/2002 43 Highlights of the Year 47 Annual Accounts 2001/2002 55 Thanking the Fraternity Located in City Hall, the Singapore Academy of Law is a body which brings together the legal profession in Singapore. FOReWoRD SINGAPORE ACADEMY OF LAW FOREWORD by Chief Justice Yong Pung How President, Singapore Academy of Law From a membership body in 1988 with a staff strength of less than ten, the Singapore Academy of Law has grown to become an internationally-recognised organisation serving many functions and having two subsidiary companies – the Singapore Mediation Centre and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre. The year 2001/2002 was a fruitful one for the Academy and its subsidiaries. The year kicked off with an immersion programme in Information Technology Law for our members. The inaugural issue of the Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review of Singapore Cases 2000 was published, followed soon after by the publication of a book, “Developments in Singapore Law between 1996 and 2000”. The Singapore International Arbitration Centre launched its Domestic Arbitration Rules in May 2001, and together with the Singapore Mediation Centre, launched the Singapore Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy for resolving “.sg” domain name disputes. The Academy created a Legal Development Fund of $5 million to be spread over 5 years for the development of the profession in new areas of law and practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Cavinder Bull CV
    Cavinder Bull, SC Chief Executive Officer B.A. (Hons), Oxford University (UK, 1992) M.A. Oxford University (UK, 2001) LL.M., Harvard Law School (USA, 1996) Barrister of England & Wales (1993) Advocate & Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore (1994) Attorney-at-Law of the state of New York (1996) Appointed Senior Counsel (2008) T: +65 6531 2416 F: +65 6533 3591 E: [email protected] ABOUT CAVINDER associate. In 1995, he was awarded the Lee Kuan Yew Scholarship and left for Harvard Cavinder is the Chief Executive Officer of Law School where he received an LL.M. He Drew & Napier. He has over 25 years of passed the New York Bar exams and was experience in complex litigation and admitted to practice in New York. Cavinder international arbitration. He is engaged in trial practiced as a litigation associate with Sullivan and appellate advocacy at all levels of the & Cromwell in New York until late 1997 when Singapore Courts and appears as counsel in he returned to Singapore and Drew & Napier. international arbitration in various countries. He was made a partner of Drew & Napier in He is also co-head of the Competition Law & 1998 and a Director of the firm in May 2002. Regulatory Practice. He was appointed Senior Counsel by the Cavinder has acted as counsel in both Chief Justice of Singapore in 2008, one of a commercial and investor-state cases; and has handful to have been accorded the honour experience acting for States and investors. He before the age of 40. has also sat as an arbitrator in investor-state Cavinder graduated with First Class Honours arbitrations under the auspices of ICSID, in law from Oxford University in 1992, winning NAFTA, the Permanent Court of Arbitration the Bellot Prize for Public International Law (PCA), International Court of Arbitration (ICC), from Trinity College.
    [Show full text]