Oral agreements are dangerous because they often lead to confusion, misinterpretation, and costly disputes. In 2018, Kok and Yap made a verbal agreement about separating their business interests, but each recalled the terms differently. This scenario is not uncommon; according to the American Bar Association, disputes arising from oral contracts frequently end up in court due to lack of written evidence.
Kok claims the deal was simple: Yap would leave daily operations but retain his stake in the company’s properties. On the other hand, Yap insists that Kok agreed to buy out his operational shares at fair market value. These are not minor discrepancies — they represent completely different financial arrangements with significant consequences for both parties.
When such disagreements occur, courts face what legal scholars term a “battle of the narratives.” Without written records, judges must rely on memory, which can fade or become biased over time. Studies show that even honest witnesses can misremember details after just a few years, making oral agreements inherently unreliable (Harvard Law Review, 2021).
Ultimately, the lack of documentation means each side risks losing substantial value based on how convincingly they tell their story. This case demonstrates why legal experts universally recommend putting all business agreements in writing. Written contracts protect everyone involved by providing clear, enforceable evidence of what was agreed upon.
The Fundamental Problem: Oral Agreements in Complex Businesses
Why Oral Agreements Are Dangerous
The Corporate Structure Complexity
Three-Tier Architecture
The Chang Cheng empire wasn’t structured as a simple partnership. Instead, it evolved organically into three distinct categories:
- Operating entities – Actually run the coffee shops, food courts, stalls (the money-makers)
- Property holding entities – Own the real estate that gets leased to the operating entities (the asset holders)
- Chang Cheng Group (CCG) – The headquarters company that owned some properties and, until 2019, some operating entities
Why This Structure Created Problems
Different risk/return profiles: Operating entities generate cash flow but face operational risks (staff, food costs, competition). Property entities are more stable but less liquid.
Interdependent relationships: The operating companies pay rent to the property companies, creating internal cash flows that complicate valuations.
Mixed ownership: From 2011, Kok held 50%, while his wife and Yap each held 25% – but this wasn’t uniform across all entities.
The Dispute’s Real Contention Points
1. Economic Substance vs Legal Form
Kok’s argument: The deal was about operational control vs asset ownership. Yap would give up the day-to-day business (operations) but retain his property stakes – essentially becoming a passive real estate investor while Kok runs the business.
Yap’s argument: The deal was a straightforward asset sale – he sold his operating shares and expected cash compensation, not a restructuring of roles.
2. Valuation Nightmares
How do you value operating entities that pay rent to related property entities? The operating companies’ profitability is affected by the rent they pay to the property companies they partially own. This creates circular valuation problems.
Example scenario: If an operating company pays $10,000/month rent to a property company, and both Kok and Yap own shares in both entities, what’s the “fair value” of Yap’s operating share? You can’t just look at the operating company’s profits without considering the rent it pays to related entities.
3. The Conduct Evidence Problem
The Appeals Court ultimately sided with Kok based on subsequent conduct – what the parties did after their oral agreement. This included:
- Yap’s silence: He didn’t demand payment for over 2 years after transferring shares
- The 2020 property shuffle: Both parties restructured property holdings so they no longer held interests in the same property firms
- Yap’s resignations: He stepped down from operational roles immediately
But here’s the complexity: This conduct could support either narrative:
- Supporting Kok: Yap acted like someone who got what he wanted (property stakes) and wasn’t owed money
- Supporting Yap: Maybe Yap was simply waiting for valuations to be completed, or trusted Kok to pay him later
Why This Case Is Legally Significant
1. Objective vs Subjective Intent
Singapore courts generally look for objective evidence of what parties intended, not just what they claim they meant. The court had to piece together intent from:
- Documentary evidence (share transfers, resignations)
- Conduct patterns (lack of payment demands)
- Business logic (why would someone give away valuable assets for nothing?)
2. The “Business Efficacy” Test
Courts ask: “What interpretation makes business sense?”
Kok’s version has business logic: Yap exits operations (where he’d need to work) but keeps property stakes (passive income). This is a common business divorce pattern.
