All the news


Through this newsletter, we offer you a regular selection of legislative and judicial decision insights prepared by LPA lawyers from its 4 Asian offices as well as some recent news from our teams.


New mandatory guidelines for flexible work arrangement requests to be effective from December 1, 2024, in Singapore


Hong Kong

Abolition of Special Stamp Duty and Buyer’s Stamp Duty and new applicable Ad Valorem Stamp Duty rates for Hong Kong residential properties as of 28 February 2024

Hong Kong welcomes its removal from the EU’s watchlist of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes


New Regulations: China Eases Requirements on Cross-Border Data Transfers


Taxation of dividends paid by a company established in Singapore depending on the tax residence of the shareholder


Freelance Protection Act to become effective in autumn 2024


Implementation of the EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation: The European Commission launches several in-depth investigations in transport and energy sectors




New mandatory guidelines for flexible work arrangement requests to be effective from December 1, 2024, in Singapore

The Government has accepted the new guidelines on flexible work arrangement (“FWA”) requests, as stated in a release[1] from the Ministry of Manpower dated April 16, 2024. The release indicates that “employers are expected to abide by the guidelines”, and that they would come into force as of December 1, 2024.

The guidelines were established by the Tripartite Workgroup, composed of the Ministry of Manpower, the Singapore National Employers Federation, and the National Trades Union Congress.  Aiming to reconcile business productivity and employee well-being, the guidelines were developed jointly with businesses, HR experts, and trade unions.

While employers retain the authority to determine work arrangements, the guidelines make it easier for employees to request flexible work arrangements.

  1. What are the key features of the new guidelines?

The guidelines clarify what may constitute flexible work arrangements, possibly telecommuting, work from home, flexi-hours, compressed work schedule, job sharing or part-time work. The various forms that work arrangements can take should allow employers to respond to their employees’ requests for FWAs while continuing to meet their sector specific needs and operational requirements. Incidentally, employers are encouraged to provide necessary support to employees to facilitate their FWAs requests. This may involve providing them with the appropriate technology, resources and skills.

When employers have implemented FWAs opportunities or when employees request a work arrangement, the guidelines strongly encourage employers to engage in open discussions with their employees to find the most suitable arrangement.

As the implementation of FWAs is to be fair and reasonable, the guidelines suggest that employers set clear expectations regarding deliverables and the operational needs. Thus, employees can tailor their FWAs requests. The decision-making process should be transparent, with employers providing valid reasons when unable to accommodate certain requests. Subsequently, to meet the evolving needs of both employer and employee, the implementation of FWAs calls for feedback and review discussion where need be. Such open communication ensures that employees are assessed solely based on their performance, and it allows to maintain business productivity.

  1. How can employees request FWAs?

The guidelines encourage employees to initiate discussions with their employers regarding flexible work arrangements. When the latter are implemented in the company, employers should have a process for employees to submit formal requests, such as through a work portal or email, however they are not obliged to have one.  The guidelines suggest that any employee who has passed probation can submit formal requests. Such a request should include details such as working hours, location and duration. Employers are expected to review these requests within two months taking into consideration operational requirements and business needs.

Employers can reject a request, but their decision must be based on reasonable business-related grounds. If so, they are also encouraged to propose alternative arrangements.

  1. What are the implications of the new guidelines for employers and employees?

While the guidelines do not require employers to offer FWAs to employees, they encourage employers to do so. In that instance, when employers implement FWAs, they must be mindful of the legal obligations arising therefrom.

No penalties per se are mentioned in the guidelines for employers. However, to clarify queries on the guidelines, the Singapore National Employers Federation stated that “the Ministry of Manpower may issue a warning and require employers to attend corrective workshops only in cases where employers are recalcitrant and/or willfully refuse to comply with the guidelines even after rounds of educational efforts by the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices[2].

As the guidelines are mandatory, employees who feel unfairly treated or discriminated against in the implementation of flexible work arrangements may complain to the Ministry of Manpower or file a claim. This could affect the company’s reputation.

Moreover, non-compliance with the guidelines by the employer may lead to a loss of employee confidence resulting in decreased productivity and leaving the workforce. In the long run, this could result in decreased talent attraction, company’s competitiveness and profitability.


