A new case on the right of a company director to inspect company accounts under section 199 of the Companies Act is
Singapore Flyer Pte Ltd v Purcell Peter Francis [2009] SGHC 120.
The decision of an Assistant Registrar of the High Court is to be found at
http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/judgment
62085.html?utm_source=web%20subscription&utm_medium=web&title=Singapore%20Flyer%20Pte%20Ltd%20v%20Purcell%20Peter%20Francis%20[2009]%20SGHC%20120.
(or at the Supreme Court website - www.supcourt.gov.sg)
Note that the report is normally available for about 3 months and it only relates to a striking out application.
The case is part of a continuing battle between various shareholder factions within the company which operates Singapore tourist attraction the Singapore Flyer.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
Offshore companies
One thing that Singapore companies do not have are bearer shares as this type of shares are prohibited under the Companies Act. These bearer shares have no shareholders' names. They are transferred like cash, by passing the appropriate documents to the intended recipient.
Many offshore companies allow for bearer shares. Offshore companies are formed in countries where regulation is much laxer and often income tax is low or non-existent.
With bearer shares, the opportunity for protection of privacy is increased. Tax avoidance and planning is also more effective.
Many offshore companies allow for bearer shares. Offshore companies are formed in countries where regulation is much laxer and often income tax is low or non-existent.
With bearer shares, the opportunity for protection of privacy is increased. Tax avoidance and planning is also more effective.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Corporate rescue - raising new capital
How do you rescue a company in financial trouble?
One method is of course to raise new capital. This of course will not be easy. One change in the law that makes the process slightly easier is the removal of the concept of par value. Formerly, all shares had to have a par value which was the minimum price at which a company could issue its shares. In normal times, this was not too much of a restriction.
However, in bad times, it was unlikely that a new investor would be willing to pay par value for the shares. For example, if the existing shareholders paid $1 for each $1 share of the company's, with the company in desperate straits, a new investor would demand that new shares be issued to him at a much lower price, especially since it would not be clear how long the company would survive. The par value rules would prevent this new issue without court approval.
Now, without the rules relating to par value, companies will have more flexibility in raising capital.
One method is of course to raise new capital. This of course will not be easy. One change in the law that makes the process slightly easier is the removal of the concept of par value. Formerly, all shares had to have a par value which was the minimum price at which a company could issue its shares. In normal times, this was not too much of a restriction.
However, in bad times, it was unlikely that a new investor would be willing to pay par value for the shares. For example, if the existing shareholders paid $1 for each $1 share of the company's, with the company in desperate straits, a new investor would demand that new shares be issued to him at a much lower price, especially since it would not be clear how long the company would survive. The par value rules would prevent this new issue without court approval.
Now, without the rules relating to par value, companies will have more flexibility in raising capital.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)