Member Info for Chaebol

Lol would not surprise me Kat.

Quilter invest offering Savings Accounts with 85k protection!

https://www.quilterinvest.com/

GB Bank Base Rate Tracker 3.34% AER

An innovative savings account to put an end to endless account switching. Get an easy access savings account with an interest rate that automatically updates with the Bank of England base rate, and guarantees never to stray more than 0.5% from it. Optimise your savings, effortlessly.

Nuwealth.io is almost scary no about us no contacts, just dump your wallet here and earn lol

No wonder people thought it was a gamechanger, but no, its not part of quilter.

There are two completely separate entities here with similar names (likely a coincidence or branding overlap):nuwealth.io: This is a new DeFi/onchain yield platform tied to Bake (bake.io), part of GSTechnologies Ltd (LSE: GST). It focuses on curated Morpho vaults for crypto yields—purely blockchain-based, no traditional stocks/funds.

Quilter's NuWealth/Quilter Invest: Quilter plc (a FTSE-250 wealth manager) acquired a different fintech called NuWealth in September 2024. It was a digital investing app (formerly linked to Wombat Invest) offering stocks, funds, ISAs, etc. It rebranded to Quilter Invest in October 2025, and its site is quilterinvest.com (traditional regulated investing, not crypto/DeFi).

No connection between nuwealth.io and Quilter—different companies, products, and domains. The naming similarity pops up in some investor forums (e.g., GST chats mentioning the brand), but they're unrelated.

Nuwealth isnt that company quilter Kat you are mistaken, thatnuwealth was purchased and rebranded last year as quilter.

this nuwealth.io is just part of bake defi lending apps

This is what a real nuwealth looks like https://www.steakhouse.financial/about

Https://nuwealth.io/earn

28 followers x;) I bet the lse mob, up that today, did bake move its TVL to the Nuwealth anchor wallets?

Its just a bake algo nothing burger, 5 likes ? lol

It is completely understandable why you are digging for the "existence" of this company. In the world of crypto and DeFi, if you can’t find a physical office, a CEO, or a registration for a company handling your money, it’s a massive red flag.

Because "NuWealth" is being used as a brand name for a technical service within the Bake app, here is the breakdown of who is actually responsible for your funds and how the technology works.

1. Verifying the Safety of Your Funds

If you have funds in these vaults, your legal and financial counterparty is not a company called NuWealth. It is Bake.

The Legal Entity: Bake is operated by Cake Pte. Ltd. (based in Singapore). However, in early 2025, Bake/Cake was acquired by GSTechnologies Ltd, which is a publicly-traded company on the London Stock Exchange (LSE: GST).

The Responsibility: Because GSTechnologies is a public company, they are subject to strict reporting and audit requirements. If the "NuWealth" vaults fail or are misrepresented, the legal liability lies with Bake and its parent company, GSTechnologies.

Where is the money? The funds are not "at" NuWealth. They are locked in Morpho Blue smart contracts on the Ethereum blockchain.

2. Technical Documentation: How the Vaults Work

The "NuWealth" part of the equation is the Vault Manager. You can think of it like this:

Morpho Blue (The Infrastructure): This is the "engine." It’s a decentralized lending protocol where users can borrow and lend.

NuWealth (The Driver): This is the "middleware" or "algorithm" that decides which loans on Morpho are the safest. It automatically moves your money into the best-performing, lowest-risk pools.

Bake (The Dashboard): This is the "car body" you see and interact with.

3. How to "Find" NuWealth's Technical Existence

Since NuWealth doesn't have a corporate website, you verify them by looking at the Blockchain:

Smart Contract Transparency: Because these vaults are "powered by NuWealth" on the Morpho Blue protocol, you can see the actual code and the flow of funds on Etherscan (an Ethereum block explorer).

Morpho Vaults: You can look for the "Bake" or "NuWealth" managed vaults directly on the Morpho App. This allows you to verify that the money exists and is earning interest independently of Bake’s own website.

Is it safe?