Employers should take these guidelines into serious consideration, as they are bound to change the dynamics of the workplace. Indeed, with their focus on greater flexibility, communication, employee’s wellbeing and technological relevance, these mandatory guidelines mark an evolution of work culture in Singapore.


[1] Ministry of Manpower. “Tripartite Guidelines that Shape the Right Norms and Expectations Around Flexible Work Arrangements to Come into Effect on 1 Dec 2024”. (2024, 16 April). Ministry of Manpower Online.

[2] FAQs on Singapore’s upcoming guidelines on flexible work arrangement requests. (2024, 24 April). Human Resources Online.

Astrip Cippe | Inès Guermouche



Abolition of Special Stamp Duty and Buyer’s Stamp Duty and new applicable Ad Valorem Stamp Duty rates for Hong Kong residential properties as of 28 February 2024

In the 2024-2025 budget delivered on 28 February 2024 (the “Budget”), Hong Kong’s Financial Secretary proposed the abolition, with immediate effect, of the Special Stamp Duty (the “SSD”), the Buyer’s Stamp Duty (the “BSD”) and the Ad Valorem Stamp Duty at 7.5% (the “7.5% AVD”) under Part 1 of Scale 1 of Head 1(1A) of the First Schedule of the Stamp Duty Ordinance (Cap. 117) (“SDO”). The SSD, BSD and 7.5% AVD had been originally adopted by the Hong Kong government to counter short-term speculation and curb external investment demand in relation to residential properties in Hong Kong.

The AVD shall remain payable on residential properties at the rates listed in Scale 2 of Head 1(1A) of the First Schedule of the SDO (the “Scale 2 Rates”), shown in the table below.

Amount or value of the consideration or value of the property (whichever is the higher) Scale 2 Rates or rates at Scale 1 (Part 1)
Exceeds Does not exceed
$3,000,000 $100
$3,000,000 $3,528,240 $100 + 10% of excess over $3,000,000
$3,528,240 $4,500,000 1.5%
$4,500,000 $4,935,480 $67,500 + 10% of excess over $4,500,000
$4,935,480 $6,000,000 2.25%
$6,000,000 $6,642,860 $135,000 + 10% of excess over $6,000,000
$6,642,860 $9,000,000 3.00%
$9,000,000 $10,080,000 $270,000 + 10% of excess over $9,000,000
$10,080,000 $20,000,000 3.75%
$20,000,000 $21,739,120 $750,000 + 10% of excess over $20,000,000
$21,739,120 4.25%

As a result of the abolition of the SSD, BSD and 7.5% AVD, the AVD rates for residential and non-residential property are now the same and they apply equally to buyers who are Hong Kong permanent residents, non-Hong Kong permanent residents and corporate buyers.

In its press release dated 28 February 2024, the Hong Kong government announced that this abolition will be implemented through the enactment of the Stamp Duty (Amendment) Bill 2024 (the “Bill”); however, before the Bill becomes law, its provisions are already being enforced through the Public Revenue Protection (Stamp Duty) Order 2024 (the “Order”). The Order took effect on 28 February 2024 and will remain in force for 4 months. The government aims at having the Bill passed by the Legislative Council before the Order expires on 28 June 2024.

The Order gives full effect to the stamp duty amendments proposed in the Budget, with the result that all instruments executed for the transfer of residential properties on or after 28 February 2024 are no longer subject to SSD or BSD, while AVD will continue to apply at the Scale 2 Rates.

Nicolas Vanderchmitt | Marie-Gabrielle du Bourblanc | Camilla Venanzi


Hong Kong welcomes its removal from the EU’s watchlist of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes

On 5 October 2021, Hong Kong was added to the European Union (the “EU”)’s grey list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes (the “Watchlist”) and was granted until 31 December 2022 to amend the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap. 112) to make its foreign-source income exemption (the “FSIE”) regime compliant with the requirements of the EU. Hong Kong underwent two rounds of amendment of its FSIE regime, the first one of which took effect on 1 January 2023 and a second round which came into force on 1 January 2024, following the issue of further guidelines by the EU in December 2022. Upon its review of the amended FSIE regime which came into force on 1 January 2024, the EU removed Hong Kong from the Watchlist on 20 February 2024.

