You may have read TODAY online’s report dated 16 August 2016 that the Court of Appeal has allowed AMAC Capital’s and Chew Eng Han’s appeals for unconditional leave to defend one tranche of the CHC’s investment into AMAC Capital’s Special Opportunities Fund (“SOF”) which remains outstanding and due to us to date.
Please note these appeals relate to the CIVIL SUIT and have nothing to do with the criminal appeals that are schedule to be heard next month in September.
As it has been a fairly complicated series of events, we would like to explain what has been happening in the civil suit so far:
- On 10 October 2014, CHC commenced a civil claim against AMAC Capital and Chew Eng Han for the sums of approximately $16m plus $5m interest that CHC invested into the SOF which had been outstanding for more than 2 years then. In the course of these civil proceedings, CHC obtained a default judgment against AMAC Capital (who failed to enter an appearance in the Suit) and applied for summary judgment against Chew Eng Han (which is an application to obtain judgment without the need for a trial). AMAC Capital subsequently applied to set aside the default judgment which CHC obtained against it.
- In June 2015, a Senior Assistant Registrar heard both applications and on the basis that AMAC Capital’s and Chew Eng Han’s defences were “shadowy”, the Court ordered that AMAC Capital and Chew are required to put up security in the sum of CHC’s claim (i.e., approximately S$21 million) to demonstrate his commitment to continue defending the Suit.
- On 19 June 2015, Chew appealed against this decision.
- In September 2015, A High Court Judicial Commissioner heard the appeals and ruled that Chew could defend three (out of four) tranches of investments made by CHC into the SOF, but for the fourth, which amounted to $9 million (in principal excluding interest), leave would only be granted to AMAC Capital and Chew if a sum of S$1.5 million was furnished as security.
- On 16 October 2015, Chew lodged appeals to the Court of Appeal against this second decision.
- On 16 August 2016, the Court of Appeal heard this appeal and ruled that there was insufficient difference between the fourth tranche of investment vis-à-vis the first, second and third tranches of investments in the SOF and since AMAC Capital and Chew already had leave to defend the first, second and third tranches, AMAC Capital and Chew should also be allowed to defend the fourth tranche of investment as well. As such, the Court of Appeal lifted the condition of paying S$1.5 million at the end of the hearing.
What this means is that this civil case is likely to go to trial. The full merits of CHC’s claim, and AMAC Capital’s and Chew’s defences will be canvassed at trial and determined by the Court then. CHC’s Management Board has been advised by its lawyers and maintains its position that it has not infringed the Moneylenders Act and will proceed with the Suit in accordance with the Court’s directions while taking advice from its lawyers.
The timing of this is unknown as yet but we believe it will not be before or during the upcoming appeal against the verdict of the criminal trial happening 15 to 21 September 2016.
Although this appears challenging, let’s remember to do all Pastor Kong has taught us this year: to TRUST in God, to REST in Him, to MEDITATE on His Word, and to have DETERMINED FAITH that all things work together for good for those who love God and are called according to His purpose.
This weekend we will celebrate our 27th anniversary as a church and God’s continued goodness and grace upon generations of City Harvesters. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful. (Hebrews 10:23)
Yours in Christ
City Harvest Church
Updated August 19, 2016