Investments gone bad

Forum: Sister was sold financial product clearly not suited for her​

Mar 03, 2025

Some financial advisers are making a mockery of the risk profile assessment and selling financial products not suited to buyers.

My sister recently renewed her fixed deposit at a bank. She was persuaded to buy a financial product for investment that was not suited to her conservative characteristics.

I read through her risk profile assessment and was alarmed that she was assessed as a risk-taker when she is clearly not.

She is not an active stock investor or a bond buyer. She does not understand the workings of a bond and does not know the business of US technology stocks. Yet the financial product consists of mainly US technology stocks and bonds.

The financial adviser painted a glorified picture of high returns but was mute on the annual fee payable. When I questioned the adviser later, he informed me that there is an administration fee payable annually.

After the deduction of the annual administration fee, the returns for the financial product are about 2.5 per cent, about the same as a fixed deposit rate.

My sister managed to get out of the investment as it was within the 14-day cooling-off period, but she needed to pay some fees.


I do not understand how financial advisers are still getting away with practices such as not telling their clients that their initial investment amount is not guaranteed.

What’s worse is my sister’s risk profile indicates that she is willing to hold the investment product for another 99 years when she is already in her 60s. This is nonsensical and truly unacceptable.

Foo Sing Kheng

 

SoftBank, Temasek among eFishery investors facing near wipeout​

The protest by eFishery employees in Bandung, West Java demands clarity regarding the investigation into the financial scandal that has rocked the company. PHOTO: EFISHERY WORKERS' UNION


The labour union of eFishery staged a protest attended by more than 100 employees in January at its headquarters in Bandung, Indonesia.PHOTO: EFISHERY WORKERS' UNION

Feb 24, 2025

Investigators hired by the board of eFishery have determined the Indonesian start-up is in far worse shape than they previously thought, and that investors are likely to get back less than 10 US cents (13 Singapore cents) for every dollar they invested, according to documents seen by Bloomberg News.

The company, which deploys feeders to fish and shrimp farmers in Indonesia, incurred several hundred million dollars in losses between 2018 and 2024 and misrepresented its financial figures for years, according to the documents and a person familiar with the matter who asked not to be identified because the information isn’t public.

“eFishery is not commercially viable in its current form,” said a presentation prepared for the firm’s investors by FTI Consulting Singapore, the adviser hired to review the business and take over management of the company.

The fallen start-up, whose financial backers include SoftBank Group and Singapore’s Temasek Holdings, had been a star of Indonesia’s start-up scene. eFishery was valued at US$1.4 billion in 2023 after it raised US$200 million from Abu Dhabi’s 42XFund and some of its earlier investors.

In all, global investors plowed around US$315 million into eFishery’s preferred shares over five funding rounds, according to the presentation. In late 2024, the company was rocked by allegations of misconduct and inflated sales and profits, which led to the dismissal of its co-founders Gibran Huzaifah and Chrisna Aditya.

The FTI presentation estimated that eFishery had around US$50 million in cash as of around mid-February, and recommended that much of the business be wound down. “The cash balance continues to deplete without a restructuring plan in place,” it said.

That’s bad news for preference shareholders, all of whom would be paid back on an equal, or pari passu basis in the event of a liquidation. The investors could get back 9.5 US cents on the dollar under an “optimistic scenario”, and just 8.3 US cents on the dollar under a “conservative scenario, according to the presentation. That would mean Abu Dhabi’s G42, which invested US$100 million in the April 2023 round, may get just US$8.3 million back less than two years later.

A spokesperson for FTI Consulting declined to comment. SoftBank didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment outside regular business hours, while a Temasek spokesperson declined to comment. G42 didn’t immediately respond to an e-mailed request for comment.

Before its downfall, eFishery said its business revolved around installing AI-driven smart fish feeders, sensors and automated supply chains that connected farmers to buyers via smartphone apps. It also helped farmers obtain financing from peer-to-peer lenders and financial institutions to pay for their feed and operational costs.

The company had claimed to have more than 400,000 fish feeders deployed, and investigators initially estimated the number was closer to 24,000. The current estimate is just 6,300, of which only 600 are sending back data, according to the presentation.

The investigators also found that there was a high default rate on the financing arrangements, and that eFishery bears all losses when farmers fail to repay their loans. “In theory, the proceeds from the harvest or cash collected from farmers should be repaid back to the lenders,” the presentation said. “In practice, however, eFishery faced significant challenges when it comes to collection from borrowers.”

Hampering the debt collection process were the huge distances and fragmented nature of Indonesia’s developing economy, where almost 10 per cent of the population lives below the poverty line. About 76 per cent of eFishery’s US$68 million in accounts receivable were deemed as bad debt more than 60 days overdue, with the company ultimately liable for the bulk of loans it facilitated with banks, according to the presentation.

“Substantial costs would need to be incurred to realise or recover these outstanding amounts from borrowers who are scattered all across the country,” it said.

The company’s fish and shrimp businesses were operating on thin margins and “severely loss making”, the presentation said. Key apps were not connected to eFishery’s accounting systems, and many farmers were manually matched with buyers, the investigators found.

Much of the advanced technology that the firm touted did not work as claimed, according to the presentation. None of eFishery’s PondTag sensors that were supposed to help remotely judge water quality and automate fish and shrimp feeders had been deployed. The limited data collection meant fish feed predictions were wrong almost half the time, the document said.

In essence, eFishery was “operating like a traditional trading business without technology”, the presentation said, noting that this helped explain the comp
 
I once put a few grand into collectibles thinking they’d rise fast, but the market took a dump shortly after. Learned the hard way to avoid hype-driven stuff. Surprisingly, I made better returns flipping cs2 skins — faster turnover, more control, and less emotional baggage than stocks or long-term toys. At least with those, I could cut losses quickly and move on.
 
Last edited:

Jail for ‘key cog’ in cryptocurrency scam in which investors in Singapore lost $1.1m​

75903a04047b86d7a423e92ec83b94d2cfddd56ba933c75d1ca761b1db524512



Shaffiq Alkhatib


Shaffiq Alkhatib
May 06, 2025

SINGAPORE – He was the chief executive of a firm that offered investment schemes, claiming to have 300,000 physical mining machines capable of generating revenue by mining cryptocurrencies.

But this turned out to be a hoax. Lu Huangbin’s firm, A&A Blockchain Technology Innovation, was in fact running a Ponzi scheme.

According to his charges, the company induced 12 investors to part with more than $1.8 million in total. They later suffered losses totalling about $1.1 million.

On May 6, the 61-year-old Chinese national was sentenced to 4½ years’ jail and a fine of $6,000. Lu, who has made no restitution, pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including six counts of cheating.

Nine other charges were considered during his sentencing.

Lu was the last person linked to the case to be dealt with in court. Three others were earlier handed jail sentences.

One of them, Dutch national Yang Bin, then 61, was sentenced to six years’ jail and a fine of $16,000 in August 2024.

At the time of the offences, Yang was the chairman of A&A Blockchain Technology Innovation and was the mastermind of the scam.

Another man, Chinese national Wang Xinghong, then 40, was sentenced to five years’ jail on Aug 6, 2024. He was the firm’s chief technological officer.

A third Chinese national, Chen Wei, then 43, was a director at the company and also Yang’s personal assistant. He was sentenced to four years’ jail and a fine of $6,000 in September 2024.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Wong Shiau Yin told the court on May 6 that Lu was a “key cog” in the scam linked to the firm, which was incorporated on April 20, 2021.

Between May that year and February 2022, it offered a scheme to investors in Singapore.

Known as the A&A Chain Mining Scheme, the company promised investors a fixed daily return of 0.5 per cent on their investments, purportedly generated through the mining of cryptocurrencies.

In its marketing materials – including presentation slides and promotional videos – the company claimed to have an agreement with Yunnan Shun Ai Yun Xun Investment Holdings to acquire 70 per cent ownership of 300,000 mining machines in China.

These machines were said to be able to mine cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum.

However, the firm did not enter into any such agreement with Yunnan Shun Ai Yun Xun Investment Holdings.

DPP Wong said: “In fact, (A&A Blockchain Technology Innovation) did not mine cryptocurrency to generate revenue. Instead, (it) operated a money circulation or ‘Ponzi’ scheme, using monies from later investors to pay returns owed to earlier investors.”

Lu and his family had invested around US$57,000 (S$73,600) in the scheme and received some US$136,000 in returns.

He did not have a valid work pass in Singapore when he worked as the firm’s chief executive.

The prosecutor also said that between May 2021 and February 2022, the company attracted investments from over 700 investors in Singapore, amounting to around $6.7 million.

Court documents did not disclose if these investors were linked to Lu’s cheating offences.

The documents also did not state how the offences came to light, but all four men were charged in 2023.
 

Jail for man who used bogus wine investment scheme to pocket $12.67m of investors’ funds​



Shaffiq Alkhatib
May 22, 2025

SINGAPORE – A man, who set up a company that dealt with wines, and an alleged accomplice devised a fraudulent investment scheme involving the beverage to cheat over 200 investors of millions of dollars between 2008 and 2011.

Based on police investigations, victims linked to the company’s fraudulent sale of wines paid more than $14 million in total.

Eldric Ko, 51, who incorporated Premium Liquid Assets (PLASG) in October 2005 and jointly ran its business with Koo Han Jet, went on to misappropriate $12.67 million of the investors’ funds.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Michelle Tay said that Ko, a Singaporean, then squirreled away $8 million for his and Koo’s personal benefits.

On May 22, Ko, who has not made any restitution, was sentenced to seven years and two months’ jail after he pleaded guilty to one count of criminal breach of trust (CBT) involving more than $10 million, and two counts of dealing with his ill-gotten gains.

Twelve other charges were considered during his sentencing. Koo is still at large after he left Singapore in May 2011.

DPP Tay told the court that Ko was PLASG’s sole director and shareholder until Jan 2, 2009. After that, he installed his stepfather as its nominee director, even though the latter played no role in the company’s business.

Court documents stated that PLASG offered wine investment schemes to members of the public, purporting to source for wine from various suppliers in France and sell the beverage to investors.

After operating the business for a few years, Ko realised that PLASG was selling more wine than what the company could purchase.

Part of the reason was because the business was not making enough profits to cover its costs for items such as marketing and rental.

DPP Tay said: “The accused knew that, with the way that he and Koo were running PLASG’s business, PLASG had growing liabilities to its investors, which were more than PLASG’s assets, and which PLASG could not fulfil.

“In the accused’s words, there was a ‘hole’ that kept getting bigger.”