The 2023 and 2024 amendments to Hong Kong’s FISE regime

Following the inclusion of Hong Kong in the Watchlist, the Hong Kong government introduced an amended FSIE regime in January 2023 (the “2023 FSIE Regime”) through the enactment of the “Inland Revenue (Amendment) (Taxation on Specified Foreign-sourced Income) Ordinance 2022”. Under the 2023 FSIE Regime, multinational enterprise entities carrying on business in Hong Kong and receiving foreign-sourced (a) dividend; (b) interest; (c) income derived from the use of intellectual properties and (d) disposal gain derived from the sale of equity interests (other than partnership interests) can only enjoy tax exemption if they satisfy the following requirements, as applicable: (i) the economic substance requirement, for dividends, interests and disposal gains in relation to equity interests or, alternatively, (ii) the participation requirement for dividends and disposal gains in relation to equity interests, or (iii) the nexus requirement for IP income.

In December 2022, the EU issued new guidelines (the “EU 2022 Guidelines”) stating that all disposal gains shall be treated as income under the FSIE regime, and therefore shall be subject to the economic substance requirement for all kind of disposal gains (except gains arising from the sale of IP assets which shall be subject to the nexus requirement). As a result, Hong Kong had to update its 2023 FSIE Regime in order to comply with the EU 2022 Guidelines. Consequently, Hong Kong remained on the EU Watchlist in 2023 while it worked on further amendments of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap. 112).

The further amended FSIE regime (the “2024 FSIE Regime”) came into effect on 1 January 2024, upon the enactment of the “Inland Revenue (Amendment) (Taxation on Foreign-sourced Disposal Gains) Ordinance 2023”. Following its review of the 2024 FSIE Regime, the EU determined that Hong Kong’s 2024 FSIE Regime now aligns with international tax standards and removed Hong Kong from the Watchlist on 20 February 2024.

The purpose of the 2024 FSIE Regime is in fact to align Hong Kong’s FSIE regime with international tax standards by imposing stricter conditions on the availability of tax exemptions to multinational enterprises, in order to prevent tax evasion.

The 2024 FSIE Regime is a testament to the Hong Kong government’s commitment to counter cross-border tax avoidance through international cooperation and alignment with international tax standards. The Hong Kong government is confident that the introduction of the 2024 FSIE Regime will allow Hong Kong to strengthen its status of international business and trade centre while, at the same time, maintaining the strong pro-business environment and competitive edge that Hong Kong has respectively fostered and held until now thanks to, among other factors, its territorial source principle of taxation, its adherence to  double taxation agreements and its simplified reporting procedures.

Nicolas Vanderchmitt | Marie-Gabrielle du Bourblanc | Camilla Venanzi


New Regulations: China Eases Requirements on Cross-Border Data Transfers

In a context where the PRC government is aware of the necessity to attract foreign investment within its territory, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) released the Provisions on Regulating and Promoting Cross-Border Data Flows (hereafter “New Provisions”) on March 22, 2024, along with the second edition of the Guidelines for Security Assessment Filings and for Filing Personal Information Export Standard Contracts which took effect on the date of release.

These New Provisions and guidelines aim to ease cross-border data flows and ensure compliance with the existing Cybersecurity Law, the Data Security Law, and the Personal Information Protection Law. This is a welcome change for all companies established in Mainland China.

The New Provisions fully exempt certain data export activities from the initial obligations of security assessment, execution of standard contracts, or obtaining a certification. They also introduce changes to the filings of cross-border data transfers. The regulators have highlighted the following situations where, if conditions are met, the execution of a Standard Contract, personal information protection certification, or security assessment are no longer required:

  • Emergency situations when it is necessary for the protection of the life, health, and property of a natural person.
  • Data collected and generated during international trade, cross-border transportation, academic cooperation, transnational production and manufacturing, and marketing activities (without involving domestic personal information or critical data).
  • Necessity to execute and perform a contract to which the individual is a party (including cross-border shopping, flight and hotel reservations, visa applications).
  • When data is collected and generated outside the PRC by data processors, processed within the PRC, and then exported after processing (without involving domestic personal information or important data).
  • Human resources management: employees’ personal information without being regarded as important data and in compliance with the principle of minimum and necessary data as stated in the PIPL.
  • Personal Information (PI) processors (other than Critical Information Infrastructure Operators – CIIOs) are authorized to transfer abroad less than 100,000 individuals’ personal information (not containing sensitive PI) since January 1 of the current year.
  • Free Trade Zones are authorized to create their own negative list of data, allowing the transfer of data not on the negative list to overseas locations without the obligations of security assessment, execution of standard contracts, or obtaining certification.

