{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030303030303030304, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02073365231259968, 'mean_word_length': 4.322033898305085, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Winding Up in Cases of Oppression

Two recent decisions have addressed important questions of substantive law concerning section 216 of the Singapore Companies Act. Both cases involved petitions by minority shareholders of a private company seeking the court's relief under section 216. The first case, Kuah Kok Kim v. Chong Lee Leong Seng Co. (Pte.) Ltd. is a Court of Appeal decision reversing the 1989 decision of Justice Chan Sek Keong in the court below. The second, Re Gee Hoe Chan Trading Company Pte. Ltd. ("Re Gee Hoe Chan") is the first reported case in which a local court has ordered a winding up under section 216.