Member Info for Chaebol

Chaebol

Posted in: GST

Posts: 12,945

RE: Court Thursday if not adjourned.

30 Mar 2026 22:15

A critical strategic constraint exists here, Zheng and Zhu cannot file a defence or counterclaim if they intend to invoke Section 6 (of the Arbitration Act) to stay the proceedings and refer the matter back to arbitration. By filing a defence or counterclaim, they would effectively be 'taking a step in the proceedings,' thereby accepting the court’s jurisdiction and waiving their right to arbitrate.

This explains the specific division of their legal strategy

Zheng and Zhu are utilising cost-effective procedural lawyers focused strictly on filing for security for costs and the Section 6 stay.

Daphane, meanwhile, is positioned to handle the counterclaims. This is why she has retained Big 4 legal representation—to manage the heavy lifting of the substantive litigation while the others focus on the jurisdictional pivot.

Under Section 9(3), a party loses their right to move the case to arbitration if they have already taken a "step in the proceedings to answer the substantive claim".

What counts as a "step"? This generally means any action that implies you have accepted the court’s authority to decide the main dispute, such as filing a Defence or a Counterclaim.

What doesn't count? Purely procedural actions, such as acknowledging service of the claim or making an application for security for costs, usually do not waive your right to arbitrate.

Chaebol

Posted in: GST

Posts: 12,945

RE: SEMNET HEARING

26 Mar 2026 03:58

Zheng and Zhu retained very cost effective procedural lawyers, they are filing anything but a defence on the 2nd in my humble opinion.

I would be amazed if they are, all they need to do is delay delay delay and make GST bleed, it’s just whether they’re filing the security costs or section 6 to take it back to Arb, but we gonna see multiple filings from them, why have GST not filed a Mareva?. Zheng and Zhu will let Daphne do the counter claims with her heavyweights. It’s funny people here said they would bleed her dry no one realised she would get indemnity as part of her insurance as a Director/officer surely GST knew this ?

What you have on the 2nd April is a case management conference and months and months of procedure, only the lawyers will be there on the 2nd no trial etc…., most high court battles like this IF they ever go to court is typically a 12- 18 month process, and if it does go to court the trial and result of it would be in 2027, the high court judge takes 3 months to give his verdict.

According to the Singapore Judiciary’s Court Charter (updated as of 2025):

* Oral Judgment (Civil Trial): Within 4 weeks of the last hearing or written submissions (whichever is later).

* Written Judgment (Civil Trial): Within 12 weeks (i.e., about 3 months) of the last hearing or written submissions.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=cd74d2a7-a417-48fb-8c8b-7a136a35f735

Depending on the complexity of the matter and other factors, such as the location of parties, evidence and witnesses, a matter may proceed to trial as soon as six months from the date of issue of originating process, but more often between 12 and 18 months, and rarely beyond.

Looking forward to seeing counter claims if the appeals havent been filed

Chaebol

Posted in: GST

Posts: 12,945

RE: Morning all

17 Feb 2026 14:26

File a "Summons for a Stay of Proceedings"

If the original Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) had an Arbitration Clause, this is their most powerful move.

The Goal: Force the case out of the public High Court and back into private arbitration.

Why it's first: If they file a full "Defence" first, they may waive their right to arbitrate. They must tell the judge: "This court has no jurisdiction because GST agreed to arbitrate all disputes."

Maybe Zheng and Choo want it out in the public domain but if they dont i'd imagine they file a stay of proceedings, 1.8 million to 4.2 million is a big jump ! you better have smoking gun stuff or this could end up frivolous or vexatious.

Chaebol

Posted in: GST

Posts: 12,945

RE: Morning all1 Apr 2026 07:58

The official Judiciary Singapore hearing docket for HC/OC 143/2026 currently states

Hearing Type: Case Conference (OC)

Nature of Case / Hearing: Law of Confidence

This is not the same as a pure employment/contract claim.

Key legal differences (not my opinion — established Singapore law)

Employment / Contract Claim: Relies on proving breach of specific clauses in the contract or SPA + actual detriment. Burden of proof stays fully on the claimant the whole time.

Law of Confidence (post I-Admin [2020] SGCA 32): Claimant only needs to show (1) the information had the quality of confidence and (2) it was obtained under an obligation of confidence. Once those two are met, breach is presumed and the burden shifts to the defendants to prove their conscience was unaffected.