The New Provisions also allow PI processors to export data after completing the certification or filing a Standard Contract when the PI processor is not a CIIO and the PI involves more than 100,000 individuals but less than 1,000,000 (with sensitive PI restricted to less than 10,000 individuals).

For other categories where an exemption is not granted, the Chinese regulator has still sought to reduce some administrative burdens by simplifying the submission of materials or the report on personal information impact assessment when filing a Standard Contract with the CAC, and by extending the validity period of such a report to three years.

This version includes a clearer structure and more detailed information on the new regulatory framework, making it easier to understand the implications and benefits for businesses operating in Mainland China.

Fanny Nguyen


Taxation of dividends paid by a company established in Singapore depending on the tax residence of the shareholder

Singapore is home to many French expatriates, who have made French one of the top foreign languages studied in Singapore. Among this large French community, a number of individuals are shareholders of Singaporean companies. In this Smart Alert Singapore issue of April 2024, we would like to evidence the difference in tax treatment between two individual shareholders receiving dividends from a company established in Singapore, depending on their tax residence.

Residence criteria

Tax residence of an individual is first determined according to local legislations. In case of conflict (when the two countries consider that the same individual is tax resident in the two countries), the applicable Double Taxation Agreement signed between these two countries will resolve the conflict. The Double Taxation Agreement signed between the Government of the Republic of Singapore and the Government of the French Republic for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income (the “Tax Treaty between Singapore and France”) provides the following successive criteria to help resolving the conflict of residence between France and Singapore:

  • the individual shall be deemed to be a resident of the country in which he has a permanent home available to him. If he has a permanent home available to him in both countries, he shall be deemed to be a resident of the country with which his personal and economic relations are closer (centre of vital interests);
  • if the country in which he has his centre of vital interests cannot be determined, or if he has not a permanent home available to him in either country, he shall be deemed to be a resident of the country in which he has an habitual abode;
  • if he has an habitual abode in both countries or in neither of them, the competent authorities of the countries shall settle the conflict by mutual agreement.

Determining the tax residence of an individual may be cumbersome and to avoid any issues with the authorities of either country, it is highly recommended to seek legal advice specifically for nationals who have ties and physical presence in two countries.

Distribution of dividends

  1. The French shareholder receives the dividends in Singapore as a “Singapore Tax resident”

According to domestic legislation in Singapore, dividends received from Singapore resident companies under the one-tier corporate tax system are not taxable.

The reasoning behind this is that Singapore operates as a one-tier corporate tax system, meaning that companies pay tax on their profits and, when dividends are distributed to shareholders, the dividends in question are exempt from tax in the hands of the shareholders.

Thus, the principle in Singapore is that dividends distributed by a Singapore company to a Singapore Tax resident (or a foreign tax resident) are tax-exempt.

  1. The French shareholder receives the dividends in France as a “French tax resident
  • What about the tax treaty?

Article 10 of the Tax Treaty between Singapore and France does not prevent France from taxing dividends paid by a Singapore company to a French tax resident.

  • Application in France

For some years now, dividends in France have been subject to the “Prélévement Forfaitaire Unique”, also known as “PFU”, which is a flat rate. of 30%, including 12.8% income tax and 17.2% social security contributions. This is a flat rate that does not take into account the taxpayer’s tax bracket or reference tax income.

The taxpayer may also choose to subject the dividends received to his / her progressive income tax rate (global option which will apply to all income such as dividends, capital gain, etc. qualified as “revenus de capitaux mobiliers”). Under this option, the dividends received will be classified as “revenus de capitaux mobiliers” and will be eligible for a 40% tax deduction. Dividends received will then be added to the total amount of other income to determine the taxable amount.

Note that if the applicable marginal tax band of the taxpayer (“tranche marginale d’imposition”) is 30%, it is more attractive to subject the dividends received to the PFU whose income tax rate is 12.8%.

