Source : The Straits Times, Nov 27, 2007
IN the end, the eldest of three feuding brothers had his way - the three family firms worth $100 million will be wound up, on a High Court orders.
A liquidator, appointed to do this, will use the proceeds to pay off $34 million in debts.
The brothers - two doctors and an architect - will then get their due shares.
In her judgment published on Tuesday, Justice Judith Prakash noted that the brothers could not get along with each other and had their own ideas about how 'the companies and the family fortunes should be dealt with'.
The rifts had 'translated into fractures in the companies' and a logjam over the past few years over settling the debts owed by the late patriach's estate to the companies.
Property investor Chow Cho Poon had set up the three companies which held properties in Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong valued in 2005 at more than $100 million. One property was Chow House in Robinson Road.
Mr Chow died a decade ago. His wife made each of their three sons directors of all three companies, hoping that the feuding brothers would at least work together.
But five years after her death in 2002, the feud spilled over into legal wrangles over the companies they controlled. All three siblings, now in their 60s, live in Hong Kong.
Eldest sibling Chow Kwok Chi, through Senior Counsel Jimmy Yim, sought to wind up the companies so that the brothers could make a clean break from one another and go their separate ways.
He pointed out that as long as the companies exist, their father's estate would remain unadministered because of the unpaid $34 million debt.
The estate cannot be administered unless the debt is settled, but the estate's assets are mainly tied up as shares in the companies.
Second brother Chow Kwok-Chuen opposed the move.
He argued through lawyer Ang Cheng Hock from Allen & Gledhill that Kwok Chi had not alleged any loss of confidence or lack of probity in his conduct in relation to the running of the companies, among other things.
Youngest sibling Kwok Ching also contested the suit, arguing through lawyer Peter Low from Colin Ng and Partners that if there was to be a winding up, the reason should be the alleged 'oppressive conduct' of his two brothers towards him.
Justice Prakash said in view of the 'litigation history' and 'the complex nature of the relationships among the brothers', it did not make sense for the court to 'stand aside and allow the situation to deteriorate further'.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment