Preview

Assignment

Satisfactory Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1317 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Assignment
Nanyang technological university

AC 208-Written Assignment

Name: Seah Wei Ting Pauline

Matriculation card no: 080298K04

Seminar Group 4

Tutor: Prof. Marc Wang Han Ming

Word count: 1200 words

The issue in this case is whether the purchase of 0.2% of Good Build’s shares by Seng Huat (“SH”) has affected the deemed and actual interests of the directors and shareholders that would directly implicate the register of directors’ shareholdings and register of substantial shareholders of Good Build (“GB”).

In the following discussion, Low and Tan are not associates and apart from Low’s children, no other directors have spouses or children with shareholding in SH or GB.

Register of substantial shareholders[1]

The following 2 sets of information are crucial in determining if Low can be deemed as a substantial shareholder under S81 (1) after satisfying the 20% rule in S7(4).

We need information to investigate if Low and Tan can be termed as associates under S7(5) such that both of them are deemed to have a total combined interest of more than 20% of the total voting shares in SH under S7(4A). If they are associates, Low and Tan will qualify to be substantial shareholders of GB through their ownership in SH.

In addition, we need to establish if there is an associate relationship between Low and his children under S7 (5) to observe if his children’s interest can be deemed as Low’s to contribute to his shareholding in SH, giving rise to a possibility that Low would have deemed interest in BG through SH under S7(4A).

i) Low Keng Huat

Taking a close look at the Low’s interest in SH, we gathered that Low has a direct shareholding in SH of 18% because of S164(15), where his children’s shareholding contributes to his interest in SH. However, the 18% shareholding in SH is unable to deem Low as a substantial shareholder[2] of GB even though SH has more than 5% total voting shares in GB. This is chiefly because the 18% does not meet the

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Hrm/531 Week 3 Quiz

    • 1406 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Study Unit 2 Dee is the owner of 12% of the shares of common stock of D&M Corporation that she acquired in Year 1. She is the treasurer and a director of D&M. The corporation registered its securities in Year 2 and made a public offering pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933. If Dee decides to sell part of her holdings in Year 9, the…

    • 1406 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    5) The election of Subchapter S status by a corporation is valid only if all shareholders consent to the election.…

    • 9470 Words
    • 41 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Acct1501 Exam

    • 5210 Words
    • 21 Pages

    HJK Financial Solutions Ltd. issued a prospectus on Friday, 5th March 2004. The prospectus outlined the details of its Initial Public Offer. The purpose of the issue is to provide HJK with the working capital to complete its research and development work to commercialise its new financial software and expand its existing products. A summary of key information is provided below: Summary: The prospectus is for the issue of 6,000,000 ordinary shares at $1.00 each to raise $6,000,000. Oversubscriptions of a further 1,000,000 ordinary shares at $1.00 each to raise a further $1,000,000 may be accepted. The minimum subscription to be raised pursuant to the prospectus is $5,000,000. No shares will be allotted or issued until the minimum subscription has been received. The sponsoring broker will be paid a fee of 4% of the amount subscribed (and accepted by the company). The following are the accounts under the heading Owners’ Equity and are taken from the consolidated Statement of Financial Position in the prospectus issued by HJK Financial Solutions Ltd. Owners’ Equity Consolidated 28th Feb 2004 $ 2,875,000 (18,557) 2,084,119 4,940,562…

    • 5210 Words
    • 21 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    3. Q: A Ltd. owns 75 percent of B Co. Recently a receiver, acting on behalf of…

    • 1403 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    LOBOFinal Exam 2

    • 1275 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Jack, Tom and Mary are executive directors of Photolab Ltd. Jack owns 8% of the shares, Tom 15% and Mary 7%. 15% of the shares are owned by 700 shareholders and the remaining 55% shares are owned by Photoproductions Ltd. Although Tom has never been formally appointed as managing director of the company, he has assumed that role and the other directors allow him to do so. The Board was aware that Tom’s business card described him as the managing director of Photolab Ltd. Often Tom entered into contracts on behalf of the company binding the company up to $1 million dollars without seeking the prior approval of the board. The company, however, always honoured these contracts.…

    • 1275 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    case study

    • 396 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Identify whether the information to have a material effect on the price or value of the entity’s shares;…

    • 396 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    |share holders are nonbinding and companies do not have to follow the outcome but understand the importance of their company's share |…

    • 2240 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Additionally the company moved to block Biglari from buying more stock on the open market. It adopted a shareholder rights plan or poison pill. The poison pill gives existing shareholders the right to buy more shares if anyone acquired more than 10% of the company. Unfortunately this move has the appearance of desperation with the board more concerned with preventing their largest shareholder from gaining control and not addressing his legitimate concerns.…