In conclusion, as illustrated in the two scenarios presented, whether dividends are received in Singapore as a Singapore Tax resident or in France as a French Tax resident, the tax implications can vary substantially. It is therefore important to keep in mind the provisions of the bilateral agreements between France and Singapore as well as the domestic rules applicable to determine the appropriate tax treatment of such dividends. Given the potential for differing tax treatment based on residency status and jurisdiction, seeking professional tax advice is crucial to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.

Bérengère Roig | Marie-Gabrielle du Bourblanc


Freelance Protection Act to become effective in autumn 2024

On 28 April 2023, the Freelance Protection Act (“the Act”) which establishes regulations regarding the outsourcing of work to freelancers was enacted. The Act is scheduled to become effective by November 2024 to improve the work environment for freelance workers.

  1. Background and scope

The background to the enactment of the Act is the increasing diversification of working styles in Japan. While many still work at companies and other organizations as the so-called salarymen, an increasing number of people are leaving these institutions and are working as freelancers, who are considered to be in a more precarious position than regular company employees. Many freelancers often have the fear of being cut off from their contracts and from time to time, they have to take orders under unfavorable conditions at the behest of their clients. In light of this situation, the Act establishes regulations to prevent the exploitation of freelance workers by clients.

The Act applies to transactions related to work ordered and entrusted to freelancers, which are called “specified contractors” in the Act and are defined by Article 2, Paragraph 1 as:

  1. Individuals who do not employ any employees or,
  2. Corporations that have no other officers (directors, directors, executive officers, managing partners, auditors, or their equivalents) than the representative person, and that do not employ any employees.
  1. Primary regulations of the Act

The regulations under the Act involves various aspects of outsourcing by clients to freelancers, which primarily consists of the following items.

  • Clear statement of terms and conditions of transactions

When outsourcing work to freelancers, the client shall clearly indicate the details of the work, the amount of remuneration, the payment date, and other matters in writing or by electromagnetic means (e-mail, PDF file, etc.), and the freelancer may request the delivery of written document if the indication has been made by electromagnetic means (Article 3 of the Act).

  • Due payment of remuneration

Remuneration due to the freelancers shall be paid as soon as possible within 60 days from the date of delivery of the work or provision of the services, regardless of whether or not the client who outsources the work conducts an inspection of the delivered work (Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the Act). In addition, if the freelancer further subcontracts the work to other freelancers, the freelancer contractor shall pay the freelancer subcontractor as soon as possible within 30 days of the payment date from the original client (Article 4, Paragraph 3).

  • Prohibited acts

When the outsourcing to a freelancer shall continue for more than a certain period of time (to be determined by government ordinance), the client cannot engage in the following acts (Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the Act).

    • Refusing to accept the delivery of work without reasons attributable to the freelancer;
    • Reducing the amount of remuneration without reasons attributable to the freelancer;
    • Returning the delivered work without reasons attributable to the freelancer;
    • Unjustifiably setting a significantly low level of remuneration;
    • Forcing the freelancer to purchase a product or use a service designated by the client without justifiable reasons.

In addition, regardless of the length of the outsourcing period, the client shall not unreasonably harm the freelancer’s interests by any of the following acts (Article 5, Paragraph 2).

    • Causing the freelancer to provide economic benefits to the client;
    • Changing the content of the work or having the work redone for reasons not attributable to the freelancer.
  • Accurate representation of recruitment information

The client shall not make false or misleading representations in recruitment advertisements for freelancers to whom it outsources the work, which advertisements shall be accurate and up to date (Article 12 of the Act).

  • Consideration for pregnancy, childbirth, childcare, and nursing care

When the outsourcing to a freelancer shall continue for more than a certain period of time (to be determined by government ordinance), upon the freelancer’s request, the client shall give necessary consideration so that the freelancer can engage in the work while balancing their needs for pregnancy, childbirth, childcare, and nursing care (Article 13, Paragraph 1 of the Act).

In cases where the outsourcing does not fulfill the continuation requirement, if the freelancer so requests, the client still needs to make efforts to give necessary consideration to the situation so that the freelancer can balance work with childcare and nursing care (Article 13, Paragraph 2). Specific ideas and examples of such consideration will be clarified in the guidelines to be prepared by the Minister of Health, Labor and Welfare.