The "invisibility" of NuWealth as a company is common in DeFi—they are essentially a coding team providing a service to Bake. Your safety doesn't come from NuWealth’s corporate registration, but from:

GSTechnologies' status as a London-listed public company.

and Morpho Blue's audited, decentralized smart contracts.

Who is NuWealth ?

My short answer they pay less than 1.8 million

1.1 million in cash max! and return of 58 million shares which is about 250k extra so lot less than 1.8 million.

GLA

In the context of the Singapore High Court, using the US$54 million valuation as a defence is not just "feasible"—it is a central pillar of a "Loss of Value" defence.

If GSTechnologies (GST) is suing for US$4.2 million in damages, they must prove that the actions of Zheng and Choo directly caused a financial loss of that specific amount. The former owners have a very strong legal argument based on the following:

1. The "Intervening Act" Defence

In commercial law, if a buyer claims the business was "broken" at the time of sale, but then successfully values it at US$54 million nine months later, the sellers can argue that any subsequent decline in value was an "intervening act" by GST's own management.

The Argument: "How could we have 'negatively impacted' the business to the tune of $4.2m if, under your own control, you signed Heads of Terms valuing it at $54m? If the value dropped after that, it’s because you failed to complete the NASDAQ listing, not because of us."

2. Estoppel (Legal Consistency)

The sellers can raise a plea of Estoppel. This prevents a party from "blowing hot and cold" (taking contradictory positions).

The Conflict: GST told the London Stock Exchange and its shareholders in November 2024 that Semnet was a high-growth asset worth $54m.

The Defence: GST cannot now tell a judge that the sellers' "fiduciary breaches" made the company a liability. A judge will ask: "Were you misleading the market then, or are you misleading the court now?"

3. Mitigation of Loss

Under Singapore Law, a plaintiff (GST) has a duty to mitigate their losses.

If GST had a US$54 million deal on the table with Trident Global Capital and it fell through because GST failed to provide the necessary resources or regulatory filings, the sellers are not liable for the loss.

The Defence: The sellers will argue that they provided a $54m "win" and GST fumbled it.

4. Why the Rejected Settlement Matters

The fact that the sellers rejected a US$1.1 million settlement (cash + shares) proves they believe this "Valuation Defence" is a winner.

In their eyes, the US$54 million RNS is a "get out of jail free" card. They are betting that GST cannot prove $4.2m in damages when GST was publicly bragging about a $54m valuation long after the alleged "breaches" occurred.

Summary: Is it a "Great Chance"?

Yes. If the sellers can show that the "breaches" GST is complaining about were known (or should have been known) during the November 2024 valuation process, GST's claim for $4.2 million starts to look vexatious.

Lol a little bit humourous but this 54 million valuation with Trident will need to be addressed....

The strategic move by the former owners to reject the "expected" settlement of US$1.1 million (US$800k cash + 58m shares) in December 2025 suggests they believe they have substantial leverage.

Your point about the US$54 million valuation is a critical legal "landmine" that GSTechnologies (GST) will have to navigate in the Singapore High Court.

Here is how that valuation and the rejected settlement impact the case:

1. The "Valuation Trap" for GST

In November 2024, GST signed legally binding Heads of Terms (HoT) with Trident Global Capital for a potential NASDAQ listing of Semnet at a US$54 million valuation.

The Sellers' Defense: If GST claims the sellers "broke" the business or "sold a shell," the sellers will point directly to this US$54 million figure—issued 9 months after the acquisition—to argue that any decline in value was due to GST’s own subsequent management, not pre-existing breaches.

Contradictory Claims: It is legally difficult for GST to argue the business was "negatively impacted" to the tune of US$4.2 million if they were simultaneously telling the market it was worth US$54 million.

2. The Rejected Settlement ($1.1M vs. $4.2M)

GST's board publicly stated in December 2025 that they "expected" a settlement involving the return of US$800,000 cash, the 58.8 million shares, and US$300,000 in costs.

The Sellers' Stand: By walking away from this deal, Zheng and Choo have essentially dared GST to prove the higher US$4.2 million figure in court.

