IHC Magazine - July 2023 Issue. Focus on Antitrust & Competition

PUBLISHER

Rahul Prakash +852 8170 2951

rahul.prakash@ inhousecommunity.com

LEAD DESIGNER

Richard Oliver

EDITOR

Sinal Govender

WRITER

Butch Bacaoco

CLIENT RELATIONSHIP

MANAGER

Toni Angeline Dorotheo

Published 10 times annually by InHouse Community Ltd.

Publishers of

• In-House Community Magazine

• IHC Briefing

Organisers of the

• IHC Events

Hosts of

• www.inhousecommunity.com

• www.mycareerinlaw.com

Forums for the In-House Community

Opinions expressed herein do not constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publishers.

© 2022 InHouse Community Limited and contributors.

Feature contributors

Denny Rahmansyah, Partner,

SSEK

Denny is an experienced lawyer who joined SSEK in 2001. He has been involved in major projects and transactions in various sectors, including TMT (fintech/e-commerce, cryptocurrency, data protection/privacy) , antitrust and competition law.

Farrah Azizah Habibie, Associate, SSEK

Farrah Azizah Habibie is involved in a variety of projects at SSEK, with a focus on general corporate and commercial matters, including antitrust and competition law.

Pranat Laohapairoj, Partner, Chandler MHM

Pranat has worked with Thai and international clients on merger and acquisitions, anti-trust, corporate, anti-corruption, compliance, and data protection, providing advice and services involving due diligences, deal structuring, negotiation, contract drafting, deal execution, in-house training and public seminars.

Peter Connor, Founder and CEO, Alternativelylegal

EDITORIAL GUIDANCE PANEL

Carina Wessels

Executive: Governance, Legal and Compliance, Alexander Forbes Group Holdings

Preeti Balwani

General Counsel at Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages

Ron Yu

University of Hong Kong, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

Stanley Lui

APAC Legal Director, TI Fluid Systems

Co-Founder, White Hat Guys

In-House Community

Peter Connor is the Founder & CEO of AlternativelyLegal. A former GC, he’s the creator of T-shaped In-House Lawyer Framework™ and T-shaped Legal Team Framework™ which he has used in his training and consulting work all over the world with more than 1000 in-house lawyers at brand name companies and government organisations.

Magazine

Carl Watson General Counsel, Arcadis Asia

Raymond Goh General Counsel, International of China Tourism Group

Sally Dyson Director, Firm Sense

Yosr Hamza Director, Legal Counsel, Gartner

Navrita Kaur Chief Legal Officer, Omesti Group

Rebecca Hong Managing Counsel, Intel Corporation

Vecchi Managing Partner, Russin & Vecchi

Sesto

Allen & Overy and Shearman & Sterling Announce Merger to Create A&O Shearman

board-level recognition and expanded access to a U.S. corporate client base through the well-established Shearman & Sterling brand. On the other hand, Shearman & Sterling will gain access to an expanded “rest of the world” offering and benefit from the combined firm’s capabilities in various emerging areas, such as Energy, Technology, and Private Equity.

Two leading law firms, Allen & Overy and Shearman & Sterling, have recently announced their plans to merge, creating a new global legal powerhouse named A&O Shearman.

The merger is expected to create a formidable legal institution with 4,000 lawyers, 800 partners, and 49 offices worldwide. With a combined revenue of $3.4 billion, A&O Shearman will become the third-largest integrated law firm by gross revenue. Notably, the merger will generate $1 billion in revenue, further solidifying the combined firm’s presence in the American market with 210 partners and 720 lawyers.

With a combined experience of 250 years, one of the key differentiators of the combined firm will be its unique offering of U.S. Law, English Law, and Local Law capabilities in equal measure. The benefits of the merger are substantial for both firms. For Allen & Overy, the merger will result in the creation of a $1 billion U.S. business, with increased

The merger holds significant implications for clients as well. A&O Shearman aims to transform its ability to offer a truly integrated global service, responding to the demands of clients facing complex regulatory, technological, and geopolitical challenges. With a commitment to providing the highest quality advice, both firms will continue their focus on client satisfaction during the merger process.

Addressing potential conflicts, the firms have undertaken a preliminary assessment and will continue to manage and resolve any issues that may arise as the merger progresses. They do not anticipate a significant number of conflicts, and specific clients will be alerted directly if necessary. As the integration progresses, clients will be informed of any changes and provided with full details.

Wim Dejonghe, Senior Partner at Allen & Overy, expressed his excitement about the merger, highlighting the combined firm’s ability to provide high-quality, integrated legal services globally.

“This combination of two great firms is such an exciting step for us. Both firms have a history of excellence, and together we think

A&O Shearman will be a firm unlike any other in the world”.

Adam Hakki, Senior Partner at Shearman & Sterling, emphasised the increasing need for global elite firms and their commitment to meeting clients’ demands through this transformative merger.

“This is truly a game-changing moment for both firms that will create an unparalleled offering for our clients. It is also a fantastic opportunity for our people to be part of a transformative transaction and an institution of such significance, and we look forward to recruiting even more stellar talent in the coming years”.

The news of the merger with Allen & Overy comes shortly after Shearman & Sterling ended merger talks with Hogan Lovells earlier this year.

Luthra and Luthra Law Offices Mourns the Loss of Mr Rajiv K Luthra, Founder and Managing Partner

Luthra and Luthra Law Offices India, a leading full-service law firm in the country, is mourning the loss of their Managing Partner and Founder, Mr Rajiv K Luthra. Born on 1 August 1957 in Delhi, Mr Luthra embarked on his legal journey by obtaining his law degree from Delhi

University. In 1990, he established Luthra and Luthra Law Offices, which has since grown to a talented team of over 300 lawyers, including 70 partners.

Renowned for his expertise in corporate and project finance, his achievements include being recognised as an Eminent Practitioner by Chambers & Partners Global in 2023. Asia Law Leading Lawyers identified him as one of the most highly acclaimed legal experts in the Asia-Pacific region in the field of Capital Markets & Corporate Finance. Furthermore, his exceptional leadership abilities garnered him accolades such as being named one of the ‘Top Managing Partners’ by Forbes India Legal Powerlist and receiving the Managing Partner of the Year award at both the LegalEra India Awards and ALB India Law Awards in 2020.

In response to how Luthra and Luthra will continue in Mr Luthra’s absence, the firm noted that he was a believer that “the show must go on” and was committed to building a firm that would outlast him. “To this end, he had put in place systems and processes aligned to the best international practices which continue to be administered by an Executive Committee and an Advisory Committee. With the deepest gratitude, we are very fortunate and proud to carry his legacy and vision forward with huge responsibility and utmost sincerity”, the firm said.

Link Legal Launches Historic Combination with Dentons

Link Legal has launched its previously announced combination with global law

firm Dentons, and is now Dentons Link Legal. The launch of their combination will help their clients to navigate change in India and in 214 locations across 83 countries. The new firm assured that clients will continue to work with the lawyers that they know and trust.

Having previously worked as a partner at leading firms including Linklaters, Allen & Overy and King & Wood Mallesons, Gu has established himself as a compe

Ha has held several leadership positions at Mayer Brown, including co-leader of the global Corporate & Securities practice and a seat on the firm’s Partnership Board. She is a renowned corporate lawyer specialising in highly regulated sectors in Mainland China and Hong Kong. Ha is an active advocate for diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives within the firm and has been listed in the IFLR1000 Women Leaders since 2020.

The Intellectual Property Court of China Releases Report for 2022

China’s Supreme People’s Court recently released the Annual Report of the Intellectual Property Court (IPC) for 2022. One noteworthy detail was the 18% increase in accepted cases bringing a total of 6,183 technology-related IP appeal cases and monopoly appeal cases. In addition, the overall rate of remand and reversion was 13.5%.

The average number of cases accepted per judge was 142.5, an increase of 16 cases from 2021. The average case closure was 79.9 cases per judge, which was 3.6 cases fewer year on year. The average adjudication period was 165.2 calendar days.

The IPC accepted 2,956 new second instance substantive civil disputes, of which 615 involved infringement of invention patents,

968 involved infringement of utility patents, 312 involved patent application rights and patent ownership, 144 involved new plant variety, 78 involved technological secrets, 648 involved computer software, 96 involved technology-related IP contracts, 15 involved monopoly disputes and 74 involved other disputes.

The IPC accepted 887 new second instance administrative cases, of which 241 involved re-examination of invention patent applications, 234 involved invalidation of invention patents, 207 involved invalidation of utility model patents, 84 involved invalidation of design patents, 24 involved monopoly disputes and 65 involved administrative enforcement.

MOVES

K&L Gates has added Dominic Gregory as a finance partner in its Tokyo office. Joining from the London office of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, Gregory is qualified in England and Wales, Hong Kong and Japan (as a foreign qualified lawyer – gaikokuho-jimubengoshi). His practice focuses on project financing and development work, mining and resource transactions, restructurings and event-driven deals. His experience covers all forms of renewable energy and conventional projects, including mining, oil and gas, nuclear and petrochemicals transactions, and many other types of infrastructure and asset classes, including aircraft, road, rail, ships, casinos, real estate developments, data centres, battery storage and hydrogen transactions. Gregory also has extensive experience with green finance and many aspects of sustainable business practices. He regularly lectures, writes and consults in these areas, and participates in related global bodies and committees. In addition to Tokyo, Gregory has lived and worked in Hong Kong, Singapore and London. He has developed important client relationships in Japan, across the Asia and EMEA regions as well as the Americas.

Clifford Chance has added Elizabeth Richmond to the firm’s Global Antitrust team as a partner in Sydney. She joins from Clayton Utz, where she focused on merger control advice, competition litigation and antitrust regulation. Richmond brings over 15 years of experience in antitrust and competition law. She advises clients on a range of

competition-related issues, including merger control, competition litigation, cartel investigations, dawn raids and competition regulation. In the area of competition litigation, Richmond has advised on some of the very few antitrust cases to be litigated in Australia.

Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas has added Gauhar Mirza as a partner in its technology practice with a significant additional focus on arbitration. He will be based in Delhi-NCR. Mirza has over 13 years of experience in advising and representing technology giants, leading construction companies, PSUs, automobile and other manufacturing industries and financial institutions. He also focuses on arbitration, and handles advisory and litigation for leading social media intermediaries and other tech companies. Mirza is on the steering and advisory committees of various arbitral institutions and law colleges. He is a 2010 graduate of the Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.

Morgan, Lewis

& Bockius

has added George Cyriac as a partner to further strengthen its global corporate M&A and private equity capabilities. He will be resident in Singapore, subject to obtaining relevant regulatory approvals and permits. Joining from Stephenson Harwood, where he oversaw the firm’s private equity practice in Asia and its Indonesia practice, Cyriac regularly advises on some of the most complex cross-border M&A and private equity transactions in the region. Over his career spanning more than two decades, he has acted for leading multinational and Asian companies,

MOVES

private equity funds, sovereign wealth funds, state-owned enterprises and banks, and has advised clients across the full investment cycle, including investments, disposals and complex restructurings in all key jurisdictions in South East Asia, South Asia, and New York.

Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas has added Jeeta Nayak, who re-joined as a partner in its corporate practice and will be based in Mumbai. Nayak has over 14 years of experience advising on public and private strategic investments, divestments and exits spanning a broad range of industries, including pharmaceuticals and healthcare, financial services, insurance, e-commerce, construction development, infrastructure and power. She has advised marquee private equity investors, as well as renowned promoter groups and companies, across jurisdictions. In addition to her core expertise on M&A and private equity deals, Nayak is also experienced in advising on domestic and overseas financing transactions, overseas bridge financing and global acquisition transactions. She graduated from W B National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata in 2008, holding a BA, LLB (Hons). Nayak has also completed her MBA (specialising in Finance and Strategy) from the Indian School of Business, Hyderabad, in 2012.

Kewei Law Firm has hired leading corporate partner Justina Zhang, adding technology, media and telecommunications (TMT) expertise to the firm’s joint operation with Herbert Smith Freehills. Zhang is a TMT specialist in both

corporate transactions and regulatory compliance. She has extensive experience advising Chinese growth and large tech clients on M&A, private equity investments, capital markets, joint ventures and corporate restructurings in both China and internationally. She also advises multinationals on foreign direct investment in China, as well as data, advertising, general corporate and commercial matters. Fluent in Mandarin and English, Zhang obtained a bachelor’s degree in law from China University of Political Science and Law in 2002. She acted as the Asia Pacific Regional President of the Global Advertising Lawyers Alliance (GALA) and a member of its Executive Committee and a member of the Public Policy Council of the International Advertising Association (IAA). Before joining the firm, she was a senior partner at TransAsia Lawyers in Beijing.

