Member Info for Chaebol

Https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/policy-statements/ps25-12-changes-safeguarding-regime-payments-and-e-money-firms

This kicks in for Angra on the 7th May under API rules

5 out of 6 apps fail to secure authorisation. 35 EMI's forced to close down

6 apps approved this year.

https://www.cityam.com/exclusive-fca-licence-approvals-slump/

Bound (Bound Rates Limited) Specialist in automated foreign exchange (FX) hedging for SMEs.

Secured $24.5 million (£18 million) Series A in February 2026, led by AlbionVC.

Employee count: Estimated 20–40.

Focus: Helping SMEs automate complex FX hedging strategies.

Incard (Incard Ltd) Financial operating system for digital entrepreneurs, e-commerce brands, and influencers.

Closed £10 million ($13.4 million) Series A in early February 2026, led by Smartfin.

Has facilitated over £500 million in transactions since 2024 launch.

Employee count: Approximately 28–30.

Revenue: Estimated under $5 million annually, but rapidly scaling with e-money capabilities.

Both companies raised significant Series A rounds in February 2026 and are targeting underserved segments in fintech with strong automation plays.

FCA claiming 99% of EMI apps being completed within 4-10 months. Where is Angra x;)

Lol Mozax, its a banger of an app, everyone that I know uses it says the same, are Americans understanding this reward system? or are they used to instant gratification rewards burger fries milkshake with free jabs etc lol

The float is low, shorters move on and November is a long long way away and to be completely honest I am so far down in this, all I can really do now is hope and pray this is much better in November GLA

Lol 5 trades today 2 UT's........... This stock is a proper dog, last 9 months has been epic for me and my family and this sheet show just about to get a whole lot worse for GST imo.

You tell me the fees are wrong I link the SIAC website, do you clowns even realise that if they used natiional mediator and arbitration it would be more expensive than the SIAC arb med arb protocol. You tell me they cant up the claim in the arbitration and then I link the rule that clearly states you can up the claim during arbitration (what would be the point of discovery if you cant raise the claim after finding damning evidence !)

And you lot are correcting me lol

Balance.

The case does not start in April this hearing will be in chambers (private, not open to the public).

What This Hearing Actually Is

The hearing on 2 April 2026 at 2:30 PM (Chamber 2-6, Supreme Court) is a Case Conference (OC) before Assistant Registrar Constance Tay Woan Fen.This is NOT the full trial.

It is an early interlocutory / directions hearing — essentially the first serious case management conference in the High Court under the Rules of Court 2021.

What Will Happen During This Case Conference

This is a standard early Case Conference (often called the “First CMC” or part of the Single Application Pending Trial process). The Assistant Registrar will typically do the following

Confirm service of the Writ and that all parties have entered appearance.

Set the timetable for the rest of the case, including:Deadline for filing the Defence (and any Counterclaim by Daphne).

Deadline for Reply (if any).

Directions on discovery / document production.

Any applications that need to be fixed (especially Security for Costs).

Deal with any pending applications, such as Extension of time to file Defence.

Security for Costs application (very likely to be discussed or fixed here if Zheng & Choo have filed it or intend to file it).

Any stay application under s 6 IAA (to send the case back to SIAC).

Give directions on the parallel SIAC arbitration — the court will want to know the status of the SIAC proceedings and may give directions on how the two tracks interact.

Fix the next hearing date (usually another Case Conference or a dedicated hearing for Security for Costs / Stay etc).

I reckon IF it goes to high court they get a trial date for early 2027 at best.

Well just like MiCA I can revisit these posts in a few months time and confirm like I was with MiCA whether I was right again......

They went through SIAC ARB MED ARB protocol.

GST with the ARB Semnet filed the high court writ.

The combination of:Daphne being represented by a Big Four / top-tier firm (with likely D&O insurance funding),

Her running a separate counterclaim + indemnity claim, and

Zheng & Choo executing a clean procedural squeeze in the High Court

is creating a perfect storm for GST/Semnet.

