Member Info for Chaebol

Its this thing in investments called making money BFD..........being so early with this 5hit show I benefitted tremendously from my 'guesses'

Thats why I bother x

We control 100% Sement (Wife may give up her share) and then we go back to Novemebr 2024 original plan to IPO Semnet.

So that tells me you did not know about the 10% owner lol

Why would she give it away billy?

why does Lek give up her 10%?

and you still think this is IPO'ing......oh dear! if it was they would be giving away 18 million in your stupid world lol

That part time CEO Melvin must be busy driving sement to scale lol its a shell billy wake up !

.lol i see confusion and desperation from you now this is ridiculous!

Lol I pity your knowledge in this firm BFD, unless you have ulterior motives I think you are PR for GST.

The amount of stuff you have called wrong here is unreal tbh.

Quick Ownership Breakdown of Semnet:GSTechnologies → 66.67%

Ong Siew Phek → 23.33%

Lam Pek San → 10%

So they're giving away a 1/3rd now lol how and why would they do that ?

Why does the wife 'give' up her share and then theres the other woman with 10% thats on the management team for metapay in poland now.

They going to give that away billy why?

If this evidence was so good billy why didnt they up it in arb they dont need daphne in this, it was a bully tactic to try and make zheng zhu settle and it hasnt worked clearly, Zheng and zhu are not worried what GST may have because otherwise they would have settled!

This should have stopped at Arbitration not even got to court of first instance.

Thats why I reckon zheng and zhu get it back to arb unless they believe they can low ball now, GST going in to court with very little credibility the group is down nearly 95% and they're saying semnet former sellers rinsed one of our pillars when all the groups pillars have been rinsed,it doesnt look good. I would imagine A&G have a field day on that !

Then theres judges looking at 'forum shopping' which looks likely here from GST.......all will be revealed soon !

Let’s correct a few things with actual facts instead of assumptions.

Mediation “Agreement in Principle”

You said the two former directors “reneged on a deal agreed at mediation”.

An “outlined mediation agreement in principle” is not a final binding settlement. It is only a high-level framework. Many deals fall apart at the detailed drafting stage. Saying they “reneged” is inaccurate — the deal was never fully signed or converted into a consent order.

How we know the scope of the case

The court docket for HC/OC 143/2026 currently lists the Nature of Case as “Law of Confidence”.

That is public information on the Judiciary Singapore website. The claim is for approximately US$4.2 million, and the main legal angle being emphasised right now is breach of confidence. That’s not guesswork — it’s what the court record shows.

Case Conference before Assistant Registrar

Yes, it’s a Case Conference (OC). That doesn’t automatically mean it’s “pure admin”.

In Singapore High Court, Case Conferences are used to give directions on discovery, strike-out applications, counterclaims, expert evidence, and sometimes even a settlement. Significant procedural decisions can and do get made at these hearings.

On customer lists and poaching

You’re right that we don’t know every detail yet. But that works both ways. You also don’t know whether Semnet has strong forensic evidence of file downloads, access logs, or actual diverted business. Until discovery happens, both sides are speculating.

The point is simple, Stop presenting your assumptions as facts while calling everyone else “uninvested guessers”. The court documents are publicly available — anyone can check them.

The reality is the case is still at an early procedural stage, the $4.2m claim looks aggressive relative to the original US$1.8m paid for 66.67% of Semnet, and Allen & Gledhill are defending it seriously.

That’s all we actually know for now. Snippets of info can and will come from checking the updated docket with the Singaporean judicairy

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.

Makes no sense if arbitration was going so well and you are 2/3rds completed to then change the venue, aftere mediation they could have had this wrapped up by July ...............if it was going so well up the claim and take the arbitrary award. They would have had to pay 200k SGD to up the claim and they've tried to publicly shame zheng zhu and daphne to settle early and clearly its not worked at this point.

I think zheng zhu paying ofr Daphne lawyers in a structured agreement, if section 6 fails for them they join the counter claim on daphne ticket but this is going to be in procedure for months now exactly what zheng zhu and daphne want.

Thes berks couldnt run a bouncy castle but you are wrong again BFD distinct differences in law.

Here you go

Here's a clear and direct comparison of the actual legal differences between an "Employment" type claim and a "Law of Confidence" claim in the context of the Semnet/GST case.

1. Employment Claim (Breach of Employment Contract / Fiduciary Duties as Employee/Manager)This is a contractual claim (plus implied duties).Key elements Semnet would need to prove:There was a valid employment contract or managerial role with Daphane / the sellers.

