Banks, IT, etc, the corporate scene here is littered with people like Vikas Goel:
Business Times - 15 Nov 2011
Nicky Tan's role takes centre stage in court hearing
Litigants argue over discrepancies in evidence
By LYNETTE KHOO
(SINGAPORE) The role of corporate restructuring specialist Nicky Tan in Teledata's 2007 investment in eSys Technologies took centre stage at the High Court yesterday.
His lawyer, Edwin Tong from Allen & Gledhill, argued that Mr Tan's advice was adopted in structuring the proposed Teledata investment. But eSys founder Vikas Goel claimed that the structure was based on discussions between Teledata and himself.
Some discrepancies also emerged.
Mr Goel has said in his pleadings this year against Mr Tan's company, nTan Corporate Advisory, that the investment from Teledata never came in.
But in his affidavits filed in July and October 2008 to resist Seagate's application for a Mareva injunction, Mr Goel claimed that Teledata paid US$55 million to Rainforest, the holding firm of eSys. Mr Goel is the sole director of Rainforest.
During cross-examinations yesterday, Mr Goel told the court that he knew that a sum totalling US$55 million went into Rainforest between December 2006 and February 2007 but each time, within days of receipt, such instalments were transferred back to Teledata with the latter promising to pay back with 12 per cent interest.
Mr Tong, who had represented Seagate in its injunction application, brought up the discrepancy yesterday, saying that Mr Goel's evidence is inconsistent with his previous statements on oath.
'You will have no hesitation saying one thing on oath when it suits you and another thing completely different when it does not. You make up your case as you go along,' Mr Tong argued.
'Not true, sir,' Mr Goel retorted. 'What you are doing is you are taking out one para from here, one para from there, and twisting and turning around with the words. I stand by my statement.'
eSys is suing nTan for allegedly owing a partial refund of a $2 million deposit and an explanation for some $733,440 billed for time costs and out-of-pocket expenses.
nTan has countersued, claiming that it played a pivotal role in steering eSys through its financial distress in 2006 and that it is entitled to the value-added fees (VAF) stipulated in its engagement letter. It has declined requests from eSys to refund the balance of the $2 million deposit as its estimate of the VAF, over and above time costs, is close to $10 million.
In November 2006, major eSys client Seagate terminated a distribution agreement, sending eSys into a cash crunch as creditors panicked and demanded immediate repayment.
To hire nTan, eSys deposited $2 million with the company. The engagement terms stated that the fees to nTan would be based on time costs, out-of-pocket expenses and VAF computed as 5 per cent of the total gross value added (TGVA).
But just three months later, in February, eSys terminated nTan's services - just before an investment by Teledata was close to completion.
In its lawsuit, eSys is arguing that nTan had not done meaningful work to deserve the VAF. But nTan claims that it had calmed creditors then and that the final structure of the Teledata deal, which was to have funds injected into a special purpose vehicle that owns shares in eSys, was its idea.
Mr Goel continued to decline simple 'yes' or 'no' answers yesterday, prompting Justice Lai Siu Chiu again to tell him to 'answer the question'.
Mr Goel argued that nTan's appointment as eSys financial adviser did not work to eSys's favour, pointing out that its creditors had demanded that it appointed PwC to monitor the repayment. And since the Teledata deal does not fall within the scope of the engagement letter with nTan, this is not relevant to the VAF, he asserted.
But he conceded that there was no documentation showing that eSys was dissatisfied with the investment structure first proposed in the draft share subscription agreement with Teledata.
Copyright © 2010 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.
Business Times - 15 Nov 2011
Nicky Tan's role takes centre stage in court hearing
Litigants argue over discrepancies in evidence
By LYNETTE KHOO
(SINGAPORE) The role of corporate restructuring specialist Nicky Tan in Teledata's 2007 investment in eSys Technologies took centre stage at the High Court yesterday.
His lawyer, Edwin Tong from Allen & Gledhill, argued that Mr Tan's advice was adopted in structuring the proposed Teledata investment. But eSys founder Vikas Goel claimed that the structure was based on discussions between Teledata and himself.
Some discrepancies also emerged.
Mr Goel has said in his pleadings this year against Mr Tan's company, nTan Corporate Advisory, that the investment from Teledata never came in.
But in his affidavits filed in July and October 2008 to resist Seagate's application for a Mareva injunction, Mr Goel claimed that Teledata paid US$55 million to Rainforest, the holding firm of eSys. Mr Goel is the sole director of Rainforest.
During cross-examinations yesterday, Mr Goel told the court that he knew that a sum totalling US$55 million went into Rainforest between December 2006 and February 2007 but each time, within days of receipt, such instalments were transferred back to Teledata with the latter promising to pay back with 12 per cent interest.
Mr Tong, who had represented Seagate in its injunction application, brought up the discrepancy yesterday, saying that Mr Goel's evidence is inconsistent with his previous statements on oath.
'You will have no hesitation saying one thing on oath when it suits you and another thing completely different when it does not. You make up your case as you go along,' Mr Tong argued.
'Not true, sir,' Mr Goel retorted. 'What you are doing is you are taking out one para from here, one para from there, and twisting and turning around with the words. I stand by my statement.'
eSys is suing nTan for allegedly owing a partial refund of a $2 million deposit and an explanation for some $733,440 billed for time costs and out-of-pocket expenses.
nTan has countersued, claiming that it played a pivotal role in steering eSys through its financial distress in 2006 and that it is entitled to the value-added fees (VAF) stipulated in its engagement letter. It has declined requests from eSys to refund the balance of the $2 million deposit as its estimate of the VAF, over and above time costs, is close to $10 million.
In November 2006, major eSys client Seagate terminated a distribution agreement, sending eSys into a cash crunch as creditors panicked and demanded immediate repayment.
To hire nTan, eSys deposited $2 million with the company. The engagement terms stated that the fees to nTan would be based on time costs, out-of-pocket expenses and VAF computed as 5 per cent of the total gross value added (TGVA).
But just three months later, in February, eSys terminated nTan's services - just before an investment by Teledata was close to completion.
In its lawsuit, eSys is arguing that nTan had not done meaningful work to deserve the VAF. But nTan claims that it had calmed creditors then and that the final structure of the Teledata deal, which was to have funds injected into a special purpose vehicle that owns shares in eSys, was its idea.
Mr Goel continued to decline simple 'yes' or 'no' answers yesterday, prompting Justice Lai Siu Chiu again to tell him to 'answer the question'.
Mr Goel argued that nTan's appointment as eSys financial adviser did not work to eSys's favour, pointing out that its creditors had demanded that it appointed PwC to monitor the repayment. And since the Teledata deal does not fall within the scope of the engagement letter with nTan, this is not relevant to the VAF, he asserted.
But he conceded that there was no documentation showing that eSys was dissatisfied with the investment structure first proposed in the draft share subscription agreement with Teledata.
Copyright © 2010 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.
