Member Info for Chaebol

YOure getting like bfd poor on dot connecting and nuance.......Well everyone is trying to say choo and zheng are so guilty and i am saying if pure fraud existed you would hope it wouldnt have taken 16 plus months for it to be escalated.

Got it?

"GST in December RNS stated both sides will enter ‘formal agreement for said consideration payback. By defendants. So arbtration did not fail."

This is flat-out incorrect.

The 18 December 2025 RNS (interim results) said mediation had occurred, and the board "expected" a formal settlement soon (late Dec/early Jan 2026), with the outlined terms ($800k cash return, return of 58,844,713 shares, ~$300k costs). It was phrased as optimistic expectation, not a done deal or binding commitment.

The 13 February 2026 RNS explicitly corrected/clarified: "formal settlement terms have not been reached" — mediation failed, no agreement signed.

Arbitration/mediation did fail to produce a settlement. No "decision was granted/issued/decided" — no arbitral award on merits ever happened (no hearing, no ruling). The process stalled at mediation impasse.

You have so many things wrong for someone who claims he has these many shares......

Now we went to Arbitration only to being told it’s to do with non- complete and employment issue. So we didn’t all the facts.

Read the July 18th Arbitration notice with non- complete/compete and employment issues we didnt just find out during mediation. The notice of arbitration has been sent in accordance with the provisions of the SPA and sets out that the Company considers that the Sellers have acted in breach of their non-complete undertakings owed to the Company, and also acted in breach of their express obligations owned to Semnet as employees,

"As a decision was granted/issued/decided. Arbtration has no legal powers.

Wrong.

No decision/ruling/award was ever issued — that's the point. Arbitration does have legal powers when it reaches that stage (binding award, enforceable like a court judgment under Singapore's IAA). But here, it never did — mediation (non-binding) collapsed first.

The February RNS confirms the mediation failed.

Https://www.elitigation.sg

The above is probably the best source other than google, Not easy to navigate and needs a sign up and I have not found anything yet. Think this will be years to conclude, just like we both said when they announced this rubbish.

Lol Mouse if its good enough for Musk its good enough for mere mortals.......... AI is in town, whether we like it or not.

People are using AI without even realising they're using it now.

Enki, 'did the sellers take value out of the business after selling it?' — that's exactly the question for the courts.

GST claims breaches of non-compete and fiduciary duties that 'negatively impacted' Semnet, seeking $4.2m damages, but no public proof of straight value extraction or fraud (e.g., siphoning cash/assets). If it was pure fraud, why wait 16+ months post-acquisition to escalate?

What we do know is Semnet's $54m USD valuation was made fully public by GST via RNS on November 19, 2024 (HoT with Trident for potential NASDAQ IPO), just 9 months after purchase (Feb 2024) and ~1 year after SPA signing (Dec 2023). That high third-party valuation in the open domain makes proving real financial harm way harder, how do you claim massive damage when the business was pegged at $54m not long after?

Unless they can show specific diverted profits or hidden sabotage that tanked it since then, this looks tough for GST.

If the evidence was overwhelming, they'd have pushed harder/faster instead of stalling at mediation and jumping to court.

And lets not forget this didn’t go to arbitration It stalled at mediation so no ruling has ever been issued. So how the arbitration found in favour of GST when it stalled at mediation is another incredible take, but you know ive known nothing since 1.25p and no MiCA since September x;)

It's not "arbitration" that failed to find in GST's favor — arbitration never reached a merits hearing or award. The mediation (a separate, settlement-focused step often required/preferred before full arbitration) collapsed, leading to the writ. Saying "arbitration would not have found so significantly in GST's favour" slightly misstates it, as no finding occurred at all.

Kat if there was no evidence, arbitration would not have found so significantly in GST's favour,

Oh, right, bfd—let’s not let facts get in the way of a good story.

Show us the ruling, then. Is this "significant" win in the room with us right now?

