Singapore Journal of Legal Studies NUS
   
 
SEARCH  ARCHIVE
Browse/Advanced Search
 
Archive
Search All [Advanced]
Exact Phrase    All Words    Any Word
Search Title [Basic]
Search Author
Search Abstract
Search Publication Date
Return    records per page   
2249 records match your query:

341.  JULY 2007 Issue
p.117

Back to Basics: Indefeasibility of Title under the Torrens System
Crown, Barry C  •  [2007] Sing JLS 117 (Jul)

342.  JULY 2007 Issue
p.128

Doctor Does Not Always Know Best
Fordham, Margaret  •  [2007] Sing JLS 128 (Jul)

343.  JULY 2007 Issue
p.138

Death and the Central Provident Fund: Legislative Intervention
Crown, Barry C  •  [2007] Sing JLS 138 (Jul)
[Full Text]

344.  JULY 2007 Issue
p.148

The Nominee Director's Tangled Lot
Koh, Pearlie  •  [2007] Sing JLS 148 (Jul)

345.  JULY 2007 Issue
p.162

Parliamentary Privileges as Façade: Political Reforms and the Indian Supreme Court
Dam, Shubhankar  •  [2007] Sing JLS 162 (Jul)

346.  JULY 2007 Issue
p.184

The Minority Shareholder's Statutory Exits
Lee, Pey Woan  •  [2007] Sing JLS 184 (Jul)

347.  JULY 2007 Issue
p.197

Book Review: Contracting with Companies
Wee, Meng Seng  •  [2007] Sing JLS 197 (Jul)

348.  DECEMBER 2006 Issue
p.231

Legal Advice Privilege and the Corporate Client
Ho, Hock Lai  •  [2006] Sing JLS 231 (Dec)
There is much recent debate on the scope of legal advice privilege that is available to a corporation. A major source of controversies is the judgment of the English Court of Appeal in Three Rivers D.C. v. Bank of England (No. 5). This article addresses two particularly difficult questions. First, when is a communication made between the lawyer acting for a corporation and an employee or officer of the corporation privileged? Secondly, under what circumstances, if any, would the privilege apply to a document prepared by an employee or officer for the purpose of enabling the corporation to obtain legal advice? An attempt is made to find answers to these problems within the terms of the Evidence Act. Lessons will be drawn from the law of England, Australia and the United States.
[Full Text]

349.  DECEMBER 2006 Issue
p.264

Agency Costs in Controlled Companies
Rachagan, Shanthy  •  [2006] Sing JLS 264 (Dec)
Agency costs have become one of the significant issues in the protection of minority shareholders particularly in controlled companies. The obvious advantage of a controlling shareholder lies in the fact that the controlling shareholder's interest is aligned to that of the non-controlling shareholder. However the concern with controlled companies is that there may be "private benefits of control" which is usually taken to mean as including everything controlling shareholders are able to get out of their position without minority shareholders receiving a proportionate share. There is persistent danger that controlling shareholders will transfer company's resources to themselves. This article will deliberate the reasons why we need to extend protection to minority shareholders. The article will then examine the nature and extent of the agency problems faced by minority shareholders in controlled public companies in Malaysia. The article will achieve this objective by discussing the various strategies available to overcome agency costs arising from the relationship of controlling shareholders and minority shareholders. The article will also discuss the application of the strategies to overcome agency problems in Malaysia. The article will conclude that to entrench a culture of sound corporate governance in Malaysia requires more than just changes to laws and regulations, it requires the introduction of a self-enforcing model.

350.  DECEMBER 2006 Issue
p.285

Hong Kong's Political Autonomy and its Continuing Struggle for Universal Suffrage
Chan, Phil CW  •  [2006] Sing JLS 285 (Dec)
HongKong has faced tremendous transitions as the United Kingdom and China negotiated its political future which culminated in China's resumption of sovereignty over Hong Kong in July 1997. Whilst massive human rights violations in Hong Kong have not materialised after 1997, the autonomy as has repeatedly been promised to the people of Hong Kong by the British and Chinese governments has been eroded. We will assess whether Hong Kong is entitled to the right of self-determination under international law and, if so, what the right entails and whether and how it has been violated or implemented. We will then discuss how the ultimate aim of universal suffrage in Hong Kong continues to be diluted. Finally, we will examine the constitutional implications of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress' power and use of interpretation of a law that is meant to be the ultimate law of Hong Kong.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 | 216 | 217 | 218 | 219 | 220 | 221 | 222 | 223 | 224 | 225