Yap’s version is harder to justify: Why would he sell valuable operating assets without immediate payment or even a payment schedule?
Lessons for Business Partnerships
1. Document Everything
This case screams for written agreements. Even a simple email confirming “Yap exits operations, keeps 25% property stakes, effective Dec 2018” would have prevented this entire dispute.
2. Simplify Structures
Complex multi-entity structures make separation exponentially harder. Consider whether you really need separate operating and property entities, or if a simpler structure would work.
3. Address Valuation Upfront
Any partnership agreement should specify how assets will be valued upon separation. Independent valuations, formulaic approaches, or agreed-upon methods can prevent disputes.
4. Plan the Exit
Most partnerships focus on how to work together, not how to separate. Exit mechanisms, including deadlock resolution and forced buyout procedures, should be built into the initial structure.
This case ultimately shows how a successful business empire can become a legal nightmare when foundational agreements are unclear and corporate structures are overly complex. The Chang Cheng dispute could have been avoided with better initial structuring and documentation – a lesson worth millions for any business partnership.
The “Happy Couple” Problem in Business Partnerships
Most business partnerships start like marriages – everyone’s optimistic, focused on building something great together, and nobody wants to discuss what happens if it falls apart. This is what I call the “Happy Couple Syndrome.”
Scenario 1: The Chang Cheng Reality
What Actually Happened:
- Late 1990s: Kok and Yap start with economy rice stalls
- Business grows organically into multiple entities
- No formal partnership agreement addressing separation
- 2018: Relationship breaks down, both claim different oral agreements
- 2021-2025: Expensive litigation with uncertain outcomes
What Should Have Been Done (Initial Structuring):
Partnership Agreement Should Have Included:
1. Valuation methodology for each entity type
2. Right of first refusal on share transfers
3. Deadlock resolution mechanisms
4. Forced buyout procedures with payment terms
5. Non-compete clauses post-separation
6. Dispute resolution (arbitration vs litigation)Scenario Analysis: Exit Mechanisms That Work
Scenario A: The “Shotgun Clause”
How it works: Either partner can trigger a buy-sell by naming a price. The other partner must either buy at that price or sell at that price.
Chang Cheng Application:
Yap triggers shotgun: "I'll buy your 50% for $10 million"
Kok's options:
- Accept $10M and exit
- Buy Yap's 25% for $5M (proportional)Why this prevents disputes:
- Forces fair pricing (you might be the buyer or seller)
- Quick resolution (typically 30-90 days)
- No need for external valuations
Potential problems:
- Requires liquid partners
- Doesn’t work well with complex multi-entity structures like Chang Cheng
Scenario B: The “Put/Call” Structure
How it works: Partners have rights to force sales (put) or force purchases (call) at predetermined valuation methods.
Chang Cheng Application:
After 10 years of partnership:
- Either partner can exercise "put" (force other to buy their shares)
- Either partner can exercise "call" (force other to sell)
- Valuation: Average of 3 independent appraisers
- Payment: 30% cash, 70% over 5 years at prime + 2%Why this works:
- Provides certainty on valuation method
- Addresses liquidity concerns with payment terms
- Gives both parties exit options
Scenario C: The “Deadlock Resolution Escalator”
Progressive resolution for operational disputes:
Chang Cheng Application:
Level 1: Direct negotiation (30 days)
Level 2: Mediation with industry expert (30 days)
Level 3: Baseball arbitration (each party submits offer, arbitrator picks one)
Level 4: Forced auction or shotgun clause triggersComplex Corporate Structure Solutions
The Chang Cheng Structure Problem
Their empire had three entity types with interdependent relationships. Here’s how proper initial structuring could have prevented the mess:
Solution 1: Master Holding Company Structure
Chang Cheng Holdings (Master Company)
├── Kok: 50%
├── Delphine Lim: 25%
└── Yap: 25%
Subsidiaries:
├── Chang Cheng Properties (Real Estate)
