解读新加坡更新版全球投资者计划(GIP)

新加坡的全球投资者计划(以下简称“GIP”)是由新加坡经济发展局(以下简称“EDB”)推出的一项永久居留权计划,旨在鼓励高净值个人和企业家在新加坡进行投资。该计划为有愿意投资大量资金的合格申请人提供了获得新加坡永久居留权的快速路径。

在EDB最近的一份公告中,该计划将在今年3月发生一些变化。此次调整是为了更好地筛选并吸引有能力为新加坡带来重大经济影响的投资者,同时使他们在新加坡扎根。希望高净值外国投资能更积极地参与到新加坡的经济活动中,共同推动当地的经济增长。

Continue reading “解读新加坡更新版全球投资者计划(GIP)”

The Appointment of Daniel Soo as the Head of Selvam LLC’s Restructuring and Insolvency Group

SINGAPORE, 14 October 2022 ― Selvam LLC is pleased to announce the appointment of Daniel Soo as the head of its Restructuring and Insolvency Group. Soo will continue as a partner in the firm’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution Group.

Continue reading “The Appointment of Daniel Soo as the Head of Selvam LLC’s Restructuring and Insolvency Group”

了解新加坡NFT消费者保护

非同质化代币(NFT)是区块链上的加密代币,其可以证明数字资产的所有权和真实性,也可以被看作是有所有权证的数字数据。NFT是不可替代的,因为没有相同的两个NFT,每个NFT都有唯一的识别号和元数据。

作为买卖数字艺术品的一种模式,NFT正变得越来越流行,其允许艺术家将其真实的数字艺术品货币化,否则这些数字艺术品很容易被复制。至关重要的是,NFT可以与数字艺术品和实物艺术品一起证明出处。此外,某些NFT可能涉及卖方向买方提供通行证,该通行证允许NFT持有人获得独家商品或服务,包括活动、订阅、内容或限量版产品。 Continue reading “了解新加坡NFT消费者保护”

Understanding Consumer Protections for NFTs in Singapore

Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are cryptographic tokens on a blockchain that can prove the ownership and authenticity of a digital asset, which can also be considered as digital data with a certificate of ownership. NFTs are non-fungible because no two NFTs are the same and each has a unique identification code and metadata.

NFTs are becoming increasingly popular as a mode to buy and sell digital artworks, permitting artists to monetise their authentic digital artwork, which could otherwise easily be copied. Crucially, NFTs can be used with both digital and physical artwork for establishing provenance. In addition, certain NFTs may involve the seller providing the buyer with an access pass, which allows NFT holders access to exclusive goods or services, including events, subscriptions, content, or limited-edition products.

Continue reading “Understanding Consumer Protections for NFTs in Singapore”

一些常见错误的避免 – 当拥有新加坡子公司的中国企业寻求IPO时。

2020年当中,全球有1415次首次公开募股(”IPO“),为相关公司筹集了3313亿美元的资金 。这在年同比交易量和筹集的收益方面,显示了大幅增长。相较2019年全球也只有1040宗IPO,总共筹集了1992亿美元的资金。考虑到新冠疫情使世界各地的IPO活动在2020年4月和5月急剧放缓,2020年的数据就显得更加突出了。

当下的亚太地区(APAC)是个非常值得关注的地区。2020年全球范围启动的IPO数量中,多过一半(约占全球IPO总数的52% )是在亚太地区的交易所进行的。尤其是亚太地区的主要热点中国(不包括台湾和香港), 仅中国单单就进行了365宗IPO,总共筹集了640亿美金。上海证券交易所(”上交所“)和深圳证券交易所(”深交所“)在2020年分别有234和161宗IPO 。这表示中国的上市量比2019年的202宗IPO大幅增加了81%。2021年前三个月的IPO增长看似完全没有消减的迹象,多达143家中国公司完成IPO,总共筹集高达236亿美元资金 。2021年9月3日,北京证券交易所(“北交所”)成立,旨在服务创新型中小企业。根据其2021年市场统计数据,2021年共有82家公司上市,融资金额为75.22亿人民币(约合11.81亿美金) 。

Continue reading “一些常见错误的避免 – 当拥有新加坡子公司的中国企业寻求IPO时。”

MAS amends Sections 13O & 13U Application Guidelines for Family Offices in Singapore

MAS Amends Sections 13O and 13U Application Guidelines for Family Offices in Singapore

