SINGAPORE: The head of Mediacorp’s Chinese news team and a former news veteran at Singapore Press Holdings ( SPH) daily Lianhe Zaobao are being sued by a businessman, who wants a purported loan of S$ 990, 000 ( US$ 740, 500 ) to be returned to him.
According to Mr. Ren Xin Wu, Mr. Chua Chim Kang and Ms. Lee Kuan Fung were using Homing Holdings, a holding firm for two companies that offered education and were experts in Mandarin-language occurrences, as working money.
Mr. Ren asserts that the money was refunded in three years starting with the date of the grant, but Mr. Chua and Ms. Lee’s attorneys allege that there was n’t a contract.
It is also alleged that in 2020, when the company was in severe islands, Ms Lee paid S$ 40, 000 in Homing Holdings money to a third-party firm called Goldciti.
Mr. Chua introduced the business to her, and the amount allegedly served as consulting services.
The celebrations alleged that this deal was fake because Homing Holdings wanted to funnel money away from the company and avoid paying its creditors.
At the same time, brokers for Homing Holdings, which has failed, are suing Ms Lee for supposedly breaching her moral obligations as chairman of the business, with Goldciti as a second accused.
The High Court on Tuesday ( Nov 12 ) held a civil trial for the two suits, with Mr. Chua and Ms. Lee’s attorneys arguing that the case lacks sufficient evidence to support their claims.
History OF THE CASE
According to her LinkedIn profile, Ms. Lee is a media former who worked for SPH for 18 years before leaving in May 2017. Mr. Chua serves as Mediacorp’s head and chief editor of Chinese media and current politics, as well as the organization’s Youth Editorial Initiative.
Mediacorp is CNA’s family business, too.  ,
He joined Mediacorp in 2018, but he originally held positions like managing director of the company’s Chinese Media Group.
Mr. Muthu Kumaran Muthu Santhana Krishnan of Kumaran Law and Mr. Salem Ibrahim, the pair’s attorney, are defending them.
According to the accused ‘ opening speech, Mr Ren, a Chinese member and French citizen, second met Mr Chua in 2015, when Mr Chua was an administrative with SPH.
At the time, Mr Chua had been in the internet business for about 15 times. Mr. Ren stated during a luncheon that he wanted to promote and raise the profile of an occasion sponsored by China Minsheng Investment Group.
Mr. Chua finally introduced Ms. Lee to Mr. Ren in order to help him achieve his objectives.
Ms. Lee worked for Lianhe Zaobao as well as the Central Integrated Newsroom as a “new development” editor in 2015, according to her people LinkedIn profile.
In its beginning speech, the defense claimed that Mr. Ren after had a successful project with SPH.
Eventually, the trio met to enjoy the trio’s success and exchange lunches, where Mr. Ren allegedly persuaded the two news veterans to form a partnership.
Homing Holdings was incorporated in June 2017. It served as the holding company for Lulele Learning Space and Luminaries Holdings, its operating business.
By acquiring nurseries and institutions, managing events and concerts, and promoting Mandarin, Luminaries was established.
Lulele Educational Services specialized in intellectual mentoring and tuition matching services.
” Chua was satisfied with his new work,” he said. However, he never took a full-time or an active part in Homing. On the other hand, Lee took the plunge”, said the military.
Mr. Ren purportedly insisted that Mr. Chua be given a 35 % stake in the business, despite the lawyers ‘ claims that he had no desire to be involved in daily operations and that he did not participate or own shares.
According to the defense, Ms. Lee later held those shares, which she also held as a chairman of the subsidiary companies.
According to the army, Mr Ren wanted Ms Lee to keep her work with SPH and get full-time, and this came to fruition.
Company was first good, but revenue dived when COVID-19 hit in 2020, the military said.
The attorneys claimed that Ren became angry and quickly requested that he return his$ 990,000 in Homing as a convertible product.  ,
WHAT MR REN, HOMING HOLDINGS ARE SEEKING
Mr Ren and Homing Holdings, which is in forced liquidation, are represented by Mr Harry Zheng Shengyang and Ms Jasmin Kang from Kelvin Chia Partnership.
Ms. Kang claimed in her opening statements that her case involved the siphoning of funds from the original by Ms. Lee.
Homing Holdings is suing Homing Holdings for the$ 40,000 that was paid for companies that were never provided as a result of the alleged fake contract, as well as for Ms. Lee’s inability to discharge her professional duties as the company’s director.
Additionally, Ms. Lee’s involvement in Ms. Kang’s event led to the economic damage of Homing Holdings, which she also claimed was the result of.
Ms. Kang said she will testify in court that Ms. Lee and Goldciti exchanged “repeatedly deceptive” information about how she and her husband had handled their liquidations.
Ms. Kang claimed that her client had provided Homing Holdings with a working capital loan of S$ 990,000 as part of Mr. Ren’s following lawsuit.
The business had to repay the loan after three times, or parties may have negotiated an improvement, reached a separate contract on settlement, or converted the payment into ownership.
But, when the loan was due, Ms Kang alleged that Ms Lee and Mr Chua failed, refused or neglected to get the product returned, in violation of their partnership with Mr Ren.
Ms. Kang cited the defense’s declare that Mr. Ren had” all kinds of tactics to press them” into paying the loan, saying that Mr. Ren was entitled to demand and demand payment.
Nothing more than Mr. Ren enforcing his constitutional rights, according to Ms. Kang, was the defense’s claim of so-called harassment.
Ms. Lee and Mr. Chua’s attorneys cited a notice of demand from Mr. Zheng, Mr. Ren’s attorney, that was publicly displayed on the wall next to Ms. Lee’s residence in 2020.
Ms Lee filed a complaint with the Law Society of Singapore ( LawSoc ) over this, and Mr Zheng was sanctioned.
But Ms Kang said this debate was “nothing more than a ruse” and a red fish. As LawSoc had now determined, Mr. Ren’s attorney did not purposefully humiliate Ms. Lee or engage in unfair behavior on purpose.
Ren’s lawyer was given a warning for for unwisely posting the demand on Lee’s back door without having the email first put in an envelope, according to Ms. Kang.
She claimed she had demonstrate during the test that Ms. Lee and Mr. Chua had agreed that they were bound by the terms of the agreement” by their do.”
Ms. Kang alleged that they had agreed to have the company pay Mr. Ren’s product back but failed to do so.
Mr Chua had apparently agreed to repay the loan physically, but likewise failed to do so, said the lawyer.
These activities caused Mr Ren to suffer damage and deterioration, said Ms Kang.
She wants Ms Lee and Mr Chua to return the$ 990,000 to Mr Ren, as well as a claim that Ms Lee harmed Homing Holdings by breaking agreements with other businesses to the detriment of Homing Holdings.
In the option, she asked for problems to be assessed against Ms Lee, with interest and fees.
Mr. Salem, who is bringing the case against Ms. Lee and Mr. Chua, claimed that Mr. Ren’s claim will not be supported by any of the judge’s witness’s video evidence.
He claimed he would support the court by conducting cross-examination rather than making “allegations or shaved statements”.
He claimed that there was a” set-up” in order to convince Mr. Chua to agree to pay for the loan and refinance his home and that he” may not be able to move away from what he said in the letters or in the WhatsApp markets.”
Mr. Salem called this incident” an abuse of process” and claimed that some businesses lost money throughout COVID-19, causing some businesses to continue to suffer today.
The lawyer claimed that Mr. Ren may be suing for breach of fiduciary responsibility even if there was proof that Ms. Lee had breached her contract. The company in liquidation should file a complaint about it, according to the lawyer.
The test continues.