andreask90

You cannot compare these 2 cases. Wentworth is a PRIVATE club, where the owner can decide what to do. Phoenix was a club owned by shareholders, who were then robbed of their property by selling it without asking them. If this happened in Wentworth, somebody would be going to jail.

100% owned by golfers? doesn't sound correct to me

Where did I say 100 % golfers? Phoenix was a corporation with shareholders. Golfing members only owned approx 1 % of the shares, but were shareholders/owners none the less.

You cannot compare these 2 cases. Wentworth is a PRIVATE club, where the owner can decide what to do. Phoenix was a club owned by shareholders, who were then robbed of their property by selling it without asking them. If this happened in Wentworth, somebody would be going to jail.

Bartpix, Phoenix Golf & Country Club is now an empty shell with members, but no assets. All assets like golf course, equipment and clubhouse were illegally transferred to Phoenix GOLD Golf & Country Club by the new owners without informing or asking the members. This is what the present law suits are about. Before members have something to negotiate about the assets have to be transferred back to Phoenix Golf & Country Club by a court, resp. by a Pattaya court, then the Appeals court and then the Supreme court, which will take at least 3 years.

Experience shows, that nothing will come out of the law suits, because this is Thailand and not a civilized country. But we should still be thankful to those, who sue anyways to expose criminal actions.

Just try to call the number in the ad and You will find out. If it is real, somebody should answer, right?

This is not about proxies. The Civil Code Sec 99 forbids a committee member and co-owner to vote for a contract with a third party, that he owns or has an interest in.

I just need to know, whether anybody knows about a law suit, where this was dealt with for a condo association.

Many juristic managers are owned by the developer and sign contracts with third parties, that they own.

I know, that there have been lawsuits about it, but I don't know how to find them.

Does anybody know a court case, where a judge ruled, that co-owners / committee mebers cannot vote for third parties, where they have an interest in?

The civil code Sec 99 says so, but some lawyers argue, that this does not count for the condo act, as it does not mention conflict of interest and a reference to the civil code.

Does anybody know of a court case, where the judge ruled, that committee meetings have to be at the location of the condo?

Does anybody know a regulation for this and AGMs?

The condo act is not specific and leaves a lot of room for interpretation. I would need ministerial regulations or court rulings.

Phoenix members bought a share in a company. They are stockholders and not 'lifetime members'.

Please note the slight difference. A shareholder cannot just be told, that his share goes back to 'who?' after 25 years.

Here are a few numbers to play with: 23,850 shares at Baht 5,000 is 119,250,000 Baht capital.

This was probably what land, construction and clubhouse cost 20 years ago? Somebody told me, he paid 70,000 for a share 15 years ago, which would set the value at 1,67 billion? Just for the golf course, not the land of the residences. Numbers would add up, if 1 membership had 10 shares at 5,000 Baht = 50,000 Baht initially. The club could then have 2,385 members, which would be high for 27 holes, but 23,850?

Take the 24,000 Baht annual fee x 23,850, it would give You an annual budget of 572 Million Baht. Not very realistic, is it?

57 Million would be more like it. The result of these numbers? The shares were tenfold overpriced when issued, but nobody really paid attention, myself included.

Just for info: meetings cannot be held in Bangkok, unless the by-laws specificly name a meeting place there.

please check the PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY ACT of 2535 Section 32: meetings have to be held at the location of the head office or nearby in the same changwat

public limited company act.pdf

My wife just translated the last meeting for me. Apparently the new majority shareholders decided to reduce a membership to 25 years.

They might be able to legally do that, but the member would still be a shareholder and owner of the Ltd, unless they buy back his share.

Members own roughly 5% of the company shares. Members should find out, what assets this company had and has to get some kind of leverage against the new majority shareholders.

I assume, the new owners bought Phoenix Golf & Counrty Club Pattaya Co Ltd, respectively the remaining shares.

My share certificate states, that I have 1 share of a total of 23,850, so roughly 1,300 members own 1,300 shares of a total of 23,850 shares, which leaves the new owners with 22,550 shares. Members will not have much say, unless the bylaws say differently.

However I do not see, how the validity of a share can be reduced to 25 years, as stated before.