Member Info for Chaebol

FWIW 100 % the virtual video hearing Janice gave her verdict, its why she called it by virtual if she wanted more evidence she would have invited them back to chambers for additional evidence etc, she called that virtual hearing for the 26th May to deliver the stay verdicts, its down to GST to inform the market what that decision is, if the stay was dismissed I think GST would be very keen to RNS that. Not so keen if it’s been upheld.

Stay for settlment summons are far more clearer than how Zheng Zhu and Chong have filed, usually settlments in Singapore are quite explicit ie stay for settlemt stay for mediation etc.

Bill Enki what are oyu on about you keep referring to some sort off binding deal Bill what are you on about ? You said We have/had a remedy/award issued in December which is binding.

Can you show me this award that was binding, and so binding that Sement(sic) have been in high court since feb writ because this deal in December was so binding? you guys are losing your minds here, its mad.

Please don’t mention the ‘view to agreeing’

From corporate update 18th December ‘expected’ said twice.

a formal settlement agreement between the Sellers and the Company is expected to be entered into in late December 2025 or early January 2026. It is currently expected by the GST Board that this………. 

Feb 13the Sement (sic) update ‘View to agreeing’.

a mediation hearing was held in early December 2025 with a view to agreeing a formal settlement agreement between the Sellers and the Company. However, formal settlement terms have not been reached, 

Im all ears how this is a binding remedy award in December bill? Nowhere says binding agreement lots of optimism lots of jam could designed but wasn’t kind of rubbish.

Ive tried to say it a few times Ray,

In litigation like this , filing a counterclaim generally constitutes a "step in the proceedings," which acts as a waiver of the right to object to the court's jurisdiction or to maintain certain types of stays.

They cannot make a counter claim when they’ve filed a stay back to arbitration nor have they filed a defence yet as that would be a step in the proceedings.

If the stay is dismissed Zheng Zhu file either an appeal to have the stay heard in front of a judge instead of Janice who is not a judge (another month) and then file a defence and potential counter claims.

I believe its been stayed for ZhengZhu who knows with Daphne, but time will tell.

Bake just said cheerio and angra don’t pick the phone up anymore.

Only good things are coming here.

50th is in July Ray,

The boat was homage to bill put pay grades and low IQ takes get you here. Your memory is like a sieve. Told you numerous times happy to swap all my short history for your .2 .3 buys, we can even swap on the lse email system.

Thats some pivot Enki

YOu were telling me they were staying for settlement begining of MAy now its going back to arbitration but fast twacked lol

Enki

Posted in: GST

Posts: 2,743

RE: Lol summons of stay for sment on the 14th6 May 2026 10:47

I'm in the settlement camp- what is the point of arbitration again? That was already in our favour.

The court probabaly looked at this and told the defence lawyers in plain language this was going nowhere diifferent to that, that had been already arbitrated.

Stupid people and all that eh ?

Cute Ray, But one things for sure Ill never be close to you on 'getting things wrong here'

Litany of 18 months of literally being wrong daily, one pump and .35 helps no man or woman here lol but somehow its back lol and yet no one can explain the 8th May to 19th May anomaly, wihtout serious manipulation in the tape!

That award is yours for as long as this company is in existence.

The 'Massi knows' award. Better than Jim Cramer x;)

Thats your own delusion.

I am making an investment choice here based upon a very inept BOD and failed almost all of its endeavours so far of real consequence, called the EMI and MICA shambles for what it was and now youre waiting in Poland, You lost bake and GS exchange revenue through failing pretty simple licenses, and the corporate structure of GST gtees you wont ever get to a Neo banking point.

I may be wrong long term but I have made a great deal of money backing my belief in the company failing and thankfully its paid off and I think this is very close to inflection point now.

