Fears grow in push to open Asian markets
The liberalisation drives in both the India and Singapore legal markets are in danger of running out of steam, with new obstacles emerging in both jurisdictions. In Singapore international firms are braced for a disappointing outcome to the Government's long-awaited review of its joint venture (JV) model, which forces foreign firms to link up with Singapore outfits to practise local law.
November 01, 2007 at 01:38 AM
2 minute read
The liberalisation drives in both the India and Singapore legal markets are in danger of running out of steam, with new obstacles emerging in both jurisdictions.
In Singapore international firms are braced for a disappointing outcome to the Government's long-awaited review of its joint venture (JV) model, which forces foreign firms to link up with Singapore outfits to practise local law.
It is feared that the rules will only be changed slightly, representing a blow to top UK firms as they say the JV model is unsatisfactory. The results of the review, being overseen by the Attorney General, Justice Rajah, were expected as Legal Week went to press.
Meanwhile, talks to liberalise India's legal market also appear to have run into difficulty after proposals sent out to local firms last month were met with a negative response. It is understood the plans considered allowing foreign firms to open in the country, but not to practise local law for a number of years.
It is believed that if a deal is not cut before India's general election – which is slated for as early as mid-2008 – reform could be delayed indefinitely.
Indian firm Luthra & Luthra's founding partner, Rajiv Luthra, said: "We need to level the playing field before this happens. How can an Indian firm, which can only grow to a limited size and is not permitted to advertise, hope to compete with a large international firm?"
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCan Law Firms Avoid Landing on the 'Enemy' List During the Trump Administration?
5 minute readLetter From Asia: Will Big Law Ever Bother to Understand Asia Again?
Simpson Thacher, Nishimura, Mori Hamada Assist on KKR's $4B Winning Bid in Japan
Trending Stories
- 1Supreme Court Appears Sympathetic to Law Requiring Porn Sites to Verify Users' Age
- 2Cybersecurity Breaches, Cyberbullying, and Ways to Help Protect Clients From Both
- 3AI in 2025: Five Key Predictions on How It Will Reshape International Law Firms
- 4Justice Known for Asking 'Tough Questions' Resolves to Improve Civility
- 5Robinson & Cole Elects New Partners and Counsel
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250