Tilleke & Gibbins has added Nuttaphol Arammuang as a partner in the intellectual property (IP) practice in Bangkok. He focuses on providing strategic counsel and representation to corporate clients seeking to protect their IP rights. Arammuang works closely with clients to develop comprehensive strategies tailored to their specific needs, helping them to capitalise on their valuable assets and navigate the complex landscape of IP law. Drawing on his extensive experience in IP litigation, he will play a key role in representing clients in highstakes disputes and advocating for their rights in the courtroom. He will also collaborate with the firm’s cross-practice, multijurisdictional teams to offer innovative solutions that address evolving challenges and opportunities in the field of IP. Prior to joining the firm, Arammuang

MOVES

led teams of IP practitioners for several years as IP practice head and managing partner of the Thailand offices of two prominent regional law firms. He has successfully handled a wide range of IP litigation cases, including pharmaceutical patent disputes, patent infringement, design infringement, trademark and trade dress infringement, passing off, trademark invalidation, copyright litigation in the context

hire of five partners across the UK and Asia, as the firm responds to client demand driven by the accelerating transition to net zero.

All joining from Shearman and Sterling are London-based project finance expert Sanja (Sonny) Udovicic , Seoul-based Anna Chung , Singapore-based Jean-Louis Neves Mandelli and Scott Baggett , and London-based energy

MOVES

of industries, with an emphasis on the power, petrochemicals, oil & gas and mining & metals sectors. He has also advised on a number of joint venture and M&A transactions, as well as restructurings and refinancings. He has extensive experience advising both sponsors and lenders, and his clients include PETRONAS, AES, IFC, ADB and OPIC, among others.

HFW has continued to strengthen its leading global aerospace practice with the hire of senior partner Peter Coles , one of the market’s top aviation regulatory and disputes experts. Coles joined in May from Clyde & Co, where he headed the firm’s APAC aviation practice. He previously spent more than eight years as an aerospace partner at HFW. Coles has more than 30 years’ experience advising on a wide range of contentious and non-contentious aviation issues, including regulatory, employment, insurance, commercial and transactional, contingency planning and emergency response, investigations and prosecutions, multi-jurisdictional claims and disputes, enforcement, insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings, parting out and end-of-life. He acts for major international airlines, operators, MROs, business and private aviation companies, and other industry clients. Coles is dual-qualified in England and Hong Kong, and is a Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society.

HFW has expanded its Australian Employment practice with the hire of partner Simon Billing, who is recognised as one of the leading

specialist industrial relations, safety and employment law solicitors in Perth. Billing has over 30 years of employee relations experience, both as a legal practitioner in private practice and employee relations consultant for the Australian Resources & Energy Group. In addition to advising clients in the firm’s core sectors, particularly mining, oil and gas, shipping and maritime, engineering and construction, he also acts for clients in the hospitality, health, education and telecommunication sectors. Billing brings with him a team that includes a specialist workplace investigator.

Carey Olsen has welcomed expert litigator Tim Haynes, who has joined the firm as a partner in the dispute resolution and litigation team in the Hong Kong SAR office. Haynes has over 20 years of experience representing a wide range of Asia Pacific-based clients in all aspects of commercial dispute resolution under the laws of Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands. He advises on high value, cross-border management, shareholder, commercial, insolvency and corporate restructuring disputes, often with a connection to China and Hong Kong. Haynes is the former head of the Insolvency and Dispute Resolution Group at Walkers in Hong Kong. Immediately prior to joining the firm, he was a partner at Kobre & Kim (Hong Kong), a multi-jurisdictional dispute resolution and investigations practice. Haynes was admitted as a solicitor in England and Wales (non-practising), called to the bar in Hong Kong in 2003 (non-practising), and was admitted as an attorney in the Cayman Islands in

MOVES

2009. He has been a practising solicitor of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court since 2013.

Squire Patton Boggs has added Lian Yok Tan as a partner. She joins from K&L Gates, where she was global co-head of the energy, infrastructure and resources practice. With almost 30 years of experience in the energy and infrastructure industries, Tan has advised on a wide range of projects, including renewable, hydrogen, LNG, power, oil and gas, infrastructure, mining and technology matters. Acting for government-linked corporations, financial institutions and private companies, she has significant experience advising on project development and construction, as well as financing, including project, structured, trade and asset financing and derivatives. Tan was admitted to the New York bar in 2000, and as a solicitor in England and Wales in 2002. She is an advocate and solicitor in Singapore, and was also admitted in Malaysia. Tan is a Fellow of the Singapore Institute of Arbitrators and has completed the Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration’s Maritime Arbitrator Accreditation Programme.

Allen & Overy has strengthened its Asia Pacific corporate practice with the addition of Kenny Kwan and Caryn Ng, leading equity capital markets and public M&A lawyers, as partners in Singapore. They both join from Baker McKenzie in Singapore. Kwan rejoins A&O, having worked at the firm previously from 2009

to 2017. He specialises in M&A, capital markets transactions, funds and general corporate matters under Singapore law. Kwan also has US securities law experience, acting as both issuers’ and underwriters’ counsel on US-registered offerings, Rule 144A/Regulation S offerings and ADR offerings. Ng specialises in equity capital markets and corporate finance, with a crossover interest into the private equity space. She has represented issuers and underwriters in numerous securities listings in Singapore.

Morrison Foerster has added Rongjing Zhao as a partner in the firm’s private equity and M&A groups, based out of its China offices. Zhao brings more than 15 years of experience advising private equity firms, institutional investors and major corporations on complex cross-border transactions, including control deals and leveraged buyouts, M&A, growth capital investments, spin-offs and distressed M&A transactions. She primarily represents private equity funds on investments and acquisitions in China and the rest of Asia. Zhao also advises clients on take privates of US-listed companies and other US public and private company M&A transactions. Prior to joining the firm, she was a partner at a leading international law firm, where she worked in its Hong Kong and Shanghai offices for several years. Prior to that, she worked in the Shanghai and Los Angeles offices of another prominent global firm. Zhao earned her LLB cum laude from Fudan University and her LLM from New York University School of Law, where she was also editor of the Journal of Law and Business. She is admitted to practice in New York and in China (non-practicing).

DEALS

Allen & Gledhill has acted as transaction counsel to DBS Bank, BNP Paribas, OverseaChinese Banking Corporation, United Overseas Bank, The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Singapore Branch and MUFG Bank Singapore Branch on the €300 million (US$321m) term loan facilities and €740 million (US$791m) term loan facilities to SATS Treasury. DBS, BNP, OCBC and UOB were appointed as mandated lead arrangers of the €300M (US$321m) facility, while DBS, HSBC, MUFG and OCBC were appointed as mandated lead arrangers of the €740M (US$791m) facility. The facilities will be used to fund Promontoria Holding 264, a wholly-owned subsidiary of SATS, on its redemption and purchase of certain fixed and floating rate notes. Partner Lim Wei Ting led the firm’s team in the transaction.

Allen & Overy has advised the underwriters on the IPO and listing of ADNOC Logistics & Services (ADNOC L&S) in Abu Dhabi. ADNOC L&S is the maritime logistics arm of the ADNOC Group, and is the largest fully-integrated shipping and logistics company in the region, supporting the energy supply chain through three major business segments: shipping, integrated logistics and marine services. The final offer price for the shares in ADNOC L&S offered by Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) via the IPO was set at the top end of the price range, raising approximately US$769 million and implying a market capitalisation (at the time of listing) of ADNOC L&S of approximately US$4.05 billion. The IPO saw significant

demand from both local and international investors, with total gross demand amounting to over US$125 billion, implying an oversubscription level in excess of 163 times, the highest ever oversubscription level for a UAE IPO. Abu Dhabi partner Khalid Garousha and US securities partner Adam Wells led the firm’s cross-border team involving lawyers in the UAE, London, the US and Belfast in the transaction.

AZB & Partners has advised Olive Vine Investment, an affiliate of Warburg Pincus, and Avanse Financial Services on the Rs8 billion (US$97m) acquisition by Kedaara Capital Growth Fund III of 15.3 percent stake in Avanse Financial Services. The first tranche of the acquisition was completed on 19 January

DEALS

2023, while the second tranche was completed on 24 May 2023. Partner Vaidhyanadhan Iyer led the firm’s team in the transaction.

Baker McKenzie has advised Benesse Holdings on its capital and business alliance agreement with Skyhive Technologies Holdings. Through this alliance, Benesse will become a core partner of SkyHive in the Japanese market. Founded in 1955, Benesse has developed domestic and global education, nursing care, childcare and daily living businesses aligned with people’s life stages. SkyHive, founded in 2017, is an artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled global human resources information company. It operates one of the world’s largest real-time labour market information platforms, and enables one-stop reskilling through the use of AI. SkyHive’s users include the Canadian government, the European Union and New

York City. Benesse will be able to leverage SkyHive’s AI technology to provide companies with a one-stop employee skill visualisation and analysis service. Benesse will also gain insight into reskilling-related management strategies, and will have the chance to provide learning content, including Udemy, thereby strengthening support for corporate human capital management and SkyHive’s worldwide expertise in organisational transformation. Tokyo corporate / M&A partner Kiyoshi Endo led the firm’s team in the transaction.

Clifford Chance has advised ING, MUFG and Standard Chartered Bank, as joint global coordinators, joint book-runners and joint lead managers, on Bauhinia ILBS 1’s US$404.8 million pilot project finance and corporate infrastructure collateralised loan obligation (CLO) cash flow securitisation, sponsored by The Hong Kong Mortgage Corporation

DEALS

(HKMC). HKMC is a company wholly-owned by The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China, through the Exchange Fund. The transaction marks the first infrastructure loanbacked CLO sponsored by HKMC, the first issued out of Hong Kong by a Hong Kong-incorporated orphan special purpose vehicle, and the first such transaction listed in Hong Kong. The transaction also includes a sustainability tranche backed by eligible loans under HKMC’s Social, Green and Sustainability Financing Framework. Hong Kong partners Francis Edwards and Dauwood Malik led the firm’s team in the transaction. A separate team led by London partner Bruce Kahl advised DB Trustees (Hong Kong) as the trustee.

Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas has advised Kotak Mahindra Capital, Axis Capital, IIFL Securities, Jefferies India and JP Morgan India, as the book-running lead managers, on the IPO of Mankind Pharma. The IPO comprised an offer for sale of more than 40 million equity shares aggregating to Rs43.26 billion (US$524m) by the promoter selling shareholders, namely Ramesh Juneja, Rajeev Juneja and Sheetal Arora, and the investor selling shareholders, namely Cairnhill CIPEF and Cairnhill CGPE (Capital International Group affiliates), and Beige and Link Investment Trust (ChrysCapital affiliates). The transaction, which was signed on 28 April 2023 and closed on 4 May 2023, was India’s largest IPO in 2023, and the third largest since 2022. Partners Yash

Ashar (capital markets head) and Gokul Rajan (northern region markets head) led the firm’s team in the transaction, while Sidley Austin acted as international counsel.

JSA has advised Prism Johnson (formerly Prism Cements) on its investment in Renew Green (MPR Two), a special purpose vehicle promoted by ReNew Green Energy Solutions (ReNew) for supply of power from a 23 MW wind power project to be developed by Renew in Madhya Pradesh. This is among the various renewable energy assets, and the first wind power project, in which Prism has invested for meeting the electricity requirements for its cement production facility at Satna, Madhya Pradesh, with a waste heat recovery system and various solar power projects previously installed and commissioned at this facility. Prism Johnson’s procurement of renewable power is in line with its long-term strategy of reducing its carbon footprint, and transitioning to meeting its

DEALS

power consumption requirements from sustainable energy sources. Partners Vishnu Sudarsan and Shashank Singh led the firm’s team in the transaction.

Khaitan & Co has advised Mane Kancor Ingredients, a subsidiary of Mane (France), on its investment in a controlling stake in Mane Kancor Spices, a company engaged in the manufacturing, packaging and trading in whole, grounded and blended spices, spice extracts and seasonings. Promoted by Kuriakose Vinay Thomas, Mane Kancor Spices also has private label packing operations and currently serves some prominent retail brands in India. Mane Group is one of the worldwide leaders in the fragrance and flavours design industry. The investment will allow Mane Group to strengthen its ‘farm to fork’ service by bringing processed spices and seasonings into the value chain. Partner Anshuman

O’Melveny is advising Samsung Display, a subsidiary of Samsung Electronics and manufacturer of display products, on its definitive merger agreement to acquire New York-listed eMagin, a US-based leader in the development design, and manufacture of Active-Matrix OLED microdisplays for high-resolution, AR/ VR and other near-eye imaging products, for approximately US$218 million in cash. Korea corporate practice head partner Daniel Kim, M&A partners Brad Finkelstein and Noah Kornblith, supported by partners Jennifer Taylor, Ashwin Gokhale, Adit Khorana, Courtney Dyer, Jeff Walbridge and Woojae Kim, are leading the firm’s team in the transaction, which was announced on 17 May 2023 and is expected to close in the

Mozumdar led the firm’s team in the transaction.

DEALS

second half of 2023, subject to regulatory approvals and customary closing conditions.

