S216 Case Study
S216 was conceived with the intent of granting minority shareholders a substantive right to be treated with commercial fairness in a corporate environment monopolized by the majority rule. Personally, I feel that S216 (1) provides the minority shareholders with a personal voice that is often stripped from them by the majority. However, my reservations regarding the enforcement of remedies in s216 (2) leads me to believe that there is room for improvement of the oppression remedy, even if it sounds adequate on theory.
S216 (1): Equipping Minority Shareholders with a Personal Voice
In the first limb of S216, I feel that the court’s objective focus on commercial unfairness and liberal interpretation of factors sufficiently empowers the aggrieved …show more content…
Additionally, it does not require them take legal action immediately , giving the petitioners time to consider and prepare for litigation.
S216 (2): Court Remedies as a Defense Strategy
As for the second limb of s216, I feel that the s216 (2) suffices to provide extensive options for the minority in theory, but have its limitations in its enforcement.
Extensive Court Remedial Discretion
On paper, the unrestricted nature of s216 (2) grants the court the unfettered authority in granting tailored remedies so long as it targets the issue at hand . This allows judges to exercise wide discretion in making prudent decisions that best resolves the dispute. Such pragmatism is exemplified in the Low Peng Boon case where the court accorded corporate damages in recognition of both the breach of director duties and oppressive action . Exceptions aside however, the court generally tend to confine their remedies prescribed to buy-outs under s216 (2)(d)&(e) as a realistic solution that divorces the parties and prevents future disputes . On top of that, the courts generally view the other options as unfeasible, such as the regulation of future company affairs under s216 (2)(b) being impractical unless the judge operates the company himself . This negates the point of providing the array of possibilities under s216 (2) where claimants supposedly can seek
S216 (1): Equipping Minority Shareholders with a Personal Voice
In the first limb of S216, I feel that the court’s objective focus on commercial unfairness and liberal interpretation of factors sufficiently empowers the aggrieved …show more content…
Additionally, it does not require them take legal action immediately , giving the petitioners time to consider and prepare for litigation.
S216 (2): Court Remedies as a Defense Strategy
As for the second limb of s216, I feel that the s216 (2) suffices to provide extensive options for the minority in theory, but have its limitations in its enforcement.
Extensive Court Remedial Discretion
On paper, the unrestricted nature of s216 (2) grants the court the unfettered authority in granting tailored remedies so long as it targets the issue at hand . This allows judges to exercise wide discretion in making prudent decisions that best resolves the dispute. Such pragmatism is exemplified in the Low Peng Boon case where the court accorded corporate damages in recognition of both the breach of director duties and oppressive action . Exceptions aside however, the court generally tend to confine their remedies prescribed to buy-outs under s216 (2)(d)&(e) as a realistic solution that divorces the parties and prevents future disputes . On top of that, the courts generally view the other options as unfeasible, such as the regulation of future company affairs under s216 (2)(b) being impractical unless the judge operates the company himself . This negates the point of providing the array of possibilities under s216 (2) where claimants supposedly can seek