We are delighted to announce that Selvam LLC has been named an Impact Case Award Winner by Benchmark Litigation Asia-Pacific Awards 2022 for our involvement in the matter “Minority oppression claims against Mustafa boss, Mustaq Ahmad”.
A Litigation Vehicle for More Than 1,000 Plaintiffs: The Implications of POA Recovery Pte Ltd v Yau Kwok Seng on Representative Actions and the Doctrine of Maintenance in Singapore
How do 1,102 investors, who claim they have been duped into investing in a Ponzi scheme, bring an action in the Singapore courts? To many, the first thing to do would be to launch a class-action lawsuit against the respondents.
In Singapore, such “class-action” lawsuits operate differently from those in U.S. litigation. Traditionally, a group of litigants in Singapore with a common interest would have to band together to commence what is known as a “representative action,” pursuant to Order 15, Rule 12 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, 2014 Rev Ed). The alternative would be for the litigants to each commence separate proceedings and later consolidate them into one single action.
양식 싸움 The Battle of the Forms
무역 금융의 세계는 결코 간단하지 않습니다. 여러 기관, 경쟁 청구, 상계 (set-offs), 임무, 채무와 많은 관계 당사자들이 이루고 있습니다. 이 복잡한 환경을 탐색하는 것은 굉장히 어렵고, 수많은 법적 문제와 불확실성을 야기합니다.
CIMB Bank Bhd v World Fuel Services Singapore Pte Ltd [2021] SGCA 19의 사례에서 이 복잡함이 명백하게 드러납니다. 이 특정 사례에서는 항소법원이 고등법원과 완전히 반대되는 결론에 도달했습니다. 이 사례는 복잡한 다자간 무역금융계약의 어려움(downfall)을 강조하며, 법원의 계약서 해석에 대한 지침을 제공합니다. 법원은 문서의 진위 여부, 진위 입증 방식에 대한 요점을 고려하지만, 이번 기고문은 문제의 핵심인 무역금융 계약의 싸움에 초점을 맞출 것입니다.
The Battle of the Forms
The world of trade finance is never straightforward. Multiple facilities, competing claims, set-offs, assignments, debentures and multiple parties are, to the say the least, what make the backbone of trade finance. Navigating this complex landscape is tough, and raises a plethora of legal issues and uncertainties.
This complex landscape is evident in the case of CIMB Bank Bhd v World Fuel Services Singapore Pte Ltd [2021] SGCA 19, where the Court of Appeal considered and analysed the same issues of diametrically opposite competing contracts, and arrived at a completely opposite conclusion than that of the High Court.
To Hedge or not to Hedge? That is the (mitigatory) question.
Hedging contracts are well established in the Oil & Gas industry. It is a common risk management measure used to reduce a party’s exposure to the constantly fluctuating oil prices. Essentially, under a hedging contract, companies can establish their prices at a fixed price through a commodity swap or option. Hedging contracts are second nature to the industry, and most traders would not give a second thought as to whether such arrangements are reasonable. However, it was this very issue that was put forth before both the High Court and the Court of Appeal in Apex Energy International Pte Ltd v Wanxiang Resources (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2020] SGHC 138. The Singapore Courts had to determine whether, following a breach of contract of sale, whether a hedging arrangement was a reasonable mitigation in the quantification of the aggrieved parties losses. We successfully acted for Apex Energy in proving that a hedging arrangement is a reasonable mitigation measure.
Continue reading “To Hedge or not to Hedge? That is the (mitigatory) question.”