Why This Is Extremely Strong for (Zheng & Choo)Daphne’s Position Is Now a Massive Lever She was never a party to the SPA or the arbitration agreement → she has no s 6 stay obligation.

She can run a full counterclaim (wrongful/constructive dismissal, unpaid salary/bonuses, indemnity for legal costs, etc.) without being bound by the arbitration clause.

Big Four lawyers + D&O insurance means she can fight aggressively and expensively with zero personal cost.

GST now faces three separate defendants with partially misaligned interests — this dramatically increases their total legal spend and settlement pressure.

Zheng and choo should file

The Security-for-Costs + Stay Sequencing Is Perfect

You have two clean options. The best one is:

Recommended Play, File Security for Costs FIRST (Order 9 r 12 ROC 2021) — this does not waive your right to a s 6 stay.

At the same time, ask the court for an extension of time to file your Defence until after the Security for Costs hearing is decided.

If GST cannot (or refuses to) post security → their claim is struck out or stayed. Game over.

If they do post security → you immediately file the s 6 IAA stay and drag the entire High Court action back to SIAC

This sequencing is bulletproof under Singapore law and puts maximum financial pressure on GST while keeping all your options open.

Overall Outcome Assessment (March 2026) GST is now fighting a two-front war in the High Court (against you + against Daphne’s counterclaim/indemnity).

Their legal fees are escalating fast (Wong Tan & Molly Lim LLC + Big Four on the other side).

Their BVI-listed micro-cap status makes a high Security for Costs order very likely.

The April hearing is the perfect moment to land this hammer.

My Apex Verdict

This is now a very strong winning position for Zheng & Choo (I would put your chances at 80–90% of either killing the claim via security or forcing a heavily discounted settlement). Daphne’s separate Big Four representation and counterclaim is the gift that keeps on giving — it forces GST to bleed money on two different fronts while you sit back and apply the procedural squeeze.

Let Daphne’s lawyers run their own counterclaim and indemnity — do not coordinate too closely (it preserves the divergence).

At the hearing, counsel should politely highlight the different legal exposures and ask the court to give separate timetables if needed.

This is going to be fun x;)

Whether you like it or not BDFD to pursue a claim in ARB on 4.2 million usd, they would have had to pay 200k just in arbitrater and filing fees.

Https://www.acerislaw.com/arbitrationlegalfeecalculator/

145k legal fees for 5 million from this mob.

Here are the most credible and direct sources that confirm SIAC arbitration is typically around the same cost or more expensive than Singapore High Court litigation, especially for a case in the US$4–5 million range (even with a sole arbitrator). These come from official SIAC documents and respected independent analyses.1. Official SIAC Schedule of Fees 2025 (Most Authoritative Source)This is SIAC’s own fee schedule. It shows the substantial administration + arbitrator fees that parties must pay in SIAC (these do not exist in the High Court).Link: https://siac.org.sg/siac-schedule-of-fees-2025

For a dispute around S$5–6 million (roughly your US$4.2 million claim):Administration fee: up to ~S$36,000–S$40,000+

Sole arbitrator fee: up to ~S$130,000–S$170,000 (often lands in the middle)

Total SIAC + tribunal fees alone: Frequently S$150,000 – S$250,000+ before any lawyer fees.

In the High Court, these institutional/tribunal fees are essentially zero (court filing fees are under S$10,000). This is the main structural reason SIAC tends to be comparable or more expensive overall.2. Aceris Law – SIAC Arbitration Costs Guide 2025 (Detailed Independent Breakdown)This is one of the clearest and most practical guides available. It explicitly breaks down all heads of cost and notes that parties must budget for significant SIAC administration + arbitrator fees on top of legal fees.Direct PDF link: https://www.acerislaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/SIAC-Arbitration-Costs-2025.pdf

It confirms that the SIAC + tribunal fees are a major additional expense compared to court proceedings.3. Additional Supporting SourcesWilmerHale Client Alert on SIAC Rules 2025 (Jan 2025):

Notes that the new Streamlined Procedure is designed to make small disputes more cost-effective, implying that standard SIAC cases (like yours) remain more expensive due to fees.