├── Chang Cheng Operations (F&B Business)
└── Chang Cheng Services (Shared Services)Exit Mechanism:
- Departing partner must sell ALL interests in Master Company
- Single valuation covers entire enterprise
- Avoids complex cross-entity rent and service arrangements
Solution 2: Clear Operational vs Investment Distinction
Structure A: Active Partners (Operations)
- Kok and Yap own operating entities
- Properties held in separate structure
Structure B: Passive Partners (Real Estate)
- All partners own property entities
- Operating entities pay market rent
- Clear separation allows easier exit from operationsReal-World Scenario: How This Plays Out
Scenario: Restaurant Partnership Gone Wrong
Players:
- Chef Alex (operational expertise)
- Investor Ben (capital provider)
- Property owner Carol (owns restaurant space)
Without proper exit mechanisms:
Year 1-3: Business grows successfully
Year 4: Personal conflicts arise
Year 5: Alex wants out but:
- No valuation method agreed
- Unclear who owns what equipment
- Lease complications (Carol wants to keep property)
- Customer relationships unclear
- Recipes and intellectual property disputesWith proper exit mechanisms:
Partnership Agreement Includes:
1. VALUATION METHOD:
- Annual independent appraisal
- Formula: 3x average EBITDA of last 3 years
- Separate valuation for tangible assets
2. EXIT TRIGGERS:
- Voluntary exit: 6 months notice
- Involuntary exit: Breach of duties
- Deadlock: Any operational disagreement lasting 90+ days
3. ASSET ALLOCATION:
- Alex keeps recipes/IP, gets 1-year non-compete payment
- Ben keeps equipment, has right to continue business
- Carol keeps property, existing lease terms continue
4. PAYMENT TERMS:
- 25% cash at closing
- 75% over 3 years, secured by business assets
- Interest at prime + 3%Preventive Structuring: The Comprehensive Approach
Phase 1: Entity Structure Design
Consider from Day 1:
- How many entities do we really need?
- Who owns what percentage of each entity?
- How do entities interact financially?
- What happens if one entity fails?
- Tax implications of structure choicesPhase 2: Partnership Governance
Operating Agreement Must Address:
- Decision-making authority (operational vs strategic)
- Capital contribution requirements
- Profit/loss allocation
- Management compensation
- Non-compete restrictions
- Key person insurancePhase 3: Exit Planning
Multiple Exit Scenarios:
1. Voluntary retirement/exit
2. Death/disability
3. Breach of partnership duties
4. Irreconcilable differences
5. Business sale to third party
6. Bankruptcy/insolvencyThe Million-Dollar Mistakes Chang Cheng Made
Mistake 1: Organic Growth Without Planning
What happened: Started with simple rice stalls, grew into complex empire without restructuring Cost: Years of litigation, relationship destruction, business disruption
Prevention:
Every 2-3 years, ask:
- Does our structure still make sense?
- Are we creating unnecessary complexity?
- Should we consolidate entities?
- Do our agreements reflect current reality?Mistake 2: Informal Agreements in Formal Business
What happened: Oral agreements for multi-million dollar business separation Cost: Each party’s legal interpretation was equally plausible
Prevention:
Document everything above $X threshold:
- Email confirmations of verbal agreements
- Board resolutions for major decisions
- Written amendments to partnership terms
- Annual partnership "health checks"Mistake 3: No Valuation Framework
What happened: No agreed method to value different entity types Cost: Impossible to determine “fair compensation”
Prevention:
Annual Valuation Exercise:
- Professional appraisal every 3 years
- Internal valuation annually
- Agreed-upon multiples for different business lines
- Adjustment mechanisms for market changesThe Broader Lesson: Partnership Divorce Planning
Just like prenuptial agreements, partnership “prenups” should address uncomfortable scenarios:
Critical Questions Every Partnership Must Answer:
- What triggers an exit right?
- How do we value the business fairly?
- Who gets what assets/liabilities?
- What are the payment terms?
- How do we handle ongoing obligations?
- What non-compete restrictions apply?
- How do we tell customers/employees?
- What dispute resolution methods will we use?
