Foo Ming-En Mark

Foo Ming-En Mark is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2016 to 2017. The lawyer has handled 2 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in banking and finance and performance bond. Their track record shows a 50.0% success rate in resolved cases.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Foo Ming-En Mark has demonstrated expertise across 14 primary practice areas, with significant experience in commercial law and banking and finance.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Commercial Law	2 cases	11% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Foo Ming-En Mark has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Banking and Finance	2 cases	11% of total caseload	Highly Specialized83% relevance score	Foo Ming-En Mark has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	2 cases	11% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Foo Ming-En Mark has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	2 cases	11% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Foo Ming-En Mark has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Property Law	1 cases	6% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Foo Ming-En Mark has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Performance Bond	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Foo Ming-En Mark has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Injunctions	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Foo Ming-En Mark has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Unconscionability	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Foo Ming-En Mark has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Foo Ming-En Mark has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Fraud and Deceit	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Foo Ming-En Mark has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Guarantees and indemnities	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Foo Ming-En Mark has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Banking Law	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Foo Ming-En Mark has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Business Formation	1 cases	6% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Foo Ming-En Mark has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Credit and Security	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Foo Ming-En Mark has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Foo Ming-En Mark has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 2 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP	2 cases	100% of cases	BNP Paribas SA v Jacob Agam: Enforcement of Personal Guarantees for Corporate Loans(Nov 2017) Arab Banking Corp v Boustead Singapore: Demand Guarantees & Unconscionability(Apr 2016)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Foo Ming-En Mark's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.5
Complex Cases: 0 (0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	12.0 parties avg	2.0	50%
Won	13.0 parties avg	3.0	50%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2016	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2017	13.0 parties avg	3.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Foo Ming-En Mark's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	1(50%)	50%
Won	1(50%)	50%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
EUR	32,245,591.79	32,245,591.791 cases	1
SGD	0.00	0.001 cases	1

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2016	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2017	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 2 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	BNP Paribas SA v Jacob Agam: Enforcement of Personal Guarantees for Corporate Loans 16 Nov 2017 BNP Paribas SA (Plaintiff)Won	16 Nov 2017	BNP Paribas SA (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffJudgment for the Plaintiff; the Agams are to pay BNP €13,913,543.12 (in respect of SCI Ruth Agam) and €18,332,048.67 (in respect of Det Internationale), being the amounts due and owing to BNP as at 10 August 2017, plus interest from 10 August 2017 until the date of full payment.
2	Arab Banking Corp v Boustead Singapore: Demand Guarantees & Unconscionability 20 Apr 2016 Arab Banking Corporation (B.S.C.) (Appellant)Lost	20 Apr 2016	Arab Banking Corporation (B.S.C.) (Appellant): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed with costs to be taxed if not agreed. Assumed SGD as the jurisdiction is Singapore.