She added that in response to PLASG’s growing liabilities to investors, the pair devised the “En Primeur (EP) wine investment scheme” under the company in 2008.

The prosecutor said that the two men then entered into a conspiracy to trick investors into believing that PLASG would transfer ownership of EP wines to them.

The investors would be dishonestly induced to deliver monies to PLASG for the purchase of these EP wines.

DPP Tay said: “The accused and Koo never intended the EP scheme to be a genuine wine-selling scheme... (They) never intended to purchase the EP wines that they had purported to sell to investors, and they, in fact, never sourced for EP wines from any suppliers.”

According to court documents, the two men then entered into a conspiracy to commit CBT by misappropriating the investors’ funds under the EP scheme.

On Aug 7, 2008, Ko incorporated a shell entity in the British Virgin Islands called Grand Millesimes Limited (GML), which had no actual business activities and was not a real wine supplier.

The prosecutor said the two men agreed to use GML as a fictitious supplier of wines for the EP scheme.

She added that as part the conspiracy, Koo forged invoices issued by GML, which purported to be for the sale of wine to PLASG before sending these invoices to Ko.

Ko then used these forged invoices to justify his transfers of EP investors’ funds from PLASG’s bank account to another one in Switzerland belonging to GML.

After that, he transferred the ill-gotten gains from the Swiss account to a third account in Singapore.

DPP Tay said: “(Ko) deliberately chose to layer his funds transfers in this manner... because he believed that the Singapore police would not be able to obtain information about his overseas account and the illicit transactions.

“After the accused transferred the monies to (the third bank account), he distributed Koo’s share of their illicit benefits from their criminal breach of trust offence... through illegal money remittance businesses and in cash.”

Among other things, Ko misappropriated over $10 million in total between February and October 2009.

Court documents did not disclose how the offences came to light but from May 2011, the police received more than 240 reports against PLASG over its fraudulent sale of wines.

Koo left Singapore on May 3, 2011, and Ko did the same 25 days later before the police started investigating the case.

Ko’s bank account in Switzerland was closed in November that year.

He was arrested when he finally returned to Singapore in May 2024. Reasons for his return were not stated in court documents.
 

Singtel-owned Optus to pay $83 million fine over alleged sales misconduct​

The facility entered into by Optus is guaranteed by Singtel Optus and some of its subsidiaries.

Optus was accused of "unconscionable conduct" in its sales tactics with hundreds of consumers.PHOTO: OPTUS

Jun 18, 2025

SINGAPORE - Australia’s competition watchdog said on June 18 that Singtel subsidiary Optus has reached a settlement over allegations of “unconscionable conduct” in selling telecoms goods and services to hundreds of consumers.

The settlement includes an A$100 million (S$83.4 million) fine, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) said in a statement, adding that the federal court is yet to determine whether the penalty is appropriate.

The legal proceedings, filed in the Federal Court of Australia, accused Optus of acting unconscionably and conducting inappropriate sales practices in dealings with around 429 customers between August 2019 and July 2023.


The penalty is fully provided for in the previous financial year ended March 31, 2025, Optus said.

Under the terms of the enforceable undertaking, Optus said it is taking steps to address the misconduct.

These include making changes to its retail processes, systems and sales incentives.

It added that it has apologised to affected customers and is providing them with remediation.

Sales misconduct​

In October 2024, Singtel announced that ACCC had lodged legal proceedings against Optus for allegedly selling mobile phones and plans to vulnerable customers, including individuals with diminished cognitive capacity and learning disabilities.

Sales staff allegedly manipulated credit check results without consumers’ knowledge to sell mobile phones and plans they could not afford, as well as failed to explain the terms and conditions in an understandable manner.


The company was also accused of engaging debt collectors to pursue customers, despite knowing that their contracts were created fraudulently.

It allegedly referred and sold consumers’ debt to third-party debt collection agencies.

This caused many consumers to suffer financial harm, incurring thousands of dollars of debt, as well as non-financial harm, such as shame, fear and emotional distress about the debts or from being pursued by debt collectors, said ACCC chairwoman Gina Cass-Gottlieb.

In response to the allegations, Optus said it was addressing affected customers by providing refunds, waiving outstanding debts and allowing them to keep their mobile phones.

Shares of Singtel were up 0.8 per cent, or three cents, to $3.96 as at 11.13am on June 18. THE BUSINESS TIMES, REUTERS

 

Jail for pair linked to bogus scheme with more than 2,000 S’pore investors, over $13.7m in losses​

Leong Koon Wah (left) and Ng Kuan Chuan at the State Courts in March 2022. They were jailed on Jan 3 over a bogus investment scheme.


Leong Koon Wah (left) and Ng Kuan Chuan at the State Courts in March 2022. They were jailed on Jan 3 over a bogus investment scheme.ST PHOTOS: KELVIN CHNG

Shaffiq Alkhatib
Jan 03, 2025

SINGAPORE - He was the managing director of a firm called Singliworld which lured more than 2,000 investors in Singapore into an “investment scheme” that promised trading returns as high as 13 per cent per month.

But the scheme turned out to be fraudulent and there was a loss of over US$10 million (S$13.7 million) after more than US$21 million was collected from the investors, which also included thousands from other countries.

On Jan 3, Leong Koon Wah, 51, who was Singliworld’s managing director at the time of the offences, was sentenced to 10 years and six months in jail, and ordered to pay a penalty of $3,658,600.

He will spend an additional 18 months behind bars if he fails to fork out the amount.

Leong was also a director at three other firms – Singliworld HK, Triumph Global (Asia), which was incorporated in Hong Kong, and Union Markets, a New Zealand-incorporated company.

As at May 2015, Leong had earned approximately US$3.1 million through multi-level marketing (MLM) despite having invested only a total of US$1,000 himself.

He also held several accounts linked to the scheme in his wife’s name even though she had not made any investments. He earned around US$3.4 million through her accounts.

Ng Kuan Chuan, 38, who was also a director at Triumph Global and Singliworld HK, was sentenced to seven years and six months’ jail after earning some US$300,000.

Ng, who was involved in the management of Union Markets, was also ordered to pay a fine of $300,000 and will spend another six months behind bars in default.

After an 88-day trial, District Judge Soh Tze Bian convicted the two Malaysian men of carrying on Singliworld’s business between March 2014 and May 2015, thereby inducing customers to invest in Singliforex – a scheme where their money would purportedly be used to trade in foreign exchange.

These customers were led to believe that professional traders would conduct the trading on their behalf through “foreign exchange brokerages” – Triumph Global and Union Markets.

However, no such trading had taken place and the scheme was unsustainable.

Judge Soh also convicted the pair of offences involving Triumph Global and Union Markets. The men had carried on the business of foreign exchange trading linked to these two firms even though the companies did not have the necessary licences.

Leong had also pleaded guilty to two other charges involving Singliworld. According to court documents, it had promoted a pyramid-selling scheme between February 2014 and May 2015.

Singliworld had also carried on the business of foreign exchange trading even though it was not licensed to do so.

In his oral grounds of decision in December 2024, Judge Soh said that the Singliforex scheme exhibited multiple hallmarks of fraudulent activity, each of which underscored its deceptive and unsustainable nature with fraudulent features.

He added: “In my view, the scheme preyed on investors’ trust through deliberate misrepresentations, manipulation of outcomes, and unsustainable financial practices.

“By combining the illusion of professional trading, guaranteed profits, and MLM incentives, Leong and Ng as the perpetrators maintained a deceptive front while systematically misappropriating funds, ensuring the eventual collapse of the scheme.”

In earlier proceedings, the prosecution told the court that Leong incorporated Singliworld in December 2012 and was its “directing mind”. He later employed administrating staff from March to May 2015.

Singliword’s only business was promoting to members of the public the Singliforex scheme.

Leong and Singliworld promised prospective investors that a team of “professional traders” would purportedly trade in foreign exchange on behalf of the investors.

Ng was one of the people who had carried out the “trading” even though he was neither qualified nor licensed to do so.

From around March 20, 2014, to April 30, 2015, those who wished to participate in the Singliforex scheme had to open and maintain a forex trading brokerage account with Triumph Global.

From around May 7, 2015, they had to open and maintain such an account with Union Markets.

Deputy public prosecutors Nicholas Tan, Michelle Tay and Suriya Prakash stated in court documents that Singliforex investors were not allowed to have the “trading” done via a forex brokerage of their choice.

Investors were also locked out of their accounts at Triumph Global and Union Markets, and could not do any trading on their own.

At the time of the offences, Singliworld did not hold a capital markets services licence issued by the Monetary Authority of Singapore for leveraged foreign exchange trading.

Despite this, Singliworld held itself out as carrying on such a business between March 2014 and May 2015.

Leong had also devised a set of financial incentives so that Singliforex would be an MLM scheme, with incentives designed to encourage investors to refer and recruit others to participate in the scheme.

The prosecution said that Leong structured the Singliforex scheme to be pyramidal in nature, and placed himself at the apex of the pyramid.

On Jan 3, Leong and Ng were each offered bail of $300,000. Leong is expected to begin serving his sentence on Jan 31, while Ng intends to appeal against his conviction and sentence.
 

Jail for pair linked to bogus scheme with more than 2,000 S’pore investors, over $13.7m in losses​

Leong Koon Wah (left) and Ng Kuan Chuan at the State Courts in March 2022. They were jailed on Jan 3 over a bogus investment scheme.


Leong Koon Wah (left) and Ng Kuan Chuan at the State Courts in March 2022. They were jailed on Jan 3 over a bogus investment scheme.ST PHOTOS: KELVIN CHNG

Shaffiq Alkhatib
Jan 03, 2025

SINGAPORE - He was the managing director of a firm called Singliworld which lured more than 2,000 investors in Singapore into an “investment scheme” that promised trading returns as high as 13 per cent per month.

But the scheme turned out to be fraudulent and there was a loss of over US$10 million (S$13.7 million) after more than US$21 million was collected from the investors, which also included thousands from other countries.

On Jan 3, Leong Koon Wah, 51, who was Singliworld’s managing director at the time of the offences, was sentenced to 10 years and six months in jail, and ordered to pay a penalty of $3,658,600.

He will spend an additional 18 months behind bars if he fails to fork out the amount.

Leong was also a director at three other firms – Singliworld HK, Triumph Global (Asia), which was incorporated in Hong Kong, and Union Markets, a New Zealand-incorporated company.

As at May 2015, Leong had earned approximately US$3.1 million through multi-level marketing (MLM) despite having invested only a total of US$1,000 himself.

