Publication Type
Journal Article
Version
acceptedVersion
Publication Date
7-2015
Abstract
The impetus behind the introduction of the statutory provision was the perceived need to protect the vulnerable minority shareholder against the unfair manipulation of the majority rule. Its raison d’être is clearly personal. And, as it is an important tool in the minority shareholder's arsenal, it is necessary that the scope of its application be sufficiently wide. The provision is therefore couched in expansive terms. This has led to questions being raised as to the scope of its application. Specifically, can a shareholder attempt to vindicate corporate claims through the provision? This short paper considers this issue against the background provided by the recent Singapore Court of Appeal decision of Ng Kek Wee v Sim City Technology Ltd.
Discipline
Commercial Law | Law
Research Areas
Corporate, Finance and Securities Law
Publication
Journal of Corporate Law Studies
Volume
15
Issue
2
First Page
407
Last Page
415
ISSN
1473-5970
Identifier
10.1080/14735970.2015.1044768
Publisher
Taylor & Francis (Routledge): SSH Titles - no Open Select
Citation
KOH, Pearlie M. C..
The Oppression Remedy: Clarifications on Boundaries. (2015). Journal of Corporate Law Studies. 15, (2), 407-415.
Available at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1541
Copyright Owner and License
Author
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 International License.
Additional URL
https://doi.org/10.1080/14735970.2015.1044768