Member Info for Chaebol

Easy top up prices at this level....

Gifts before Easter I'll always take GLA

Sale at 1236pm 1,921,980 value 6919.13

Sale at 1234pm 261,900 value 942.84

Missing here.......weird!

Big sellers today ! I say a little prayer for their losses and hope they recover from this ! I wish you well xxx

GL

Not quite true lol a mediation agreement not signed does not carry any legal weight in this but keep going keep 'winning' your arguements

anyone with half a brain can see zheng and choo have already won, but proving it all in a court is another matter. If they sold those shares at 3's and above and bought back at .35 .4's i am sure the zheng and choo have some aces up their sleeves. How many server deals have been redone with the 36 million company ? why has no company name been mentioned in the arbitration, A company must have been utilised to take this money from semnet lol who is it where are they, they wouldnt have just transferred funds from companies to personal accounts.

We will see! but what we do know is this must eb the worst insider purchase ever made

So do you admit that GST didn't breach market regs and mislead the market in the interim results RNS

Where do you hallucinate i have said this ? I was the one emailing the FCA on the 12th Feb bevause i felt the end of decemebr january expected agreement had gone on long enough with no news. On the 13th they rns'd semnet update, now youre tunring it into me saying they were misleading the market.

at the end of the day what I said in December was I did not believe the RNS and that words like 'expected' did not mean settled, AHS and others mocked me and then it didnt get signed.

The BOD used very optimistic language and would have been fine if it transpired into a signing but again the BOD fell short, and i was always wary of those words 'expected' which proved to be correct.

The “expected agreement” mentioned in the December 2025 RNS carries almost no legal weight in the current Singapore High Court case.

Here’s the clear, factual position under Singapore law:1. It was never a binding agreement

The December 2025 RNS only said a mediation hearing was held and a formal settlement agreement was “currently expected” by the GST Board.

The February 2026 RNS (the latest official statement) explicitly confirms: “However, formal settlement terms have not been reached…”

Because no settlement agreement was ever signed, there is nothing contractually binding. An “expectation” or an unsigned mediated proposal has zero enforceable legal effect.

2. Mediation discussions are protected by “without prejudice” privilege In Singapore (under common law and section 23 of the Evidence Act), all genuine settlement negotiations — including everything said or proposed during the December 2025 mediation — are privileged and inadmissible in court proceedings.

Well they clearly do not want to pay 1.1 million and 58.8 million shares, seems GST was happy with that settlement, or they wouldnt have told us they were days away from signing a mediation expected waffle waffle agreement.

Zheng and choo if so guilty would surely look to settle as quick as possible, we still do not know the defence or counter claim strategies from zheng and choo but looking how mediation failed, its going to be a court case playing out imho. im still allowed that opinion yeh x;)

SIAC – SIMC Arb-Med-Arb Clause

Any settlement reached in the course of the mediation

shall be referred to the arbitral tribunal appointed by SIAC and may be made a consent

award on agreed terms.

Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this contract, including any question

regarding its existence, validity or termination, shall be referred to and finally resolved by

arbitration administered by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”) in

accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre

(“SIAC Rules”) for the time being in force, which rules are deemed to be incorporated by

reference in this clause.

The seat of the arbitration shall be [Singapore].*

The Tribunal shall consist of _________________** arbitrator(s). The language of the

arbitration shall be ________________.

The parties further agree that following the commencement of arbitration, they will

attempt in good faith to resolve the Dispute through mediation at the Singapore

International Mediation Centre (“SIMC”), in accordance with the SIAC- SIMC Arb-Med-Arb

Protocol for the time being in force. Any settlement reached in the course of the mediation

shall be referred to the arbitral tribunal appointed by SIAC and may be made a consent

award on agreed terms.

* Parties should specify the seat of arbitration of their choice. If the parties wish to select

an alternative seat to Singapore, please replace “[Singapore]” with the city and country

of choice (e.g., “[City, Country]”).

** State an odd number. Either state one, or state three.

Bottom line billy boy is mediated agreements are binding once they are signed, mediation failed without any sort of arbitrary ruling, and gst upped the stakes to 4.2 million, that doesnt look like any sort of ruling being issued, why GST even said on the 18th December they were days away from an expected agreement, reeks of desperation.

Lets see what comes out in court in 2027 2028, as Zheng and Choo aren't lying down for this one clearly.

Https://simc.com.sg/arb-med-arb

Correction

Local Enforcement (Singapore Courts)

For domestic mediations in Singapore, a signed settlement agreement is a binding contract. If one party defaults, the other can sue for breach of contract or, in many cases, apply for a court order based on the agreement.

The Singapore Convention on Mediation

Purpose: The United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (known as the Singapore Convention) provides a streamlined process for enforcing international commercial settlement agreements across borders, provided the country where the agreement is being enforced has ratified it.

Direct Enforcement: Under the Convention, a signed mediation settlement agreement can be directly enforced by a court of a signatory country (like Singapore), avoiding the need to start a new lawsuit for breach of contract.

Scope: The Convention covers international settlement agreements made in writing to resolve commercial disputes. It generally does not cover family, inheritance, or employment disputes.

From the SIMC website......

Official SIMC page (Singapore International Mediation Centre)

https://simc.com.sg/arb-med-arbIt explains: “Arb-Med-Arb is a flexible and efficient form of alternative dispute resolution… Where mediation is attempted during arbitration.”

These are the two official institutions that run arbitration and mediation in Singapore. The protocol was specifically created so parties can start arbitration (with a Notice of Arbitration) and then pause for mediation without losing the arbitration seat.