Paul Hastings has acted as US counsel to BNP Paribas, Citigroup Global Markets, Crédit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation and Société Générale, as the managers, on Hana Bank’s issuance of €600 million (US$651m) 3.75 percent SME Empowerment Social Covered Bonds due in 2026, under its US$5 billion Global Covered Bond Programme, on 4 May 2023. The offering was conducted in reliance on Regulation S of the US Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the bonds were dual-listed in Singapore and Frankfurt. The firm also assisted Hana Bank and the dealers with the update of Hana Bank’s US$5 billion Global Covered Bond Programme and US$10 billion Global Medium Term Note Programme, both of which were completed on 7 April 2023. As the flagship commercial bank of Hana Financial Group, Hana Bank is a leading South Korean commercial bank engaged in a broad range of banking activities and services for individual, corporate and governmental customers. Corporate partner Iksoo Kim led the firm’s team in the transaction.

Rajah & Tann Singapore has acted as Singapore counsel on the IPO and listing of Ohmyhome in the Nasdaq. Ohmyhome is a data and technology-driven property technology company that operates a one-stop-shop property platform, which provides end-to-end property solutions and services. The listing constitutes the first Singapore-based company listed in the US this year. Partners Howard

Cheam and Tan Mui Hui led the firm’s team in the transaction.

S&R Associates has represented Tevapharm India, a subsidiary of Israeli pharmaceutical company Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, on the sale of one of its bulk pharmaceutical formulations divisions in India to Marksans Pharma, a listed Indian pharmaceutical company. Partner Rachael Israel led the firm’s team in the transaction.

Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co has advised Oben Ventures on establishing Go Digit Life Insurance as a life insurance company, and on structuring its investment in Go Digit Life. Go Digit Life has been granted a certificate of registration by the Insurance Regulatory and Development

DEALS

Authority of India at its meeting held on 2 June 2023 to conduct life insurance business in India. Go Digit Life’s registration takes the number of life insurance companies in India to 26. Backed by Kamesh Goyal, Oben Ventures is a promoter of Go Digit Life, which is among the first few companies to have obtained registration as an insurer under the recently issued IRDAI (Registration of Indian Insurance Companies) Regulations 2022. Go Digit Life marks the foray of Kamesh Goyal, the founder of Go Digit General Insurance, in the life insurance space. Partners Shailaja Lall, Anu Susan Abraham and Ashish Teni led the firm’s team in the transaction.

Simpson Thacher is representing Blackstone on its US$450 million sale of a minority stake in IBS Software to funds advised by Apax Partners. Following

the transaction, Apax will partner closely with IBS Software’s Founder and Executive Chairman, V K Mathews, who will remain the majority shareholder. IBS Software is a leading SaaS solutions provider to the travel industry globally, managing mission-critical operations for customers in the aviation, tour & cruise, hospitality, and energy resources industries. IBS Software’s solutions for the aviation industry cover fleet & crew operations, aircraft maintenance, passenger services, loyalty programs, staff travel and air-cargo management. Partners Ian Ho , Jonathan Stradling , Jonathan Goldstein , Sophie Staples , Jamin Koslowe and Étienne Renau deau led the firm’s team in the transaction, which is subject to customary closing conditions and is expected to close by end of the second quarter of 2023.

DEALS

S&R Associates has represented Select Infrastructure (SI) and its shareholders on: the sale of 100 percent of its equity shares to Nexus Select Trust (NRT), India’s first retail real estate investment trust (sponsored by Blackstone) in exchange for allotment of units aggregating to Rs37.81 billion (US$456.5m) in NRT to SI shareholders; the purchase of 21 percent equity share capital of Nexus Select Mall Management, the manager of NRT, for Rs31.52 million (US$380,549) by certain members of the SI group; and the offer for sale of 9.6 million units aggregating to Rs960 million (US$11.6m) by certain members of the SI group in the Rs32 billion (US$386.3m)

IPO by NRT. Partners Sandip Bhagat, Mohit Gogia and Pratichi Mishra, supported by competition head Simran Dhir, led the firm’s team in the transaction.

Trilegal has advised Velotio Technologies and its existing shareholders on the acquisition of Velotio Technologies’ entire equity share capital by listed Blackstone portfolio company R Systems International for an upfront consideration of approximately Rs2.8 billion (US$34m). Velotio Technologies is a leading product engineering and digital solutions company based in Pune, India. Partner Gautam Singh led the firm’s team in the transaction, which is subject to customary closing conditions.

WongPartnership has successfully acted for Japanese logistics company SBS Holdings, as one of the respondents, on an SIAC Arbitration commenced against it and another

Singapore entity pertaining to claims for breaches of certain clauses in a Memorandum of Understanding, Share Purchase Agreement and Shareholders Agreement. The alleged breaches, among others, are that the Respondents failed to assist the JV company in obtaining opportunities to integrate in the Japan market, to make best efforts to procure an IPO for the JV company, and to provide corporate guarantees to secure credit facilities entered into by the JV company. The SIAC tribunal dismissed the Claimants’ claims for damages in excess of S$48 million (US$36m), and awarded substantial costs to the Respondents. Currently, steps are being taken to enforce the costs award before various jurisdictions. Partner Koh Swee Yen is leading the firm’s team in the matter.

A full list of latest deals can be viewed online on www.inhousecommunity.com

Getting to know… Paul Haswell

A lover of all things tech, Paul Haswell is a highly-regarded TMT focused lawyer, most recently as a Partner with Seyfarth Shaw in Hong Kong. He is also a ‘tech and law’ podcaster, but residents of the city are as likely (or perhaps more so) to know him for his other main passion, music. Haswell has a long running stint spinning the discs on RTHK’s ‘Sunday Escape’ radio programme, and as a club and podcast DJ with Clockenflap, both of which he fulfils with his ‘Crimes Against Pop’ partner, Carolyn Wright. Tim Gilkison recently spoke to Haswell about his journey in law, the importance of mentorship, AI, new music...oh, and time travel!

WHICH CAME FIRST, YOUR LOVE OF TECHNOLOGY OR AN INTEREST IN THE LAW?

Technology, by quite a long way. When I was very young I had three main interests: computers, science fiction, and music. Bear in mind that this was during the very early 1980s, so my interest was being stoked by Star Wars, Star Trek and Doctor Who, the Atari 2600 and then Commodore 64, and whatever I could hear on the radio at the time or find to play on my rather battered hand-me-down record player.

I got my first computer (the aforementioned Commodore 64) in about 1984 and spent most of my childhood using it for rudimentary programming, games, and for some reason I even thought that doing my homework using it was exciting. That began my love of computers and technology in general, and ever since then I have been obsessed with new gadgets, the use of tech, and perhaps most importantly the excitement of seeing so much of the fictional

Haswell on-stage at Cybersecurity Mesh Forum 2023

technology I was obsessed with years ago becoming a reality today.

The interest in law came much later. I essentially wasn’t sure what to do at university, and as a child I’d boasted to my parents that I would go to Oxford after seeing it on television. I’d gone to state comprehensive schools, so my claims were met with disbelief. But, in the mid-nineties one of my teachers convinced me to apply to a college at Oxford, which welcomed state-school applicants to study law, and to my surprise (and the surprise of everyone else) I was offered a place.

WEATHER ASIDE, WHAT BROUGHT YOU FROM THE UK TO HONG KONG?

I was actually sent to Hong Kong in 2007 by the firm I was working with at the time (Pinsent Masons) to work on a major legal matter involving 3G networks in Hong Kong. At the time I’d never been to Asia, let alone Hong Kong, and I remember being quite disgruntled as I’d joined that firm in order to spend more time in London to focus on DJing.

Within 24 hours of arrival, however, I’d fallen in love with Hong Kong (except for the humidity perhaps). Bar a three-year

trip to Norway to work on a big technology dispute, I have been in Hong Kong ever since. It’s definitely home to me now.

HOW IMPORTANT HAS MENTORSHIP BEEN IN YOUR CAREER? ARE THERE ANY MENTORS WHO STAND OUT FOR YOU, AND HOW DID THEY HELP YOU?

I’ve always been fiercely (stubbornly) independent in my career, but there have been two legal mentors who have shaped my career and without whom I would not be here today. The first is Jeffrey Hackney, my tutor at Wadham College, Oxford, who gave me my place at university and always impressed me with his passion for the law, incredible knowledge and wit, and the time he had for his students. I’m very much indebted to both him and Wadham College for my position today.

The second mentor is Vincent Connor, who was a fellow partner of mine at Pinsent Masons. He was a larger than life Scot who came to Hong Kong around the same time as me and put his heart and soul into everything he took part in. He was the heart of the Hong Kong office and a constant source of guidance and advice. He was also a big fan of Star Trek and Doctor Who (to the point of asking colleagues to “make it so”), which of course we bonded on. He also founded the office band “The Basic Lawyers”, in which he sang and played drums, and a band I was lucky enough to sing in from 2019. We even made it to Wembley (well, the Wembley Hilton)!

Vincent sadly passed away in 2021 and it was a massive shock to me and I think the wider legal community. I still very much miss him and his wit and advice today.

Haswell with Carolyn Wright preparing for RTHK’s Sunday Escape

HOW WOULD YOU DEFINE YOUR PRACTICE NOW, AND WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU PERSONALLY OFFER CLIENTS?

I like to think of my practice as one of a technology enthusiast who also just happens to be a lawyer, meaning that as a tech lawyer I have real passion for the area in which I work as well as expertise in the law.

I first started advising clients on technology matters, both non-contentious and contentious, back in 2003. As a result, I have been fortunate enough to work on issues relating to websites, rollout and procurement of IT systems (and sometimes failed systems), tech sanctions, tokenisation and cryptocurrency, NFTs, and most recently artificial intelligence. I’ve also been lucky enough to work on some major technology disputes that have been resolved through litigation, arbitration and mediation.

This means that for technology focused and non-technology focused clients alike I have

years of experience, commercial knowledge, and best of all an understanding and passion for my practice area which has been with me my entire life. I also have a team of likeminded individuals who share my enthusiasm and passion, although I fear I am the biggest nerd of the bunch!

YOUR MOST RECENT ‘TECH AND LAW’ PODCASTS WERE ENTITLED “THE DARK SIDE OF AI…SHOULD WE BE AFRAID?” AND “SHOULD AI BE REGULATED? CAN IT BE?”. IN BRIEF, SHOULD WE, SHOULD IT, AND CAN IT? You may have seen the recent petition calling for a six-month moratorium on the development of generative AI. The concern I think is not just the impact that AI is going to have on people’s jobs and livelihoods, with a considerable number or roles likely becoming obsolete, but that the developments in AI could lead to an autonomous artificial general intelligence, one that can decide and act on its own initiative without input from a human. The issue then, as any sci-fi fan will know, is the risk that

Haswell raising the tent roof at Clockenflap Music Festival

the AI could decide to kill humans or indeed destroy or enslave all life, leading us to the sort of scenario we see in the Terminator movies or 2001: A Space Odyssey, or it could even accidentally destroy life by wiping put humanity in the pursuit of a badly stated goal (for example, if we asked an all-powerful AI to stop climate change then the quickest path to that might be to create a virus to kill all humans).

For such reasons, and in light of such extreme examples, the regulation of AI is desirable, and I think we should be regulating against the negative impacts that the use of AI can have and already has on people’s lives (think of automated decision making). Sadly though, unless we have some sort of global consensus on what we can and cannot do with AI, seeing it as a potential weapon of mass destruction, then any regulation will fail and those who have no limits on what they can do with AI will dominate over those who have to operate within such limits. It’s all both very exciting and very scary at the same time.

WHAT DO YOU THINK WILL BE THE IMPACT OF AI AND PLATFORMS LIKE CHAT GPT ON CORPORATE LEGAL PRACTICE, BOTH EXTERNAL AND INHOUSE OVER THE COMING FEW YEARS (OR SHOULD THAT BE MONTHS)?

It is already proving to be transformative. We’re all already going to be seeing AI come to Microsoft 365 as it rolls out its Office Co-pilot, but for lawyers whether they are in-house or external counsel the use of AI should help to reduce or eliminate a lot of the mundane drafting, research and due diligence tasks that so many lawyers (especially junior lawyers) tolerate rather than enjoy.

The concern here of course is that this could leave these junior lawyers without jobs. I think this could be true for some paralegal and research focused lawyers (although I would not

expect these roles to be eliminated immediately). We may see an end to the days of small armies of paralegals working on mammoth due diligence or discovery tasks, but I would hope those paralegals instead get to enjoy the more intellectually stimulating part of being a lawyer, which is meeting clients and giving good commercial advice. I still remember the months I spent as a trainee solicitor stamping page numbers on to discovery bundles, and I can’t say I learned very much (beyond how to stamp page numbers). Plus photocopiers now do a better job of that than I ever did.

HOW DID THE DJING START, AND WHAT GIVES YOU THE BIGGER THRILL: HEARING A NEW PIECE OF MUSIC YOU LOVE, OR PLAYING IT ON THE RADIO? If you exclude me DJing to my parents on a Fisher Price toy record player aged about three then I first started at university. I’d always been a big music fan, and grew up in a house where there was always music playing, but when I was in my teens I got heavily into independent music from listening to John Peel on the radio and so by the time I reached university I had a decently sized record collection. I started going to indie discos and by 1996 I’d got DJ slots at them and it all snowballed from there. After university, I started running my own club nights and putting on bands, which I thought I would give up when I moved to Hong Kong.