Link: https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/insights/client-alerts/20250108-siac-rules-come-into-effect-on-1-january-2025

Rajah & Tann Briefing on New SIAC Fees (Feb 2025):

Confirms that fees have generally increased (except for the new streamlined track).

Link: https://www.rajahtannasia.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/2025-02_New-SIAC-Rules-Schedule-of-Fees-in-Effect-from-1-Jan-2025.pdf

Summary from These Credible SourcesHigh Court: Extremely low institutional costs.

SIAC (even sole arbitrator): You pay S$110k–S$230k+ in SIAC administration + arbitrator fees alone for your quantum range.

This is why experienced Singapore practitioners generally say that for mid-value commercial disputes, SIAC is around the same cost or slightly more expensive than High Court litigation — the extra arbitrator/institutional fees often offset any minor savings elsewhere.

Or if i knew i was going to lose in arb, or not get the result we wanted, change the stadium make it public and try to embarrass the former sellers into settling..........

We will find out next week, lol and if choo and merv have got no win no fee the lawyers are more convinced than I am that they will win.

I don't need AI to understand Daphane is not in the SPA or in ARB

The fact that she was not a party to the SPA or the arbitration actually strengthens her position in the High Court, not weakens it. She is entitled to run a completely separate and independent defence (and counterclaim) without being bound by whatever happened in the SIAC reference.So no — “So what?” is not the answer.

Mid tier legal is still expensive will still cost hundreds of thousands Sing per defendant for whole case, why are GST only using run of the mills like Zheng and Zhu?

They have not left arbitration

Until we receive notice of arbitration ended its still running, like ive said if zheng and zhu counter claim or file defence now they waiver their right to stay arbitration and go back to it.

BFD so what lol

With respect, the response “So what?” is not particularly helpful.Let me spell it out clearly and legally:Daphne did not sign the SPA — Correct.

That is precisely why she is being sued personally for breaches of fiduciary duties as a former director/officer, not merely for contractual breaches under the SPA. Fiduciary claims are wider, more serious, and attract personal liability. This is basic company law.

Daphne has not been in the arbitration — Also correct.

That is entirely irrelevant to the High Court proceedings that GST/Semnet themselves chose to commence. Once they issued the Writ against her in the High Court, she became a party to these proceedings, whether she was in the SIAC arbitration or not.

In other words: GST cannot have their cake and eat it. They cannot drag Daphne into the public High Court for fiduciary breaches and then shrug “so what?” when she exercises her full rights to defend herself and bring counterclaims in that same forum.The fact that she was not a party to the SPA or the arbitration actually strengthens her position in the High Court, not weakens it. She is entitled to run a completely separate and independent defence (and counterclaim) without being bound by whatever happened in the SIAC reference.So no — “So what?” is not the answer.

The correct legal response is: “This is a significant tactical advantage for the defence, and we should exploit the divergence between Daphne’s position and that of the two sellers.”Please prepare the necessary papers so that at the 8 April hearing we can:Highlight the different legal exposures and separate representation; and

Ensure any timetable properly accounts for Daphne’s distinct counterclaim.

I would appreciate a more robust analysis going forward.

Exactly Mouse its game of chicken and big fees, who blinks first? I dont think its Zheng and Zhu but we will find out lots during the hearing !

What have i called wrong ?

Said the mediated agreement expected meant nothing it did, now I beleive GST have miscalculated this high court writ and you cant tell me thats wrong yet, so what have I called wrong, I said arb 1-3 years and now youre hanging 2028 on me as the latest date is this all you have ? on me being worng on this ?

But daphane did not sign the spa and has not been in arb.