Mediation is not a separate thing — it is a common optional step inside arbitration (Singapore even has an official “Arb-Med-Arb” protocol for this). After the Notice of Arbitration, the parties can pause and try mediation (a neutral person helps them talk and try to agree a deal).

Mediation is completely non-binding — anyone can walk away at any time.

'Only if they reach agreement and both sides sign a formal settlement contract does it become legally binding.'

Mediation = non-binding (until a settlement is signed)

A neutral mediator facilitates negotiations. No one imposes a decision. Parties can walk away at any time with no outcome.

The process itself creates no binding result.

Only if the parties reach agreement and sign a formal written settlement agreement does that contract become legally binding and enforceable (like any other contract).

In the GST December 2025 RNS, they explicitly said a mediation hearing was held and a formal settlement agreement was “expected” — but the February 2026 RNS confirmed it was never signed. That matches the non-binding nature perfectly.

Arbitration (full arbitration hearing) = binding (in the vast majority of commercial cases)

A neutral arbitrator (or panel) hears evidence and arguments, then issues a formal award/decision.

When parties have agreed to arbitration (as in the Semnet SPA), the award is almost always final and legally binding, enforceable in court with very limited grounds for challenge.

GST only ever announced a notice of arbitration (July 2025). There has never been any public RNS stating that a full arbitration hearing took place or that a binding award was issued in GST’s favour.

Cute. Let's correct your repeated misreads with the actual RNS wording and timeline, since you keep quoting the December 2025 interim results like it's a smoking gun.

You pasted this bit:"A mediation hearing was held in early December 2025 and 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 will see the return to the Company US$800,000 of cash consideration, the 58,844,713 consideration shares... and a payment in Singapore Dollars equating to approximately US$300,000..."

Notice the words "mediation hearing" and "currently expected"? Not "arbitration hearing", not "binding award in GST's favour", not "settlement has been agreed". The July 2025 RNS was only a notice of arbitration (standard first step).

The December RNS reported the mediation attempt and the board's then-current expectation. The 13 February 2026 Semnet Update RNS then explicitly states: "formal settlement terms have not been reached" and Semnet has now issued a writ of summons seeking ~US$4.2 million in damages for breaches of fiduciary/contractual duties (including the SPA).

So no, there was never a public "arbitration result that went GST's way". Zheng and Choo didn't "renege on an agreement" — the mediated terms never became a signed deal. GST updated the market within ~2 months when it fell through. That's disclosure, not misleading. If you think "expected" = "guaranteed done deal", that's on your reading comprehension, not market regs. I always doubted the sement update from 18th December

On counter-suits: Yes, I already said (and public records confirm) there is zero announcement of any defence or counter-claim from Zheng/Choo or the former manager (Daphane Chong). The February writ is one-sided so far.

I spoke directly with Zheng in August 2024 asking for clarity on guess what the 36 million contract lol , so yes, I knew exactly where he was and what role he had at the time. The complaint is the same core breaches, but the quantum and scope have clearly grown. We don't know Zheng/Choo's defence or counter-claims yet because they haven't filed or disclosed any.

Does BFD ever talk about the company on your lse forum or does he just argue with everyone else with a differing view?

I dont think ive met someone who gets so much wrong and then doubles down that he is right x;) being in one company with 1 court case is unlucky being involved in two, well whats the saying................. fool me once lol

.25's Joe. Once MiCA comes out the wash this blows lower.

4. Youre hallucinating again bfd. great to see it.

3. The claim that Zheng and Choo are 'so sure they will win' they will countersue — but haven't yet, and that's somehow proof of strength — is pure speculation with no backing in the public record. As of today, no defense, response, counterclaim, or statement from them has been announced or disclosed. No updates since then mention any countersuit or sign of their position.

You're right they haven't countersued (yet), but the absence isn't evidence of confidence or inevitability — it's just the current status of private proceedings.

We don't know their defense because nothing has been made public, but you assume and guess GST case is strong. And I disagree.

2. You're putting words in my mouth , I never said or implied there was any 'award decision' from the arbitration, small or otherwise. What I actually said is that the mediation failed (which the company's own February 13, 2026 RNS confirms: 'formal settlement terms have not been reached').

There is zero public evidence or announcement of any arbitral award at all; the process didn't produce one, it just failed and escalated to court proceedings for US$4.2m. Please stick to the disclosed facts from the RNS instead of inventing details."

1. "There wasn't any arbitration. Actually there was arbitration but it stalled. Actually it didn't stall it failed.

There was an arbitration process initiated.

Official fact: On 18 July 2025, GST issued a formal notice of arbitration to Choo Seet EE and Zheng Kang Wen Mervyn under the SPA (Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 5 December 2023). This is explicitly stated in multiple RNS, including the 13 Feb 2026 update and earlier ones.

It did not "stall" in a neutral sense nuance sense, it progressed to mediation (as a step within or alongside the arbitration framework, common in such disputes), but the overall resolution path failed.

The company's own words in the 13 Feb 2026 RNS: "As announced on 18 July 2025, the Company issued a notice of arbitration... a mediation hearing was held in early December 2025... However, formal settlement terms have not been reached..."

Result: No arbitral award or final binding decision came out of it; instead, it escalated to court (writ of summons served). So "failed" accurately describes the outcome — the arbitration/mediation track did not produce a settlement, contrary to the optimistic tone in the December 2025 interim results (which predicted a deal soon).

Nuance and dots........you get your whole opinion wrong and then try and close me into your yes/no ho GFY billy.

Almost everyone of your points is misinformed and wrong, its crazy ! but go on about a reply to enki ffs you are getting pathetic.