The Chang Cheng case shows that even successful partnerships can become expensive disasters without proper planning. The irony is that spending $50,000-100,000 on proper structuring and agreements upfront could have saved millions in litigation costs and preserved a successful business relationship.
The key insight: Partnership success isn’t just about working well together – it’s about planning for when you won’t.
The Two Dragons: A Tale of Partnership and Planning
Chapter 1: The Beginning
The year was 1998, and the aroma of soy sauce and garlic filled the cramped kitchen of a Toa Payoh coffee shop. Two men, barely thirty, worked side by side over steaming woks, their movements synchronized like dancers who had rehearsed for years.
“Ah Ricky,” called out the taller one, wiping sweat from his brow. “Your economy rice getting more popular lah. Queue so long!”
Ricky Kok grinned, ladling curry chicken over a customer’s rice. “Wing Sang, your roasted duck also selling like hotcakes. Maybe we should expand?”
Yap Wing Sang nodded enthusiastically. “I was thinking the same thing. My cousin got a coffee shop in Ang Mo Kio looking for tenants.”
That evening, over Tiger beers at a nearby zi char stall, the two friends shook hands on a deal that would change their lives forever.
“Partners?” Ricky asked.
“Partners,” Wing Sang replied.
No lawyers. No contracts. Just two ambitious men with calloused hands and big dreams.
Chapter 2: The Golden Years
By 2005, Chang Cheng had become a household name. What started as two stalls had grown into a mini-empire: twelve coffee shops, eight food courts, and three restaurant chains. The “Two Dragons,” as the coffee shop uncles called them, seemed to have the Midas touch.
“We’re like brothers,” Ricky would tell reporters. “We finish each other’s sentences.”
Wing Sang would laugh and add, “Twenty-four hours also not enough to count our money!”
They bought properties together, incorporated companies together, even went on family vacations together. Ricky’s wife Delphine and Wing Sang’s wife became close friends. Their children called each other uncle.
But success bred complexity. By 2010, their “simple” partnership had morphed into a web of seventeen different companies. Some owned properties, others ran operations. Some were 50-50 splits, others had different shareholding structures to optimize taxes or secure bank loans.
“Aiya, why make things so complicated?” Wing Sang’s accountant, Mr. Lim, warned during one of their annual meetings. “Maybe you should clean up the structure, write proper agreements?”
“What for?” Ricky waved dismissively. “We trust each other. Waste money only.”
Wing Sang nodded in agreement. “Mr. Lim, you worry too much. We’re family.”
Mr. Lim sighed and made a note in his file: “Clients declined to formalize partnership structure – warned of potential issues.”
Chapter 3: The Cracks Begin
The first sign of trouble came in 2016 during a board meeting of Chang Cheng Group, their main holding company.
“I think we should expand to Malaysia,” Ricky announced, sliding a proposal across the table.
Wing Sang frowned. “So aggressive for what? We haven’t even fully developed our Singapore portfolio.”
“Market here saturated already. Must think big picture.”
“Easy to say when you’re not the one handling day-to-day operations,” Wing Sang shot back. “You sit in office, I run around like headless chicken.”
Delphine, who held 25% of the shares, tried to mediate. “Maybe we can start small? One outlet first?”
But the damage was done. For the first time in eighteen years, the Two Dragons had publicly disagreed.
The disagreements multiplied. Ricky wanted to hire professional managers; Wing Sang preferred keeping things family-style. Ricky pushed for modernization and digital ordering systems; Wing Sang worried about costs. Ricky talked about IPOs and private equity; Wing Sang just wanted to focus on making good food.
Chapter 4: The Breaking Point
The final straw came in March 2018. Wing Sang discovered that Ricky had been in talks with a property developer about selling one of their prime coffee shop locations without consulting him.
“You went behind my back!” Wing Sang shouted, bursting into Ricky’s Woodlands office. “That Orchard Road property was my idea, I found the tenant, and now you want to sell without telling me?”
“It’s business, Wing Sang. Profit is profit. The developer offered good money.”