Because last time I checked, a "mediation that fell apart" isn't a victory, it’s a failure. If the evidence were truly so "stacked" in GST’s favour, they’d be sitting on a pile of cash and returned shares by now, not desperately gambling on a high-stakes High Court case.

Usually, you escalate to the High Court because you don’t have a result, not because you’re "winning" too much. Why would a company with a guaranteed victory trade a settlement for a risky, expensive 4.2 million lawsuit that could drag on for years?

It’s a bold strategy to call a collapsed deal a win. Is there a trophy for "Almost Had a Settlement," or are we just pretending that "serving a writ" is the same thing as actually getting paid?

Can you point to the specific RNS date for this ruling from arbitration? because all i see is a failed mediation hearing and we only have GST side of the story, if zheng and choo were so guilty they would be doing everything to avoid further costs. Like everything wioth GST I do not think this is so stacked in their favour and of course you have the 54 million usd ipo valuation 9 months after GST bought it, thats going to be interesting.

I said this would take years to resolve and everyone mocked me again massi and AHS were saying 6 weeks arbitration would be sorted 6 weeks lol and i know nuthin (sic)

In Shopee, the Singapore High Court dismissed Shopee’s application to restrain its former employee, Lim Teck Yong (“Lim”) from commencing employment with a competitor. At the point of accepting Shopee’s offer of employment, Lim had agreed to and signed both an agreement containing non-compete and non-solicitation provisions, as well as an employee confidentiality agreement which contained provisions requiring him to undertake post-employment obligations relating to the protection of Shopee’s confidential proprietary information.

Shopee had the burden of proving that there was a serious case that the non-compete restriction was valid and enforceable, in that it protects a legitimate proprietary interest, is reasonable in the interest of the parties and the public, and that Lim has breached the restriction. Shopee failed to do so.

The Court stressed, in particular, that where the protection of the confidential information or trade secrets is already covered by another clause in the contract, the employer will have to demonstrate that the restraint of trade clause in question covers a legitimate proprietary interest over and above the protection of confidential information or trade secrets. As there was already an employee confidentiality agreement in force imposing post-employment obligations relating to the protection of Shopee’s confidential proprietary information, Shopee was unable to establish any legitimate proprietary interest over and above the protection of confidential information that would require enforcement of the non-compete clause.

BFD, you clearly know so much more than I do, all you ever do is react to what I write without having your own unique takes on this company so you tell me what clauses on the non compete have zheng and choo breached? and their express obligations owed to semnet as employees....

Did zheng go and work for another company and sell servers did he go and set up his own company and sell servers I dont know. I cant even find anything on choo anywhere........

Thats why I asked have they been regarded as former owners or employees, RNS is odd but Mervyn was Sales Director for a few months not sure about Choo.......

GSTechnologies (GST) first explicitly stated that Zheng and Choo were employees of Semnet in the Notice of Arbitration RNS released on 18 July 2025.

In that announcement, the company stated that the "Sellers" (Choo Seet EE and Zheng Kang Wen Mervyn) had:

Acted in breach of their non-complete [sic] undertakings owed to the Company".

Also acted in breach of their express obligations owed to Semnet as employees

They are much harder to prove billy if you need help with dots and nuance. Asia hates non competes for employees and in most cases will side with the employee.

The decision in Shopee Singapore Pte Ltd v Lim Teck Yong [2024] SGHC 29 (“Shopee”)

In Shopee, the Singapore High Court dismissed Shopee’s application to restrain its former employee, Lim Teck Yong (“Lim”) from commencing employment with a competitor. At the point of accepting Shopee’s offer of employment, Lim had agreed to and signed both an agreement containing non-compete and non-solicitation provisions, as well as an employee confidentiality agreement which contained provisions requiring him to undertake post-employment obligations relating to the protection of Shopee’s confidential proprietary information.

