Search the Community

This problem has been there for years, MOM has been keeping companies in watch list but does nothing about it except continue watching. Every year they report thousands of companies are added into their watch list, but what have they done about it other then watching? If they are serious about it, we wouldn't have been in the situation today , including the GE results. https://mothership.sg/2020/08/mom-investigate-employers-pre-selecting-foreigners/

After Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP said last week it would boost starting pay for its junior-most lawyers to $180,000, law firms across the country stumbled over themselves to announce salary increases for their own associates. But now companies are pushing back. Bank of America Corp.’s top lawyer recently sent an email to a group of law firms calling the increases in associate lawyer pay unjustified, making it clear the bank wouldn’t help firms absorb the cost. “While we respect the firms’ judgment about what best serves their long-term competitive interests, we are aware of no market-driven basis for such an increase and do not expect to bear the costs of the firms’ decisions,” David Leitch, Bank of America’s global general counsel, wrote in the email, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. A Bank of America spokesman declined to comment. The latest law firm salary raises boosted first-year pay by 12.5%, and gave comparable hikes to the rest of the associate lawyer ranks. Pay generally went up by between $20,000 and $35,000 for every associate, topping out at salaries of $315,000 and above for the senior-most associates, typically with eight or nine years of experience. The chief litigation officer for a Fortune 100 company said $180,000 for a first-year isn’t justified, pointing by way of comparison to a lawyer in the company’s litigation department with 20 years of experience who doesn’t make that much money. “Why would we ever think a first-year associate is worth that?” the lawyer said, adding that they recently denied a firm’s request to charge $400 an hour for a first-year. The identities of the law firms that received Mr. Leitch’s message aren’t known, but the email appeared to target firms that handle the bank’s litigation. “We value the work performed by our Litigation Roundtable firms and seek to maintain a true partnership that meets our reciprocal needs—thoughtful, strategic, and cost-competitive representation at rates and alternative billing arrangements that are attractive to our counsel,” wrote Mr. Leitch. Advertisement The email ended by saying Mr. Leitch entrusts the firms who receive the email with its work because of their “legal expertise and entrepreneurial instinct,” and looks forward to continuing to partner with them. Like many other large companies, BofA has worked in recent years to reduce its legal spending; in 2013, the bank told the Association of Corporate Counsel it slimmed the number of firms it hires to defend it in litigation to 30 from around 700. Bank of America spent $1.2 billion on litigation in 2015, according to its earnings report. BofA has used firms including Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP and Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP for big litigation matters in the past. Paul Weiss declined to comment. Representatives for Skadden and Cleary didn’t immediately return calls for comment. Cravath didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. The push-and-pull over pay and rates has for decades been a source of tension between corporate legal departments and the law firms they hire. Historically, law firms charged their clients in only one way: by the hour. While many in-house lawyers grumbled about the arrangements, saying they encouraged inefficiency and led to eye-popping bills, they mostly paid them. But within the last decade or so, companies have pushed back. They now routinely demand “flat-fee” arrangements for a single piece of work, like a lawsuit or a transaction. And many have stopped paying for photocopies and legal research, items that were once rubber-stamped. In-house lawyers have also ramped up resistance to paying for the most junior lawyers, often saying they won’t pay for first- and second-year lawyers even if they are staffed on assignments. Such lawyers, the thinking goes, are too often billed out at hundreds an hour to perform relatively menial tasks, like reviewing documents. Not all in-house lawyers are railing against the raises. Edward Ryan, the global general counsel for Marriott International Inc., said he believes “law firms are responsible for their own cost structure” and that what ultimately matters is “the value of what we pay for.” That said, he questioned if clients will “take their business elsewhere” if law firms try to pass off the costs directly. Before Cravath raising its salaries, associate pay industrywide hadn’t budged in nearly a decade, a time during which law school tuition has skyrocketed, leaving many graduates with upward of $100,000 in debt. Many associates had complained to law-firm leaders that in recent years their pay scale had failed to keep up with cost-of-living increases. It isn’t entirely surprising that dozens of firms have followed Cravath’s lead and matched the new salary structure in recent days. Large law firms view keeping pace with market leaders like Cravath as part of staying competitive in recruiting and retaining their younger lawyers, even if their profits are lower and they operate in smaller markets.