He also held several accounts linked to the scheme in his wife’s name even though she had not made any investments. He earned around US$3.4 million through her accounts.

Ng Kuan Chuan, 38, who was also a director at Triumph Global and Singliworld HK, was sentenced to seven years and six months’ jail after earning some US$300,000.

Ng, who was involved in the management of Union Markets, was also ordered to pay a fine of $300,000 and will spend another six months behind bars in default.

After an 88-day trial, District Judge Soh Tze Bian convicted the two Malaysian men of carrying on Singliworld’s business between March 2014 and May 2015, thereby inducing customers to invest in Singliforex – a scheme where their money would purportedly be used to trade in foreign exchange.

These customers were led to believe that professional traders would conduct the trading on their behalf through “foreign exchange brokerages” – Triumph Global and Union Markets.

However, no such trading had taken place and the scheme was unsustainable.

Judge Soh also convicted the pair of offences involving Triumph Global and Union Markets. The men had carried on the business of foreign exchange trading linked to these two firms even though the companies did not have the necessary licences.

Leong had also pleaded guilty to two other charges involving Singliworld. According to court documents, it had promoted a pyramid-selling scheme between February 2014 and May 2015.

Singliworld had also carried on the business of foreign exchange trading even though it was not licensed to do so.

In his oral grounds of decision in December 2024, Judge Soh said that the Singliforex scheme exhibited multiple hallmarks of fraudulent activity, each of which underscored its deceptive and unsustainable nature with fraudulent features.

He added: “In my view, the scheme preyed on investors’ trust through deliberate misrepresentations, manipulation of outcomes, and unsustainable financial practices.

“By combining the illusion of professional trading, guaranteed profits, and MLM incentives, Leong and Ng as the perpetrators maintained a deceptive front while systematically misappropriating funds, ensuring the eventual collapse of the scheme.”

In earlier proceedings, the prosecution told the court that Leong incorporated Singliworld in December 2012 and was its “directing mind”. He later employed administrating staff from March to May 2015.

Singliword’s only business was promoting to members of the public the Singliforex scheme.

Leong and Singliworld promised prospective investors that a team of “professional traders” would purportedly trade in foreign exchange on behalf of the investors.

Ng was one of the people who had carried out the “trading” even though he was neither qualified nor licensed to do so.

From around March 20, 2014, to April 30, 2015, those who wished to participate in the Singliforex scheme had to open and maintain a forex trading brokerage account with Triumph Global.

From around May 7, 2015, they had to open and maintain such an account with Union Markets.

Deputy public prosecutors Nicholas Tan, Michelle Tay and Suriya Prakash stated in court documents that Singliforex investors were not allowed to have the “trading” done via a forex brokerage of their choice.

Investors were also locked out of their accounts at Triumph Global and Union Markets, and could not do any trading on their own.

At the time of the offences, Singliworld did not hold a capital markets services licence issued by the Monetary Authority of Singapore for leveraged foreign exchange trading.

Despite this, Singliworld held itself out as carrying on such a business between March 2014 and May 2015.

Leong had also devised a set of financial incentives so that Singliforex would be an MLM scheme, with incentives designed to encourage investors to refer and recruit others to participate in the scheme.

The prosecution said that Leong structured the Singliforex scheme to be pyramidal in nature, and placed himself at the apex of the pyramid.

On Jan 3, Leong and Ng were each offered bail of $300,000. Leong is expected to begin serving his sentence on Jan 31, while Ng intends to appeal against his conviction and sentence.
Wow…happen 2014-15…now then go to court hah
 
The bank cajoled and pressured Janet Tay into investing in accumulators, a.k.a. I-Kill-You-Later.

Retiree sues Credit Suisse over $1.6 million in investment losses​

mi_janettay_070222.jpg

Madam Janet Tay said the bank's relationship manager had under-reported the amount of shortfall in her account, resulting in a delay in selling her shares to cover the gap. ST PHOTO: MARK CHEONG
joycelim.png


Joyce Lim
Senior Correspondent

Feb 7, 2022

SINGAPORE - A 68-year-old retiree is suing Swiss bank Credit Suisse in Singapore for US$1.2 million (S$1.6 million) over trading losses when the share market tanked in 2020.
Madam Janet Tay said the bank's relationship manager had under-reported the amount of shortfall in her account, which resulted in a delay in selling her shares to cover the gap. By then, the price had fallen further.
She is also accusing the relationship manager of pushing her to invest in other products amid the volatility of the market. As a result, the investment greatly reduced the loan-to-value ratio to support her portfolio of US$4 million.
Had that not been the case, Madam Tay said in her statement of claim that she would have held on to some of her shares and "been able to sell them at optimum or favourable prices".
The lawsuit, which commenced last year (2021), centres on the role and duty of care expected of the bank's relationship manager.
Madam Tay said a reasonable and competent bank like Credit Suisse and its relationship manager owed her a duty of care in providing its services and carrying out its various duties and obligations in relation to her trading account.
Prior to her retirement, Madam Tay, who has a first-class honours in accountancy from University of Singapore and a master's in business administration with distinction from London Business School, used to run a management consultancy firm.

Madam Tay, who is represented by Mr Philip Ling and Ms Eunice Wong from Wong Tan & Molly Lim LLC, said in her statement of claim filed last August that she had known Ms Tania Chew, an employee of Credit Suisse's Singapore branch, since 2004.
Then, the latter was working at DBS Bank and was assigned as the relationship manager to handle her DBS Treasures account.
Madam Tay said she moved her investment portfolio to Credit Suisse on two occasions when approached by Ms Chew.


Subsequent to the opening of a trading account in 2018, Madam Tay had been giving instructions to Ms Chew to carry out various trades and transactions.
She said Ms Chew was well aware that she does not have or use any online banking services under the account, and Ms Chew had taken it upon herself and "assumed the duty and responsibility, to inform, advise and update" her on the status of her account.
Madam Tay said she relied on Ms Chew to inform her of any shortfall under the account and advise her on the actions to rectify it.
In her statement, Madam Tay said Ms Chew informed her of a US$200,000 shortfall on the morning of March 9, 2020. But it was only around 4.50pm that Ms Chew advised her to sell her Credit Suisse shares to reduce the inadequacy.


A shortfall refers to any financial obligation or liability that is greater than the cash on hand required to satisfy that obligation.
However, due to the falling US market, Madam Tay managed to sell only 8,000 shares, which lowered the shortfall by about US$28,000.
The following day (March 10), she was told that her shortfall stood at US$300,000, when it was in fact about US$673,000.
Due to the alleged misrepresentations by Ms Chew, Madam Tay said she was unable to clear the actual amount of shortfall and ended up selling her shares later when the market crashed further.
Prior to the incident, Madam Tay claimed that while she was on vacation in Australia around Feb 20, Ms Chew sent her messages on WhatsApp where she "repeatedly and persistently cajoled and pressured" her to purchase US dollar to Swiss franc FX accumulator products, which drastically reduced her loan-to-value ratio.
A loan-to-value ratio is a percentage measurement of the amount that can be borrowed against a share or a managed fund, using a margin loan.
As a result of the purchase on Feb 21, Madam Tay suffered losses amounting to US$634,275.
In court documents filed, she said the losses being claimed in the proceedings were sums she had earmarked for a charity which she started in 2010, in honour of her late mother Koh Seng Neo, to help underprivileged students from Raffles Institution who display academic potential.
Madam Tay added that she had placed great faith and trust in Ms Chew to advise and act in her best interests at all times, given that Ms Chew is the bank's relationship manager and their longstanding relationship of more than 16 years.


When contacted, Credit Suisse declined to comment as legal proceedings are ongoing.
In its defence filed, the bank denies any duty of care owed to Madam Tay.
Credit Suisse, which is represented by lawyers from Allen & Gledhill, said its relationship with her was governed by the terms of the contractual documents she had signed with the bank.
Credit Suisse said her account is a non-discretionary one, whereby it provided execution services and she was responsible for her own investment decisions.
Madam Tay was also responsible for managing and monitoring the portfolio and/or investments in her account.
No trial dates have been fixed yet.
Excellent
 

Builder.ai, an AI start-up with operations in Singapore, overestimated sales by 300%​

Builder.ai’s stunning fall from grace show the risks inherent in the rush to back promising AI start-ups.


The company, valued at about US$1.5 billion in its last fund-raising round, is now planning to file for bankruptcy.

May 23, 2025

LONDON – When Builder.ai was seeking an emergency loan in 2024, the start-up gave lenders a revenue forecast that proved to be four times its actual sales, people familiar with the matter said.

A group of creditors, led by Israeli firm Viola Credit, were originally told that Builder.ai projected sales of US$220 million (S$284 million) for 2024, the people said. The company later disclosed that the actual revenue amount for the year turned out to be about US$50 million, they said.

That revelation was one of the factors that ultimately led the lenders to seize most of the UK-based artificial intelligence (AI) start-up’s cash, the people said.

The company, which has operations in Singapore and was valued at US$1.5 billion in its last fund-raising round, is now planning to file for bankruptcy.

It marks the biggest collapse of an AI start-up since ChatGPT’s 2022 release ushered in a surge of investment in the industry.

Builder.ai’s founder and former chief executive Sachin Dev Duggal has not responded to several requests for comment via phone and e-mail. Builder.ai and Viola declined to comment. Representatives from the other members of the creditor consortium didn’t respond to requests for comment.

The board was first alerted that something was amiss in December, when Mr Duggal came back asking for more funds after the loan, one of the people said. It conducted another round of due diligence and found that revenue was actually on track to be near US$100 million, the people said.

By February, the Builder.ai board pushed out Mr Duggal and had authorised a US$75 million injection into the company, one of the people said. It appointed Mr Manpreet Ratia – an executive from its Singapore-based investor Jungle Ventures – as CEO and assigned an independent auditor to go through the books. That audit revealed that the final revenue figure for the year was about US$50 million, the people said.

At that point, the creditor consortium seized the cash in the company’s bank accounts, about US$37 million.

Builder.ai, whose platform lets businesses quickly create custom smartphone apps, was an early success story for European tech, raising funds from Microsoft and the Qatar Investment Authority. The World Bank Group’s International Finance Corporation, Hollywood mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg’s WndrCo, Lakestar and SoftBank Group’s Deepcore incubator have also invested in the company.