Of course, I didn’t. Shortly after arriving in Hong Kong, I was asked if I knew anyone who could DJ at a Halloween party and I volunteered. From there, I’ve ended up DJing at events across Asia, and of course hosting a weekly new music show on the radio.

As to what gives me the biggest thrill, it’s impossible to say. I love discovering new artists and their music, and was enthralled to hear newer artists such as CMAT, Wet Leg and

most recently The Last Dinner Party. But I also love being able to introduce those artists to an audience who otherwise may never have heard them via the radio.

YOU CLAIM TO HAVE ONE OF THE BIGGEST VINYL RECORD COLLECTIONS IN HONG KONG. SURELY AS A LOVER OF TECH YOU SHOULD HAVE DROPPED THE NEEDLE FOR STREAMING BY NOW?

I currently have over 17,000 records, which is a bit of a challenge living in a small Hong Kong apartment. I do actually use streaming services to listen to new music, but make a point of buying any new music that I like and play when DJing. I do this in order to make sure the artist gets paid a decent amount for my support in light of the pitiful sums that smaller artists make on streaming platforms.

Of course, this usually means buying the artists’ new records on vinyl if they are available, and so the record collection tends to increase in size week by week…

FINALLY, YOUR LINKEDIN PROFILE PICTURE HAS YOU STANDING IN FRONT OF A LARGE BLUE 1960’S UK POLICE CALL BOX. AS ANY FELLOW ‘WHOVIAN’ (FAN OF THE LONGRUNNING BBC SCI-FI SHOW, DOCTOR WHO) WILL KNOW, THIS IS THE DISGUISE FOR THE DOCTOR’S TIME TRAVELLING SPACESHIP, THE TARDIS. WHAT PIECE OF SCI-FI TECHNOLOGY, NOT YET INVENTED, WOULD YOU MOST LIKE TO GET YOUR HANDS ON?

I am a huge Doctor Who fan and have even been known to dress in Doctor Who cosplay from time to time. My profile picture was taken at the GREAT Festival of Innovation in Hong Kong, where for some reason they had transported the Doctor Who TARDIS prop.

Anyway, as will come as no surprise the technology I would like is indeed a TARDIS or time machine. I am fascinated by time travel, and how things can work out based on actions taken in the past, and so not only loved Doctor Who but also shows and movies such as Quantum Leap, 12 Monkeys, Primer, Back To The Future, and Predestination. A TARDIS would also of course let me travel into the future to see if AI really will wipe us all out!

You can find Paul Haswell’s ‘Tech and Law’ video podcast here: https://www.youtube.com/@techandlawwithpaulhaswell, and you can listen to Paul and Carolyn Wright air their favourite tracks on RTHK Radio 3 every Sunday between 9.00am and 1.00pm.

Tim Gilkison is Business Development Manager with Praxonomy, a digital board governance solutions provider, and was a founder of the In-House Community group.

An Adventure in Space and Time

In-house insight with Terence Fernando of Coca-Cola

WHAT INSPIRED YOU TO TRANSITION FROM PRIVATE PRACTICE TO PUBLIC SERVICE AND THEN BACK TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR? HOW DID EACH EXPERIENCE SHAPE YOUR LEGAL CAREER?

After passing the bar, I started working in a law firm because I thought that was where you learned the practice of law. For about four years, I was fortunate enough to work for a retired Supreme Court Justice. I picked up a lot of learnings, just by watching him argue and examine witnesses in court, drafting pleadings for him, riding in the car and talking about case strategy, oral arguments, and all the hard work that accompanies case preparation.

Thereafter, I was appointed as a special prosecutor. My job was investigating and prosecuting erring government officials. Working for the government has its own opportunities and challenges, but I learned so much about the inner workings of the government, how the local and national government agencies creates its budget, advance its policies and laws, and provide public services. Of course, I was also able to see the not-so-good side as well, such as inefficiency and corruption.

On how legal teams are evolving and how embracing technology and fostering safe environments build better businesses

After five years, I thought I was ready to move on and I transferred to become an in-house counsel. This is where I truly felt I belonged, and I have been in this space for over twelve years now. For me, having a deep understanding of the business is key to being successful in an in-house role, as well as having effective leadership and communication skills.

Each of my work experiences was unique in its own right. From time to time, I have drawn from what I learned there, and from various mentors through the years, to guide and help me make important decisions.

CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THE EVOLUTION OF LEGAL TEAMS FROM SPECIALISTS TO GENERALISTS AND HOW IT HAS IMPACTED YOUR ROLE AS AN IN-HOUSE COUNSEL?

I have seen the evolution of in-house counsel from being just a specialist to a more generalist role given the rise of globalisation, increased regulatory activity, and the pressure on department budgets. These have resulted in making in-house lawyers’ jobs much more volatile and complex. GCs are now more pressured to strike a healthy balance between increasing internal demand for legal work and limited resources.

AS A GENERAL COUNSEL, CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THE IMPORTANCE OF CREATING A SAFE PSYCHOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT IN A LEGAL TEAM, AND HOW IT FOSTERS

DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION?

Creating the right culture in your team is very important. For me, this means having a safe psychological environment where lawyers are able to bring their authentic selves to work. For leaders, this means also learning and practicing vulnerability including having the self-awareness to recognise instances when the GC could accidentally be diminishing others by dominating the conversation during meetings. This is why I always make an effort to try and encourage everyone to speak up and weigh in on a particular matter, because I know I don’t always have the answer. Sometimes, I get out of their way and let the team manage problems on their own and they come up with better ideas than the ones I could come up with on my own. Of course, I could have intervened at any point if I felt they were moving in the wrong direction. But, most of the time they didn’t. Leading a team sometimes has more to do with what you don’t do than what you do. You just have to trust the team and the process.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE PET VALUE INITIATIVE AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CHATBOT, CONTRACT AND CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS IN CCBPI, AND HOW YOU HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THESE PROJECTS? HOW HAVE THESE INITIATIVES CONTRIBUTED TO THE COMPANY’S CSR, INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY EFFORTS?

I have been fortunate to have been part of the negotiating team that forged the joint venture between CCBPI and Indorama Ventures

Terence with Legal Leadership Team

to form PET Value Corporation. PET Value recently opened a Php 2 Billion food grade bottle-to-bottle PET recycling facility, a first in the Philippines. The facility has the projected capacity of recycling approximately 2 billion pieces of used clear PET plastic bottles and we are currently establishing a circular economy for PET bottles so that everything we make, sell, and use are collected and recycled by 2030.

Since 2020, we have been able to implement the legal chatbot, contract and case management systems in CCBPI. These are technology tools that we felt the business needed in order to streamline what we thought were repetitive, non-value adding tasks, so that our lawyers can focus all their thought and energy towards more strategic, value-adding work.

CAN YOU DISCUSS THE IMPACT OF THE COMICS-COMMUNICATION ON ETHICS INITIATIVE IN PROMOTING ETHICAL BEHAVIOUR WITHIN THE COMPANY?

During one of our brainstorming sessions and before we even thought of COMICS, we just had one objective “to connect with millennials and Gen Zs such that we are able to foster a culture of compliance within the company”. After some discussion, we arrived at creating a 1-page comic strip that would be periodically sent via email to all employees. It would be short, easy to read and understand, translated into the local language, and would concentrate on one specific compliance rule or regulation. We then asked our HR team to help with the illustration and within weeks, the first few issues of COMICS were very well received by our employees.

Legal Team Building

HOW DO YOU BALANCE THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF YOUR ROLE WITH THE BUSINESS OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPANY, AND WHAT CHALLENGES HAVE YOU FACED IN THIS REGARD?

I think that Ben W. Heineman, Jr. in his seminal book “The Inside Counsel Revolution” said it best that GCs have to constantly be aware of and resolve the partner-guardian tension, not only helping the business achieve its strategic objectives but also ensuring that the company and its leaders act with integrity. This standard or expectation for “high-performance with high-integrity” work should always be in a GC’s mind. If there is a conflict, conducting business the right way should always prevail. As to challenges, let me just say that as a GC, you will always be faced with numerous ambiguous situations where you will be asked or expected to speak your mind on that basic issue of what is right. So, you need to have a clear idea or vision of what the company should do in those situations.

HOW HAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE BUSINESS CONTRIBUTED TO YOUR EFFECTIVENESS AS A GC, AND HOW DO YOU ENSURE

EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION WITH THE EXECUTIVE TEAM?

I would say that in today’s business environment, understanding the business spells your success or failure as a GC. It is imperative that once you assume the role of GC, or even before that, you need to have a deep understanding of how the business works, from the company’s supply chain, to sales and marketing, to how the business makes money. Sometimes, this requires a GC to engage with the frontline teams on a regular basis. Years ago, I realised that the higher you are in any organisation, the more different or blurred the leader’s view is about what’s actually happening on the ground. This is

why it is also important for a GC to develop relationships with those who are nearest to action.

WHAT ADVICE WOULD YOU GIVE TO YOUNGER LAWYERS WHO ARE JUST STARTING THEIR LEGAL CAREERS, AND HOW CAN THEY PREPARE FOR THE CHANGES AND UNCERTAINTIES OF THE FUTURE?

• Always have a positive or growth mindset. Have the curiosity to constantly seek knowledge and the humility to see the signs when it may be time to change strategies and adapt. Your career is a marathon, not a sprint.

• Embrace uncertainty. Change is always scary but being inquisitive, learning new things and preparation will give us the courage to cope with uncertainty.

• Don’t let your ideas become your identity. Practice active listening, always have an open mind, and never be attached to your beliefs or ideas. Oftentimes, people will challenge your own assumptions. Don’t take it personally. For me, I always valued learning and growth and not necessarily being right.

• Find mentors who will take you under their wing and teach you invaluable things that will help you in your professional and personal life.

Terence Fernando, General Counsel, Coca-Cola Beverages Philippines

Terence is currently the General Counsel of Coca-Cola Beverages Philippines Inc. (CCBPI). He completed both his degrees in Economics and Law at the San Beda University, and finished his Executive MBA at the Asian Institute of Management. Terence has previously worked under a retired Supreme Court Justice, and was also a Special Prosecutor before becoming in-house counsel.

Europe-Asia Great Divide in Regulating the Digital Economy

The proliferation of the Internet and the critical role of technology players in our daily lives have regulators grappling with how best the digital economy should be regulated against the anti-competitive behaviour of large online platforms.

Europe has taken the lead towards ex-ante regulations with the Digital Markets Act (“DMA”), which came into effect a little over a month ago on 2 May 2023. The DMA sets the ground rules on what is acceptable behaviour. The DMA is aimed at reining in ‘Big Tech’ and their alleged abuse of power, but is still a work in progress.

Digital platforms, often identified as gatekeepers, have the tendency to adopt a winnertakes-all approach and monetize market data. The idea behind ex-ante regulations is to truncate the time period and intervene before the market is entrenched with one or two players.

However, a Singapore-based policy director with a leading multinational digital platform recently voiced concerns and cautioned enforcers in the Asia Pacific region to tailor digital regulations according to local economies, given the far-reaching implementation costs of ex-ante rules and the overarching implications.

FRENY PATEL

Unlike the European Commission, most Asian enforcers are still sitting on the fence, deliberating on how digital economies should be regulated and whether ex-ante rules are the solution or even warranted. There is clearly a Europe-Asia great divide on how the digital economy should be regulated.

Each inquiry requires more time and by the time authorities complete the investigations, reach a finding, and issue directives, the markets may irreversibly tip in favour of the leaders

the Indian antitrust authority two and a half years to complete.

An ex-ante regulation will indicate the dos and don’ts, which Roy said would save a lot of time during the investigation process because the law will itself say that there are certain thresholds for being a gatekeeper.

“Once those thresholds are crossed, certain obligations would accrue on gatekeepers,” he pointed out.

“India should not copy Europe’s DMA but should look at the obligations, and tailor an equivalent law from an Indian context” Roy said.

The debate on the need to relook at antitrust enforcement tools has arisen because of the concern that, while traditional tools might be effective, their use necessarily requires detailed economic analysis. Antitrust enforcers fear that legislating digital platforms would be complex, slow, and too late to be effective.

“Each inquiry requires more time and by the time authorities complete the investigations, reach a finding, and issue directives, the markets may irreversibly tip in favour of the leaders” said Rahul Rai, Delhi-based partner & co-founder of Axiom5 Law Chambers LLP.

Does this mean Asian enforcers should follow the European Commission’s lead on ex-ante regulations?

Abir Roy, co-founder and head of competition practice at Sarvada Legal, strongly advocated the “definite need for ex-ante regulations” because traditional tools “take their own sweet time.”

Instrumental in India’s Google Android antitrust case, representing Indian technology startups, Roy cited how the investigation took

The majority of antitrust lawyers interviewed in Asia are of the view that, while the DMA might be a useful reference point, Asian competition authorities should not be following Europe’s lead.

