As usual Chewbols at his best , trying to obufuscate/ conflate about something he knows very little about. Get back to your cornre "Shopee".
Shopee isn’t some grand precedent — it’s a bog-standard employment case.
Shopee Singapore Pte Ltd v Lim Teck Yong [2024] SGHC 29 failed because the non-compete was overreach. It added nothing beyond existing confidentiality protections, so the court wouldn’t enforce it.
That’s it. No misconduct, no value diversion, no wider conspiracy — just a clause that didn’t justify itself.
Trying to stretch that into the GSTechnologies Limited situation is either misunderstanding or deliberate noise. The savvy posters will know that both apply , it is our Chibs after all. Desperado Shorter , imparting pro bono legal advice dressed up as I'm smarter than my AI.
This isn’t about whether a clause is a bit too wide. It’s about whether people took value out of a business after selling it.
Different facts. Different law. Different outcome.
It’s: “did the sellers take value out of the business after selling it?"
Completely different game. Just not cricket chibs.
The use of experts may or may not help. I remember the expensive magic circle lawyers they used for the sandbox application. That didn't work out.
Same again with the experts this time in Lithuania. Perhaps one of the BB could fill out the forms- the BOD command of English isn't always the best. Some of the grammar and spelling on the websites has questionable.
However where there is life there is hope. I for one expect big things once MiCA is in the bag.
Zag, let's hope it is a shoe in this time. You will recollect when Shayne and Lord Rolls were bullish about MiCA- just some questions about the parent company.....which had been answered. Shayne was very hopeful?
Massive/ I see the green box count is down/ good work/ i think next week may well bring news / the courts actually act very quickly in Singapore/ particularly the lodgement/ counterclaim stages/ if there is one/I see a big win coming our way/