In a letter on May 20 to employees that was shared with Bloomberg, the company said it was “unable to recover from historic challenges and past decisions that placed significant strain on its financial position”. Builder.ai said it will appoint an administrator to oversee the process. BLOOMBERG
 

Hyflux sought other funding sources for Tuaspring as it had problems getting bank loans: Prosecution​


Hyflux founder Olivia Lum arriving at the State Courts on Aug 11.

Hyflux founder Olivia Lum arriving at the State Courts on Aug 11.

Aug 11, 2025

SINGAPORE – Hyflux looked to mom-and-pop investors to fund its Tuaspring project because it had trouble getting bank loans, the prosecution said on the first day of the trial involving former senior executives of the failed water treatment plant.

Deputy Chief Prosecutor Christopher Ong noted that a group of banks initially said they were willing to finance the project. But in 2011, they raised concerns after learning of Hyflux’s strategy of selling electricity to subsidise the sale of water to PUB.

Hyflux eventually issued preference shares to fund the integrated water and power project. The company’s collapse left about 34,000 investors of perpetual securities and preference shares, who had sunk in a combined $900 million, with nothing.


In his opening statement to the State Court on Aug 11, Mr Ong said Lum did not disclose information about business risks because she did not want to detract from the positive news of winning a landmark water project, and feared deterring investors.

Hyflux had won a tender for Singapore’s second and largest desalination plant with the lowest submitted bid. It had proposed to sell water to PUB at a first-year tariff price of $0.45/m3, undercutting its competitors by at least 27 per cent.

“At this price, the desalination plant would operate at a loss,” Mr Ong said.

“To make the project financially viable, and also fulfil PUB’s requirement to procure or produce electricity for the desalination plant at Hyflux’s cost, Hyflux intended for the power plant to supply electricity to the desalination plant, while actually selling the vast majority of the power that it generated to the national grid.”

It was only from this sale that Hyflux would be able to make up for the desalination plant’s losses and make the project profitable.

But Hyflux had no prior experience in power generation, much less selling electricity. The Tuaspring project would be the first time Hyflux entered the electricity market, the prosecution said.


In total, seven people have been charged over Hyflux’s intentional failure to disclose information relating to Tuaspring, among other things.

Six of them – Hyflux founder and former chief executive Olivia Lum Ooi Lin, former chief financial officer Cho Wee Peng, and former independent directors Teo Kiang Kok, Christopher Murugasu, Gay Chee Cheong and Lee Joo Hai – are contesting their charges in a 56-day trial scheduled to run from Aug 11 to Feb 5, 2026.

The prosecution will proceed on 11 charges, including two of the six charges Lum faces. The remaining four charges against Lum are stood down.

It is expected to rely on testimony from former Hyflux employees and bank representatives who were involved in negotiations on financing the Tuaspring integrated water and power project.

How it all unfolded​

To finance the Tuaspring project, which was initially projected to cost $890 million, Hyflux sought a term loan of about $527 million from a consortium of banks.

Six banks signed in-principle commitment letters in October 2010 indicating their willingness to finance the project. But they had not been told of Hyflux’s plan to build a power plant and sell excess electricity to the grid at the time, Mr Ong noted.


In November 2010, when they found out about Hyflux’s power strategy, they “raised serious concerns”. In January 2011, they told Hyflux that they could not lend it money on the terms previously indicated, as the power plant introduced new “merchant sale risk and operational risk”.

On 4 July 2011, only three of the original six banks - DBS, Mizuho Corporate Bank and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation - extended Hyflux financing of $150 million for the construction of the desalination plant. This financing was eventually terminated by Hyflux.

Tuaspring was ultimately financed by a shareholder’s loan of $840.4 million by Hyflux in October 2011, which was in turn refinanced with Maybank Singapore and Maybank Kim Eng Securities in September 2013.

The case against Lum​

In January 2011, in the midst of their negotiations with the banks, Hyflux’s management began to contemplate issuing of preference shares to raise funds.

On 19 January 2011, Hyflux senior vice president, legal (business) Ms Yang Ai Chian informed the Board of the need to issue preference shares to “increase our funding options” for “several new major projects” that Hyflux was expected to win that year.

In reality, this money was meant to fund Tuaspring because of the challenges Hyflux faced in getting bank financing.

On 13 April 2011, Hyflux lodged an offer information statement with the Monetary Authority of Singapore to issue up to $200 million in 6% preference shares. These were oversubscribed and the offer amount was increased. Hyflux ultimately raised $400 million.

But the statement did not mention risks arising from Hyflux’s entry into the electricity business, or those associated with Hyflux’s strategy for Tuaspring, which could affect the company’s financial position or results, the prosecution said.

The information was omitted because Lum wanted to downplay Tuaspring’s significant exposure to the electricity market, both in Hyflux’s announcement that it had been named the “preferred bidder” for the desalination project, as well as in the offer information statement, the prosecution said.

“Lum was determined that Hyflux had to win the bid and cement its status as a global leader in the water treatment and desalination industry. Hyflux was facing setbacks in its Middle Eastern ventures and winning the Tuaspring bid was critical for strengthening the company’s order book,” Mr Ong said.

“She did not want to detract from the positive news of winning a landmark water project, by revealing the Tuaspring Project’s reliance on electricity sales, and the fact that the low tariff price – the key to winning the tender – was only viable because of such electricity sales.”

The prosecution also said Lum was well aware of the banks’ negative reactions regarding the power plant component of the project, and feared that full disclosure might deter investors and compromise Hyflux’s ability to raise funds through the planned preference shares.

This, in turn, could jeopardise financial close for the project and potentially result in losing the bid, the prosecution said.

The desalination plant of the Tuaspring Project became operational on September 18, 2013. But its power plant only became operational nearly two years later, on or around August 2015. It began selling electricity commercially on 18 February 2016.

In March 2011, the average Uniform Singapore Energy Price had been around $187 per megawatt hour (MWh). By February 2016, this had fallen to around $49.10 per MWh.

As the profitability of Tuaspring depended on electricity sales, this fall in electricity prices hit Hyflux hard. In its 2017 annual report, it reported a $115.6 million after tax loss.

The report stated that the weak power market in Singapore drove losses for the first time in Hyflux’s history, with the Tuaspring Project accounting for the majority of the losses.

On 21 May 2018, Hyflux suspended trading of its shares. The next day, Hyflux announced that it had applied to seek court protection for debt reorganisation.

On 18 May 2019, PUB took over the Tuaspring desalination plant. On 1 June 2022, a wholly owned subsidiary of Malaysia-based YTL Power International, YTL Powerseraya, completed its acquisition of the Tuaspring power plant.

By 16 November 2020, Hyflux entered judicial management and into liquidation on 21 July 2021.

Other witnesses include a lawyer from Stamford Law Corporation, who was Hyflux’s external legal counsel on the April 2011 offer information statement; an SGX representative who will provide evidence on the sequence of events that led to this case being investigated; and a PUB representative, who will testify to PUB’s dealings with Hyflux and its employees and management during the tender and award process for Tuaspring.

The Prosecution will also adduce evidence from a securities expert, Mr Kevin Gin who will address why the omitted information ought to have been disclosed by Hyflux.

The hearing continues.
 

Hyflux investigator ‘took advantage’ of Olivia Lum’s inability to recall events: Davinder Singh​

Hyflux founder and former chief executive Olivia Lum leaves the State Courts on Aug 11.

Hyflux founder and former chief executive Olivia Lum leaving the State Courts on Aug 11.

  • Hyflux's founder's lawyer argues banks gave "in-principle management support" for a loan despite concerns about the power plant plan.
  • Banks initially raised "serious concerns" in 2011 about Hyflux's electricity sales strategy influencing their willingness to finance Tuaspring.
  • The defence suggests the prosecution witness unfairly omitted evidence, like the January 2011 letter, to support the case against Olivia Lum.
Aug 12, 2025

SINGAPORE – Despite earlier concerns about Hyflux’s Tuaspring project, a group of banks still gave “in-principle management support” for loans of up to $527 million, argued the lead lawyer for Hyflux founder Olivia Lum on the second day of her trial.

To support his case, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh made reference to a letter issued by the banks to Hyflux on Jan 14, 2011, after they finished reviewing Hyflux’s plan to build a desalination plant and a power plant, and sell excess electricity from the power plant to the grid.

In the letter, they said they had “in-principle management support for a credit facility of up to $283 million for the desalination plant and shared infrastructure, and a credit facility of up to $244 million for the power plant”, as long as Hyflux met certain criteria, such as being named “preferred bidder” for the project.


The letter was sent 10 days after they had raised concerns about risks arising from Hyflux’s strategy of selling electricity to subsidise the sale of water to PUB.

In his cross-examination of the Commercial Affairs Department’s lead investigating officer, Ms Jacqueline Wei Maojun, Mr Singh asked why she did not show Lum the entire letter when she was questioned in 2020, or give her a complete picture of the banks’ position. He said the letter showed that the banks were prepared to give their support, despite their concerns.

Ms Wei replied: “They were willing to give support, but not approval yet.”

Mr Singh said: “I suggest to you that you took advantage of Lum’s inability to recall what happened many years ago.”

Ms Wei replied: “There’s no need for me to hide any information from her, because she will always clarify the answers she gave to statements... I have control over questions I want to ask.”

Mr Singh said: “You have control, but you also have a duty to be fair. Not showing her the in-principle commitment in the Jan 14, 2011, letter was unfair.”


Ms Wei replied that she was focused on finding out what happened to the desalination plant’s funding, rather than the banks’ concerns.

Mr Singh said: “I am putting it to you that the reason you didn’t show her the Jan 14 letter is you were trying to create a scenario for the conclusion of your investigations, that the banks were affected by concerns over merchant sale risk.” He was referring to the risk of selling electricity to the grid.

Ms Wei disagreed. “It would have been better for me to ask the banks directly,” she said.

Six banks signed in-principle commitment letters in October 2010 indicating their willingness to finance the project. But they had not been told of Hyflux’s plan to build a power plant and sell excess electricity to the grid at the time, the prosecution said on the first day of the trial.

In November 2010, when they found out about Hyflux’s power strategy, they “raised serious concerns”. In January 2011, they told Hyflux that they could not lend it money on the terms previously indicated, as the power plant introduced new “merchant sale risk and operational risk”.

Later that month, they informed Hyflux of their “in-principle management support”.


On July 4, 2011, three of the original six banks – DBS, Mizuho Corporate Bank and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – extended financing of $150 million for the construction of the desalination plant. This financing was eventually terminated by Hyflux.

Pointing to the announcement that Hyflux had secured financing of $150 million, Mr Singh asked Ms Wei if there was any reason to doubt that this was a bridging loan – an interim measure to give the banks time to assess their concerns and Hyflux’s request for project financing.