According to Stephen Crosswell, chair of Baker McKenzie’s Asia-Pacific Antitrust & Competition Group, most of the DMA obligations are an attempt at generalising very fact-specific European Comission antitrust cases that are, for the most part, still pending before the commission or under appeal to the EU Courts.

Effective enforcement requires two things: the introduction of a deterrent effect and, more

Abir Roy, co-founder and head of competition practice at Sarvada Legal

importantly, the fostering of healthy conditions of competition where innovation drives growth to the benefit of consumers, Rai said.

Roy agreed and said that digital gatekeepers should be fair and reasonable in their conduct, which would improve innovation.

‘one size fits all’ approach that would neatly work in Asia”.

Another key difference compared to the European market landscape is that Asia has numerous homegrown digital platforms that compete head-on with global ‘Big Tech’ such as India’s Ola with Uber, China’s WeChat with WhatsApp, or Indonesia’s Gojek with Singapore’s Grab.

Adopting the complex and EU-centric regulatory framework could lead to different investment and innovation decisions, Harikumar Pillay, principal in the Antitrust & Competition Group at Baker McKenzie Wong & Leow in Singapore cautioned. This could negatively impact small businesses accessing certain services provided by digital businesses, and consumers missing out on lower prices due to significant compliance costs, he explained.

Unlike Europe, the Asia-Pacific region is not a monolithic market. Rather, it is made up of a diverse group of jurisdictions with varying degrees of economic development and different legal regimes, Crosswell said.

“The policy objectives and tools required to address the identified competition harms would differ across jurisdictions, given differences in the levels of economic development, and the impact of the ex-ante regulation on the digital sector and the wider economy” said Crosswell.

Hong Kong-based Asia head of competition at Herbert Smith Freehills, Adelaide Luke, agreed that “Asia has a different ‘ecosystem’ in many digital markets and there is no

While competition harms such as self-preferencing or exclusionary conduct are not necessarily unique to digital services in Asia, the footprint of platform operators in different digital markets might be quite different from what we see in Europe or the US, said Luke, explaining the need for Asian competition authorities to think about how different markets fit together.

Interestingly, Luke said that ex-ante regulation might be welcomed by businesses and authorities as they would provide legal certainty as to what is and is not permitted.

“The competition rules in some newer regimes in Asia are not always clear, and newer competition authorities themselves may not have the experience or confidence to use ‘traditional’ competition tools to pursue more novel or complex theories of harm” Luke explained.

Stephen Crosswell, chair of Baker McKenzie’s Asia-Pacific Antitrust & Competition Group.

Adelaide Luke, Hong Kong-based Asia head of competition at Herbert Smith Freehills.

Crosswell felt otherwise, holding the view that the EC-specific law is “a clear threat to legal certainty” and that the DMA is “still untested” in terms of “possible benefits and deficiencies”.

The competition rules in some newer regimes in Asia are not always clear, and newer competition authorities themselves may not have the experience or confidence to use ‘traditional’ competition tools to pursue more novel or complex theories of harm

According to Rai, Europe is no longer a jurisdiction where technological innovations are taking place. Rather, the US, India, and China are the only three places where there is a scope for newer and bigger technology companies to develop.

The US has always been the leader, and China has emerged as the second most prolific market for technology firms and innovation. However, China has achieved this by shutting itself down, as Rai explained the Chinese equivalent tech companies have appeared because the local government has not permitted multinational tech players like Google and Facebook to operate in this jurisdiction.

Similarly, given the size of the market, there is potential for India to emerge as the next hub for technology companies, some of which may challenge the global large technology firms, Rai believes.

The Indian e-commerce market is already showing signs of being multi-polar and has not tipped in favour of Amazon, Rai said. Instead, Amazon faces stiff competition

in India from the likes of homegrown brands such as Flipkart, Tata, Reliance and Nyka, he explained.

CHINA

The difficult economic situation has led to a general trend of more relaxed antitrust enforcement in China, even in the area of digital platforms, Luke said.

While it is hard to draw a parallel between China with the rest of the world, because of the different policy goals and regulatory regimes, Crosswell said that the previous hard-line approach to digital platforms seems to be softening.

In March this year, China’s Premier of the State Council Li Keqiang described the government’s attitude as “vigorously developing the digital economy, raising the level of normalised supervision, and supporting the economic development of the platform”.

There are three key reasons why Chinese antitrust authorities do not tend to exercise ex-ante regulations to keep a check on digital markets, according to Michael Gu, former founding partner at AnJie Law Firm, who recently joined Hylands Shanghai as managing partner to head the antitrust practice.

Michael Gu, former founding partner at AnJie Law Firm, who recently joined Hylands Shanghai as managing partner to head the antitrust practice

REGULATING A DIGITAL ECONOMY CONTINUED

It would be more efficient from an enforcement perspective if criminal liability can be introduced soon

In addition to the antitrust authorities, there are several other Chinese regulators supervising the digital market including the newly established State Administration of Data, the Ministry of Industry and Information, and the Cyberspace Administration of China, he pointed out.

The Anti-monopoly Commission and the State Administration for Market Regulation (“SAMR”) have published the Anti-monopoly Guidelines for Platform Economy Industry, which focuses on competition concerns in digital markets, Gu said.

However, the antitrust authorities lack sufficient manpower to exercise ex-ante regulations, as they prioritise investigating anti-monopoly behaviour and reviewing merger cases, Gu explained.

China’s traditional antitrust enforcement tools are sufficient, said Gu, citing the revised Anti-Monopoly Law and the relevant comprehensive, and sophisticated implementing rules. Under the revised legislation, the deterrent effect is significant given that the maximum administrative penalty for the antitrust violation could be as high as 50% of the previous year’s turnover, he explained.

“It would be more efficient from an enforcement perspective if criminal liability can be introduced soon” Gu said in respect of senior management engaging in anti-monopoly agreements.

INDIA

India’s considerations are very different from that of Europe.

Just because the antitrust cases in the digital economy are similar, does not mean that India should adopt ex-ante regulations similar to the DMA, Rai said. The government has yet to decide whether or not to introduce ex-ante laws aimed at the digital sector, and Rai is one of the 16 members on the committee appointed by the Indian government to assess the need for enacting a separate law on competition in digital markets.

Dismissing the need for ex-ante regulations, Deeksha Manchanda, Delhi-based partner at Chandhiok & Mahajan said that there are a lot of things short of a new regulation that can be done to resolve the issue.

“With the risk of penalties imposed on global turnover, companies will consider offering commitments and settlements” Manchanda said.

India’s competition watchdog also has the power to issue interim orders under the Competition Act and is in the process of establishing a digital markets unit within the organisation. A specialised unit will further speed up investigations, Manchanda said.

Nisha Kaur Uberoi, partner and national head of competition practice at Trilegal, agreed

Nisha Kaur Uberoi, partner and national head of competition practice at Trilegal

that India’s current competition legislation is more than adequate to deal with the digital economy, with the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) having investigated several domestic and international tech majors. This proves that the authority has the ability and wherewithal to investigate digital market participants, she said.

However, what is lacking is a digital markets unit similar to the European Commission, made up of not just lawyers and economists but also data scientists, Uberoi said. She suggested that the unit should be located in India’s Silicon Valley of Bengaluru, where most tech startups are based.

In order to benefit both consumers and businesses “India needs to create conditions to foster the growth of domestic companies and ensure that multinational companies introduce the most innovative products in the Indian market” Rai said. He reiterated that “we need to trust the wisdom of legislators in balancing the need for innovation with ex-ante rules prescribing dos and don’ts for technology firms”.

Rai believes that Japan’s co-regulatory model is unlikely to work for India given the size of the country, and the risk of regulatory capture. Sitting with large technology companies could send out wrong signals or

With the risk of penalties imposed on global turnover, companies will consider offering commitments and settlements

allegations that the regulations are being framed to suit the interests of the key stakeholders, he explained.

“India has always operated with a little bit of distance from the business community, unlike the UK or US where government functionaries are not shy of openly advocating on behalf of their industries in multi-lateral forums” Rai said.

India needs to protect the interest of its strong small-and-medium-sized enterprise sector, which depends a lot on technology platforms. India’s apex trade association the Confederation of All India Traders (“CAIT”) has alleged that the business practices of e-commerce platforms tend to hurt traditional brick-and-mortar stores, while benefiting consumers, as prices are lower than those of goods sold in physical retail stores.

Rai advocated that Indian legislators need to balance the interests of both sides as opposed to tilting in favour of consumer welfare.

NORTH ASIA

The toolbox available to antitrust enforcers in Asia may provide more options for addressing anti-competitive harms, said Luke. Competition laws in Japan, South Korea, and some Southeast Asian countries prohibit “unfair trade practices” that include the “abuse of superior bargaining position” that do not require the existence of a dominant market position.

Rahul Rai, Delhi-based partner & co-founder of Axiom5 Law Chambers LLP. Rai was previously with AZB & Partners, leading the competition practice in Mumbai.

The Japan Fair Trade Commission (“JFTC”) appears to be content with extracting commitments from platforms to “change their potentially problematic business practices” as opposed to imposing “eye-watering fines that we have seen in Europe and elsewhere” Luke pointed out.

the objectives of the JFTC and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (“METI”) are not always aligned.

“METI has traditionally been more concerned with building up national champions, which can compete internationally rather than with domestic competition” Luke explained. Hence, it would not be the most obvious regulator to enforce the Act on Improving Transparency and Fairness of Digital Platforms, which came into force in February 2021, she added.

Crosswell applauded Japan’s evidence-based rulemaking and targeted regulation as being “more efficient and desirable” than the broad one-size-fits-all DMA and other similar laws.

Japan has adopted a preference for a co-regulatory approach based on a transparency model, supported by a superior bargaining power provision in its traditional competition law regime, Crosswell said.

Japan’s co-regulation model enables the technology firms and the regulators to sit together and craft codes of conduct or guiding principles that are not as prescriptive as those of Europe’s ex-ante rules.

It is advantageous for regulators to sit with companies, which understand their businesses the best, express their concerns, and guide them into coming up with solutions, Rai said. “We must start on the premise that entrepreneurs are there to help and not to harm” he added.

While Luke felt it was too early to comment on the success of Japan’s relatively new co-regulatory regime, she highlighted that

Meanwhile, Korea’s antitrust watchdog, mirroring the new government’s approach, is re-calibrating its approach to ex-ante legislation by carefully balancing it with the current government’s self-regulatory approach, Pillay said.

Copying ex-ante proposals at this juncture may have a chilling effect on innovation and economic growth in a rapidly expanding digital sector

South Korea has intervened and enacted legislation targeting one narrow area, the app store market, and has not expanded the legislation to other digital services. This is similar to the Australian model, which has targeted only news publishers such as Google and Meta.

SOUTHEAST ASIA

The dynamic and evolving state of digital services in Southeast Asia suggests that competitive dynamics are still changing, said Lip Hang Poh, Singaporebased competition economist at Baker McKenzie Wong & Leow.

Deeksha Manchanda, Delhi-based partner at Chandhiok & Mahajan Advocates & Solicitors.

“Copying ex-ante proposals at this juncture may have a chilling effect on innovation and economic growth in a rapidly expanding digital sector” Poh cautioned, adding that countries in this region are evaluating the need for digital regulation but few are acting precipitously.

“Singapore has consistently taken a balanced approach towards regulatory issues, preferring to foster growth and ensure consumer benefit from digital technologies” Pillay said. This balanced approach has helped to position Singapore as an attractive jurisdiction for investment, he added.

Poh further said that neither Malaysia nor Indonesia has taken a strong stance in favour of ex-ante regulatory regimes.

NO CONSENSUS ON EX-ANTE

Countries around the world are charting their own course when it comes to regulating the digital economy, including the UK, which used to be part of the European Union.

It is going to be impossible to achieve uniformity or alignment where ex-ante rules are concerned without a global body pushing for them.

Admittedly, the cost of compliance on a global level will increase with fragmented sets of rules, as companies would have to adopt country-focused compliance drills, said Rai.

However, that is the cost of doing business as considerations for individual countries vary and rules need to reflect each jurisdiction’s requirements and realities. Therefore, a coordinated effort among regulators is not practical even though Big Tech operates online globally, Rai explained.

Crosswell concluded that there is no industry consensus that ex-ante regulation is needed. “It is difficult to measure effectiveness when there is no clear articulation of the harms to be addressed” he said.

The digital issues that arise differ across countries depending on their respective laws, their development, and the status of their economies. As individual Asian countries are likely to face different participants from those in Europe, some of the digital platforms targeted by the DMA in Europe may not be the leading digital platforms in the Asian region.

Harikumar Pillay, Singaporebased principal in the Antitrust & Competition Group at Baker McKenzie Wong & Leow

Lip Hang Poh, Singapore-based competition economist at Baker McKenzie Wong & Leow.

