Wei Fengpin

Wei Fengpin is a individual in Singapore's legal system. The party has been involved in 3 cases in Singapore's courts. Represented by 7 counsels. Through 1 law firm. Their track record shows a 33.3% success rate in resolved cases. They have been involved in 3 complex cases, representing 100.0% of their total caseload.

Legal Representation

Wei Fengpin has been represented by 1 law firm and 7 counsels.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Counsels
Drew & Napier LLC	2 cases	Jimmy Yim Wing Kuen Jimmy Yim Lee Soong Yan, Kevin Eunice Lau Guan Ting Lim Joe Jee Kevin Lee Eunice Lau

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Wei Fengpin's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 4.0
Complex Cases: 3 (100.0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Neutral	14.0 parties avg	4.0	33.3%
Partial	14.0 parties avg	4.0	33.3%
Won	14.0 parties avg	4.0	33.3%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2022	14.0 parties avg	4.0
2021	24.0 parties avg	4.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Wei Fengpin's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Neutral	1(33.3%)	33.3%
Partial	1(33.3%)	33.3%
Won	1(33.3%)	33.3%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
USD	5,000,000.00	5,000,000.001 cases	1

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2022	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2021	2 11	Neutral: 1 cases (50.0%) Partial: 1 cases (50.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 3 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Role	Outcome
1	2022-sgca-32 11 Apr 2022	11 Apr 2022	Appellant, Plaintiff	WonAppeal allowed; Low and Sim shall be jointly and severally liable to buyout Wei’s shares at US$5m.
2	2021-sgca-115 06 Dec 2021	06 Dec 2021	Applicant	NeutralAppeal transferred from the Appellate Division to the Court of Appeal.
3	2021-sghc-90 14 Apr 2021	14 Apr 2021	Plaintiff	PartialThe court found that the Defendants had engaged in oppressive conduct and ordered Low and Sim to make restitution to the company for the improperly received dividends and bonuses.