Kong Swee Eng v Rolles Rudolf Jurgen August
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Steven Chong J |
Judgment Date | 12 October 2010 |
Neutral Citation | [2010] SGHC 300 |
Year | 2010 |
Date | 12 October 2010 |
Published date | 05 April 2011 |
Hearing Date | 22 July 2010,15 July 2010,19 July 2010,16 July 2010,14 July 2010 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Alvin Tan Kheng Ann (Wong Thomas & Leong) |
Citation | [2010] SGHC 300 |
Defendant Counsel | Pradeep Pillai and Zhang Xiaowei (Shook Lin &Bok LLP) |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Suit No 630 of 2009 |
The present action arose out of an agreement for the sale and purchase of 3,218,458 ordinary shares (“the S&P Agreement”) in Golden Oriental Pte Ltd (“the Company”). These shares (“the Shares”) were sold by the defendant to the plaintiff pursuant to a Charge dated 9 March 2007 (“the Charge”) granted by Mr Guo Ze Ming (“Guo”), the former founder, director and majority shareholder of the Company, in favour of the defendant and several other shareholders. In brief, the plaintiff in this action sought to be released from her obligation to complete the sale and purchase and also for the refund of her deposit of $500,000, on the principal ground that the Shares that were sold to her were still encumbered by a subsequent charge in favour of United Overseas Bank Limited (“the UOB charge”) and the sale was therefore in breach of a condition precedent of the S&P Agreement which required the Shares to be free from all encumbrances. This dispute has raised an interesting question of law whether the sale of the Shares by the defendant pursuant to a
On 8 March 2007, the defendant together with three other investors namely, Ms Goh Bee Lan (“Ms Goh”), Ms Chong Li Pin (“Ms Chong”) and Mr Wong Tat Hei (“Mr Wong”) (collectively “the Investors”) entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement (“the First Investment Agreement”) with Guo and the Company, under which, in return for 6% of the Company’s ordinary shares (“the sale shares”), they collectively invested $2 million in the following proportions:
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
To protect their investment, the Investors obtained an undertaking that Guo and the Company would use their best endeavours to procure a listing of the Company’s shares (“the undertaking to list”) by 31 December 2008 (“the deadline”), and in the event that the listing was not achieved by then, the Investors were entitled to exercise a put option requiring Guo and/or the Company to buy the sale shares back from the Investors at an agreed “put” price calculated at their respective contributions plus a premium of 20%.
To further secure the performance of the Company’s and Guo’s obligations under the First Investment Agreement, Guo executed the Charge on 9 March 2007 in favour of the Investors.
The Charge The Charge was granted by Guo in favour of the Investors (including the defendant) by way of a fixed charge free from any security interest, all his present and future rights, title and interest in all his shares in the Company. Under clause 8, the Investors were entitled to enforce the Charge upon the Company and/or Guo’s default under the First Investment Agreement to secure payment and discharge of the Company or Guo’s indebtedness towards the Investors. A power of sale was specifically conferred on the Investors under clause 8.2:
Subsequently, on 14 December 2007, the defendant and two others entered into another sale and purchase agreement with Guo and the Company (“the Second Investment Agreement”), under which the defendant invested an additional sum of $1.2 million in return for 150 of the Company’s ordinary shares. Similar to the First Investment Agreement, there was an undertaking to list under clause 5.1 of the Second Investment Agreement, failing which the defendant was entitled to exercise a put option requiring Guo and/or the Company to buy the defendant’s shares back at the price of $1.2 million, being the defendant’s contribution, plus a premium of 8%.
Barely a week later, on 20 December 2007, the Investors and a few others entered into a subscription agreement with Guo and the Company (“the Third Investment Agreement”), under which the Investors made additional investments in the Company and obtained new shares as follows:
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
Separately, through a resolution passed on 28 March 2008, each ordinary share in the Company was divided into 1,000 shares, and, as a result, the 580 shares that the defendant had obtained through the three Investment Agreements became 580,000 ordinary shares.