Singapore has consistently taken a balanced approach towards regulatory issues, preferring to foster growth and ensure consumer benefit from digital technologies

Antitrust, Competition and Monopoly in

Indonesia’s Financial Technology Sector

DENNY RAHMANSYAH AND FARRAH AZIZAH HABIBIE

Antitrust and unfair competition in Indonesia are regulated under the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Competition Law, also referred to as the “Anti-Monopoly Law”. The Anti-Monopoly Law generally prohibits anti-competitive agreements, abuse of dominant market positions, and mergers or acquisitions that may substantially lessen competition in a relevant market. It also establishes the Indonesian Competition Commission (Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha or “KPPU”) as the primary authority responsible for the enforcement of antitrust and unfair competition infractions. However, as in many countries, the enforcement of regulations in Indonesia can be challenging and the KPPU is frequently criticised for being slow and insufficiently aggressive when pursuing anticompetitive behaviour.

REGULATORY AUTHORITY

The KPPU’s level of activity has increased over the years, as evidenced by the number of active investigations and prosecutions of cases of anticompetitive behaviour, including price-fixing and abuse of dominant market positions. The KPPU is an independent body with the authority to investigate alleged violations and impose administrative sanctions.

Under the Anti-Monopoly Law, the KPPU is responsible for:

a. evaluating agreements that may result in monopolistic practices and/or unfair business competition;

b. evaluating business activities or actions of business actors that may result in monopolistic practices or unfair business competition;

c. evaluating the existence or nonexistence of misuse of dominant position, which may result in monopolistic practices or unfair business competition; providing advice and opinions on government policies related to monopolistic practices and unfair business competition;

d. preparing guidelines and publications related to provisions under the AntiMonopoly Law; and

e. submitting periodic reports on the results of the KPPU’s work to the President and the Indonesian Parliament.

The KPPU’s authorities include:

a. receiving reports from the public and businesses regarding alleged occurrences of monopolistic practices or unfair business competition;

b. investigating allegations of business activities or actions by businesses that may result in monopolistic practices or unfair business competition;

c. investigating or examining cases of alleged monopolistic practices or unfair business competition reported by the public or businesses, or that are discovered by the KPPU as a result of its investigations;

d. drawing conclusions based on the results of investigations or examinations as to whether monopolistic practices or unfair business competition have taken place;

e. summoning businesses suspected of violating the provisions of the Anti-Monopoly Law;

f. summoning and presenting witnesses, expert witnesses, and anyone who is believed to have knowledge of violations of the provisions of the Anti-Monopoly Law;

g. requesting the assistance of investigators to bring in businesses, witnesses, expert witnesses, or anyone who refuses to comply with the KPPU’s summons;

h. requesting information from government agencies in connection with investigations or examinations into businesses that violate the provisions of the Anti-Monopoly Law;

i. obtaining, examining, and evaluating letters, documents, and other evidence for the purpose of investigations or examinations;

j. determining whether there has been any harm to other businesses or the public;

k. notifying businesses suspected of engaging in monopolistic practices or unfair business competition of the KPPU’s decision;

l. imposing administrative sanctions on businesses that violate the provisions of the Anti-Monopoly Law.

Members of the KPPU are appointed and dismissed by the President of Indonesia, with the approval of the Indonesian Parliament. Structurally, the KPPU consists of at least seven members, including a chairperson and a vice-chairperson. All members serve a term of five years and can be reappointed for one additional term. Based on the Anti-Monopoly Law, the costs for carrying out the KPPU’s duties are borne by the State Revenue and Expenditure Budget (Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Negara or “APBN”) and other sources permitted by laws and regulations.

FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGY SECTOR AND ANTITRUST

In recent years, the KPPU has increased its efforts to investigate and prosecute cases in the technology sector, including cases related to digital markets, such as e-commerce platforms and ridehailing services. Fintech in Indonesia has rapidly evolved in recent years, resulting in significant disruption in the financial services sector. At the same time, the Indonesian government has recognised the need to ensure competition in the market is fair and that consumers are protected from anti-competitive behaviour.

The KPPU plays a crucial role in regulating anti-competitive behaviour in the fintech industry, as fintech companies are subject to the same competition rules and regulations as companies in other business sectors.

For example, in 2020, members of the KPPU relayed that certain peer-to-peer (“P2P”) fintech companies allegedly violated Article 11 of the Anti-Monopoly Law. This Article prohibits business actors from entering into agreements with competitors with the intention of influencing prices by regulating the production and/or marketing of goods or services, which may result in monopolistic practices or unfair business competition.

In this case, the KPPU suspected that P2P companies were jointly determining a daily interest rate of 0.8%, possibly indicating the presence of cartels and anti-competitive behaviour. However, the KPPU has stated that they are only in the research stage and have yet to launch a formal investigation into this matter.

Additionally, in September 2022, Google and its Indonesian subsidiaries reportedly faced KPPU investigations for suspected anti-competitive behaviour and discriminatory practices in distributing digital applications. The practices referred to were Google’s requirement for the use of the Google Pay Billing (“GPB”) system, in certain applications, for purchases in the Google Play Store. The KPPU reported that Google charged a service fee between 15% and 30% for these purchases, with GPB required as the transaction method for applications downloaded from the Google Play Store. Content providers and application developers were also required to comply with GPB’s provisions. Google allegedly did not allow payment alternatives to GPB, and non-compliance left applications at risk of being removed from the Google Play Store.

Under these circumstances, the KPPU suspected that Google was carrying out various forms of monopolistic practices and unfair business competition, including:

1. Abuse of Dominant Position: As defined in Article 25 of the Anti-Monopoly Law, abuse of dominant position is understood as controlling 50% or more of the market share for certain goods or services as a single entity, or 75% or more of market share for certain goods or services as multiple entities. The following activities, directly or indirectly involving a dominant position, constitute abuse of dominance under Article 25(1):

a. determining trading terms for the purpose of preventing or barring consumers from obtaining competing goods or services, whether in price or in quality; or

b. restricting development of the market or technology; or

c. obstructing potential competitors from entering the relevant market.

The rationale behind prohibiting abuse of dominance lies in the potential harm from controlling a majority of market share for certain goods or services. To determine whether a business actor holds a dominant position, Article 1(4) must be read in conjunction with Article 25(2) of the AntiMonopoly Law, which stipulates that a dominant actor is either:

(i) one business actor or one group of business actors controlling 50% or more of the market share for a certain good or service; or

(ii) two or three business actors or groups of business actors controlling 75% or more of the market share for a certain good or service.

2. Tying: Pursuant to Article 15(2) of the AntiMonopoly Law, companies are prohibited from requiring their customers to purchase a secondary, unrelated (neither complementary nor substitutive) product on top of the primary product that the customers wish to purchase (in other words bundling/tying the secondary product to the primary product).

3. Discriminatory Practices: Under Article 19 of the Anti-Monopoly Law, market control that may result in monopolistic practices or unfair competition is prohibited, which includes committing discriminatory practices against certain business actors.

Although several news reports indicated that the Google case had been escalated to a formal KPPU investigation, there have been no further updates and it is unclear if the investigation has been dropped or is ongoing.

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

Several KPPU members have spoken at seminars and public events, stressing the importance of fair business competition in fintech activities, stating that the main objective of the KPPU is to improve people’s welfare, and affirming that the KPPU will continue to monitor practices that are not pro-competition in the fintech industry.

In addition, on 12 January 2023, the Indonesian Government formally enacted Law No. 4 of 2023 regarding the Development and Strengthening of the Financial Sector (Pengembangan dan Penguatan Sektor Keuangan or “PPSK Law”). This law was issued by the government to develop and advance Indonesia’s general welfare through the reform of Indonesia’s financial sector by regulating institutions and financial system stability, and encouraging the development and strengthening of the financial industry. Article 228 of the PPSK Law states that consumer protection in the financial sector applies several principles, including healthy competition. The PPSK Law

elaborates that “fair competition” is understood as competition between financial sector business actors in carrying out business activities in a manner that is honest, not in violation of laws and regulations, and that does not hinder business competition.

The KPPU has also promoted competition through advocacy efforts, such as providing training and guidance to businesses and government agencies on competition policy and law. While the KPPU has shown interest in the digital economy and the fintech sector, it continues to face criticism for its enforcement efforts. Critics claim that the activities of the KPPU are insufficient to effectively deter anti-competitive behaviour. Nonetheless, it is evident that the KPPU has taken a more active enforcement role, and business actors in Indonesia’s technology sector need to be aware of antitrust rules, particularly those for consumer protection.

Denny Rahmansyah, Partner

Denny is an experienced lawyer who joined SSEK in 2001. He has been involved in major projects and transactions in various sectors, including TMT (fintech/e-commerce, cryptocurrency, data protection/privacy), antitrust and competition law.

dennyrahmansyah@ssek.com

Farrah Azizah Habibie, Associate

Farrah Azizah Habibie is involved in a variety of projects at SSEK, with a focus on general corporate and commercial matters, including antitrust and competition law.

farrahhabibie@ssek.com

Recent Trends of Enforcement of Anti-Trust and Trade Competition Law in Thailand

The Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 of Thailand (“Act”) was enacted in 2017 and is the second version of the anti-trust and trade competition law in Thailand. Its predecessor is the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2542, which was enacted in 1999 and saw very little usage due to a lack of necessary supplementary regulations and will of the government and the public to put the law to use. During the 18 years of its existence, the 1999 law only saw action a few times, with all of the cases dropped due to lack of evidence or governing support. The Act is the reincarnation of the 1999 law, with most of the provisions transposed from the 1999 law onto the Act almost verbatim, but with minor differences regarding categorisations and re-classifications

of penalties and other minor details. The Act was deemed appropriate to change the competition landscape in Thailand in order to promote more holistic competition within the economy and enhance understanding between different stakeholders and the governing authority. The Act is also intended to extinguish, or at least limit, unnecessary hindrances to trade that had (and to some extent nowadays still have) existed because of historical trade practices and unique cultural conduct. These practices and conduct, such as arrangement, exclusivity, resale price maintenance, unfair poaching, cost imposition, have largely been banned in countries that have enacted their version of anti-trust and trade competition law, and Thailand was deemed ready to follow suit.

PRANAT LAOHAPAIROJ

The Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (“ TCCT ”), which is the governing authority over the Act, was very clear that during the first few years of the Act they would be focusing on disseminating ideas and principles of the Act to the public in order to properly educate the operators about the law and encourage everyone to abide by the law as much, and as soon, as possible. The first few years of education and leniency were followed by gradual enforcement, which has led us to intensified enforcement in 2022 and 2023, as outlined below.

The Act addresses three primary areas of trade competition: 1) merger control and filing; 2) unilateral misconduct by one operator against a trade partner, vendor, customer, etc.; and 3) cartel activities. Although the Act itself has been supplemented by numerous announcements by the TCCT, there are still a myriad of issues within the Act that have yet to be clearly codified. In this regard, the TCCT has allowed the Office of Trade Competition Commission (“ Office ”) to publish cases that have been finally adjudicated or settled by the TCCT for public viewing and understanding.

To date, the Office has published a total of 139 cases, the majority of which concern merger control and procedures, while the minority are about unilateral misconduct, such as unfair trade conditions, exclusivity, and prohibitions. Only seven cases are about cartel arrangement and discussions.

For merger control and procedures, 2022 and 2023 are largely positive years as many precedents have been formed and published for public viewing, and these have cleared up many of the previously ambiguous procedures and scope of coverage of reportability. Almost half of the cases that have been published are examples of filings

that were not necessary to be filed under the Act. The precedents have provided a set of corporate and business characteristics that business operators wishing to undertake a merger can review against themselves to see if their merger transaction will need to be filed with the TCCT. In the past, operators often had to consult with the Office on a case-by-case basis regarding whether their merger transaction needed to be filed. Now, operators should be able to review their own circumstances and come up with a clearer answer. Despite this positive development, the operators must also be mindful that the TCCT and the Office have been much more active and assertive. So far, based on available information and precedents, six merger transactions have been investigated, and their responsible parties have been fined in the last two years. Although the fines are not financially debilitating compared to fines levied by relevant authorities in other jurisdictions, their existence serves as a reminder that the TCCT and the Office are taking unfiled merger transactions very seriously. More notable is the fact that half of the fined transactions were involuntarily discovered by the authority. This means that the TCCT and the Office have sufficiently morphed from largely passive regulatory bodies, waiting for complaints during their early years, into active players who seek out information from both conventional sources, such as news and business reports, and unconventional sources, such as complaints and whistle-blowers. This conclusively means that operators planning to undertake any merger transaction with effect in Thailand need to be more vigilant and, if possible, abide by the requirements of the Act to avoid investigation by the Office and the TCCT. In particular, offshore operators need to bear in mind that even though the Act itself may not have the practical force to reach beyond Thai borders and capture

any breaching offshore operators and bring them back to face their scrutiny in Thailand, it is best not to upset the TCCT, as they have absolute discretion to undertake investigation of any business. This means that the offshore operators’ Thai operations can be put under the TCCT’s radar and face future risks if their offshore parents decide to blatantly breach the requirements of the Act. Furthermore, it may be difficult for management of any offshore entity to have to explain internally and to their shareholders why there is a pending fine in Thailand, regardless of whether such fine can really be applied against the company.