That shift in burden is a significant advantage for Semnet/GST. That’s why the court listing now specifically highlights “Law of Confidence” instead of just “employment”.

I didn’t make this up or copy-paste randomly — I checked the actual hearing details on the Judiciary website. You’re welcome to verify it yourself.

Calling it “overthinking” or “wrong” doesn’t change what the court docket says.

Billy I posted ages about the 2/3 points lol

Ages ago.

No, this is not a simple case.

Let’s stick to facts and law instead of wishful thinking.

This is a Singapore High Court action for USD 4.2 million involving

Alleged post-acquisition breaches of fiduciary duties by former directors/shareholders (this is a serious equitable claim under Singapore law)

Claims of mismanagement and sabotage of the business after completion.

A former key employee (Chong Hoi Yan) as co-defendant.

Prior arbitration between the parties (meaning this is Round 2 of the war).

After one year of litigation, including contested stay applications (SUM 1210 & 1211) that were dismissed on 26 May 2026 with costs, this is now firmly in mid-stage High Court proceedings.

Even if a settlement is reached, it is highly likely to include non-competes, confidentiality, non-disparagement, full releases, and possibly instalment payments. Under Singapore law, these types of multi-layered obligations are much stronger when recorded as a Consent Order (Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021, Paragraph 79) rather than a bare private contract.

Calling this a “simple agreement for a couple of individuals to make straightforward recompense” is comedy.

This is a proper contentious post-M&A / fiduciary breach dispute in the High Court, not a small claims tribunal matter. Serious parties get proper court protection. That’s not overcomplicating it. That’s called litigation reality.

Now youre going to go deranged over the word application, been proven wrong much ? go and lick some grass avoid the turds x

A Consent Order is filed via an application/request on Elitigation,

Yes, the statement is 100% correct.

Exact Legal Basis (You Can Cite This)Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021 — Paragraph 79 (Consent Judgments)79. Consent judgments

(1) The parties in an Originating Claim or Originating Application may inform the Registrar that they wish to record a consent judgment or order without appearing before the Court by filing an “Other Hearing Related Request” through the Electronic Filing Service.

(2) ... the parties must ... enclose with the “Other Hearing Related Request” ... a copy of the draft consent judgment to be recorded, duly endorsed by all the consenting parties.

(3) The Court may record the consent judgment or order without requiring the parties to appear before the Court.

This is the official practice direction that governs how consent orders are filed in the Singapore Supreme Court (High Court).SummaryIt is filed as a formal request/application via eLitigation.

It is called an “Other Hearing Related Request”.

It is not a full contested Summons, but it is still a formal filing that the Court must review and approve.

This is the current law/practice as of 2026.

Gnite Ray keep posting your mayhem x

Are you saying now the judge doesnt have to approve the 'consent' order?

Lol

Its an application that we will see in the court filings so I remain that any sort of settlement will be directed via court filings and not what GST RNS. But keep arguing over nuance Ray its mental.

Going to v have

Application v application

PRoven you wrong with real case lawa nd examples made your take look ridiculous and you astill carry on.

To think after all this time and money you wouldnt want them to enforce this with the courts backing, because it agrees with Chaebol.

Well done bud.

Now youre going to go deranged over the word application, been proven wrong much ? go and lick some grass avoid the turds x

A Consent Order is filed via an application/request on Elitigation,

Yes, the statement is 100% correct.

Exact Legal Basis (You Can Cite This)Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021 — Paragraph 79 (Consent Judgments)79. Consent judgments

(1) The parties in an Originating Claim or Originating Application may inform the Registrar that they wish to record a consent judgment or order without appearing before the Court by filing an “Other Hearing Related Request” through the Electronic Filing Service.

(2) ... the parties must ... enclose with the “Other Hearing Related Request” ... a copy of the draft consent judgment to be recorded, duly endorsed by all the consenting parties.

(3) The Court may record the consent judgment or order without requiring the parties to appear before the Court.

This is the official practice direction that governs how consent orders are filed in the Singapore Supreme Court (High Court).SummaryIt is filed as a formal request/application via eLitigation.

It is called an “Other Hearing Related Request”.

