No Signboard controlling shareholder GuGong argues termination of agreements unlawful
Yong Jun Yuan
DeeperDive is a beta AI feature. Refer to full articles for the facts.
RESTAURANT operator No Signboard Holdings on Thursday (Mar 9) announced that it received a letter after market close on Wednesday from controlling shareholder GuGong regarding the former’s termination of the intellectual property disposal and independent contractor agreement.
GuGong’s lawyers stated in the letter that they see the company’s unilateral termination as unlawful and in breach of the agreements.
No Signboard said that it disagrees with the allegations and demands in the letter and intends to defend them “vigorously”.
The demands include the retraction of the notice of termination, which was announced on Mar 3, as well as payment to GuGong for costs it has incurred in connection with the matter.
On Mar 3, the company said that it would terminate the agreements to avoid having to seek shareholder approval, since the transactions would be considered “interested party transactions”.
This would then allow it to shorten the time needed to complete an implementation agreement with Gazelle Ventures. The investor plans to pay an initial S$500,000 for new shares in the company, as well as a further S$4.5 million for convertible redeemable preference shares.
Navigate Asia in
a new global order
Get the insights delivered to your inbox.
No Signboard said that it will update shareholders when there are further material developments.
The company’s shares have been suspended from trading since Jan 24, 2022.
Decoding Asia newsletter: your guide to navigating Asia in a new global order. Sign up here to get Decoding Asia newsletter. Delivered to your inbox. Free.
Copyright SPH Media. All rights reserved.
TRENDING NOW
Vietnam formalises new state leadership, redefining ‘four pillars’ power balance
‘Largest Singapore commercial S-Reit proxy’: analysts say buy CICT shares after Paragon acquisition
From 1MDB to ‘corporate mafia’: Is Malaysia facing a new governance test?
Why where you park your joint venture matters: Lessons from a US$689 million shareholder dispute