This means that the offshore operators’ Thai operations can be put under the TCCT’s radar and face future risks if their offshore parents decide to blatantly breach the requirements of the Act

For unilateral misconduct, 2022 and 2023 saw only a handful of cases, and the trend of enforcement is on a gradual incline. However, the authority focused their efforts on digital platforms, specifically food and product delivery applications, and franchises. The authority even announced that there have been numerous complaints from restaurants and partner-riders, where their rates of compensation have been unfairly reduced and business opportunities unfairly restricted, and that the TCCT and the Office would focus their efforts on discussion with, and investigation of, these mega-platforms. A few precedents concerning these platforms have been issued in 2022 and 2023, but none resulted in any prosecution or fine, as lack of evidence from the complainants

necessitated the TCCT to drop many cases. Other cases not concerning digital platforms have also been dropped due to lack of clear evidence of monetary impact on the complainants, or insufficient severity of misconduct. This provides two valuable lessons for us. We now know that the TCCT is generally exceptionally conservative in its prosecution, and perhaps rightly so, as any case that does not contain strong evidence will likely be dropped instead of being dragged out for more investigation. On the other hand, hindered operators need to maintain immaculate records of operations, and such must include unequivocal evidence of commercial and monetary impact caused by the misconduct of a trade partner, or their case will not be properly entertained by the TCCT and the Office. Although most cases have been dropped, their preliminary investigations serve to remind all operators that the TCCT and the Office are ramping up their efforts at investigation and ensuring legal compliance. Operators are reminded that it is perhaps more economically sensible to strictly abide by the Act’s requirements rather than risk facing expensive and possibly lengthy investigation by the TCCT and the Office.

The trend of enforcement for cartels is somewhat different from those of the first two areas of law. Discussions and arrangements between direct competitors were historically prevalent within the Thai economy, and to some extent continue to happen even nowadays. The Act was enacted partly to combat this anti-competitive behavior, which has an immense negative impact on end-users and business operators, as well as unknowingly inhibiting the ability of business operators who engage in any particular cartel activity to improve their operation, as there would be less need for such operators to improve their

The actual number of cartel cases that went through the investigatory process of the Office remains confidential, but so far only seven cases involving cartel activities have been published for public review

products, services, and technology. Since its inception, the Act has been used to deal with numerous cases within the merger control and unilateral misconduct areas, but the number of cases involving cartel activities is comparatively small. The actual number of cartel cases that went through the investigatory process of the Office remains confidential, but so far only seven cases involving cartel activities have been published for public review, compared with numerous cases for merger control and unilateral misconduct. Out of these seven cases, only one ended with an actual fine against the participants, while others were simply dropped because there was lack of unequivocally clear evidence that a cartel was established. Useful examples are cases that involved publication of prices by nationally recognised trade associations. Although the TCCT recognised that some of these prices have been followed by the association members on certain occasions, the lack of routine adherence and mechanism of enforcement against deviation played a major role when the TCCT decided that there was not enough evidence to pursue the involved parties. This appears to be a lenient approach when compared to enforcement in other jurisdictions, but it may stem partly from the intention to slowly ease the public into the law. Despite a low number of case precedents for cartel activities, operators should be mindful that breach of cartel regulation is generally more

serious than committing unilateral misconduct (unless you are a dominant player in any market) or breaching a merger filing requirement. A cartel activity, if and once properly proven, may carry a term of imprisonment. Furthermore, despite the fact that tangible results of a cartel discussion play an important role within the decision-making process of the TCCT when adjudicating the case, cartel activities are much more clear-cut than other types of misconduct and can be more easily adjudicated against when discovered.

Overall, 2022 and 2023 have seen many developments within the area of anti-trust and trade competition within Thailand. Rules have been promulgated and interpretations outlined to the public, thus making it easier to delineate the line between compliance and non-compliance. We expect the TCCT and the Office to issue more precedents in the coming months to continue to supplement merger control regulation and unilateral misconduct to enable the public to navigate the terrain more safely and smoothly, as there are still some areas that remain somewhat unclear.

Pranat has worked with Thai and international clients on merger and acquisitions, anti-trust, corporate, anti-corruption, compliance, and data protection, providing advice and services involving due diligences, deal structuring, negotiation, contract drafting, deal execution, in-house training and public seminars.

pranat.l@mhm- global.com

Pranat Laohapairoj, Partner, Chandler MHM

Q&A

A New Vision for Corporate Lawyers by Peter Connor

CAN YOU GIVE US AN OVERVIEW OF YOUR BOOK AND EXPLAIN HOW IT ADDRESSES THE CONCEPT OF HUMAN TRANSFORMATION IN THE FIELD OF CORPORATE LAW?

The book makes the case for why corporate lawyers, legal departments and firms should head in a different direction and adopt a new paradigm. It outlines the changing landscape for lawyers, then defines the change

imperative, before painting a very clear picture of what the future could look like.

That new vision is for lawyers to become businesspeople, not just lawyers; to regularly provide business input and advice, not just legal advice; and to regularly do business work, not just legal work. I refer to such a lawyer as a T-Shaped Lawyer, a form of legal expert business generalist as shown below.

That is what I mean by human transformation – fundamentally changing the work that lawyers do and their capabilities to do that new work. Re-imagining your work and reinventing yourself.

Why adopt this new vision? The book outlines various reasons but the primary reason is because it turns out that working in the business, not on the business, is the best way to add more value for, and as a result be more valued by, clients. How do I know that? Through my own personal experience working as a lawyer for about 30 years around the world and from the feedback from thousands of lawyers in my workshops who are attracted to this vision but are still in the process of adopting it.

The book is not a prediction of the future but rather a guidebook for lawyers to create their own future.

YOU MENTION THAT, IN THE PAST, THE FOCUS OF LAWYERS HAS GENERALLY BEEN ON THEIR WORK, AND NOT FOLLOWING TRENDS AND CHANGES. HAS THE SITUATION CHANGED NOW AND, IF NOT, WHAT IS NEEDED TO ADAPT?

Therein lies one of the huge obstacles to change in the corporate legal industry. The changes that are happening are almost exclusively to systems and processes, not to people.

Almost all lawyers are not fully aware of this changing landscape, don’t make the most of themselves professionally, are not contributing as much as they could for their clients and their firms/depts, are not adapting to what is starting to happen to their work, and not preparing themselves for what might happen in the future.

To engage more people in this change process, leaders of legal departments and firms need to make the change about people (the work they do and their professional development) and provide them with an inspiring vision of what the future could look like. That is precisely what my book does.

WHAT IS THE CURRENT GAP BETWEEN WORKING IN-HOUSE COMPARED TO IN A LAW FIRM? HOW DO YOU THINK IT IS GOING TO CHANGE?

Working in-house as a lawyer is a completely different job to working in a law firm. Different work, different priorities, different challenges, and different opportunities to name a few. And I believe that gap will continue to widen.

However, the reason that I mention the gap in the book is because, despite the differences which you need to keep in mind, it is possible for all players in the industry to align and play different roles to bring this new vision into reality. If that can be done, everyone will benefit but the industry will look very different to what it does today.

AS IN-HOUSE COUNSEL INCREASINGLY RELY ON TECHNOLOGY TO HANDLE ROUTINE LEGAL TASKS, WHAT DO YOU FORESEE AS THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THEIR EXPECTATIONS OF EXTERNAL COUNSEL?

Richard Susskind talks about increasingly capable machines encroaching relentlessly on the work that has been traditionally done by lawyers. Generative Artificial Intelligence has now made that prediction very real and immediate. That has obvious implications for in-house lawyers – it can now free you up from a lot of traditional work which is why you need to understand what different work you could do and start moving in that direction right away.

As far as external counsel is concerned, I think that at a minimum, in-house counsel will now expect, if not demand, that law firms are making optimal use of these technologies to reduce the cost of doing any work farmed out to them. But frankly, if I was working in-house again, I would expect my firm to also help me to utilise these technologies in my company.

WHAT IS A BUSINESSPERSON MINDSET SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF IN-HOUSE COUNSEL?

HOW CAN LAWYERS CULTIVATE THE RIGHT MINDSET TO EMBRACE THIS TRANSFORMATION TOWARDS BECOMING A BUSINESSPERSON?

I devised the Businessperson Mindset™ to be very specific and clear about what is required to become a businessperson, not just a lawyer. It is NOT the same thing as being business-minded, understanding the business or having business acumen. All these things are necessary but not sufficient.

The book explains in detail what is involved but in broad terms for an in-house lawyer it involves thinking of yourself as in the business not just working on the business.

To realise this vision of a T-Shaped Lawyer you need to adopt this mindset plus two others that I cover in my T-Shaped Lawyer Framework™ that is the subject of the second book in the series.

HOW DO YOU SEE THE ROLE OF INHOUSE COUNSEL EVOLVING IN TERMS OF STRATEGIC DECISION-MAKING WITHIN ORGANISATIONS?

Becoming a T-Shaped Lawyer, as explained above, will necessarily move you into a more strategic role and mean doing more strategic, and frankly more interesting, work. That said, there is a lot of tactical work and advice

that you can and should do to contribute in important ways to your company.

Whether it is strategic or tactical work or advice, the key point to remember is that as a lawyer you rarely if ever make the decision. I explain this point in some detail in the book.

WHERE WOULD YOU SUGGEST LAWYERS START TO LOOK FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO PROVIDE BUSINESS ADVICE AND DO BUSINESS WORK WITHIN THEIR ORGANISATIONS?

In the book I explain that business partnering, providing business advice and input, is something every lawyer, irrespective of seniority, can start doing more frequently tomorrow.

To engage more people in this change process, leaders of legal departments and firms need to make the change about people and provide them with an inspiring vision of what the future could look like

COULD YOU GIVE US A GLIMPSE INTO SOME STRATEGIES FOR LAWYERS WHO WANT TO EMBARK ON THIS TRANSFORMATIVE JOURNEY?

If you adopt this new vision of a T-Shaped Lawyer as I describe it, then it will change everything including your strategies at both an individual and team level.

At an individual level, it will mean that you can start tomorrow working in a different way as outlined in the book. It will also mean a fundamental change to your approach to professional development. No longer will it be sufficient to just go to a few conferences, read a few random articles and take the odd

random course. You will need a structured framework such as the T-Shaped Lawyer Framework™ discussed below.

At a minimum, legal departments will need strategies to change their current, to identify and start doing this new work that I refer to and to support the professional development of the team to do this new work

At a legal department level, it changes everything from strategy to culture to resourcing to metrics etc. At a minimum, legal departments will need strategies to change their current work (through AI and other means that I call work management), to identify and start doing this new work that I refer to (using a range of innovation tools) and to support the professional development of the team to do this new work. Change Management will need to be an overlay to all of these changes.

YOU MENTIONED THAT YOUR BOOK IS PART OF A SERIES. COULD YOU GIVE US A SNEAK PEEK INTO WHAT TOPICS YOU PLAN TO EXPLORE IN THE SUBSEQUENT BOOKS AND HOW THEY BUILD UPON THE IDEAS PRESENTED IN THE FIRST BOOK?

The first book paints the picture of what a new future could look like for lawyers and why lawyers might want to aspire to that vision. I intend to cover How to turn that vision of the future into reality at an individual lawyer level, at a legal department level and at a firm level in the following books in the series if there is sufficient interest in the first book.

to digest. Plus, I believe it is important for me, just as it is for leaders of legal depts and firms, to make the case for change, and to spell out clearly what that change looks like, before diving into the detail of how to realise that change. If you don’t do it that way, and most don’t, then how can you convince sceptical lawyers that they should change? How can lawyers know what new capabilities they will need and how to use those in their work until they know what they need these capabilities for?

I’m just finishing another book in the series “The T-Shaped Lawyer Framework™” that explains what new skills, competencies, qualities, knowledge, and mindsets are necessary for individual lawyers to become T-Shaped Lawyers. It provides the basis for a professional development framework that can be used by any lawyer. Legal departments and firms can also use it for all their lawyers – something I have helped clients to do for multiple lawyers.

If there is interest in the first two books, then I will write a book that covers my frameworks for legal departments and firms to adopt this new vision. Taken together these frameworks offer the promise of a fundamental change at all levels for the corporate legal industry in this one new direction.