It is not a full contested Summons, but it is still a formal filing that the Court must review and approve.

This is the current law/practice as of 2026.

Gnite Ray keep posting your mayhem x

I’m not calling them welchers. I’m saying Semnet should protect itself properly, full stop.

Whether the former sellers are 100% trustworthy or not, after a year of bitter litigation the gold standard is to have any settlement turned into a court-approved Consent Order (or Tomlin Order). That’s just basic commercial common sense.

Non-competes

Confidentiality

Payment schedule

Full releases

These things carry real teeth only when the Singapore High Court stands behind them. If breached, you can go straight back to the same court for fast enforcement instead of starting all over again with a new lawsuit.Even if they’re completely honest people, a court-endorsed agreement is still better.

And if they are the type to welch, then it becomes even more essential.This isn’t about distrust. It’s about sensible risk management.

Anyone who thinks Semnet should just rely on a private handshake agreement on a complicated, multi-layered deal like this after everything that’s happened is being unrealistic.

NOw youre changing your tone.

I maintain they will have to file these consent orders and notice of discontinuance to solidify any private agreements they potentially make and the courtmake it enforceable if its backed out on which can happen in private agreements. To think ohterwise is naive in whats happened in the sement former sellers case, I did try to tell you your AI was using bog standard template laws it wasnt understanding the nature and background of this 'specific' case.

FWIW i think this is nowhere near settlement and as we get closer to accounts expiry date, with no settlement, i think its a shoo in for suspension under those conditions.

GL

Well if you see Aim ask him where my 5k is x;)

Peace x

Not disputing that Ray and Yes for a simple case handshakes winks and private agreeemnts are great but in this case with all thats gone on you would be low IQ to not have this with a consent order and backed wiht the court, Zheng Zhu could absolutely welch and make oyu start all over again wihtoput a consent order.

Do they risk that Ray ? Let alone all the non cash comlexities that would need to be agreed on.

YOu have to dig deep now to show youre right but im telling you they will be telegraphing via the court dockets where we at with settlementt applications, it would be shameful to shareholders if they did not get any out of court settlement backed by the court.

Keep going Ray you look great x;) Wish I could have made you look dumber earlier but been very busy !

Oh and we back to going to v have

1.9p v .4p

Mica in September 2025 v nothing

Arbitration in September 2025 to be settled v court case running in June !

And im the silly man, hammers coming here Ray I cant wait !

Youre wrong Ray they will be filing application IF this goes to settlement.

To stay right youre gonna have to insist they should keep this agreemenrt private and not backed by the court, thats how stupid youve gone you berk

AI says

My firm view as a senior Singapore commercial litigator

You are correct. Ray is wrong.

In a complex settlement like this, especially given the history and bad blood between GST/Semnet and the former sellers — relying on a pure private settlement agreement without court backing is risky and naive.

Why a Court Order is Strongly Recommended

Here’s the reality

This is not a simple “pay S$X and done” deal. You mentioned non-competes, ongoing confidentiality, non-disparagement, possible IP/business restrictions, and potential staggered payments. These are exactly the types of obligations that need teeth.

A private contract is enforceable, but it is slower and more expensive to enforce if breached. You have to start a fresh lawsuit for breach of settlement agreement.

A Consent Order (especially a Tomlin Order) gives you the full power of the Court behind it. If they breach, You can go back to the same High Court very quickly (via “Liberty to Apply”).

You can seek contempt of court in serious cases.

Enforcement is much faster (garnishee, bankruptcy, charging orders, etc.).

Best Practice for This Case

Semnet/GST’s lawyers should push for the following package

Tomlin Order (preferred) — Settlement agreement scheduled to the Order but not public.

Clear Liberty to Apply clause.

Express power for the Court to enforce non-competes, injunctions, etc. if breached.

Notice of Discontinuance of the entire action (with liberty to restore if needed).

This is standard in high-conflict commercial disputes in Singapore involving ex-shareholders, ex-employees, and fiduciary breach claims.My Honest OpinionAfter one year of bitter litigation, with the background these parties have, anyone advising Semnet not to get a court order backing the settlement is giving dangerously relaxed advice.You are right to be worried if they just shake hands on a complicated agreement with no court order. That would be optimistic at best, reckless at worst.

