Ezra Founders Resolve S$208 Million Divorce Asset Fight
By Andrea Tan and Kyunghee Park Sep 23, 2014 12:01 AM GMT+0800
Ezra Holdings Ltd. (EZRA)'s co-founders agreed to resolve a six-year legal battle over S$208 million ($164 million) of marital assets that includes a stake in the Singapore-based offshore marine company.
Former Ezra Chairman Lee Kian Soo, his ex-wife Goh Gaik Choo and their elder son Lionel, managing director of Ezra, this month dropped their challenges to a Jan. 29 Singapore High Court ruling after agreeing to a confidential settlement.
Lee, 69, was ordered to pay Goh S$56 million, including a possible transfer of as much as a 6.2 percent stake in Ezra, according to the 155-page January decision. Goh, 62, who has personal assets of S$27 million, failed in getting a S$40,000 monthly maintenance. Details of the settlement weren't available in court papers.
Goh's lawyer Engelin Teh declined to comment as terms of the settlement are confidential. Lee's lawyer Cavinder Bull declined to comment. Lionel wasn't immediately available for comment, according to an e-mailed statement from Ezra. Its Chief Financial Officer Eugene Cheng said that the case is a private matter between shareholders and the company's operations aren't affected.
Lee in May argued that Goh, who left the family during the 2008 financial crisis, didn't deserve 40 percent of their joint wealth as ordered by then Judicial Commissioner Lionel Yee. The ex-wife claimed her husband and son colluded to dissipate assets after she filed for divorce, citing "significant differences" including disregard for her Catholic faith and his suspected infidelity.
Lee transferred the Ezra shares at 45 Singapore cents to Lionel in 2009 and 2010, a substantial discount to the market price, according to the ruling.
'Odd' Explanation
The share transfer "was likely to have been entered by the husband and Lionel to enable the husband to significantly reduce the value of his assets," Yee said in his ruling. Lee's explanation that the 45 cents price was arrived at because he was born in 1945 was "odd," Yee said.
Lee said he made "full and frank disclosure" on his assets and objected to demanding that his son transfer Ezra shares back to him as this would hurt their ties, according to court papers. If Lionel disposed of his Ezra shares this was likely to shake investor confidence and risk bringing down the stock price, he said.
Ezra shares were unchanged at S$1.01 at the close of Singapore trading yesterday.
The share transfer to Lionel was to fulfill an earlier pledge when the company reached S$100 million in profit, the husband said in court papers. Ezra posted net income of $175 million for fiscal year 2008.
Annual Report
Lionel owned about 19 percent of Ezra, according to the company's annual report. Lee, who stepped down as chairman at the end of 2012 and was paid about S$40,000 a month in 2009, had a 1.5 percent stake, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Goh earned about S$10,000 a month before she resigned in December 2008.
Yee, who's now solicitor-general, also ruled that the transfer of a 67 percent stake in a privately-held family investment company to Lionel wasn't likely to be "genuine," according to court papers.
Separately, Yee ruled there was no evidence, contrary to Goh's claim, that Lee held S$30.5 million worth of shares in Yangzijiang Shipbuilding Holdings Ltd. (YZJSGD), China's No. 2 private shipyard.
Lee and Goh started Ezra in 1992 to manage and operate offshore support vessels. The company posted a 19 percent decline in net income to $53.6 million in the year ended August 2013. Sales rose 28 percent to $1.26 billion.
The former couple had assets in 29 bank accounts, nine properties including on the resort island of Sentosa, stocks, cars such as a Ferrari 360, BMW740Li and club memberships.
The case is Goh Gaik Choo v Lee Kian Soo, DT5683/2008. Singapore High Court.
To contact the reporters on this story: Andrea Tan in Singapore at atan17@bloomberg.net; Kyunghee Park in Singapore at kpark3@bloomberg.net
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Douglas Wong at dwong19@bloomberg.net Peter Chapman
SMARTS surveillance system detects signs of unusual trading activities: SGX
SGX said that once it detects a possible insider trading incident, its analysts will ask the company concerned to provide a "privy list".
This is a list of names of individuals privy to the non-public material information, such as board members, senior executives, substantial shareholders and employees.
SGX will then scrutinise the list to determine if any individuals on the list or their related parties had traded on the company's stocks while in possession of inside information.
According to Chinese press Wanbao, HDB received an anonymous tip-off that a 4-room HDB unit in Bukit Batok was leased out even though the owner did not fulfill the statutory 5-year minimum occupancy period. The owner and his family allegedly stayed in a condominium unit in west coast that he owns.
HDB engaged a private investigator to look into the complaint and the PI firm confirmed that the whole HDB unit was leased out.
As a result, in 2010, HDB notified the owner that the HDB unit will be forfeited and the owner will be compensated with $286,500.
The unit was purchased at $368,000 in 2007.
The owner appealed to his MP, the HDB, and Minister for Home Affairs, claimed that he did not give permission to his tenants to utilise all the bed rooms.
The appeals were ignored.
The owner filed a judicial review in the High Court to overturn HDB's decision but the case was thrown out. He has also requested the court to release the full PI report and the identity of the whistleblower but the Court did not find it necessary as it would discourage future whistleblowers from coming forward.
Not only has the owner lost more than $80,000 in the forced-sale of his flat, he has to pay an additional $37,000 of Court fees.
@Joe
There are certain provisions in the HDB Act which govern the sale and purchase of HDB units. In addition to these governing laws HDB itself has other bye-laws and regulations which are extensions of such provisions. As you have pointed out the 5-year minimum period is statutory, so there is no avenue for discretion. It is the same with laws which cover seizable offences involving smuggling, pornography (video material), illegal hawking, gambling, etc. When offenders are caught for such offences the assets which house the goods or in which the criminal acts are conducted, are subject to compulsory seizure. The law in those instances specifically states that it "shall be seized" and not "may be seized". The judge, even after hearing pleas for leniency or the merits of the case, has no discretion to exercise.
Therefore, it is the duty of any landlord or owner of vehicles, to do due diligence study and ensure that their tenant or hirer (for vehicles) use them for their intended purpose(s). That is why you get to see experienced landlords usually qualifying their preference for tenants to be either working couples or students (to lessen the risk of getting tenants who use the premises for illegal activities). It is harder to control the use of vehicles and the only option available is to ensure that hirers of commercial vehicles have proper business registration, etc. Any vehicle that is used for illegal hawking, e.g selling durians, and which are seized by MOE officers would be confiscated and the owner has no recourse except through common law (or HP Act).