“That’s not the point! We’re supposed to be partners!”
“Partners, yes. But I’m the CEO. I make strategic decisions.”
“CEO?” Wing Sang’s face turned red. “Since when you become CEO? We never discussed this!”
That night, Wing Sang called his wife from his car, parked outside the office he’d helped build.
“May, I think it’s over. Twenty years of friendship, just like that.”
Chapter 5: The Handshake That Broke Everything
Two weeks later, the former friends sat in a private room at their original zi char stall, the same place where they’d first shaken hands.
“Look, Wing Sang,” Ricky began, “maybe it’s time we go our separate ways.”
Wing Sang nodded slowly. “Maybe you’re right.”
“I have a proposal. You take the property companies – good stable income, don’t need to manage day-to-day. I’ll take the operating businesses. Still got potential to grow.”
Wing Sang considered this. The properties would give him passive income, and he was tired of the operational headaches.
“What about Chang Cheng Group? The Woodlands headquarters?”
“We’ll restructure it. You keep your 25% stake, but no more operational involvement.”
They discussed details for two hours. Wing Sang would exit the F&B operations but retain his property interests. It seemed fair – Ricky got the businesses he wanted to expand, Wing Sang got stable real estate income.
They shook hands.
“Should we write this down?” Wing Sang asked.
“Nah,” Ricky replied. “We’re still friends, right? Our word is our bond.”
If only they had known that this handshake would cost them everything.
Chapter 6: The Lawyer’s Warning
Three months later, Wing Sang sat in the plush office of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson, recounting the story to lawyer Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
“Mr. Yap,” the lawyer interrupted gently, “you’re telling me you transferred shares worth potentially millions based on a handshake agreement?”
“We’ve been partners for twenty years. Our word has always been enough.”
The lawyer leaned back in his chair. “And now Mr. Kok is refusing to compensate you for the shares you transferred?”
“He says the deal was I exit operations, keep property stakes. But that’s not what I understood. I thought he was buying my operating shares.”
“This is… problematic. Without written documentation, it becomes a matter of who the court believes.”
Wing Sang’s stomach sank. “How much will this cost?”
“If it goes to trial? Potentially hundreds of thousands. Maybe more.”
Meanwhile, across town, Senior Counsel Lee Eng Beng was giving Ricky similar news.
“The problem, Mr. Kok, is that verbal agreements are notoriously difficult to prove. It becomes ‘he said, he said.'”
“But his actions support my version! He transferred the shares, resigned from the companies, never asked for payment for two years!”
“That helps, but Mr. Yap can argue he was simply waiting for you to arrange payment. Without clear documentation…”
Lee Eng Beng paused, choosing his words carefully.
“This case will likely cost you more in legal fees than it would have cost to hire a good corporate lawyer in 1998 to structure this properly.”
Chapter 7: The Parallel Universe
In another timeline, the story played out differently.
Back in 2005, when Chang Cheng started expanding rapidly, Mr. Lim the accountant was more insistent.
“Ricky, Wing Sang, I really think you need to see a lawyer. Your structure is getting very messy.”
“How much will it cost?” Ricky asked.
“Maybe $50,000 to $80,000 for proper documentation and restructuring.”
Wing Sang winced. “That’s a lot of money.”
“Think of it as insurance,” Mr. Lim explained. “You spend $50,000 now, or potentially millions later if things go wrong.”
This time, they listened.
The lawyer, Sarah Chen from Rajah & Tann, was thorough. She restructured their entities, created a master holding company, and drafted comprehensive partnership agreements.
“We need to discuss what happens if you want to part ways,” she explained during one session.
“We’re best friends,” Ricky protested. “That will never happen.”
“Mr. Kok, Mr. Yap, I’ve seen best friends become worst enemies over business. I’ve seen brothers sue brothers. I’ve seen marriages end over partnership disputes.”