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has amended its requirements for family offices[1] applying for tax incentive schemes pursuant to Sections 13O and 13U of the Income Tax Act 1947 (the Act). The following amended policies apply to all first preliminary submissions received by MAS on or after 18 April 2022 for these schemes, and MAS may require applications that have received no communication from MAS for a span of at least six months to be resubmitted under the amended guidelines. The following applications are not subject to the amended policies:

Continue reading “MAS amends Sections 13O & 13U Application Guidelines for Family Offices in Singapore”

Pitfalls to Avoid When Chinese Companies with Singapore Subsidiaries Seek an IPO

In 2020, there were 1,415 initial public offerings (IPOs) globally, which raised a total of USD $331.3 billion in proceeds for the companies involved. This represented a significant increase year-on-year in terms of both volume of transactions and proceeds raised. In contrast, there were only 1,040 IPOs globally in 2019, which raised a combined capital of USD $199.2 billion. The 2020 figures are even more remarkable considering that the COVID-19 pandemic had slowed IPO activity around the world dramatically in April and May 2020.

Continue reading “Pitfalls to Avoid When Chinese Companies with Singapore Subsidiaries Seek an IPO”

Duane Morris & Selvam LLP acts on Platinum Equity’s US$306m Sale of Singapore-based Electronics Manufacturer PCI Limited to Celestica Inc.

SINGAPORE, 22 September 2021 – Duane Morris & Selvam LLP (DMS) acted as international counsel to Platinum Equity on the sale of PCI Limited (“PCI”) at US$306m to Celestica Inc. The sale is expected to close in the fourth quarter of 2021.

Founded in 1995 by Tom Gores, Platinum Equity is a global investment firm with more than $25 billion of assets under management and a portfolio of approximately 50 operating companies that serve customers around the world. The firm is currently investing from Platinum Equity Capital Partners V, a $10 billion global buyout fund, and Platinum Equity Small Cap Fund, a $1.5 billion buyout fund focused on investment opportunities in the lower middle market. The company acquired PCI in April 2019 in a public-to-private transaction.

Continue reading “Duane Morris & Selvam LLP acts on Platinum Equity’s US$306m Sale of Singapore-based Electronics Manufacturer PCI Limited to Celestica Inc.”

违约金在英美法合同中有效吗?

我们经常在中国法管辖的合同中看到违约金/罚金这样的条款,常常规定如果合同一方不如约履行合同,则需要支付一定数额的违约金给对方。根据我国《合同法》规定,我国对于损害赔偿的范围采纳的是可预见性标准,同样该标准也适用于违约金条款,即违约金不仅可以包括因违约造成的实际损失,还可以包括合同履行后的可得利益。

但是违约金的适用有一定的限制,一般来说合同违约金的上限是不超过实际损失的30%,但是过高或者过低都是可以请求人民法院或者仲裁机构予以适当减少或者增加的。由于这项要求,大部分中国法合同都会在合同中约定相当可观的违约金,因为即使约定的过高,也可以在经过法院或者仲裁机构调整后予以执行,还可以避免在出现违约情况后再来计算损害赔偿数额。而且高额的违约金,也会对合同各方有一定的震慑作用,使得合同各方因忌惮高额的违约金而有积极履行合同的动力。

Continue reading “违约金在英美法合同中有效吗?”

新加坡科技准证(Tech Pass)正式启动

早于去年年末,新加坡经济发展局就曾宣布将于今年推出一种新型准证Tech Pass,旨在吸引全球顶尖科技人才前往新加坡,以促进新加坡科技态系统的发展,进一步巩固新加坡作为区域科技枢纽的领先地位。近期,新加坡经济发展局正式启动了Tech Pass,申请人已经可以在其官网上提交申请了。

哪些人可以申请科技准证?

申请人不必必须受雇于新加坡企业,其可以是新加坡企业的雇员,也可以直接在新加坡进行创业、做投资人、担任董事等。申请人只要满足以下三项条件中的两项就可以申请科技准证。当前持有工作准证(Employment Pass)、 个人化就业准证(Personalized Employment Pass)等准证的人员,若在符合条件的情况下亦可以申请更换其准证为科技准证。

Continue reading “新加坡科技准证(Tech Pass)正式启动”

© 2009- Duane Morris LLP. Duane Morris is a registered service mark of Duane Morris LLP.

The opinions expressed on this blog are those of the author and are not to be construed as legal advice.

Proudly powered by WordPress