May has been a bad day bad week bad month but what a year here. And my predictions were called before they happened. Ai does not call the BOL or the FCA etc AI saves your time and if you know how to use gets you to excellent information quicker than I have ever seen. AI does not read the tape in spite of Chaebol is incorrect and its not manipulated from you, the tape is clear to see but people hold on to their own delusion dont they ! even massi now admits yes that part is manipulated lol

Lol I think GST will RNS next week, June! , Virtual hearing will be the verdict, the sealed document to arrive with lawyers usually 1-3 days that will have specific wordings on the verdict to then transfer to RNS, days if its rejected......

Only if the stays are dismissed do they tell us tomorrow imo, Im sure the AM tape will give clues to some x;)

GL Enki x

Yes, the SINT cluster at 16:21:32 looked highly synthetic and fragmented. Nobody sensible disputes that. And yes, the repeated tiny 0.3999 prints clearly influenced optics around the displayed last price.

Massi confirms manipulation

Chaebol's conclusion that the tape was intentionally manipulated is entirely incorrect and mistakes standard micro-cap market structure for malicious activity.

Steady with AI says not manipulated

You 2 need to be singing from the same hymn sheet.

I think massi confirms that you don’t need AI to see this was manipulated but who knows!

Steady what are your prompts for AI ?

Interesting what comes up when I ask like this.

Act as a highly experienced market microstructure analyst. Review the trading in ticker GST on LSE from 8th to 19th May. Here is the specific pattern / data

14:55:55 → Tiny buy at 0.50p (271 shares)

14:56:20 → Big sell 1.35 million shares at 0.4315p

14:57:23 → Tiny buy at 0.45p

14:58:33 → Big sell 935k shares at 0.4126p

14:58:55 → Big sell 1 million shares at 0.4110p

If you can genuinely deep check the trading from 8th to 19th May, lf you cant, let me know and I will give you more datasets from that trading to work from.

Give me a neutral but detailed assessment, Is this natural illiquidity, genuine accumulation, distribution by a large holder, or paint-the-tape / sint manipulation? Support with specific reasoning, volume context, and post-period behaviour. Be factual and avoid speculation.

You get a very clear answer when you prompt AI that way x;) Not just asking AI prove Chaebol wrong

The problem is steady none of the ai programs know how to check trading days accurately, so you have to provide the trading data once you provide trading data the AI model can make a far better informed opinion on the infomration you have provided as trading data.

As an AI, I do not have a live connection to historical LSE time-and-sales ticking data, so I rely entirely on the granularity of the datasets you provide.To turn this into an institutional-grade forensic report, here is how you can make the next question and dataset significantly better for me: . Please paste your historical time-and-sales CSV lines or text blocks.

To ensure the next report is completely undeniable, try to include columns for LSE Trade Condition Flags (e.g., AT, O, SI, SINT) or the Best Bid / Best Offer (BBO) values at the exact second of execution. Let me know how you would like to proceed with the next batch.

Critical Nuance

The RNS Contradiction In its RNS announcement dated 13 February 2026, GSTechnologies stated:

“Semnet has now formally issued and served a writ of summons against the Sellers and Hoi Yan (‘Daphane’) Chong … to vigorously pursue claims for alleged breaches of fiduciary and contractual duties, including breaches of the SPA…”

This public statement is highly significant for two reasons

Semnet was not a party to the SPA.

The Share Purchase Agreement was executed between GSTechnologies Ltd (as buyer) and the Sellers.

Semnet Pte Ltd was merely the target company and not a signatory. By publicly claiming that Semnet is pursuing “breaches of the SPA”, GST created a misleading impression and effectively admitted that the substance of the dispute arises from the SPA.

Inconsistency with Court Strategy

Having told the market that the claims include breaches of the SPA, Semnet is now attempting in the High Court to frame the entire action as a pure “Law of Confidence” (equitable/TORT breach of confidence) claim — to circumvent the SPA’s arbitration clause.

