We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology Newsfeed
  • Blog
  • Events
  • Popular
  • Awards
  • About
  • Login
  • Register
  • Blog
  • Events
  • Popular
  • Awards
  • About
  • Login
  • Register
  • Newsfeed
  • Navigator
  • Hubs
  • Webinars
  • Store
  • Analytics
  • Insights
  • Track
  • Create
  • My Lexology
  • Newsfeed
  • Navigator
  • Hubs
  • Webinars
  • Store
  • Analytics
  • Insights
  • Track
  • Create
  • My Lexology
Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Linked In
  • Follow
    Please login to follow content.
  • Like

add to folder:

  • My saved (default)
  • Read later
Folders shared with you

Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.

Questions? Please contact customerservices@lexology.com

Register

Insider trading and the benefits of criminal conduct: part 2 of the Kevin Lew matter

WongPartnership LLP

To view this article you need a PDF viewer such as Adobe Reader. Download Adobe Acrobat Reader

Singapore August 20 2010

In 2007, Kevin Lew Chee Fai ("Lew"), a senior employee of WBL Corporation Limited ("WBL"), sold off his shares in WBL relying on financial information disclosed in an internal meeting which had yet to be made public.

WongPartnership LLP - Wai King Ng, Joy Tan, Andrew Ang and Annabelle Yip
Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Linked In
  • Follow
    Please login to follow content.
  • Like

add to folder:

  • My saved (default)
  • Read later
Folders shared with you

Filed under

  • Singapore
  • Capital Markets
  • Litigation
  • White Collar Crime
  • WongPartnership LLP

Tagged with

  • Insider trading

Popular articles from this firm

  1. A court must examine the entire factual matrix of the case to determine if the facts show that the beneficiary of an on-demand performance bond had acted unconscionably and without good faith when making a call on the demand, and if it had, the court woul *
  2. Thanakharn Kasikorn Thai Chamkat (Mahachon) v Akai Holdings Ltd (in liquidation) *
  3. Pearson & Ors v Lehman Brothers Finance SA & Ors [2010] EWHC 2914 (CH) (England, High Court, 19 November 2010) *
  4. Tamiz v Google Inc [2013] EWCA Civ 68 (England, Court of Appeal, 14 February 2013) *
  5. Grupo Hotelero Urvasco SA v Carey Value Added SL & Anor [2013] EWHC 1039 (Comm) (England, High Court, 26 April 2013) *

If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email enquiries@lexology.com.

Send to Create
Powered by Lexology

Related topic hubs

  1. Singapore
  2. Capital Markets
  3. Litigation

Related Singapore articles

  1. High Court rules on scope of insider trading provisions *
  2. The Singapore Court of Appeal rules on insider trading and confiscation *
  3. Singapore Court of Appeal clarifies what constitutes insider trading *

Related international articles

  1. How to ensure a DJs sale includes Country Road items * - South Africa
  2. Financial services legislative and regulatory issues update May 24 * - USA
  3. Collateral benefits it doesn’t matter if it quacks like a duck! * - Australia

Lexology Navigator Q&A

Compare jurisdictions:Litigation: Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

  1. Russia
  2. Finland
  3. Colombia
  4. View more
Florian Zabel
Head of Legal, Asia Pacific
Roche Diagnostics
What our clients say

"SCCA Newsstand is a great legal resource. I particularly like the user-friendly format, which I find highly efficient!"

Back to Top
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy policy
  • GDPR Compliance
  • RSS feeds
  • Contact
  • Submissions
  • About
  • Login
  • Register
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Search
Globe Business Media Group

© Copyright 2006 - 2018 Globe Business Media Group