She insisted on including detailed exit mechanisms:
- Valuation methodology: Annual independent appraisals, with updates every three years
- Buy-sell triggers: Either party could initiate with six months’ notice
- Payment terms: 30% cash, 70% over five years at prime plus 2%
- Deadlock resolution: Mediation, then arbitration, then forced sale
- Non-compete clauses: Two years for operations, no restrictions on property
- Asset allocation: Clear rules for intellectual property, customer lists, employees
“This feels so… unromantic,” Wing Sang complained. “Like we’re planning our divorce before we’re married.”
Sarah smiled. “Mr. Yap, this isn’t about distrust. It’s about clarity. When emotions run high, having clear rules prevents misunderstandings.”
In this timeline, when the partners inevitably disagreed in 2018, they triggered their pre-agreed exit mechanism. The valuation was completed by Ernst & Young within 90 days. Ricky bought out Wing Sang’s operating interests for $2.8 million, paid over five years. Wing Sang kept his property stakes, worth about $1.2 million annually in passive income.
The separation was completed in six months with legal costs of under $30,000 each.
They even managed to shake hands at the closing.
“Still friends?” Ricky asked.
“Still friends,” Wing Sang replied.
Chapter 8: The Real Cost
Back in the real timeline, the case dragged through Singapore’s courts for four years.
The High Court judge initially found that neither party could prove their version of the oral agreement. Ricky was ordered to hold the shares in trust for Wing Sang – essentially declaring the separation invalid.
Both parties appealed.
The Appellate Division eventually ruled in Ricky’s favor in September 2025, finding that the pattern of conduct supported his version of the agreement.
By then, the legal costs were staggering:
- Ricky’s legal fees: $680,000
- Wing Sang’s legal fees: $540,000
- Court costs and expert witnesses: $150,000
- Management time lost: Incalculable
- Business disruption: Several expansion deals were postponed due to uncertainty
- Reputation damage: Industry competitors gained market share while Chang Cheng was distracted by litigation
- Personal cost: A twenty-year friendship destroyed
Total cost: Over $1.3 million in direct expenses, plus opportunity costs in the millions.
The $50,000 they had “saved” by not hiring lawyers in 1998 had cost them twenty-six times that amount.
Chapter 9: The Entrepreneur’s Dilemma
Five years later, at a Singapore Business Federation networking event, two young entrepreneurs, Lisa and Jonathan, were excitedly discussing their new food delivery startup.
“We’re like the Uber for zi char!” Jonathan explained to anyone who would listen.
“We’re going to revolutionize how Singaporeans eat!” Lisa added.
An older gentleman nearby overheard their conversation. He looked familiar – maybe from the newspapers? His hair was greyer now, and there were lines around his eyes that hadn’t been there before.
“Excuse me,” the man said quietly. “I couldn’t help but overhear. Are you two partners?”
“Yes!” Lisa beamed. “Best friends since university. We’re going to change the world!”
“That’s wonderful. Have you… have you documented your partnership agreement?”
Jonathan laughed. “We trust each other completely. Lisa’s like my sister. Why complicate things with lawyers and contracts?”
The older gentleman was quiet for a moment. Then he reached into his wallet and pulled out a business card – not his own, but one that had been worn smooth from handling.
Sarah Chen, Partner, Corporate Law
Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
“Promise me something,” he said, pressing the card into Lisa’s hand. “Call this lawyer. Spend the money on proper agreements. Don’t make the same mistake I did.”
“What mistake?” Lisa asked.
The man smiled sadly. “I once believed that friendship was enough. I learned too late that the best partnerships aren’t built on trust alone – they’re built on trust and clear agreements. Trust handles the day-to-day; agreements handle the difficult days.”
He paused, looking out at the Singapore skyline through the hotel’s floor-to-ceiling windows.
“My name is Ricky Kok. Maybe you’ve heard of Chang Cheng Group?”
Lisa and Jonathan exchanged glances. They had indeed heard the story – whispered in entrepreneur circles as a cautionary tale.
“I won my case,” Ricky continued, “but I lost something far more valuable than money. I lost my friend. And our business never fully recovered from the years we spent fighting instead of growing.”