  • Regulations against harassment

The client shall take necessary measures, including the establishment of a consultation system, to prevent sexual harassment, maternity harassment, and power harassment against freelancers (Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Act):

It is also prohibited to treat freelancers in a disadvantageous manner, such as terminating a contract, on the grounds that they have made consultation regarding any of the above harassment (Article 14, Paragraph 2).

  • Supervision by Japan Fair Trade Commission and the Minister of Health, Labor and Welfare

In case the client does not comply with the items (1) through (6) listed above, or any other mandatory provisions of the Act, such as the 30-day advance notice requirement for the mid-term termination or suspension of renewal of a continuous service contract (Article 16 of the Act), the freelancer may report such violation to the Fair Trade Commission, the Small and Medium Enterprise Agency, or a contact desk to be established at the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare.

Upon receiving a report from a freelancer, the administration authority can respond by collecting reports from other sources, conducting on-site inspections, or providing guidance, advice, or recommendations to the client, depending on the nature of the problem. The name of the client may be publicized, and an order may be issued if the guidance or advice is not followed, and failure to observe the order may result in a fine up to JPY 500,000 (Article 24, Paragraph 1).

  1. Conclusion

Unlike in the case of the Act against Delay in Payment of Subcontract Proceeds, etc. to Subcontractors, the Freelance Protection Act is applicable to individuals or corporations whose capital are less than JPY 10 million, as long as they outsource work to freelancers. Therefore, it is advisable to examine compliance with this new regulation if one outsources its business in Japan.

Mina IshikawaJing Huang



Implementation of the EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation: The European Commission launches several in-depth investigations in transport and energy sectors

Since the entry into force of Regulation (EU) 2022/2560 on foreign subsidies distorting the internal market in October 2023 (“FSR”), the European Commission launched investigations on the impact of foreign subsidies granted to companies bidding for some European public tenders in the transport and energy sectors.

Shortly after the coming into force of FSR, the Commission initiated a preliminary investigation on imports of electric vehicles from China. This investigation, which is still ongoing, aims to determine whether foreign subsidies granted to electric vehicle manufacturers by the People’s Republic of China are adversely impacting the European Union’s industry, and specifically European e-car manufacturers.

Even if this investigation is carried out under a different regulation, European Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union, it is in line with FSR, which pursue the same objective of avoiding distortions of competition resulting from public subsidies in the European market.

In February 2024, the European Commission started its first in-depth investigation under FSR in response to suspicious bids submitted in a public tender for the supply and maintenance of trains of the Bulgarian Ministry of Transport and Communications.

This inquiry was started following the notification filed under FSR by the bidder, Quingdao Sifang Locomotive Co, Ltd, a subsidiary of the world’s main manufacturer of railway equipment. The investigation revealed that the amount of the subsidy granted was €1.7 billion, i.e five times higher than the €336 million bid apparently submitted by the Chinese company. The company chose to withdraw its bid before the European Commission had a chance to rule on the impact of this subsidy on competition on the European market.

Since then, the European Commission opened several other in-depth investigations in the energy sector. The background is presumably the European dependence on third countries for critical technologies and production of raw materials.

On 3 April 2024, the European Commission announced two in-depth investigations on foreign subsidies granted to companies bidding in a public tender for the design, construction and operation of a photovoltaic park in Romania. In this sector, less than 3% of solar panels installed in the EU are manufactured in Europe.

These investigations follow FSR filings submitted by the following consortia:

  • ENEVO, a Romanian engineering and consultancy services provider, and LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, a German subsidiary of the Hong Kong eponymous group, which is a major supplier of photovoltaic solutions.
  • Shanghai Electric UK Co. Ltd. and Shanghai Electric Hong Kong International Engineering Co. Both companies are ultimately controlled by a state-owned entity controlled by the Chinese Central Government.

The European Commission suspects that the two bidding consortia benefit from an unfair competitive advantage in the tender because of subsidies granted in China. The background is that the relevant public tender is partly financed by the European Modernisation Fund.