    • 2104 Words
    • 1 Page
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    ACCT444 WK5 HW5 Mk

    • 1264 Words
    • 7 Pages

    a. Audit B represents the maximum quantum of reliance on internal control system than other two audits because it has very effective internal control system than other two audits. It is obvious that where internal control system is very effective then there reliance could be placed mostly…

    • 1264 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Law & Ethics

    • 1154 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The Business Judgment Rule states that as long as the board members have acted in good faith and meet the basic standards, there should not be a fear of prosecution when making decisions (Bagley & Savage, 2009 p. 801). To insure that the board of directors did not fault their duty of care and the Business Judgment Rule several items must be analyzed.…

    • 1154 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Separate Legal Entity

    • 342 Words
    • 2 Pages

    The Finance Pty Ltd comes within the definition of “subsidiary” in s 46 of the Corporations Act 2001. Firstly, Iron Ore Ltd, as the parent company, controls the composition of the first body’s board: the five directors of the Finance Pty Ltd are come from the Board of the Iron Ore Ltd; therefore, it is actually controlled by Iron Ore Ltd. Moreover, since Finance Pty Ltd is wholly owned by Iron Ore Ltd, it is in a position to cast more than one-half of the maximum votes at the first body’s general meeting. Furthermore, Iron Ore Ltd and Finance Pty Ltd also satisfy the requirements of “body corporate” under s 50. Although the fact that the corporate group is one entity from an economic perspective, however, under s 50 of the Corporations Act 2001 that two companies within the corporate group should be treated as two separate legal entities at common law. Therefore, the corporate veil principle in Salomon v Salomon and the veil in corporate groups in cases such as Industrial Equity Ltd v Blackburn and Walker v Wimborne generally apply. According to Peter, veil-piercing claims 40.18% succeed of the time. Although only less than half rate of successful claim, in the present case, as the position on the Finance Pty Ltd, we can conclude that, Iron Ore Ltd and Finance Pty Ltd are separate legal entity, according to Henry, even though two corporations are in the common control, they are still normally regarded as separate legal entity. As a result, Finance Pty Ltd can write off the loan to Iron Ore as a bad debt and claimed a tax deduction. Commissioner of Tax will most likely argue the agency relationship between Iron Pty Ltd and Finance Pty Ltd and lift the veil in corporate group to reject the tax…

    • 342 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    All these adverse result of the group was mainly due to the losses suffered by HICOM’s subsidiaries Perwaja Trengganu Sdn Bhd (PTSB), PROTON and Kedah Cement Sdn Bhd (KCSB), where it incurred losses after tax of M$ 157.66, M$ 39.445, and M$ 68.61 respectively. Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad was but all took the blame of creating the holding…

    • 602 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    CIS PROJECT MANJARI 1

    • 3793 Words
    • 13 Pages

    iii the property, contribution or investment forming part of scheme or arrangement, whether identifiable or not, is managed on behalf of the investors;…

    • 3793 Words
    • 13 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Taxation

    • 3020 Words
    • 13 Pages

    Tax avoidance exists commonly in many societies and it is well-known that whatever individuals or organizations want to reduce tax payment and gain benefit by tax avoidance. The most common method for them is restructuring arrangements. Therefore, Inland Revenue Department (IRD) uses laws and cases to judge whether these arrangements are tax avoidance.…

    • 3020 Words
    • 13 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Aue Tut Letter

    • 3812 Words
    • 16 Pages

    Question 1.1 Students should take note of the requirement, namely “Evaluate and conclude on the legality of the granting of the loan”, as marks were awarded for theory and the conclusion. According to the information a loan is granted to a subsidiary. Note that section 45(45(2) specifically provides that a company may make a loan to a related or inter-related company. Question 1.2 Students should take note of the requirement, namely “Evaluate and conclude” …. “in terms of the requirements of the Companies Act”. It should be noted that marks were awarded for theory, therefore stating the requirements as per the Companies Act. The given information in the question subsequently had to be evaluated against all the requirements of the Companies Act. A final conclusion had to be made if the situation complies with the requirements of the Companies Act, therefore concluding if the company was in contravention of the Companies Act or not. It is important to note that financial information was provided in the question. Section 22 of the Companies Act states that a company must not trade under insolvent circumstances. Students were therefore required to calculate if the Company was still liquid and solvent. Question 1.3 Students should take note of the requirement, namely “Evaluate and conclude”. It should be noted that marks were awarded for theory, therefore stating the requirements as per the Companies Act. The given information in the question subsequently had to be evaluated against all the requirements of the Companies Act. A final conclusion had to be made if the situation complied with the…

    • 3812 Words
    • 16 Pages
    Powerful Essays