Guo’s failure to deposit the share certificatesPursuant to clause 3.3 of the Charge, Guo was required to deposit the share certificates of all his shares in the Company, together with duly executed share transfer forms in blank, with The Bank of East Asia, who were appointed as the escrow agent. However, due to an oversight by the Investors, this was in fact not done by Guo. On 5 November 2008, after they had found out about this lapse, the defendant’s solicitors wrote to Guo, giving him until 11 November 2008 to remedy the situation and deposit the share certificates and the share transfer forms with the escrow agent, but Guo did not respond or comply with their request.
Guo and the Company’s failure to list and their subsequent default As it turned out, the Company failed to achieve the listing by the deadline, and on 23 January 2009, the defendant exercised his put options under the respective Investment Agreements and notified the Company and/or Guo accordingly. Neither the Company nor Guo complied with the put options. As a result of the non-compliance, the defendant together with two of the Investors namely Ms Goh and Ms Chong (collectively “the Creditors”), through their solicitors, declared on 12 February 2009 that an event of default had occurred under the Investment Agreements and demanded payment of the following sums due:
These figures were arrived at based on the following calculations of the sums due under the respective Investment Agreements (see
| | ||
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
The Creditors decided to take steps to realise their security under the Charge. However, as Guo had failed to deposit the share certificates and the share transfer forms with the escrow agent (see
At that time, Guo was the owner of 4,951,475 ordinary shares in the Company. Although the Charge...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State Bank of India Singapore v Rainforest Trading Ltd
...356 (folld) Harrold v Plenty [1901] 2 Ch 314 (folld) Hunter v Hunter [1936] AC 222 (folld) Kong Swee Eng v Rolles Rudolf Jurgen August [2011] 1 SLR 873 (folld) MUI Bank Bhd v Alkner Investments Pte Ltd [1990] 3 MLJ 385 (folld) Ocean Jade, The [1991] 1 SLR (R) 354; [1991] SLR 583 (folld) Pac......
-
CPIT Investments Ltd v Qilin World Capital Ltd
...the Conveyancing Law and Property Act (Cap 61, 1994 Rev Ed). CPIT relies on the decision in Kong Swee Eng v Rolles Rudolf Jurgen August [2011] 1 SLR 873 at [50]. My I first consider the way in which Clauses 5(b) and 5(d) operate. Clause 5(b) refers to there being a Default when the Borrower......
-
State Bank of India Singapore v Rainforest Trading Ltd and another
...is an equitable mortgage. [emphasis added]. I had occasion in the recent decision of Kong Swee Eng v Rolles Rudolf Jurgen August [2011] 1 SLR 873 (“Kong Swee Eng”) to consider this area of the law. I observed that the decisions of Harrold v Plenty and Stubbs v Slater, though not of recent v......
-
Seah Teong Kang v Seah Yong Chwan
...Jordanlane Pty Ltd v Kitching [2008] VSC 426 (refd) Kenzler, Re (1983) 7 ACLR 767 (folld) Kong Swee Eng v Rolles Rudolf Jurgen August [2011] 1 SLR 873 (refd) Official Receiver in Bankruptcy v Schultz (1990) 170 CLR 306 (refd) Rudge v Bowman (1868) LR 3 QB 689 (refd) Waters v Winmardun Pty L......
-
Insolvency Law
...17.73 In this respect, the Court of Appeal approved an earlier decision of the High Court in Kong Swee Eng v Rolles Rudolf Jurgen August[2011] 1 SLR 873, where it was held that s 259 did not prohibit the sale and purchase of shares on the ground that completion of the sale was to take place......
-
Insolvency Law
...unsecured creditors were not entitled to lodge the caveats. Effect of winding up 16.27 In Kong Swee Eng v Rolles Rudolf Jurgen August [2011] 1 SLR 873, the plaintiff sought a ruling that she had been released from her contractual obligation to complete a sale and purchase of shares in a com......
-
Banking Law
...to realise the security would have to apply to court to sanction the sale of the shares. In Kong Swee Eng v Rolles Rudolf Jurgen August[2011] 1 SLR 873 (Kong Swee), the defendant, together with three other investors, entered into an agreement to buy 3,218,458 ordinary shares (S&P Agreement)......