Peter Connor, Founder and CEO Alternativelylegal

Peter Connor is Founder and CEO of Alternativelylegal. He can be reached at peter.connor@alternativelylegal.com or on LinkedIn at linkedin.com/in/petercon

A free copy of his book is available at https://peterconnor. legalbusinesslibrary.com/

The reason I chose to do it this way is because there is a lot of material in the first book

IHC Directory

— Law Firms — ASIA

CHINA

Broad & Bright

Tel: (86) 10 8513 1818

Email: broadbright@broadbright.com

Contact: Mr Jun Ji (Jun_ji@broadbright.com)

Website: www.broadbright.com

COM • CMA • ENR • LDR • TMT

East & Concord Partners

Tel: (86) 10 6590 6639

Email: Beijing@east-concord.com

Contact: Mr. Dajin Li

Website: www.east-concord.com

BF • CM • CMA • IP • LDR

Llinks Law Offices

Tel: (86) 21 31358666

Email: master@llinkslaw.com

Website: www.llinkslaw.com

BF • CM • CMA • INV • LDR

W. K. To & Co.

Tel: (86) 10 8587 5076

Email: wktoco@wktoco.com

Contact: Cindy Chen

Website: www.wktoco.com

CMA • E • LDR • RE • REG

HONG KONG

Conyers Dill & Pearman

Tel: (852) 2524 7106

Email: hongkong@conyers.com

Contact: Christopher W.H. Bickley, Partner, Head of Hong Kong Office

Website: www.conyers.com

BF • CM • CMA • INV • LDR

Elvinger Hoss Prussen

Tel: (852) 2287 1900

Email: xavierlesourne_hk@elvingerhoss.lu

Contacts: Mr Xavier Le Sourne, Partner, Ms Charlotte Chen, Counsel

Website: www.elvingerhoss.lu

* Elvinger Hoss Prussen’s Hong Kong office provides inbound and outbound legal services only under Luxembourg law

BF • CM • CMA • INV • TX

W. K. To & Co.

Tel: (852) 3628 0000

Email: mail@wktoco.com

Contact: Vincent To Website: www.wktoco.com

CMA • E • LDR • RE • REG

INDIA

Anand and Anand

Tel: (91) 120 4059300

Email: pravin@anandandanand.com

Contact: Pravin Anand - Managing Partner

Website: www.anandandanand.com

IP • LDR

Clasis Law

Tel: (91) 11 4213 0000, (91) 22 4910 0000

Email: info@clasislaw.com

Contacts: Vineet Aneja, Mustafa Motiwala

Website: www.clasislaw.com

CMA • E • LDR • REG • RES

INDONESIA

ABNR (Ali Budiardjo, Nugroho, Reksodiputro)

Tel: (62) 21 250 5125/5136

Email: info@abnrlaw.com infosg@abnrlaw.com

Contacts: Emir Nurmansyah, enurmansyah@abnrlaw.com) Nafis Adwani, nadwani@abnrlaw.com Agus Ahadi Deradjat, aderadjat@abnrlaw.com

Website: www.abnrlaw.com

BF • CM • CMA • ENR • PF

Makarim & Taira S.

Tel: (62) 21 5080 8300, 252 1272

Email: info@makarim.com

Contact: Lia Alizia

Website: www.makarim.com

BF

Mochtar Karuwin Komar

Tel:

21 5711130

Email: mail@mkklaw.net , ek@mkklaw.net

Contact: Emir Kusumaatmadja

Website: www.mkklaw.net

Your ‘at a glance’ guide to some of the region’s top service providers.

SSEK Legal Consultants

Tel: (62) 21 521 2038, 2953 2000

Email: ssek@ssek.com

Contact: Denny RahmansyahManaging Partner

Website: www.ssek.com

Twitter: @ssek_lawfirm

BF • CMA • E • ENR • RE

MALAYSIA

Adnan Sundra & Low

Tel: (603) 2070 0466

Email: enquiry@adnansundralow.com

Contacts: Deepak Sadasivan, Rodney D’Cruz

Website: www.asl.com.my

BF • CM • CMA • IF • PF

Azmi & Associates

Tel: (603) 2118 5000

Email: general@azmilaw.com

Contact: Dato’ Azmi Mohd AliSenior Partner

Website: www.azmilaw.com

BF • CM • CMA • ENR • PF

Trowers & Hamlins LLP

Tel: (601) 2615 0186

Email: nwhite@trowers.com

Contact: Nick White – Partner

Website: www.trowers.com

BF • CMA • ENR • IF • PF

PHILIPPINES

ACCRALAW (Angara Abello

Concepcion Regala and Cruz Law Offices)

Tel: (632) 830 8000

Email: accra@accralaw.com

Contacts: Emerico O. De Guzman, Ana Lourdes Teresa A. Oracion, Neptali B. Salvanera

Website: www.accralaw.com

CMA • E • IP • LDR • TX

DivinaLaw

Tel: (632) 822-0808

Email: info@divinalaw.com

Contact: Nilo T. Divina, Managing Partner

Website: www.divinalaw.com

BF • CMA • E • LDR • TMT

Morales & Justiniano

Tel: (632) 834 2551, (632) 832 7198, (632) 833 8534

Email: ramorales@primuslex.com

Contact: Mr. Rafael MoralesManaging Partner

Website: www.primuslex.com

BF • CM • CMA • IP • LDR

Ocampo & Suralvo Law Offices

Tel: (632) 625 0765,

Email: info@ocamposuralvo.com

Contact: Jude Ocampo

Website: www.ocamposuralvo.com

CMA • ENR • PF • TX • TMT

SyCip Salazar

Hernandez & Gatmaitan

Tel: (632) 8982 3500, 3600, 3700

Email: sshg@syciplaw.com

Contact: Hector M. de Leon, Jr. - Managing Partner

Website: www.syciplaw.com

BF • CMA • E • ENR • PF

Villaraza & Angangco

Tel: (632) 9886088

Email: fm.acosta@thefirmva.com

Contact: Franchette M. Acosta

Website: www.thefirmva.com

CMA • IP • LDR • REG • RES

SOUTH KOREA

Bae, Kim & Lee LLC

Tel: (82 2) 3404 0000

Email: bkl@bkl.co.kr

Contact: Kyong Sun Jung

Website: www.bkl.co.kr

BF • CMA • IA • LDR • RE

Kim & Chang

Tel: (82-2) 3703-1114

Email: lawkim@kimchang.com

Website: www.kimchang.com

COM • BF • CMA • IP • LDR

Yoon & Yang LLC

Tel: (82 2) 6003 7000

Email: yoonyang@yoonyang.com

Contacts: Jinsu Jeong, Junsang Lee, Myung Soo Lee

Website: www.yoonyang.com

COM • E • IP • LDR • TX

Yulchon LLC

Tel: (82-2) 528 5200

Website: www.yulchon.com

COM • CMA • IP • LDR • TX

TAIWAN

Deep & Far Attorneys-at-Law

Tel: (8862) 25856688

Email: email@deepnfar.com.tw

Contact: Mr. C. F. Tsai

Website: www.deepnfar.com.tw

COM • CM • E • IP • LDR

THAILAND

Chandler MHM Limited

Tel: (66) 2266 6485

Email: jessada.s@chandlermhm.com, satoshi.kawai@chandlermhm.com

Contacts: Jessada Sawatdipong, Satoshi Kawai

Website: www.chandlermhm.com

BF • CMA • ENR • PF • RE

Kudun & Partners Limited

Tel: (66) 2 838 1750

Email: info@kap.co.th kudun.s@kap.co.th chinawat.a@kap.co.th pariyapol.k@kap.co.th

Contacts: Kudun SukhumanandaCapital Markets, Corporate M&A, Banking & Finance Chinawat AssavapokeeTax, Corporate Restructuring, Insolvency Pariyapol KamolsilpLitigation / Dispute Resolution

Website: www.kap.co.th

CMA • CM • LDR • RES • TX

Pisut and Partners Co., Ltd.

Tel: (66) 202 66226, 202 66227

Email: info@pisutandpartners.com

Contacts: Mr. Pisut Rakwong

Website: www.pisutandpartners.com

CM • CMA • E • LDR • RE

Weerawong, Chinnavat & Partners Ltd.

Tel: (66) 2 264 8000

Email: Veeranuch.t@weerawongcp.com

Contacts: Veeranuch ThammavaranucuptSenior Partner

Website: www.weerawongcp.com

BF • CM • CMA • LDR • PF

VIETNAM

Global Vietnam Lawyers LLC

Tel: (84) 28 3622 3555

Email: info@gvlawyers.com.vn

Contacts: Nguyen Gia Huy Chuong

Website: www.gvlawyers.com.vn

CMA • IP • LDR

LE & TRAN

— Law Firms — MIDDLE EAST

BAHRAIN

Trowers & Hamlins

Tel: (973) 1 751 5600

Email: bahrain@trowers.com

Contact: Louise Edwards - Office Manager

Website: www.trowers.com

BF • CMA • IF • LDR • RE

OMAN

Trowers & Hamlins

Tel: (968) 2 468 2900

Email: oman@trowers.com

Contact: Louise Edwards - Office Manager

Website: www.trowers.com

BF • CMA • LDR • PF • RE

— Law Firms — NORTH AMERICA

CANADA

Meyer Unkovic Scott

Tel: (412) 456 2833

Email: du@muslaw.com

Contact: Dennis Unkovic

Website: www.muslaw.com

CMA • IP • IA • LDR • RE

— Arbitration — Services

Beijing Arbitration Commission / Beijing International Arbitration Center (Concurrently use)

Tel: (86) 10 85659558

Email: xujie@bjac.org.cn

Contact: Mr. Terence Xu（許捷）

• RE

• REG

Tel: (84) (28) 38 421242

Contact: Stephen Le

Email: info@letranlaw.com

Website: www.letranlaw.com

COM | E | IA | LDR | RE | RES

Russin & Vecchi

Ho Chi Minh Office:

Tel: (84) 28 3824-3026

Email: lawyers@russinvecchi.com.vn

Contacts: Sesto E Vecchi - Managing Partner Nguyen Huu Minh Nhut – Partner

Nguyen Huu Hoai – Partner

Hanoi Office:

Tel: (84) 24 3825-1700

Email: lawyers@russinvecchi.com.vn

Contact: Mai Minh Hang – Partner

Website: www.russinvecchi.com.vn

CMA • E • IP • INS • TMT

VILAF

Tel: (84) 28 3827 7300, (84) 24 3934 8530

Email: duyen@vilaf.com.vn, tung@vilaf. com.vn, anh@vilaf.com.vn

Contacts: Vo Ha Duyen, Ngo Thanh Tung, Dang Duong Anh

Website: www.vilaf.com.vn

BF • CMA

• RE • ENR • LDR

UAE

Afridi & Angell

Email: dubai@afridi-angell.com

Contact: Bashir Ahmed - Managing Partner

Website: www.afridi-angell.com

BF • CMA • LDR • RE • REG

AMERELLER

Tel: (971) 4 432.3671

Email: gunson@amereller.com

Contact: Christopher Gunson

Website: www.amereller.com

CMA • E • IA • LDR • REG

Trowers & Hamlins LLP

Dubai office:

Tel: (971) 4 351 9201

Email: dubai@trowers.com

Contact: Jehan Selim - Office Manager

Abu Dhabi office:

Tel: (971) 2 410 7600

Email: abudhabi@trowers.com

Contact: Jehan Selim - Office Manager

Website: www.trowers.com

BF • CMA • LDR • PF • RES

Website: www.bjac.org.cn

Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre

Tel: (852) 2525 2381

Email: adr@hkiac.org

Website: www.hkiac.org

Maxwell Chambers Pte Ltd

Tel: (65) 6595 9010

Email: info@maxwell-chambers.com

Website: maxwell-chambers.com

Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (Shenzhen Arbitration commission)

Tel: (86) 755 83501700, (86) 755 25831662

Email: info@scia.com.cn

Website: www.scia.com.cn

Alternative Legal Service Providers

LOD - Lawyers On Demand

Tel: (65) 6326 0200

Email: singapore@lodlaw.com

Contact: Oliver Mould

Website: lodlaw.com

Peerpoint by Allen & Overy

Tel: (852) 2974 7000

Email: info@peerpoint.com

Contact: Stephanie Szeto

Website: www.peerpoint.com

Vario from Pinsent Masons (HK) Ltd

Tel: (852) 2294 3454

Email: enquiries@pinsentmasonsvario.com

Website: https://pinsentmasonsvario.com

Risk, Investigation — and Legal — Support Services

LegalComet Pte Ltd (LEGALCOMET)

Tel: (65) 8118 1175

Contact: Michael Lew, Founder & CEO

Email: michael@legalcomet.com

Website: www.legalcomet.com

Konexo

Tel: (65) 66911 4567

Contacts: Joan Oh

Email: enquiries@konexoglobal.sg

Website: www.konexoglobal.com

—

— Sport & Leisure —

Splash Diving (HK) Limited

Learn to Dive and Fun Dive with the Winner of the PADI Outstanding Dive Centre/Resort Business Award!

Tel: (852) 9047 9603, (852) 2792 4495

Email: info@splashhk.com

Website: www.splashhk.com

— Charitable — Organisations

Impact India Foundation

An international initiative against avoidable disablement. Promoted by the UNDP, UNICEF and the World Health Organization in association with the Government of India.

Tel: (91) 22 6633 9605-7

Email: nkshirsagar@impactindia.org

Website: www.impactindia.org

Non-Legal — Recruitment

True Recruitment Asia

Tel: (852) 5325 9168

WhatsApp: (852) 5325 9168

Email: kannan@truerecruitmentasia.com

The best opportunities from top legal recruiters