Specific clauses were breached, e.g.:Confidentiality clause

Non-compete / non-solicitation clause

Non-dealing clause

Implied duties such as fidelity (good faith and loyalty during employment) or fiduciary duties (higher duty of single-minded loyalty if the person was a senior manager/director).

The breach caused actual loss to Semnet.

Burden of proof: Lies fully on Semnet/GST. They must prove unauthorised use + actual detriment/loss.Strengths: Straightforward if there are clear written clauses in the contract or SPA.

Weaknesses: Limited to what the contract actually says. Post-termination obligations are often narrower unless expressly stated. Courts are sometimes reluctant to imply very broad fiduciary duties in ordinary employment relationships.

2. Law of Confidence (Breach of Confidence in Equity)This is an equitable claim (not purely contractual). Current test in Singapore (since the landmark 2020 case I-Admin)

Semnet only needs to prove two things:The information had the necessary quality of confidence (it was secret, had commercial value, not publicly known — e.g. customer lists, pricing models, business strategies, source code).

The information was imparted/acquired in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence (e.g. during employment, under the SPA, or accessed without consent).

→ Once these two are shown, a breach is presumed.The burden then shifts to the defendants (Daphane, Zheng, Choo) to prove that their conscience was unaffected (e.g. they accessed it innocently, didn’t realise it was confidential, or had a legitimate reason).

Realistic Perspective on Damages

In practice, Singapore courts (and settlements) in similar post-acquisition or ex-employee breach of confidence cases often result in awards that are significantly lower than the headline claim, especially when the company is small.

The evidence of actual misuse and direct causation is not crystal clear.

The claimed figure looks round and speculative.

Many such cases either: Settle for a fraction of the claimed amount (often 20–50%), or

Result in the court awarding a much more modest sum after expert evidence is tested.

Zheng and Zhu made about 5 million USD on this sale

Special divi 1.75 million that was paid march 2024 for the 36 million contract, the 800k in cash for selling and then 58 million shares that were handed to them around mid December 2024 when the SP was in its pump lol if they sold for 3 p thats another 2.5 million USD

Oh Mouse this is going to be fun, Death by a thousand cuts coming here.

.7's soon yeh 0.07 lol

What BFD will not tell you is updates on the Docket changed from employment to law in confidence and that is massive and makes it easier for Semnet to prove.

Good move from the briefcase bandits for Semnet but again big clue is Zheng and Zhu cannot file a defence or counter claim if they intend to file a section 6 to get it back to Arb.

Proving a claim for breach of confidence in Singapore used to be quite difficult, but it has become significantly easier since 2020 due to a major Court of Appeal decision.Old Test (Before 2020) – Quite Hard to Prove

The classic test came from the English case Coco v AN Clark (1969), which Singapore followed for decades. The claimant (plaintiff) had to prove all three elements:

1. The information had the necessary quality of confidence (it was not public knowledge, relatively secret).

2. The information was imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence (e.g. during employment, under a contract, or acquired secretly).

3. There was unauthorised use of the information to the detriment of the claimant.

The third element was often the biggest hurdle. It was hard to prove exactly how the defendant used the information and what damage it caused — especially when the misuse happened secretly (e.g. an ex-employee downloading files but not obviously using them yet).

Current Test (Since 2020) – Much Easier for Claimants

In the landmark case I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hong Ying Ting [2020] SGCA 32, the Singapore Court of Appeal modified the test to give better protection to owners of confidential information.

Now the test works like this, The claimant only needs to prove the first two elements above.

Once those are shown, a breach of confidence is presumed.

The burden then shifts to the defendant to prove that his/her conscience was unaffected (e.g. they got the info by accident, didn’t know it was confidential, or had a good reason like public interest).

This change is very claimant-friendly because it removes the difficult task of proving actual unauthorised use and specific detriment.

Hearing details

Employment

Case Conference (OC)

Assistant Registrar Constance Tav Woan

Fen

230pm

Updated on 31st March

Hearing details

Nature of case

Law of Confidence

Hearing type

Case Conference (OC)

Judge/Judicial officer

Assistant Registrar Sim Junhui

930pm

If the writ don’t fit… you must acquit!

If the confidence claim flops… the whole thing stops.

GLA

Nature of case has moved from employment to Law of Confidence.

Irony x;)

Few updates on the docket today.

https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/hearing-list/hearing-list-details/ds-1-660874