He said: “When the prosecution says this financing of $150 million was eventually terminated by Hyflux, what really happened is that it wanted to repay the money ahead of time.”

Mr Singh also referred to a Dec 3, 2013, news release from Hyflux that its subsidiary Tuaspring had secured a $720 million, 18-year term loan facility to fund the development of the desalination and power plant facilities in September that year. The financing was provided by Maybank Singapore and Maybank Kim Eng Securities.

“You would agree with me that this is... an endorsement by a leading bank of its faith in the project, correct?” Mr Singh asked.

Ms Wei replied: “It shows a willingness to lend.”

Mr Singh noted that the prosecution is not calling on anyone from Maybank as a witness. “I suggest to you that the reason prosecution has not produced Maybank documents, and is not calling Maybank as witness, is because that would undermine the prosecution’s case.”

Ms Wei disagreed.

The hearing continues.
 

Hyflux founder Olivia Lum and ex-CFO gave input to ‘play down’ energy component of Tuaspring project​

Hyflux founder and former chief executive Olivia Lum at the State Courts on Aug 19.

Hyflux founder and former chief executive Olivia Lum at the State Courts on Aug 19.

Aug 19, 2025

SINGAPORE - Drafts of a news release showed that Hyflux founder Olivia Lum and former chief financial officer Cho Wee Peng had given input to “play down” key details about the energy component of the failed Tuaspring project, a court heard on Aug 19.

E-mails which included these drafts formed a crucial part of the testimony of Ms Winnifred Heap Ah Lan, who took the stand on the fourth day of the criminal trial. Ms Heap was Hyflux’s head of corporate communications and investor relations at the time.

According to the prosecution, Lum did not disclose information about the company’s business risks because she did not want to detract from the positive news of winning a landmark water project, and feared deterring investors. The company’s collapse due to weak electricity sales left about 34,000 investors of perpetual securities and preference shares, who had sunk in a combined $900 million, with nothing.


The first draft of the news release about Hyflux being named preferred bidder of the Tuaspring project said: “Integrated within the design of Tuas II desalination plant is a 350MW combined cycle gas turbine power plant which will supply electricity directly to the desalination plant.”

It added: “The remaining capacity will be retailed through Singapore’s wholesale electricity market, the National Electricity Market of Singapore, to electricity retailers and subsequently sold to contestable consumers.”

The release also said that Hyflux will set up separate entities to undertake the power generation and energy retailing businesses. The company began working on the release about three months before the actual announcement on March 7, 2011.

But the prosecution showed that mentions of the sale of electricity were removed by the third draft. This draft was included in an e-mail sent by Ms Heap to Lum, Cho and former senior vice-president for legal (business) Yang Ai Chian on Jan 19, 2011.


In Ms Heap’s e-mail, she wrote: “Make the changes following input from Olivia and Wee Peng. However we still need to discuss on how much we need to disclose on the funding aspect.”

When asked what she was trying to convey, Ms Heap said there was a “typo” in the e-mail. She said it should have been: “Made the changes following input from Olivia and Wee Peng”, as these changes had already been discussed.


Deputy chief prosecutor Christopher Ong also asked why the reference to the sale of electricity had been taken out.

“Any significant changes to the announcement would have been directed by Olivia and Wee Peng,” she said. “This is one of the key points that we are not in a position to take out. Mei Kiang and myself don’t have the authority to take this out of the press release.”

She was referring to Ms Seah Mei Kiang, who was with Hyflux’s corporate communications department.

When asked why the sale of electricity was a key point, Ms Heap said: “Because the excess capacity will be sold to the grid, and analysts and investors want to know how much will be sold to the grid, whether you have the track record and the people who can execute the strategy.”

In the fourth draft of the news release, Ms Heap wrote: “Attached is the cleaned up draft for news release and presentation following input from Olivia and Wee Peng. The key is to play down energy while highlighting our expanded bench strength and core capabilities.” This draft was included in an e-mail sent by Ms Heap to Lum, Cho, Ms Yang and Ms Seah on Feb 8, 2011.

When the prosecution asked whose idea was it to “play down energy”, Ms Heap said: “It is indicated in the e-mail – ‘following input from Olivia and Wee Peng’.”


6567ac5db5ed958b53d49afeb016a48276829405024cd6fa9624e2b8cbf72fa7

Ms Winnifred Heap Ah Lan, who was Hyflux’s head of corporate communications and investor relations at the time, took the stand on Aug 19.

ST PHOTO: KELVIN CHNG

The draft was later sent to national water agency PUB for vetting. It added these sentences to the news release: “Hyflux will also be constructing a 411MW combined cycle gas turbine power plant to supply electricity to the desalination plant. Excess power will be sold to the power grid.” These sentences appeared in the final version that was sent to the Singapore Exchange.

Ms Heap said these lines would have come from the PUB.

The prosecution also took Ms Heap through an e-mail exchange between Ms Seah and a journalist named Robert Clow.

Mr Clow, in his e-mail on March 31, 2011, had said: “I understand the banks working on the Tuas project would like to delay Hyflux’s signing of the deal – scheduled for April 6 – because they fear that the three-month financing deadline, which comes into force after signing could be too tight. Specifically, I understand the banks are concerned that selling power into the Singapore merchant market to subsidise the desalination process will make the projects’ cash flow uncertain and difficult to model.”

Mr Clow’s e-mail was forwarded by Ms Seah to Ms Heap, Cho and Ms Yang. Cho, in response to Ms Seah, said: “The discussions between Hyflux and the banks are in progress and confidential and are (sic) unable to comment further at this time.”

Lum, who was subsequently included in the e-mail chain, said: “We should refrain from giving any specific reply. Just give no comment.”

When asked why Lum gave the instruction to not comment on the matter, Ms Heap replied: “Clow is a journalist. I suppose sometimes there is no obligation to reply.”

For the final 45 minutes of the Aug 19 hearing, Ms Heap was also cross-examined by Lum’s lawyer, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh. Mr Singh spent much of the time questioning Ms Heap on the accuracy of her memory of events that took place more than 15 years ago.

At several points during the cross-examination, Mr Singh told Ms Heap to “not talk over him”, as she would interrupt him before he could finish asking a question.

“Because the events you were asked about go back more than 15 years, you have said repeatedly that you are unable to recall many things. Would that be fair?” he asked at the opening of his cross-exam.

Ms Heap replied: “Fair in the sense that when there’s no e-mail evidence, it is difficult to recall. Even if there are things in writing, there’s difficulty recalling.”

He then asked if she could recall when Sam Ong, the former chief financial officer and former deputy chief executive, left the company. Ms Heap said she could not.

When asked why she could not recall if the board of directors had been involved in the announcements, Ms Heap replied: “Because I am not involved in the process of sending the announcements to the board.”

On the Jan 19, 2011, e-mail which included the third draft of the news release, Mr Singh asked: “Do you agree with me that you were not asked whether there is a mistake in the e-mail?... Although you were not asked if there is a mistake, you volunteered an answer?”

Ms Heap replied: “Yes, it looks wrong.”

“Are you aware that there is evidence in this court by an investigating officer about whether the word in that e-mail is ‘Made’ or ‘Make’?” Mr Singh asked. He was referring to testimony from the Commercial Affairs Department’s lead investigating officer, Ms Jacqueline Wei Maojun. She was the prosecution’s first witness.

To which, Ms Heap said: “No I am not aware.”

Mr Singh asked her to explain why she volunteered the information that there was a typo in the e-mail, when the question originally posed to her was on why the e-mail was sent.

Ms Heap replied: “I told them there was a typo. In my mind, I just wanted to clarify there was a typo.”

“Isn’t it a position that you came to court to volunteer that information, regardless of whether you were asked?” Mr Singh said.

She replied: “I wouldn’t come to court to volunteer this information.”

Mr Singh said: “Your evidence is that not knowing you were going to be asked in court or not, you came prepared to volunteer that evidence?

Ms Heap agreed.

The hearing continues.
 

Hyflux sought to position itself as a growth company instead of utility company to get better valuations​

Concerns over the water treatment company being rerated from a growth company to a utility company emerged in a meeting in January 2011.

Concerns over the water treatment company being rerated from a growth company to a utility company emerged in a meeting in January 2011.

Aug 20, 2025

SINGAPORE - Hyflux sought to position itself as a growth company rather than a utility company to get better market valuations, the lead counsel for Olivia Lum told the court on Aug 20.

Building a strong pipeline of projects, including Tuaspring, was one strategy to achieve this, added Senior Counsel Davinder Singh on the fifth day of the criminal trial involving Lum, former chief financial officer Cho Wee Peng and four other former independent directors.

Mr Singh took the prosecution’s second witness, Ms Winnifred Heap Ah Lan, through minutes taken during a series of risk management committee meetings, in which managing shareholder confidence was a growing focus. Ms Heap was Hyflux’s head of corporate communications and investor relations at the time.

Prior to Hyflux being named preferred bidder for the Tuaspring project in March 2011, concerns over the water treatment company being rerated from a growth company to a utility company emerged in one such meeting in January 2011.

In one section, Ms Heap had presented on the difference between a growth company and a utilities company.

According to minutes from that meeting, she had said: “Once a growth company proves that it can deliver results, the market rewards them ahead of time, such an example being Apple Inc. On the other hand, the PE (price to earnings) ratio of a utilities company is comparatively lower and the market only rewards the company when delivery is proven.”

When asked by the prosecution on Aug 19 why concerns emerged over the possibility of Hyflux being rerated, Ms Heap had responded: “I don’t think there was a concern. It’s more a fact that as a listed company you need to know how you are positioned and what is your strategy. So I think the idea of this risk management meeting was really to set up some kind of a discipline surrounding that.”

In his cross-examination on Aug 20, Mr Singh also made reference to this meeting. What was being discussed was the importance of keeping that positioning, so that the market will continue to treat Hyflux as a growth company, he said.

“As far as you were concerned, this was an exercise conducted in good faith, not just in Hyflux but in the interests of its shareholders. And it was an exercise to continue positioning of Hyflux as a growth company truthfully?” he asked.

Ms Heap agreed.

He also asked what she meant by setting up “some kind of a discipline”, to which she responded: “It’s really a process you want to put in place, take feedback from shareholders and stakeholders, and look at their concerns.”

Mr Singh asked if the exercise to put this process in place “was being conducted honestly and truthfully”. Ms Heap concurred.