can guess which firms? i bet probably more than a few banks in there

Two suspected peddlers leaving a store selling contraband cigarettes in Geylang. Both have since been arrested. It is not just police and Customs officers who are on the lookout for cigarette smugglers. Tobacco companies here have also been hiring more private investigators to help tackle a problem which eats into their business. "It is in our interest as a company to understand how cigarettes are being smuggled into and distributed in Singapore," said Mr Ann Hee Kyet, corporate affairs manager of the biggest tobacco company here, Philip Morris Singapore, which distributes brands such as Marlboro and Next. Representatives of the other two major tobacco companies - JT International Tobacco Services and British American Tobacco - made the same point to The Sunday Times. That is where private investigators like John (not his real name), who has been working for tobacco companies over the last decade, come in. Last September, he got a tip-off that a smuggling ring was using a taxi to transport contraband cigarettes here. Source: http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/singapore/story/private-eyes-track-cigarette-smugglers-tobacco-firms-20140126

this is applying to professionals, good or bad?

this can be merged under one closed

MOTOR companies are coming up with innovative ways to entice car buyers put off by the recent cooling measures. These range from a leasing deal that allows customers to drive away with a new Mercedes-Benz E200 with no downpayment to a buyback scheme that lets them own a Porsche Panamera for just $788 a month. The arrangements are offered mainly by companies selling premium and luxury brands, as these are the ones most affected by the cooling measures. In February, the Government restricted most car loans to 60 per cent of the purchase price - compared with up to 100 per cent previously - and imposed a tiered taxation system placing the heaviest burden on luxury vehicles. Source: http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/...buyers-20130529

Do you think these items really work?

Hi folks .. I understand that if we want to play stocks we need to open an account. So do we have to go CDP open an account then go to a broking firm to open again ? What is the difference between both of them and which is less hassle ?

COMPANIES which offer financially strapped car owners a way out - by taking over their vehicles to be used as rentals - are sprouting. It makes good business sense for the dozen or so firms, which advertise their services online - they avoid the huge capital outlay of acquiring their own car fleet. On the surface, it looks like a good deal for the car owners too. Many of them cannot sell their cars due to their huge loans and the fall in car prices in recent years. The 'rental' firms pay them a monthly fee for their cars, often enough to cover their loan instalments. But there is a catch - a costly one. It is illegal to rent your car out this way. If something happens to the car while it is hired out, there may not be any insurance cover. If it is stolen, insurers may not pay up. A check by The Straits Times found several advertisements on a website, efair.com.sg, targeting individuals who cannot quite afford the car they bought. An ad by Xtreme Car Rental read: 'Having problems to upkeep your current car? Wanted (sic) to sell away car but can't sell due to huge cash top-up?I can solve all your problems and I have help (sic) a lot of car owners.' Another promised to not only take care of monthly instalments, but also give 'cash rebates'.All the owner needed to do was to leave the car with it, a 'licensed car rental company in Singapore'. One ad by a Mr Ricky Soh was more direct: 'Are you having any difficulties in servicing your monthly instalment? No worries! Do e-mail me your car model, monthly instalment...and we can work it out for you.' What these firms are doing is against Land Transport Authority (LTA) rules. 'Private car owners are not allowed to rent out their cars through rental companies,' its spokesman said. They had to do so on their own - and only at certain times and on particular days of the week. The LTA cracked down on six cases each in 2005 and 2006 and on 11 last year. There have already been six cases in the first four months of this year. Both car owners and rental firms face fines of up to $1,000, jail terms of up to three months or both. Car owners also risk a driving ban of up to 12 months. Despite the penalties, trade sources say the practice is widespread. 'There are a lot of cases which go unreported,' said Mr Peter Chong, president of the Vehicle Rental Association, which represents over 30 rental firms controlling most of the rental fleet here. Firms operating illegally do not need huge capital outlays to start up a fleet. They can reach out to consumers on a tight budget because they offer lower rates. Mr Chong said that since many of these cars were not registered as rental cars, hirers may have no insurance cover in an accident. 'I've come across cases where insurers refuse to pay up because the vehicle was not a rental car,' he said. 'That's the danger.' The LTA said it takes a serious view of illegal rentals, and is 'consistently taking action against those who fail to comply with the law''.

Further to this thread: http://www.mycarforum.com/forum/Others_C20...rices_P2317480/ Collusion of 4 vendors on Fa Gao... price fixing Wat is your thoughts about same price strategy by Petrol firms.. Or do you believe that there is very strong competition despite all matching each other's cutthroat price Even though all of them r reporting obscene profits ----- Pls do not post reply abt yadda yadda letter they hoot lowyar letter hor. Just say IMO lah... I find it strange lah, It is too incredible, etc if you wanna say something bot not say anything...