Companies Act 1967

“ed wrongdoings committed against company’s downstream subsidiaries — Whether claim barred by reflective loss principle — Whether action brought prima facie in interest of company — Section 216A(3)(c) Companies Act (2020 Rev Ed); Companies — Statutory derivative action — Shareholder alleging breaches of duties by direct”

“work. The 2nd Defendant is held by a parent company under multi-shareholder ownership and is governed by a board that includes an independent local Director who owes strict statutory duties under the Companies Act 1967”. In further buttressing his case that Bundleluxe was a “genuine operating business”, Mr Price highli”

“shares in HOPE. The details of the scheme were elaborated on in the explanatory statement (“ES”) and a supplementary explanatory statement (“SES”) issued by BHL to its creditors under s 211(1) of the Companies Act 1967 (2020 Rev Ed) (“CA”) on 18 September 2023 and 9 December 2023 respectively.”

“Prosetskii’s proper recourse, if any, would perhaps lie in a derivative action, such as under s 216A of the Companies Act, to bring an action under ITC to challenge the validity of Courtwell’s claim against ITC, the arbitral proceedings, and the arbitral award that followed. I therefore found that Prosetskii’s claims,”

“ought to have brought a claim for breach of contract against Tag Marine as the contracting party to the Arrangement. It was and remains open to Sea-Dragon to make an application under s 344(5) of the Companies Act 1967 (2020 Rev Ed) as a person who “feels aggrieved” to restore Tag Marine to the register for the purpose”

“smissed the application and observed that “the law does not recognise a free-standing cause of action in fraud per se” (at [25]). The plaintiff then relied on fraudulent trading under s 340(1) of the Companies Act, but the court held that winding-up proceedings or proceedings against the company were a pre-condition (a”

“Companies — Statutory derivative action — Section 216A of the Companies Act 1967 (2020 Rev Ed) — Whether complainant was acting in good faith”

“The Claimants exercised their rights under s 177 of the Companies Act 1967 (2020 Rev Ed) (“Companies Act”) to call for an extraordinary general meeting on 8 January 2026 (“8 Jan EGM”) to pass various resolutions, including the removal of the Sixth Defendant from his positio”

“In HC/OC 402/2024, the Claimant, Mr Goh Bin Seng (“Mr Goh”), seeks relief for oppression under s 216 of the Companies Act 1967 (2020 Rev Ed) (“CA”). The oppression is said to arise from the actions of the first and second defendants, Mr Yeo Neng Jian Stephen (“Mr Yeo”) and Mr Ong Yong Sheng (“Mr Ong”) respectively, in”

“rting Duty Claim, HLT also sought to introduce pleadings relating to another cause of action, namely a claim against Deloitte for breach of a statutory duty to report the Lim Family’s breaches of the Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed) (“CA”) to the Registrar of Companies pursuant to s 207 of the CA (“Breach of Statuto”

“2023. The Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority issued a Certificate of Confirmation of Amalgamation of the two companies to become RMA with effect from 1 October 2023. Section 215G(c) of the Companies Act 1967 (2020 Rev Ed) (“CA”) provides that on the date shown in the notice of amalgamation, “all the property”

““Scheme Meeting”). One of the Scheme Creditors, Mizuho Asean Investment LP (“MAI”), voted in favour of the Scheme but wished to make submissions to invoke the court’s discretion under s 210(4) of the Companies Act 1967 (2020 Rev Ed) (“Section 210(4)”). This section provides that “[t]he Court may grant its approval to a”

“ut not the latter. This is consistent with the decision of the High Court in Lim Seng Wah v Han Meng Siew [2016] SGHC 177, where the court held that a claim for minority oppression under s 216 of the Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed), which provides for a wider range of remedies than the payment of money (for example”

“e standing to make applications to the Singapore Court under Article 23(1) of the Model Law for orders under or in connection with various forms of avoidance or clawback action under the IRDA and the Companies Act. Article 23(1) provides that a foreign representative has standing to initiate avoidance actions that are”