She had earlier told the court that the risk management committee discussed the need to grow Hyflux’s order book and continue to win new contracts, as existing long-term contracts tend to provide recurring income but “might not give the delta incremental growth.”

This was a vital difference, Mr Singh pointed out, as the market would value differently a growth company that continues to win new orders and contracts, from a utilities company earning income from long-term contracts.

When asked about whether divestments were part of Hyflux’s business model, Ms Heap replied: “We call that capital recycling. The capital requirements for a water plant can be quite huge. The idea is to recycle assets and get the valuation out of it and reinvest into another water plant. The strength is the company has expertise to originate new water plants.”

Mr Singh asked: “And the feedback you received from major shareholders and analysts reports led you to present that ... as key shareholders have been increasing their holdings, it is important to continue to position the company as a growth company, and therefore important to continue to do so for the purpose of its valuations?”

Ms Heap replied: “Correct”.

When questioned on her presentation that “the company is compromising returns with low bid for Tuas desalination plant. This perception should correct itself with the continued financial performance of the company, Ms Heap explained that the perception refers to the “relationship between low returns and financial performance of the company.”

The company’s “profitability may be compromised but if it is able to deliver earnings progressively then the perception would be corrected,” she said.

The hearing continues.
 

From high tide to low ebb — the billion dollar mirage of Hyflux​

Once celebrated as Singapore’s homegrown water technology champion, Hyflux’s mounting losses, overleveraging, and failed rescue bids turned it into one of the country’s most high-profile corporate collapses.

By Zat Astha / 12 Aug 2025
A Hyflux building at Kallang Bahru, 3 Jun 2020. The buildings looks like it is empty and unoccupied. The gates are locked and there are no guards in sight.

The Straits Times

Share this article​

Fallout explores the stories behind brands that rose quickly, captured imaginations, and then lost their footing. Each instalment traces the journey from early promise to public scrutiny, examining how ambition, changing tastes, and unforeseen challenges can upend even the brightest ventures. Through thoughtful reporting and careful reflection, the series looks at what happens after the spotlight fades—and what these stories reveal about the worlds that created them. Today, we train our sights on Hyflux.


In May 2018, the queue outside Hyflux’s headquarters told a story more vividly than any court filing. Elderly investors clutched plastic folders stuffed with bond certificates. Some scrolled their phones for updates, others stood in quiet conversation, their expressions split between disbelief and anger.

The company that once symbolised Singapore’s entrepreneurial grit had just filed for court protection from creditors, freezing billions in debt repayments, and thousands of ordinary Singaporeans were about to discover what it meant to be “unsecured” in every sense of the word.


The filing marked the most dramatic collapse of a high-profile Singapore-listed company in recent memory, wiping out close to S$2.95 billion in debt and equity value. It would be easy to dismiss this as another mere financial implosion but in reality, it was a psychic break with the narrative Singapore had built around Hyflux and its founder, Olivia Lum.

For decades, the story had been one of improbable ascent: a young woman arriving from Malaysia with nothing, building a water technology empire from scratch, and becoming the country’s first self-made female billionaire. That story would now be reinterpreted through a darker lens — ambition shading into overreach, and confidence tipping into hubris.

From $20,000 to national icon​

Hyflux began in 1989 as Hydrochem, a two-person start-up founded by Lum, then 28 years old, with S$20,000 in savings.


The company’s earliest operations involved trading water treatment equipment to industrial clients, but Lum quickly saw the potential in manufacturing her own membrane filtration products.

Her big break came in 2000 when Hyflux won the contract to build Singapore’s first NEWater plant at Bedok. That win gave the company prestige and political capital — it was now a strategic player in Singapore’s water security strategy.

By the early 2000s, Hyflux was expanding aggressively into China, winning large municipal water projects, and later, contracts in Algeria, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. In 2001, it listed on the Singapore Exchange, raising capital to fund its expansion. Investors bought into the narrative of a “national champion,” a rare example of a Singaporean SME scaling successfully in global infrastructure.

hqdefault.jpg
Play

Lum became a fixture at business awards, was appointed to government advisory boards, and in 2011, won Ernst & Young’s World Entrepreneur of the Year — an accolade that burnished her international reputation.

At its peak, Hyflux reported annual revenues exceeding S$500 million, with a market capitalisation above S$1.5 billion. Debt levels were modest, and projects were typically backed by long-term contracts with predictable revenue streams. That fiscal conservatism would be tested in the next phase of growth.

Tuaspring and the lure of power​

In 2008, Hyflux made its first move into power generation with the SingSpring Desalination Plant, which included a co-located gas-fired power plant. The model was designed to offset desalination’s high energy costs with electricity sales to the national grid. Encouraged by the initial results, Hyflux doubled down.

Hyflux Tuaspring desalination plant at Tuas, taken on 5 Apr 2019.

Hyflux Tuaspring desalination plant at Tuas, taken on 5 Apr 2019.

The Straits Times
In 2011, it secured the tender for the Tuaspring Integrated Water and Power Plant — Singapore’s largest desalination project and Hyflux’s most ambitious undertaking. With capacity to produce 318,500 cubic metres of desalinated water a day and generate 411 megawatts of electricity, Tuaspring was positioned as a cash flow machine.

But the project’s S$1.05 billion price tag meant Hyflux needed new financing avenues.

Enter perpetual securities: high-yield instruments marketed heavily to retail investors. Between 2011 and 2016, Hyflux raised around S$900 million through perpetuals and preference shares, offering coupon rates of up to 6%.

These were pitched in roadshows and glossy brochures as low-risk, backed by tangible infrastructure assets and stable water contracts. Many investors — especially retirees — treated them as fixed-income products, not equity-like instruments vulnerable to loss.

Lum assured the market that Tuaspring’s integrated model would insulate Hyflux from volatility. The assumption: Singapore’s power market would remain stable, and Hyflux’s engineering prowess would keep costs in check.

A power market in freefall​

The cracks began to show almost as soon as Tuaspring came online in 2013.

The power market, liberalised in the early 2000s, had become increasingly competitive. By 2015, a glut of new generation capacity, coupled with slower demand growth, drove wholesale electricity prices down by more than 50%.

Tuaspring’s power segment, designed to subsidise water production, was now loss-making.

Hyflux’s financials reflected the strain. From 2016 onwards, group profits turned to losses — S$115 million in 2017 alone. Tuaspring recorded an operating loss of S$81.9 million before interest and tax in 2017. Group debt ballooned past S$2.9 billion. To meet coupon payments on perpetuals, Hyflux began drawing on debt and asset sales, a strategy that could not be sustained indefinitely.

Yet, in public communications, Lum maintained optimism, describing the downturn as a temporary “market cycle” and reiterating confidence in the integrated model. Annual reports downplayed structural shifts in the power sector, focusing instead on potential overseas opportunities.

The collapse​

On 22 May 2018, Hyflux applied for court-supervised reorganisation under Section 211B of the Companies Act, freezing all repayments.

The moratorium covered bank loans, trade creditors, and the S$900 million in perpetual and preference shares held by roughly 34,000 retail investors.

The announcement triggered panic. For many, the perpetual securities represented life savings. Investors packed shareholder meetings, demanding answers. Some accused Hyflux of misleading them about the risk profile of the instruments.

The MAS later clarified that perpetuals were not capital-protected, but the clarification came far too late for those already locked in.

Initially, there was hope. In October 2018, SM Investments, a consortium linked to Indonesia’s Salim and Medco groups, offered a S$400 million rescue package, which would inject cash, take a controlling stake, and restructure the debt.

凯发集团(Hyflux)与印度尼西亚财团签署合作协议,后者注资5亿3000万元,持凯发60%股权。 印度尼西亚三林集团(Salim Group)和Medco集团成立的财团SM Investments Pte Ltd,和凯发集团在今天下午5时举行的记者会上签署约束性协议。 财团在东南亚和全球其他地区经营多元化业务,拥有和经营水处理和能源业务。Anthony Salim (right), chairman of the Salim Group, and Olivia Lum, chief executive of Hyflux, at a signing ceremony on 18 October 2018. A consortium comprising conglomerate Salim Group and energy giant Medco Group, has agreed to give Hyflux a S$400 million equity injection, in exchange for a 60 per cent stake in the water treatment firm once it has settled all its debts.

Anthony Salim (right), chairman of the Salim Group, and Olivia Lum, chief executive of Hyflux, at a signing ceremony on 18 October 2018.

Lianhe Zaobao
But tensions flared. Creditors pushed for better terms, while minority investors objected to steep write-downs. The deal collapsed in April 2019, citing failure to meet conditions precedent.

Other rescue talks followed. Utico, a UAE utility firm, proposed a deal that included partial recovery for retail investors, but negotiations stalled amid disputes over governance.

Aqua Munda, a debt investment firm, made a bid to purchase Hyflux’s debt at a discount, but the offer failed to progress. By mid-2020, Hyflux was effectively out of lifelines.

hqdefault.jpg
Play
PUB, the national water agency, eventually took over Tuaspring for zero dollars, citing its strategic importance. The Tuaspring power station was ultimately sold to YTL PowerSeraya in June 2022 for S$270 million in cash. Proceeds went largely to secured creditors, leaving little to nothing for retail investors.

Earlier versions of the deal had referenced a higher blended consideration, but this was revised before completion.

Leadership under scrutiny​

Olivia Lum’s reputation, once woven into the national narrative of grit and ingenuity, began to unravel in full view of the public. The turning point was not a single explosive revelation but a steady erosion of credibility.

At creditor meetings, her once-assured tone was replaced by defensive explanations, insisting the downturn could not have been foreseen and that Hyflux had “always acted in good faith.”

Court affidavits painted a more sobering picture: hundreds of millions channelled into overseas desalination and power projects that either underperformed or stalled entirely. In Algeria, a flagship desalination plant faced payment disputes; in Oman, delays and financing gaps eroded profitability.

Analysts, reading through the filings, noted the pattern — an engineering powerhouse in water treatment venturing into capital-intensive, low-margin energy markets without the deep sector experience or hedging strategy to match.

By late 2019, the investor-friendly image Lum had cultivated for decades had flipped. Retail holders, many of whom had attended her roadshows, accused her of minimising the risk profile of perpetuals. Former supporters described feeling “blindsided,” not just by the collapse but by the gap between the brand they were sold and the realities now surfacing.

In March 2020, Lum resigned as CEO, staying on as an adviser during the wind-down. Later that year, the Commercial Affairs Department, Monetary Authority of Singapore, and Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority launched joint investigations into possible disclosure and accounting breaches.