Epilogue: The Letter
Six months later, Lisa received a handwritten thank-you note:
Dear Mr. Kok,
You probably don’t remember us – we met briefly at the SBF networking event. You gave us Sarah Chen’s card and told us to get proper partnership agreements.
We took your advice. It cost us $65,000, which seemed like a lot for a bootstrapped startup. But Sarah was amazing. She didn’t just draft contracts; she made us think through scenarios we never would have considered.
What if one of us wants to leave? What if we disagree on funding? What if one of us gets married and wants to relocate? What if the business fails? What if it succeeds beyond our wildest dreams?
Three months ago, we faced our first major disagreement about taking venture capital. I wanted to bootstrap longer; Jonathan wanted to scale quickly. It could have destroyed our friendship and our business.
Instead, we followed the dispute resolution process in our agreement. We went to mediation, worked through our differences, and found a solution that neither of us had originally considered: a hybrid approach with limited VC funding and milestone-based growth.
Our friendship is stronger than ever, and our business is thriving.
Thank you for sharing your story. Thank you for turning your pain into wisdom that could help others.
We heard that you and Mr. Yap recently had coffee together – the first time in seven years. We hope your friendship can heal too.
With gratitude,
Lisa and Jonathan
(Now successfully funding our Series A, with rock-solid legal agreements in place)
Ricky folded the letter and smiled. It was the first genuine smile he’d had in years when thinking about partnerships.
Maybe some good had come from the mess after all.
Maybe the Two Dragons’ story wasn’t just a cautionary tale – maybe it was also a lesson in redemption, showing others how to build something better.
He picked up his phone and scrolled to a number he hadn’t called in months.
“Wing Sang? It’s Ricky. Want to have coffee? I know a good place.”
The End
Author’s Note: This story is inspired by real events in Singapore’s business community, but the characters and specific details have been fictionalized to illustrate the broader lessons about partnership planning. The legal and business principles discussed are based on actual case law and best practices in corporate structuring.
The Moral: The cost of proper planning is always less than the cost of poor planning. In partnerships, as in life, hope for the best but plan for the worst.
Maxthon
In an age where the digital world is in constant flux and our interactions online are ever-evolving, the importance of prioritising individuals as they navigate the expansive internet cannot be overstated. The myriad of elements that shape our online experiences calls for a thoughtful approach to selecting web browsers—one that places a premium on security and user privacy. Amidst the multitude of browsers vying for users’ loyalty, Maxthon emerges as a standout choice, providing a trustworthy solution to these pressing concerns, all without any cost to the user.
Maxthon, with its advanced features, boasts a comprehensive suite of built-in tools designed to enhance your online privacy. Among these tools are a highly effective ad blocker and a range of anti-tracking mechanisms, each meticulously crafted to fortify your digital sanctuary. This browser has carved out a niche for itself, particularly with its seamless compatibility with Windows 11, further solidifying its reputation in an increasingly competitive market.
In a crowded landscape of web browsers, Maxthon has forged a distinct identity through its unwavering dedication to offering a secure and private browsing experience. Fully aware of the myriad threats lurking in the vast expanse of cyberspace, Maxthon works tirelessly to safeguard your personal information. Utilizing state-of-the-art encryption technology, it ensures that your sensitive data remains protected and confidential throughout your online adventures.
What truly sets Maxthon apart is its commitment to enhancing user privacy during every moment spent online. Each feature of this browser has been meticulously designed with the user’s privacy in mind. Its powerful ad-blocking capabilities work diligently to eliminate unwanted advertisements, while its comprehensive anti-tracking measures effectively reduce the presence of invasive scripts that could disrupt your browsing enjoyment. As a result, users can traverse the web with newfound confidence and safety.
Moreover, Maxthon’s incognito mode provides an extra layer of security, granting users enhanced anonymity while engaging in their online pursuits. This specialized mode not only conceals your browsing habits but also ensures that your digital footprint remains minimal, allowing for an unobtrusive and liberating internet experience. With Maxthon as your ally in the digital realm, you can explore the vastness of the internet with peace of mind, knowing that your privacy is being prioritized every step of the way.