This creates a fundamental problem for Semnet

If they wish to keep the case in court under “Law of Confidence”, they cannot meaningfully rely on the SPA clauses (non-compete, confidentiality definitions, post-completion obligations, etc.) without undermining their own argument that the dispute falls outside the arbitration agreement.In short, GST’s own RNS has handed the Defendants powerful ammunition to argue that this is a contractual SPA dispute dressed up as an equitable claim.

Corporate update ? wEn? lol could be very enlightning indeed.

Zheng Zhu has the stronger position. Chong’s outcome is more discretionary but often follows the main defendant due to overlap.

4. What Happens Next (Depending on Outcome)

If Stay Granted (Partial or Full)

* High Court proceedings paused or vacated.

* Dispute (or major part) returns to SIAC arbitration.

* Semnet likely ordered to pay a substantial portion of defendants’ costs of the stay applications and wasted High Court costs (assessment months later).

* 4 June Case Conference likely vacated.

If Stay Refused

* Defendants must file Defences (and possible Counterclaims).

* Case proceeds in High Court toward discovery, affidavits of evidence, and trial.

* Defendants likely ordered to pay Semnet’s costs of the stay applications.

5. Overall Strategic Assessment

This is a typical post-M&A fight involving allegations of misuse of confidential information and breach of non-compete.

* GST/Semnet have taken an aggressive approach (arbitration → mediation → High Court with high damages claim). The RNS wording on 13th Feb and claim reframing have created vulnerabilities they must now defend.

* Defendants appear well-organised and resolute, with strong procedural arguments and top-tier representation on at least one front.

The outcome of these stays on 26 May 2026 will be a major inflection point. A stay (especially for Zheng Zhu) would represent a significant procedural victory for the defendants and would likely force GST/Semnet to reconsider the commercial wisdom and cost-benefit of pursuing the claim aggressively in light of their company size and resources.

This opinion is based on publicly available court records, RNS announcements, and established Singapore case law principles. It is intended to be neutral and balanced.

1/2

1. Background & Chronology

* In December 2023, GSTechnologies Ltd acquired 66.67% of Semnet Pte Ltd from the Sellers (Choo Seet Ee / Zheng Zhu and Zheng Kang Wen Mervyn) via a Share Purchase Agreement (SPA).

* July 2025: GST issued a Notice of Arbitration under the SPA’s arbitration clause, alleging breaches of non-compete undertakings and other obligations.

* Early December 2025: Mediation was held but failed.

* 13 February 2026: Semnet Pte Ltd (the subsidiary, not GST) issued and served a High Court Writ against the two Sellers and former manager Daphane Chong (Chong Hoi Yan). The RNS explicitly referred to claims for “breaches of fiduciary and contractual duties, including breaches of the SPA”, seeking ~US$4.2 million in damages.

* The High Court case was initially associated with employment/fiduciary claims but later recorded with the Nature of Case as “Law of Confidence”.

* Defendants filed:

* HC/SUM 1210/2026 – Stay applications by Choo Seet Ee and Zheng Kang Wen Mervyn – mandatory stay under s.6 International Arbitration Act.

* HC/SUM 1211/2026 – Stay application by Daphane Chong (represented by Allen & Gledhill) – discretionary case management stay.

* Decision on both summonses is scheduled for virtual hearing at 10 am 26 May 2026 by Assistant Registrar Wong Shi Hui Janice.

2. Core Legal Issues

A. Recharacterisation / Forum Shopping

Semnet’s shift from broader SPA/fiduciary claims (in arbitration and the February RNS) to a narrower “Law of Confidence” framing in court is a recognised litigation tactic. However, Singapore courts prioritise substance over form. If proving the breach of confidence requires reference to the SPA (e.g., definitions of confidential information, post-completion obligations, non-compete clauses), the claims are likely caught by the arbitration agreement.

The 13 February 2026 RNS is particularly notable, as it publicly states that Semnet is pursuing “breaches of the SPA”. This creates a strong evidential admission that undermines the “independent equitable claim” argument.

