Three Grappling Legal Issues in Esports

Esports. More than 150 million viewers globally and a multimillion industry. It is expected to soon exceed US$1 billion in 2019. Richard Wee, Lesley Lim, Bryan Boo and Vincent Lim introduce us to three legal issues surrounding the esports industry.

The evolution of esports from its inception to a world-wide phenomenon is truly fascinating. What began as just a few friends playing against each other on the computer or a gaming console has today become multi-million dollar tournaments such as The International 2017, a Dota 2 tournament, boasting a total prize pool of $24,687,919.00, with the champion team taking home a massive $10,862,683.

Governments and organisations around the world are recognising the potential in esports. Even major television channels like ESPN and Fox Sports have jumped into the fray. With the Olympic Council of Asia’s announcement that esports will be included in the 2022 Asian Games in Hangzhou, it is no wonder that traditional sports organisations are starting to acquire their own esports team, like the Dallas Cowboys’ owner acquiring esports organisation compLexity Gaming. Amidst all the hype, we look at 3 legal issues that the industry has to grapple with. Continue reading

Advertisements

#LexTech17: How Singapore’s Future Law Innovation Programme (FLIP) is driving innovation in the legal industry

The LexTech Conference 2017 will be held in Cyberjaya on 4 & 5 November 2017. Visit the event website for more information. TheMalaysianLawyer.com is a media partner of #LexTech17, and our readers can use the promo code LEXTECHTML when purchasing the tickets to enjoy a 10% discount. You can read our other posts on the conference via the LexTech17 tag.

Noemie A
Noemie Alintissar-Mooney, the Programme Manager at the Singapore Academy of Law’s Future Law Innovation Programme (FLIP)

Singapore is home to many of the most exciting legal tech initiatives in the Southeast Asian region, and one of the main players behind this is the Singapore Academy of Law’s Future Law Innovation Programme (FLIP).

Leading up to #LexTech17, we caught up with Noemie Alintissar-Mooney, the Programme Manager at FLIP. At the conference, Noemie will be talking about ‘Of Roadmaps, FLIP & Funding’.

Continue reading

Case Update: Shareholders’ Oppression Action Extends to Group of Companies

The Malaysian High Court in Tob Chee Hoong v Tob Chee Choong & Ors [2017] MLJU 1303 has confirmed that the shareholders’ oppression remedy (section 181 of the Companies Act 1965, and section 346 of the Companies Act 2016) would extend to both the holding company and the subsidiary company.

An aggrieved shareholder may be a member of only the holding company but the oppressive conduct may only be at the subsidiary level. In line with other jurisdictions, this High Court decision confirms that the aggrieved shareholder can still seek relief. Continue reading

LexisNexis’ Gaythri Raman & Min Chen share their legaltech insights ahead of #LexTech17

The LexTech Conference 2017 will be held in Cyberjaya on 4 & 5 November 2017. Visit the event website for more information. TheMalaysianLawyer.com is a media partner of #LexTech17, and our readers can use the promo code LEXTECHTML when purchasing the tickets to enjoy a 10% discount. You can read our other posts on the conference via the LexTech17 tag.

There are some exciting panels and speakers lined up for #LexTech17, and we managed to speak with two of these speakers, both from LexisNexis, to get a preview of some of their thoughts on legal innovations and technology.

Gaythri Raman is the Managing Director of LexisNexis Southeast Asia, and at the conference she will be sharing about “Legal Innovations We Should Look To Accelerate”.

Min Chen is the Vice President & Chief Technology Officer Asia Pacific of LexisNexis, and the title of her conference topic is “AI in Legal Research”.

Gaythri Min Chen
Min and Gaythri

Continue reading

Case Update: Winding Up Petition Cannot be Stayed Pending Reference to Arbitration

In an earlier article ‘Arbitration and Liquidation: Never the Twain Shall Meet?, I had examined the possible tension between the contractual bargain to arbitration and the statutory right to bring winding up proceedings based on a debt. Would an arbitration agreement trump the statutory winding up process?

The recent High Court decision in NFC Labuan Shipleasing I Ltd v Semua Chemical Shipping Sdn Bhd [2017] MLJU 900; [2017] 1 LNS 943 found that there cannot be a stay under the Arbitration Act 2005 (AA 2005) of a winding up petition. A winding up petition is not a claim for payment. It is a class action in the public interest as part of a statutory regime. Therefore, it was held that a winding up petition is not a ‘proceeding’ that is susceptible to a stay pending arbitration. Further, a winding up petition does not concern a matter that is subject to an arbitration agreement. Continue reading

5 things I learned from pupillage that law school didn’t teach me

Guest writer Janice Tan Ying has recently completed her pupillage, and has been retained as an Associate in one of the most well-regarded tax teams in Malaysia.

Call to the bar
An exuberant and fresh-faced Janice on the day of her Call to the Bar of England & Wales, before commencing pupillage in Malaysia. Post-pupillage photo not supplied for comparison of exuberance or freshness of face.

Pupillage. The budding legal eaglet’s nine-month rite of passage (read: baptism of fire) into a career at the Bar.

These nine months will shape and mould your career and personal development. Your pupillage period may be the springboard towards a flourishing legal career, or one that will (gasp shock horror!) turn you off practice permanently.

These are the five key takeaways that I have gleaned from my pupillage journey. They are by no means hard and fast rules, but are my personal take on some of the usual ‘how to’ advice dished out by lawyers.

Continue reading

Case Update: Employer’s poor handling of workplace assault and harassment complaints amounts to constructive dismissal

Case Updates - red

In this Case Update series, I share summaries of recent Malaysian court decisions to explore the current approach taken by the courts when deciding on employment-related issues. You can find all the posts in the series by clicking here, including case updates on other legal areas by TheMalaysianLawyer co-founder Lee Shih.

Most employers are now aware of the importance of having clear policies and processes when it comes to handling complaints and disciplinary issues. It’s the norm for businesses hiring a reasonable number of employees to have in place various codes of conduct, guidelines, and policies.

Despite this, an employer that receives an employee complaint and acts on it could still be at risk of being deemed to have breached the terms and conditions of employment, or severed the employment relationship, due to shortcomings in how the complaint was handled.

The Industrial Court recently considered these issues in Justin Maurice Read v. Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas) (Award No. 965 of 2017). In this case, the claimant (the Employee) had complained of being assaulted and harassed in the workplace. The Employee then claimed that the manner in which these complaints were handled by the company (the Employer) entitled him to claim to have been constructively dismissed.

Continue reading