Shopee had the burden of proving that there was a serious case that the non-compete restriction was valid and enforceable, in that it protects a legitimate proprietary interest, is reasonable in the interest of the parties and the public, and that Lim has breached the restriction. Shopee failed to do so.

The Court stressed, in particular, that where the protection of the confidential information or trade secrets is already covered by another clause in the contract, the employer will have to demonstrate that the restraint of trade clause in question covers a legitimate proprietary interest over and above the protection of confidential information or trade secrets. As there was already an employee confidentiality agreement in force imposing post-employment obligations relating to the protection of Shopee’s confidential proprietary information, Shopee was unable to establish any legitimate proprietary interest over and above the protection of confidential information that would require enforcement of the non-compete clause.

Lol Overview of the legal position in Singapore

Under Singapore law, non-compete clauses in employment contracts are prima facie void and unenforceable, unless the employer can demonstrate that such a clause (a.) is necessary to protect a legitimate proprietary business interest of the employer, and (b.) is reasonable in the interests of the parties and reasonable in the public interest. Courts assess reasonableness with regard to the scope of restriction, geographical area, and duration of the non-compete restraint.

The writ of summons issued by Semnet Pte Ltd against Choo Seet EE and Zheng Kang Wen Mervyn explicitly frames the claim as a breach of both their Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) and their express obligations as employees.

Non-compete clauses in Singapore are not completely ignored, but they are prima facie void and unenforceable, meaning they are generally presumed invalid unless proven otherwise, as noted in this article from Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

https://www.seyfarth.com/news-insights/to-compete-or-not-to-compete-challenges-in-the-imposition-and-enforcement-of-non-compete-provisions-in-employment-contracts-in-singapore.html

Heres clues billy............Were Choo and Zheng down as employees on the non compete or not.......... it has massive relevance in Singapore law.......

GS fintech UAB is not running under a VASP if they were it would be illegal. That expired Dec 31st......

Finnferno expires last day of June, the classification for GS Fintech UAB has changed from crypto exchange and wallet depositary services to "trading and brokerage of crypto-assets without liabilities" reflecting the non custody of crypto assets per the legal classification from not securing mica by the deadline, what I am much more interested in is GS Fintech creating a shell with one employee from the 17th March........... who is AMLO now you?

Nuance and connecting the dots has always been your weakness.

I am not talking about Arthurs trade here and billy wasnt just talking about Arthur but that nuance and connecting the dots is over your head totally.

Have you seen the writ Deacs?

For others you can find out below usually 24-48 hrs before the case is starting many months away I know ! if Zheng and Choo fight this expect resolution from anywhere between February 27 to February 2028 and then maybe another year to exhaust appeals, scaring zheng and choo to the table looks like it hasnt had the desired effect......

1. Search via eLitigation: Use the eLitigation Cause Book Search to find specific case numbers, parties involved (e.g., searching for "Zheng Kang Wen Mervyn" or "Choo Seet EE"), and the latest documents filed. https://www.elitigation.sg/_layouts/IELS/HomePage/Pages/Home.aspx

2. Monitor Singapore Law Watch: For summaries of recent judgments or major procedural steps, check the Singapore Law Watch Judgments page.

https://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/

Contradictory errr no lol.

GS fintech have telegraphed no mica reapp in LT this quarter or next.

Who is GS fintech UAB AML officer? Agne cant do both........ lol contradictory I knew the rampers would treat this as good news.....LT is over.

Brave ! reckon its batten down the hatches now.....come back halving 2028 ?

And with the 650k capital they can carry on pretending theyre going to reapply......I dont think its coincidence this fell on the day Semnet update RNS 13th Feb was made, they must have known for weeks that mediation failed......

Maybe we get the once semnet is resolved we will reapply with mica gambit, keeps the hopium alive with you lot and the BOD saves face from a proper sheet show, but sacking the staff when its already mid March, 3 1/2 months from MiCA expiry in the EU kind of suggests 'a very severe delay' again.........