[2014] SGHC 224

“Indeed, in Sharikat Logistics Pte Ltd v Ong Boon Chuan and others [2014] SGHC 224 (“Sharikat Logistics”), the only local decision to consider the possibility of a minority buyout order, Judith Prakash J found egregious acts on the part of the majority shareholders but held that th”

“& Over Ltd v Bonvests Holdings Ltd and another [2010] 2 SLR 776 at [132], Eng Gee Seng v Quek Choon Teck and others [2010] 1 SLR 241 at Annex A, Sharikat Logistics Pte Ltd v Ong Boon Chuan and others [2014] SGHC 224 at [243] and Lim Seng Wah and another v Han Meng Siew and others [2016] SGHC 177 at [176]. In Tullio Pla”

“On the other hand, in Poh Fu Teck at [38] and Sharikat Logistics Pte Ltd v Ong Boon Chuan and others [2014] SGHC 224 (“Sharikat”) at [246], the High Court stated that the “general rule” or “ordinary position” is that no discount is to be applied in court-ordered buyouts under s 216(2) of the Companies Act, without”

“In Sharikat Logistics Pte Ltd v Ong Boon Chuan and others [2014] SGHC 224, another decision of the Singapore High Court, Judith Prakash J (as she then was) was prepared (at [246]) to acknowledge the possibility of a discount if the minority had acted in such a way as to de”

“sue, it was invariably found that the purpose of the rights issue was to dilute the shareholding of non-subscribing shareholders: see Over & Over at [127]; Sharikat Logistics Pte Ltd v Ong Boon Chuan [2014] SGHC 224 (“Sharikat”) at [188]; Maxz Universal at [108].”