B. Different Positions of the Defendants

* Choo Seet Ee and Zheng Kang Wen Mervyn: Direct signatory to the SPA → strong mandatory stay argument under s.6 IAA.

* Daphane Chong: Non-signatory → relies on discretionary case management stay. Courts often grant such stays where claims are factually intertwined (Tomolugen Holdings principle).

C. Allen & Gledhill’s Involvement

A&G’s engagement signals that, after reviewing the SPA and facts, they believe the stay applications have a reasonable prospect of success and are worth pursuing. It also suggests coordination and likely financial/logistical support from the main sellers.

3. Likely Outcome on 26 May 2026

Based on Singapore’s strong pro-arbitration policy

* Partial Stay — Most Likely

* Full Stay — Reasonably Possible

* Stay Fully Refused — Less Likely

Ray Isaid that was a tiny snap shot of the trading from the 111th to the 19th You told me no manipulation, I show some and then you say I cherry pick lol

The tape was manipulated and now youre even admitting it.

Since the end of the SINT explosion on the 19th May at 16:21.32 when about 5.5 k GBP of SINTS were launched only 35 trades have taken place since the SINT sorcery ended.

Four of the 35 trades are the continuation of the nonsensical infamous 4p trades that have now vanished, another 10 trades were under 100 GBP

That leaves 21 trades of which only 9 TRADES traded over 1k per trade since Tuesday 16:21.32 but this is not manipulated since the 8th to the 19th May ? Wow !

People are telling me to compare this to Rolls Royce lol or o some Mickey Mouse west African lithium miner on AIM when clear evidence over the course of many trading days highlights tape painting and the infamous 4 p props, compare it to Friday, straight forward 4 million buy gave this uplift no SINTS no 4p prop just a healthy buy that saw earlier buys in the day with little selling interest no bs 4p’s and no sints, funny eh ?

SINT itself is not automatically manipulation, it’s a legitimate MiFID II flag for trades executed by Systematic Internalisers (banks/market makers matching orders internally).

However, in micro-caps like GST, clusters of small SINT prints used to “support” the price before larger sells is a well-known technique to create artificial upward pressure or better seller exits.

The "4p props" (repetitive small trades near 0.40p) you mention also show up clearly in the data around that range.

The tape from 11th–19th May shows repeated evidence of thin buying interest being used to lift the price, followed by supply coming in. After the 19 May spike, the drying up of volume (especially meaningful trades >£1k) supports the idea that natural demand was weak.

The sints manipulation for dummies book and its free just study the 8th May to the 19th May on GST trading history.

Is it a raise ? Is it a pump for a big seller to exit ? Is it some sort of pros looking at the boards and thinking we can pump n dump this ? is it something nice but can’t be rns’d lol ?

Whatever it is, the tape has been manipulated to get us here, that doesn’t pan out well typically for microcaps like this, especially with no news to sustain the actual pump.

Anyway, a very small snapshot from the 12th May,like I say every day from the 11th May to the 19th May solidifies this type of snapshot of the sint manipulation and the 4 p props.

12th May

SINT Multiples, last trade shown of that cycle

14:55.55 SINT Trade .50 shares 271 total 1.36 GBP

Sells

14:56.20 Sell .4315 shares 1,350,000 total 5805 GBP

14:56.35 Sell .4111 shares 1,215,000 total 4981.50

SINT Multiples, last trade shown of that cycle

14:57.23 SINT .45 shares 3714 total 16.72 GBP

Sells

14:58.33 Sell .4126 shares 935,000 total 3833.50 GBP

14:58.55 Sell .4110 shares 1,000,000 total 4100 GBP

15:00.21 Sell .4055 Shares 861,494 Total 3532 GBP

SINT Multiples, last trade shown of that cycle

15:47.02 SINT .40 shares 570 total 2.28 GBP

Sells

15:48.25 Sell .40 shares 1,500,000 total 6k

15:56.05 Sell .4035 shares 1,500,000 Toal 6k

Https://sg.linkedin.com/in/daphne-chong-0422882b

She likes to talk as well x;)

Mediation outlined agreement is not an arbitration ruling Enki.

