In Daniel Puchniak and Tan Cheng Han, “Company Law” (2012) 13 SAL Ann Rev 143-152 at [9.25], the ... more In Daniel Puchniak and Tan Cheng Han, “Company Law” (2012) 13 SAL Ann Rev 143-152 at [9.25], the writers raised questions over whether "good faith" should be a separate requirement under Section 216A of the Singapore Companies Act. In response, I submit the following. First, the “good faith” requirement should be retained in the legislation because it helps to prevent an abuse of the SDA and addresses separate concerns from that of the “interests of the company” requirement. Secondly, it may be helpful to list the “good faith” requirement in conjunction with the “interests of the company” requirement, as opposed to the listing the good faith requirement as a separate limb under Section 216A. This will however require a comprehensive single legal test that can enable the court to achieve the legislative intent of preventing an abuse of the SDA.
In Daniel Puchniak and Tan Cheng Han, “Company Law” (2012) 13 SAL Ann Rev 143-152 at [9.25], the ... more In Daniel Puchniak and Tan Cheng Han, “Company Law” (2012) 13 SAL Ann Rev 143-152 at [9.25], the writers raised questions over whether "good faith" should be a separate requirement under Section 216A of the Singapore Companies Act. In response, I submit the following. First, the “good faith” requirement should be retained in the legislation because it helps to prevent an abuse of the SDA and addresses separate concerns from that of the “interests of the company” requirement. Secondly, it may be helpful to list the “good faith” requirement in conjunction with the “interests of the company” requirement, as opposed to the listing the good faith requirement as a separate limb under Section 216A. This will however require a comprehensive single legal test that can enable the court to achieve the legislative intent of preventing an abuse of the SDA.
Uploads
Papers by Matthew L