Settlement as Evidence: While "without prejudice" mediation details are usually private, the fact that GST publicly expected a US$1.1m recovery makes it harder for them to justify a US$4.2m claim now without new, massive evidence of wrongdoing.

3. Impact on the Fiduciary Duty Claim

GST is suing for "breaches of fiduciary duty" against the sellers and a former manager.

Fiduciary Duty: Because the sellers stayed on after the sale, they owed a duty to GST.

Counter-Argument: The sellers will likely argue that the US$54 million HoT proves they increased the company's value while they were in charge, and that GST's current lawsuit is an attempt to "claw back" a payment for a business that GST itself has since failed to list or manage properly.

4. Summary of Legal Standing

Factor Impact on Sellers (Zheng & Choo) Impact on Buyer (GST)

US$54M Valuation Strongest Defense: Proves value existed after the sale. Major Liability: Hard to explain US$4.2m in "damages."

Paid in Full Leverage: GST "affirmed" the deal by completing payments. Weakness: Suggests "Buyer's Remorse" rather than fraud.

Rejected Settlement Confidence: They believe they can win a total dismissal. Escalation: Forced to go "all-in" on a risky court battle.

The Strategic Reality: By moving from private arbitration to a public writ, GST has traded the privacy of a settlement for a high-stakes court battle where that US$54 million RNS will be Exhibit A against them.

I have ignored him since if telephoning sing sing police and Perth

That was July 2024. Get some help billy, its you the rampers that change the narrative whilst this sp plunges and I told you all.

Youre all very fooking welcome

Good lord Billy, You really are going super deluded. I can see you're getting twisted with this,

If it makes you feel better sweet cheeks it was all you, without me being in Saudi, Iraq and Lebanon I would have never deduced Hoi was a patsy im a simple uneducated fool who cant add 2 plus 2 and i thank you that you highlighted hoi for me

Feel better now ?

Dont be stupid Billy, The RNS named her you muppet!!!!! you didnt post me the RNS or open my eyes to any of that. ffs lol

Every action has a reaction, lets see what the Merv and Choo show react with.

Lol Hoi became the patsy when GST issued a writ against her not when you said so billy.

Open the thread i have already stated why they will counter sue, im not explaining again......, i also believe they can do a stay of proceedings and keep it in arbitration.

This Hoi who knows if shes even inSingapore cant find a trace of her existence......and whats her ability to pay Good luckio on that one!

Yeh hoi's the patsy its obvious, but no party cares about her.

They changed the wording on the last RNS a mediation hearing was held in early December 2025 with a view to agreeing a formal settlement agreement between the Sellers and the Company. However, formal settlement terms have not been reached

Thats not so optimistic as the Dec update....and anyway now 1-2 years of limbo if zheng and choo decide to drag it out and they must be sitting on something good themselves.....

No money figures, no arbitrer taking sides that we know of, just afailed medaition meeting..., we simply dont know the intricacies, what I do expect is zheng and choo to counter sue which was my original stmnt. Thats just the way the legal world works.

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

Posts: 10,952

Price: 0.425

No Opinion

RE: Morning allToday 12:10

These guys are no mugs, would surprise me if they didnt counter sue tbh…..As of February 2026, GST has escalated the dispute by serving a writ of summons for $4.2 million in damages for alleged breaches of fiduciary and contractual duties.

For Zheng and Choo, counter-suing could be realistic based on several standard legal grounds:

* Breach of Buyer Obligations: In many M&A disputes, sellers counter-claim that the buyer (GST) failed to manage the subsidiary properly, thereby negatively impacting the business or preventing the sellers from hitting targets required for "earn-out" payments.

* Defamation and Business Interference: Because GST has publicly accused them of breaching non-compete undertakings and fiduciary duties, the sellers might counter-sue for reputational damage if they can prove these claims were made in bad faith or are unsubstantiated.

* Failure of Mediation: Since a mediation hearing in December 2025 failed, a counter-suit is often used as "leverage" to force the other party back to the negotiating table with a more balanced settlement offer.