Even without charges at the time, the optics were damning — Singapore’s most celebrated entrepreneur now under formal scrutiny by three regulatory bodies.

hqdefault.jpg
Play

The human cost​

For those holding Hyflux perpetuals and preference shares, the collapse was an intimate financial shock. Many were retirees who had diverted CPF savings into what they believed was a safe, income-producing instrument. Others were middle-income professionals rolling over fixed deposits in search of better yields.

Outside Hyflux’s Kallang Bahru office, groups of retail investors gathered week after week. At heated town-hall-style meetings, voices were raised over the microphone, demanding not just repayment but accountability. The tone was part desperation, part disbelief — a sense that they had participated not in a speculative gamble, but in a trusted, almost patriotic investment.

People attend a protest at the Speakers’ Corner at Hong Lim Park on March 30, 2019. Hyflux investors staged a protest to vent their anger over the state of affairs at the troubled water treatment company.

People attend a protest at the Speakers’ Corner at Hong Lim Park on March 30, 2019. Hyflux investors staged a protest to vent their anger over the state of affairs at the troubled water treatment company.

The Straits Times
Hyflux protest organizer Alex speaks at the Speakers’ Corner at Hong Lim Park on March 30, 2019. Hyflux investors staged a protest to vent their anger over the state of affairs at the troubled water treatment company.

Hyflux protest organizer Alex speaks at the Speakers’ Corner at Hong Lim Park on March 30, 2019. Hyflux investors staged a protest to vent their anger over the state of affairs at the troubled water treatment company.

The Straits Times
Several formed action groups, pooling resources to hire legal counsel and lobby ministries. Letters were sent to Members of Parliament and government agencies, asking if more could have been done to protect retail investors from the complexities and risks of perpetual securities.

The government maintained its position that Hyflux’s instruments were commercial investments carrying inherent risks. For investors staring at near-total losses, this was cold comfort.

The emotional fallout went beyond financial spreadsheets. Some spoke of postponed retirements, homes put up for sale, and family relationships strained under the weight of lost savings. In the press, the human stories began to overshadow the corporate headlines.

Aftermath and lessons​

By 2024, Hyflux had ceased all meaningful operations, its assets either sold off or transferred. PUB assumed ownership of the Tuaspring desalination plant for zero dollars, ensuring water supply stability.

The Tuaspring power station changed hands in June 2022, sold to YTL PowerSeraya for S$270 million in cash — proceeds directed largely to secured creditors, leaving unsecured investors with virtually nothing.

The liquidation left a regulatory aftertaste. Industry observers debated whether the marketing of perpetuals and preference shares to retail investors should be restricted or accompanied by more explicit warnings.

While MAS had long classified these as higher-risk products, Hyflux’s collapse demonstrated that classification alone did little to ensure understanding.

For the corporate sector, Hyflux became a case study in the risks of overleveraging and venturing outside core expertise without robust contingency planning. Within Singapore’s tight-knit investment community, the name now carried cautionary weight — invoked in boardrooms and business schools as shorthand for the perils of tying a brand too closely to a single founder’s vision and judgment.

When symbols fall​

Hyflux’s rise had mirrored the nation’s own ambitions — nimble, resourceful, outward-looking. Its fall was a reminder that even the most celebrated companies can be undone by a convergence of market shifts, strategic miscalculations, and overconfidence.

It is tempting to frame the story as one of betrayal — of investors by a founder, of public trust by corporate mismanagement. But it is also a story of how success can harden into certainty.

For nearly three decades, Olivia Lum’s instincts had built Hyflux into a global player. That same certainty blinded the company to the structural fragility of its integrated model and the volatility of the power market.

The opening scene — elderly investors queued under a sweltering sky — lingers because it distils the human dimension of corporate collapse. Behind every balance sheet is a web of lives, and once that trust is gone, no restructuring plan can restore it.

In Singapore’s business memory, Hyflux will remain both an emblem of ambition realised and a cautionary tale of what happens when that ambition outruns its guardrails.
 

Playing down Tuaspring’s energy business the core of Hyflux’s investor relations strategy: Defence​

The prosecution’s second witness, Ms Winnifred Heap, the company’s former head of corporate communications and investor relations, was cross-examined on Aug 21.

The prosecution’s second witness, Ms Winnifred Heap, the company’s former head of corporate communications and investor relations, was cross-examined on Aug 21.

Aug 21, 2025

SINGAPORE – Playing down details of the energy component of the failed Tuaspring project while highlighting Hyflux’s strength in water treatment was the core of the company’s investor relations strategy, a court was told on Aug 21.

Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, defence counsel for Hyflux founder Olivia Lum, sought to downplay allegations that she and former chief financial officer Cho Wee Peng had given input to “play down” these details in the announcement to the market and investors.

Hyflux eventually issued preference shares to fund the integrated water and power project. The company’s collapse, due to weak electricity sales, left about 34,000 investors of perpetual securities and preference shares, who had sunk in a combined $900 million, with nothing.


Lum is charged with having consented to Hyflux’s intentional non-disclosure on March 7, 2011, by withholding information on the project. Cho was charged with conniving in Hyflux’s omission to disclose the information about Tuaspring, while four independent directors – Teo Kiang Kok, Gay Chee Cheong, Christopher Murugasu and Lee Joo Hai – are also accused of neglect in relation to this.

The prosecution’s second witness, Ms Winnifred Heap, the company’s former head of corporate communications and investor relations, was cross-examined on a series of e-mail messages with attachments of various drafts of a March 7, 2011, news release announcing Hyflux being named preferred bidder for the Tuaspring project.

Referring to a Jan 19, 2011, e-mail she had sent to Lum, Cho and former Hyflux legal counsel Yang Ai Chian, in which Ms Heap said “the key is to play down energy, while highlighting our expanded bench strength and core capabilities”, Mr Singh asked: “This sentence encapsulates the core if not the substance of the IR (investor relations) strategy, which is to emphasise the growth aspects, not the utilities aspects, and also to emphasise the core capabilities?”

Ms Heap replied: “Fair.”

He continued: “This was openly said to everyone in the e-mail because it was openly known to everyone that this was the IR strategy, correct?”

Ms Heap said: “IR strategy aside, sometimes before an announcement, more details have to be given... You don’t want to send out the wrong signal or message. We may not have sufficient information on the energy segment.”


By that, Mr Singh clarified, she meant that this wasn’t information she would have sought because there were a lot of unknown variables about Tuaspring, which was not operational at the time, and there was uncertainty over what would happen after the plant was built.

When asked if she remembered her discussions on the draft announcements with Lum, Cho and the investment team, Ms Heap said: “We would have discussed the content of the announcement.”

But she couldn’t remember what was said between her and Mr Nah Tien Liang, then head of the investment team, Lum and Cho.

“And the reason you cannot remember is because it happened 15 years ago?” Mr Singh asked.

Ms Heap replied: “I cannot remember because I am 63 years old.”

Mr Singh then cross-examined her on the various drafts of the announcement of Hyflux’s win of the Tuaspring project.

“In preparing the drafts of the announcement, you and your team would have regard of a number of matters.

“Firstly, what are the facts? When you don’t have the facts, you would ask for them from relevant people? Secondly, the positioning of the company in the announcements. Thirdly, to ensure the positioning is consistent with the strategy which the company adopted for investor relations, and fourthly, compliance with the listing rules?”

Ms Heap agreed.

Referring to a Dec 20, 2010, draft of the announcement, Mr Singh asked: “Had this draft been approved by senior management and the board, a press release in this draft would have been issued. You were satisfied that the draft, when issued in this form, would satisfy the four matters I listed earlier?”

Ms Heap agreed.

This draft included the paragraphs: “Integrated within the design of Tuas II desalination plant is a 411MW combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power plant, which will supply electricity directly to the desalination plant. The remaining capacity will be sold through Singapore’s wholesale electricity market, the National Electricity Market of Singapore, to electricity retailers and subsequently to contestable consumers.”

Mr Singh asked: “There is nothing in the draft to mention revenue from the sale of electricity from Tuaspring Project’s power plant was projected to make up the significant majority of the Tuaspring Project’s revenue, or the profitability of the Tuaspring Project was contingent on revenue from the sale of electricity from the power plant?”

And “there’s nothing here in this draft that Tuaspring was Hyflux’s expansion into new business of selling electricity?”

Ms Heap replied: “No.”

The hearing continues.
 

Hyflux’s ex senior VP of energy edited out some details of Tuaspring energy component in news release​


Ms Winnifred Heap was Hyflux’s head of corporate communications and investor relations at the time.


Ms Winnifred Heap was Hyflux’s head of corporate communications and investor relations at the time.

Aug 20, 2025

SINGAPORE – The information omitted from early drafts of a news release about Hyflux’s Tuaspring project could have been inconsistent with the company’s investor relations strategy, a court heard on Aug 20.

This information was related to the energy component of the project. At the time, Hyflux’s strategy was to focus on being a growth company to get better market valuations, rather than a utilities company.

In his cross-examination of Ms Winnifred Heap, the prosecution’s second witness, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh drew the court’s attention to certain e-mails sent when Hyflux was drafting the March 7, 2011 news release.


They showed that Ms Camille Hurn, Hyflux’s former senior vice-president of energy and infrastructure development, had raised concerns that “could be related to utilities and its IR (investor relations) strategy”.

Mr Singh, the lead counsel for Hyflux founder Olivia Lum, noted that this concern was raised even before the draft went to Lum and former chief financial officer Cho Wee Peng.

Lum, Cho and the four independent directors – Teo Kiang Kok, Gay Chee Cheong, Christopher Murugasu and Lee Joo Hai – are each charged with Hyflux’s failure to disclose material information on the Tuaspring project.

Lum is accused of having consented to Hyflux’s intentional non-disclosure on March 7, 2011, by withholding information on the project.

Cho was charged with conniving in Hyflux’s omission to disclose the information about Tuaspring, while the four board members are also accused of neglect in relation to this.

On Aug 20, Mr Singh took Ms Heap, the company’s head of corporate communications and investor relations at the time, through a series of her presentations to Hyflux’s risk management committee.


In these presentations, managing shareholder confidence was a growing focus, and the key was for Hyflux to position itself as a growth company.

Building a strong pipeline of projects, including Tuaspring, was one strategy to achieve this, Mr Singh added.

Prior to Hyflux being named preferred bidder for the Tuaspring project in March 2011, concerns over the water treatment company being rerated from a growth company to a utility company emerged in one such meeting with its risk management committee in January 2011.