Per last RNS Semnet Update says mediation failed, its nuance but thats the latest update which is the most relevant to this case? the latest RNS or the optimistic Dec 18th Corporate update lol

As announced on 18 July 2025, the Company issued a notice of arbitration to Choo Seet EE and Zheng Kang Wen Mervyn (the "Sellers"), the sellers of Semnet, as set out in the Sale and Purchase Agreement ("SPA") dated 5 December 2023. As referenced in the Company's interim results announced on 18 December 2025, a mediation hearing was held in early December 2025 with a view to agreeing a formal settlement agreement between the Sellers and the Company. However, formal settlement terms have not been reached, and consequently, Semnet has now formally issued and served a writ of summons against the Sellers and Hoi Yan ('Daphane') Chong (a former Semnet manager) to vigorously pursue claims for alleged breaches of fiduciary and contractual duties, including breaches of the SPA, that have negatively impacted the Semnet business. The total damages sought are approximately US$4.2 million.

Mediation only becomes binding if both parties sign a settlement agreement. They didn’t. Mediation failed and we dont know why, we do know Semnet escelated to high court and added chong and 4.2 million claim and we do know that zheng zhu chong have all filed stays for zheng zhu to go back to arb and case management stay chong.

We get that verdict on Tuesday at 10 am.

Mediation outlined agreement is not an arbitration ruling Enki.

Per last RNS Semnet Update says mediation failed, its nuance but thats the latest update which is the most relevant to this case? the latest RNS or the optimistic Dec 18th Corporate update lol

As announced on 18 July 2025, the Company issued a notice of arbitration to Choo Seet EE and Zheng Kang Wen Mervyn (the "Sellers"), the sellers of Semnet, as set out in the Sale and Purchase Agreement ("SPA") dated 5 December 2023. As referenced in the Company's interim results announced on 18 December 2025, a mediation hearing was held in early December 2025 with a view to agreeing a formal settlement agreement between the Sellers and the Company. However, formal settlement terms have not been reached, and consequently, Semnet has now formally issued and served a writ of summons against the Sellers and Hoi Yan ('Daphane') Chong (a former Semnet manager) to vigorously pursue claims for alleged breaches of fiduciary and contractual duties, including breaches of the SPA, that have negatively impacted the Semnet business. The total damages sought are approximately US$4.2 million.

Mediation only becomes binding if both parties sign a settlement agreement. They didn’t. Mediation failed and we dont know why, we do know Semnet escelated to high court and added chong and 4.2 million claim and we do know that zheng zhu chong have all filed stays for zheng zhu to go back to arb and case management stay chong.

We get that verdict on Tuesday at 10 am.

No it was really simple 4 million buy and the tape is clean as. No Sints no props someone bought 4 million and paid for it. A natural normal buyer, GL to them, thats not what occurred on the tape Friday Monday Tues/Wed last week.

Today a natural gain from strong buying. Take it for what it is, someone believes, lets see how that belief system is after the next RNS x;)

If they filed a case dismissal they would invalidate the stay apps by acknowledging the high court case, if they file. defence they then acknowledge the case same with counterclaims, this is standard legal procedure, welcome to litigation.

Zheng and Zhu did not reject arbitration. Mediation failed, thats not arbitration ruling. You cannot reject an arbitration ruling in Singapore wihtout serious consequences.

By filing the stay application, they are actually asking the court to send the case back to arbitration, as written in the SPA.

Mediation failed, but that does not cancel the arbitration clause.

Adding Chong to the High Court writ does not automatically stop them from getting a stay due to the clauses and pro arbitration Singapore Courts are known for.

Zheng and Zhu are pushing the dispute back to arbitration (per the contract), I cant see how the court rejects the stay tbh.