Celebration should only happen once the Consent Order is made by the Court, not when the handshake photo is taken.

Disregard the 18k its already paid my error.

The rest though Ray I satnd by you seriously think they shouldnt apply to court to enforce a complicated agreement like this ? lol

Settlement will be telegraphed in apps to court. And once its enforced by the court I would say thats when you can celebrate. I would be worried if this deal was agreed and then no court order was backing it, but you do you Ray.

This isnt just cash its non competes its all sorts, it will need the courts powers to ensure the 'agreement' is non reversible and consequential if breached again etc.

To say they wont need to file applications Ray is not understanding the Sement gst and former sellers background and history to all this.

Are you actually saying Ray that Sement should not get the agreement enforced by a court order just handshakes and winks lol

Here you go

If it ever gets to out of court settlement for ultimate protection, Semnet should insist on a Consent Order (preferably in Tomlin form) + Notice of Discontinuance.

Never just rely on a private settlement agreement without a court order, it is much harder and more expensive to enforce later.

This is standard best practice in Singapore High Court commercial litigation after a year of fighting.

1. Consent Order (Tomlin Order style) – This is the Gold Standard

This is what gives ultimate protection.

* File a joint Consent Order that includes:

* The exact settlement sum and payment schedule

* Full and final release of all claims (including any counterclaims)

* Confidentiality clauses (if wanted)

* Liberty to apply (important enforcement clause)

* Costs orders (who pays what, including the existing S$18k)

* Dismissal of the entire action with no order as to costs or as agreed

* Withdrawal of any pending appeal

Why this is the strongest

* Once the Court records it, the settlement becomes an Order of Court.

* It is enforceable like a judgment (can immediately enforce if they default, apply for bankruptcy, garnishee, etc.).

* It prevents the defendants from re-opening the dispute later.

2. Notice of Discontinuance

* Filed by Semnet (the Plaintiff) after or together with the Consent Order.

* This formally ends the court case.

MassiveRay

Posted in: GST

Posts: 24,628

RE: Bake is Cooked

27 May 2026 10:41

Why would they need to RNS what they have already stated is happening Einstein? Its the defendants application and not ours. Jeez keep up

Sums it up perfect! Chaebol calls for RNS he's an idiot , GST RNS it and its a huge win lol

The nuance of you is beautiful to see, youre a complete idot Ray thats in neck deep now and .4 does f all for you anyway, its lovely to see waymondo

Can I do your September last year any day now arbitration settlements Ray.. When suspension ? Somethign huge is ocming here and its not a saver x;)

You are shameless, shouted at anyone from 1.9 p down for over a year, tried to shout me down for all my license calls and anything else ive tried to predict. Gotta be honest gonna love seeing the hammer come down on you, please please please please buy more x please

MassiveRay

Posted in: GST

Posts: 24,628

RE: It’s all a bit Disappointing ??

21 Apr 2026 06:29

Morning all.

I wonder if there's a world where the defendants see an opportunity to buy gst's low sp and then finally settle? Out one hand in with the other.

By the way it's futile trying to silence the trolls you just give them a sense of purpose in their very boring inactive lives. Best to just filter unless you enjoy going around in circles.

G.L.A

MassiveRay

Posted in: GST

Posts: 24,628

RE: Good morning all

27 Apr 2026 09:25

Agreed David. Any good news will be very welcome and could see a big spring upwards from the current levels we sit. For all we know a settlement could be on the way.

MassiveRay

Posted in: GST

Posts: 24,628

RE: Bake is Cooked

27 May 2026 10:29

Tell me chaebol as you believe in conspiracy theories and you claim the definitive rulling has already been made. What is the tape suggesting today ? Or the lack of a raise you claimed was happening to spike the sp some 3 weeks ago?

MassiveRay

Posted in: GST

Posts: 24,628

RE: Bake is Cooked

27 May 2026 10:59

So lets ask you a very simplistic question chaebol

You said if the stay application is unsuccessful it would need to be RNS'd ? As its not our application and shareholders have already been informed of the legal proceedings why would they need to rns this if nothing material has changed?

MassiveRay

Posted in: GST

Posts: 24,628

RE: Bake is Cooked

27 May 2026 10:41

Why would they need to RNS what they have already stated is happening Einstein? Its the defendants application and not ours. Jeez keep up