In one section, Ms Heap had presented on the difference between a growth company and a utilities company.

According to minutes from that meeting, she had said: “Once a growth company proves that it can deliver results, the market rewards them ahead of time, such an example being Apple Inc.

“On the other hand, the PE (price to earnings) ratio of a utilities company is comparatively lower and the market only rewards the company when delivery is proven.”

When asked by the prosecution on Aug 19 why concerns emerged over the possibility of Hyflux being rerated, Ms Heap responded: “I don’t think there was a concern.

“It’s more a fact that as a listed company, you need to know how you are positioned and what is your strategy.

“So I think the idea of this risk management meeting was really to set up some kind of a discipline surrounding that.”

In his cross-examination on Aug 20, Mr Singh also made reference to this meeting.

What was being discussed was the importance of keeping that positioning, so that the market will continue to treat Hyflux as a growth company, he said.

“As far as you were concerned, this was an exercise conducted in good faith, not just in Hyflux but in the interests of its shareholders. And it was an exercise to continue positioning of Hyflux as a growth company truthfully?” he asked.

Ms Heap agreed.

He also asked what she meant by setting up “some kind of a discipline”, to which she responded: “It’s really a process you want to put in place, take feedback from shareholders and stakeholders, and look at their concerns.”

Mr Singh asked if the exercise to put this process in place “was being conducted honestly and truthfully”. Ms Heap concurred.

She had earlier told the court that the risk management committee discussed the need to grow Hyflux’s order book and continue to win new contracts, as existing long-term contracts tend to provide recurring income but “might not give the delta incremental growth”.

This was a vital difference, Mr Singh pointed out, as the market would value differently a growth company that continues to win new orders and contracts, from a utilities company earning income from long-term contracts.


When asked about whether divestments were part of Hyflux’s business model, Ms Heap replied: “We call that capital recycling. The capital requirements for a water plant can be quite huge.

“The idea is to recycle assets and get the valuation out of it and reinvest into another water plant. The strength is the company has expertise to originate new water plants.”

Mr Singh asked: “And the feedback you received from major shareholders and analysts’ reports led you to present that... as key shareholders have been increasing their holdings, it is important to continue to position the company as a growth company, and therefore important to continue to do so for the purpose of its valuations?”

Ms Heap replied: “Correct”.

Mr Singh pointed to a slide in a Jan 21, 2011 presentation by Cho and Ms Heap, during a risk management meeting on managing shareholder confidence.

The slide said that “Hyflux trades at 24 times earnings because the company is perceived as more than just a water (utilities) owner.”

Mr Singh pointed to another news release on Jan 11, 2011 announcing that Hyflux will invest US$45 million in three build-own-transfer water projects in Chong Qing city, underscoring confidence in the potential of the Chinese municipal water business.

“This was in line with the messaging of Hyflux as a world-leading fully integrated water solutions company? And it focused on matters related to the growth model, by reference to order wins?” he asked.

Ms Heap agreed.


She was also cross-examined on a Dec 20, 2010 e-mail chain, relating to the draft announcement of Hyflux being named preferred bidder of Tuaspring.

The draft had been sent to Mr Nah Tien Liang, who was head of the investment team, Ms Hurn and Ms Seah Mei Kiang, for fact-checking before it was presented to Lum and Cho.

In one e-mail, Ms Hurn had said she agreed with Mr Nah that Tuaspring’s desalination plant and power plant would be owned by the same company.

She added: “Am not sure if we need to go into detail about our energy retailing arm, so have completely deleted that sentence.”

The detail refers to a part in the draft that states: “The remaining capacity will be sold through Singapore’s wholesale electricity market, the National Electricity Market of Singapore to electricity retailers and subsequently to contestable customers.”

Mr Singh asked Ms Heap: “Would I be right to say you cannot remember if you spoke to Camille or e-mailed or contacted her to discuss this comment of hers?”

Ms Heap replied: “I am trying to recall. I could have walked over to discuss with her. But don’t remember doing so.”

Mr Singh also asked: “The intent behind your version of the draft was not to say this is a utilities company, but is integrated?”

Ms Heap said: “Correct.”


Mr Singh pointed out that he had spent much of his cross-examination on Ms Heap’s presentations that focused on Hyflux as a growth company, not a utilities company.

“You yourself said there’s a difference between growth and utility,” he told Ms Heap.

“The last thing you want to do is give (the) message to (the) public Hyflux is getting into the utilities business with earnings over a long period of time?”

She replied: “This thought process didn’t occur.”

Mr Singh pointed out: “If anyone involved in the process thought the messaging was inconsistent with your IR strategy, it would be reasonable to raise it?

“...Camille raised a concern and you can’t even remember asking her for the reason for her concern?”

Ms Heap said she could not remember.

“And so, here was a senior management person raising a concern which could be related to utilities and IR strategy, you did nothing to understand it?” he asked.

Ms Heap replied: “I cannot remember.”

The hearing continues.
 

Presentations to board, analysts on Hyflux’s Tuaspring disclosed planned electricity sales: Defence​

The prosecution’s second witness, Ms Winnifred Heap, the company’s former head of corporate communications and investor relations, was cross-examined on Aug 21.


The prosecution’s second witness, Ms Winnifred Heap, the company’s former head of corporate communications and investor relations, was cross-examined on Aug 21.

Summary
  • Hyflux's defence argues pre-release materials show intentions to sell excess electricity from the Tuaspring project
  • A Q&A document prepared before the announcement anticipated questions about power market oversupply and clarified the intention to sell excess electricity.
  • The defence highlighted internal communications indicating awareness that desalination tariffs would be subsidised by electricity sale revenues.
AI generated

Aug 21, 2025

SINGAPORE – The defence for Hyflux founder Olivia Lum argued that presentation materials made to the board and the market before a March 7, 2011, news release of the company winning the Tuaspring project showed it did not fail to disclose information about its plans to go into the business of selling electricity.

“The team was prepared to share information that excess electricity would be sold in the wholesale market and offer retail contracts to consumers,” Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, lead counsel for Hyflux founder Olivia Lum, said on the sixth day of the criminal trial.

He pointed to a presentation stating this intention in his cross-examination of Ms Winnifred Heap on Aug 21.


She is the company’s former head of corporate communications and investor relations and the prosecution’s second witness.

Hyflux eventually issued preference shares to fund the integrated water and power project. The company’s collapse, due to weak electricity sales, left about 34,000 investors of perpetual securities and preference shares, who had sunk in a combined $900 million, with nothing.

Lum is charged with having consented to Hyflux’s intentional non-disclosure on March 7, 2011, by withholding information on the project.

Former chief financial officer Cho Wee Peng is charged with conniving in Hyflux’s omission to disclose the information about Tuaspring, while four independent directors – Teo Kiang Kok, Gay Chee Cheong, Christopher Murugasu and Lee Joo Hai – are also accused of neglect in relation to this.

Ahead of the March 7, 2011, announcement of Hyflux’s win, the company had prepared a list of questions it anticipated would be raised by investors and analysts at a briefing as well as the answers. The Q&A was also disseminated to the management team for review.

Among the questions anticipated was one on the oversupply situation in the power market at the time and a possible negative impact on electricity prices. Hyflux, in response, had said it anticipated some oversupply in the first two to three years, but demand was growing strongly.

The Q&A also included a question on whether Hyflux intended to sell the excess electricity as the maximum energy demand from the desalination plant was 60MW, but the company was building a 411MW plant.

Hyflux had answered “yes”.

“Looking at the answers in this Q&A, it appears whoever is responsible for providing facts for the answers was not holding back anything. They were freely sharing the facts,” Mr Singh said.

Ms Heap agreed.

But she said she could not remember if this was the final version of the Q&A, nor could she recall what questions were asked by the analysts during their briefing in March 2011.

Mr Singh asked: “Regarding why Hyflux is entering the power market, was the intention to tell analysts that the majority of output from the power plant would generate the revenue?”


Ms Heap replied: “It is not so clear in this Q&A.”

Pointing to a presentation slide titled “Delivering a cost-effective water solution – Energy a major operating cost component for a desalination plant”, Mr Singh asked: “So that’s understood to mean that the lower the tariff, the lower the yield. So you would need subsidy from revenue from the sale of electricity?”

Ms Heap agreed.

Mr Singh argued earlier on Aug 21 that playing down details of the energy component of Tuaspring, while highlighting Hyflux’s strength in water treatment, was the core of its investor relations (IR) strategy.

He was disputing allegations that Lum and Cho had given input to “play down” these details in the drafting of the March 7, 2011, announcement.

Mr Singh referred to a Jan 19, 2011, e-mail that Ms Heap had sent to Lum, Cho and former Hyflux legal counsel Yang Ai Chian, in which she said “the key is to play down energy, while highlighting our expanded bench strength and core capabilities”.

He asked: “This sentence encapsulates the core, if not the substance, of the IR strategy, which is to emphasise the growth aspects, not the utilities aspects, and also to emphasise the core capabilities?”

Ms Heap replied: “Fair.”

He then asked: “This was openly said to everyone in the e-mail because it was openly known to everyone that this was the IR strategy, correct?”

The defence also cited a slide presentation titled “The 5 Tens”, in which Lum, Cho and Ms Heap briefed the board on Hyflux’s 10-year targets from 2011 to 2020.

Hyflux’s targets included growing a $10 billion order book, and becoming a $10 billion market capitalisation company.

“That’s consistent with the strategy to focus on order wins for the order book... and billions in assets and management?” Mr Singh asked.

Ms Heap replied: “I think this was the fund management’s approach.”

Asked if she remembered her discussions on the draft announcements with Lum, Cho and the investment team, Ms Heap said: “We would have discussed the content of the announcement.”

But she could not remember what was said between her and Mr Nah Tien Liang, then head of the investment team, Lum and Cho.

“And the reason you cannot remember is because it happened 15 years ago?” Mr Singh asked.

Ms Heap replied: “I cannot remember because I am 63 years old.”

Mr Singh pointed out that it was openly made known in Cho’s briefing to the Tuas board on Feb 22, 2011, that “management understood that the desalination tariffs were going to be competitive and are to be subsidised from revenue from the sale of electricity”.

“The yield for Tuaspring will come largely from the sale of electricity, and profits will come from the sale of electricity. None of that was hidden from management?” he asked.

Ms Heap agreed.

Mr Singh continued: “And no one... suggested that the March 7, 2011, announcement had to include further information to comply by way of disclosure or with listing rules?”

Ms Heap replied: “Correct.”

The hearing resumes on Sept 1.
 
Back
Top