Following an in-depth examination balancing the positive and negative effects of the subsidies on competition on the European market, the Commission may either (i) raise no objections and authorise the award of the public contract, (ii) issue a decision authorising the award of the contract subject to commitments, or (iii) decide to prohibit to the award of the contract, where it considers that the proposed commitments are inappropriate or not sufficient to fully and effectively remedy the distortion on competition or if the economic operator does not offer commitments.

On 9 April, the European Commission announced a new investigation on Chinese wind turbine suppliers. The Commission has not yet specified the context of this investigation but intends to examine the conditions under which wind farms are developed in Spain, Greece, France, Romania and Bulgaria.

Relevant press releases:

Commission opens two in-depth investigations under the Foreign Subsidies Regulation in the solar photovoltaic sector
Speech by Executive Vice President Vestager on technology and politics at the Institute for Advanced Study

Marco Plankensteiner | Pauline Dessevre | Alice Mollot



Team | Chin Hiang Wu has been promoted to of Counsel at LPA Singapore with effect from 1 February 2024. Chin Hiang has been a member of the Singapore Bar since 2014, and is an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He joined the firm in 2019 as Associate to reinforce the Corporate and M&A practice. LinkedIn

Team |Jing Huang joined the Corporate and M&A Team of LPA Tokyo as Associate in March 2024. Jing is qualified in Japanese law and American law (Attorney-at-Law, Tokyo Bar and New York Bar). He also holds the Chinese Legal Professional Qualification Certificate. He advises a wide range of clients on Corporate Law and Commercial Law, including commercial agreements, intellectual property and financial transactions. LinkedIn

Rankings | Arnaud Bourrut-Lacouture, Managing Partner of LPA Singapore, is among the winners of the 2024 Stellar Accolade from Legal One, a significant recognition of the outstanding work done by our M&A and corporate team. In less than six years, LPA Singapore has demonstrated, through this award, that it has become a reliable and renowned boutique firm for transactions in Singapore and Southeast Asia. LinkedIn

Partnership LPA-CGR avocats is a member of Coryllis by Expansio, a digital platform dedicated to French companies with international projects. This platform aims to connect French experts worldwide with French businesses looking to expand globally. Visit our digital booth and connect with our LPA-CGR team in Asia by clicking here

Past event Ayano Kanezuka, Partner at LPA Tokyo, had the privilege of participating in the round table “Franco-Japanese Perspectives on Current Data Law Issues (GDPR – APPI)” organized by the Paris Bar Association (Ordre des avocats de Paris) and the Tokyo-Daini Bar Association on April 3rd, in Paris.

Past event Marie-Gabrielle du Bourblanc, Counsel at LPA-CGR avocats Hong Kong office, participated in a webinar “Réussir son développement en Asie via Hong Kong : enjeux et opportunités” organized by Expansio via the Coryllis platform on April 4th. Replay (in French)

Past event | Fanny Nguyen, local partner at LPA-CGR Avocats Shanghai, had the privilege of participating in the China Business Forum organized by Business France on May 6th, in Paris. This event was held in honor of the visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping and the 60th anniversary of diplomatic relations between France and China. LinkedIn (in French)

Past event Nicolas Vanderchmitt, Managing Partner of LPA-CGR avocats Hong Kong office, had the privilege of moderating a legal committee session organized by the French Chamber in Hong Kong on May 9th. The seminar focused on business dispute resolutions and highlighted Hong Kong’s prominence in this area, featuring esteemed speakers. LinkedIn

Past event LPA Singapore, represented by Arnaud Bourrut-Lacouture, Managing Partner, and Chin Hiang Wu, Of Counsel, sponsored the “10-Year JFDI Alumni Reunion” co-organized by Black Mangroves in partnership with JFDI Asia on May 13th, in Singapore. This event brought together entrepreneurs, mentors, investors and like-minded experts from the Tech Ecosystem to celebrate the foundation of JFDI ten years ago. Over the years, this accelerator has nurtured many startups in Southeast Asia. LinkedIn

Past event | Lionel Vincent, Managing Partner at LPA Tokyo, and board member of the CCI France Japon, had the honor of welcoming, alongside the Chamber, Mr. Uesada, the Mayor of Matsue in May, 2024. This meeting provided a unique opportunity to discuss high-level strategies for promoting the beautiful city of Matsue as an international tourist destination, and for driving economic developments. LinkedIn