Koh family behind Aspial Corporation puts 15 East Village retail units up for sale at S$71.8 million
According to checks by The Business Times, these units are held by World Class Developments and entities or individuals linked to the Koh family behind Catalist-listed Aspial Corp.
East Village, completed in 2014, is a five-storey freehold development built by World Class Developments, a unit of Aspial Corporation. Aspial, whose business spans jewellery retail, pawnbroking and real estate, is helmed by Koh Wee Seng, brother of Fragrance Group's executive chairman, James Koh Wee Meng.
The development comprises 108 retail units on the ground floor and 90 residential units above the retail podium. It is near several landed estates, and Tanah Merah MRT station is a 15-minute walk away.
The 15 shop units being marketed were first put up for sale in 2022, as part of a 17-unit cluster, for S$83 million. Two units were sold in May 2025 to an individual buyer.
The current guide price of S$71.8 million translates to about S$4,110 per square foot (psf), based on the units' total strata area of 17,482 square feet (sq ft), marketing agent CBRE said on Wednesday (Aug 20).
A NEWSLETTER FOR YOU
Tuesday, 12 pm Property Insights
Get an exclusive analysis of real estate and property news in Singapore and beyond.
Sign Up
Sign Up
The individual units range from 431 sq ft to 6,985 sq ft, and can be purchased as part of the portfolio or separately. Twelve units have main-road frontage, outdoor refreshment areas and direct access to the carpark.
All units are currently leased, providing immediate rental income and potential for capital appreciation and rental upside, CBRE said.
Eleven units have approved food & beverage (F&B) usage, and one is a clinic; an Anytime Fitness gym occupies three adjoining units. Tenants include Liho, Katong Mei Wei Chicken Rice and Hong Kong Street Family Restaurant.
Joshua Giam, CBRE's director of capital markets, said: 'We have been witnessing strong demand for commercial properties, with the reduction of borrowing cost since the start of the year.'
The layout of the units, which have dedicated entrances and frontage access, mean tenants can carry out their business activities independent of the mall's standard operating hours, he added.
The most recent retail transaction in East Village took place in July, when a 161 sq ft unit changed hands for S$500,000 or S$3,097 psf.
The expression-of-interest exercise for the 15 units closes on Sep 18.
Fragrance Group founder and chairman James Koh owns hospitality, office, industrial and other assets, mainly in Singapore, through various privately-held entities. In 2021, he privatised the SGX-listed Fragrance Group, which also holds commercial property in Australia and the United Kingdom.
Through a business entity known as AF Global, James Koh and Koh Wee Seng own a 55 per cent stake in property consultancy, Knight Frank Singapore.
In October 2023, entities linked to James Koh bought two freehold industrial buildings for nearly S$101 million.
BT reported that he paid S$61 million for a five-storey property at 3 New Industrial Road, in the Upper Paya Lebar-Bartley area. The other property he bought, at nearly S$40 million, is at 3 Kallang Pudding Road.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Times
14 hours ago
- Business Times
Olivia Lum trial: What counts as non-disclosure?
[SINGAPORE] After years of struggling with the Tuaspring project, Hyflux was ordered to be wound up in 2021, closing a critical chapter in one of Singapore's most significant corporate collapses. Along with about 34,000 retail investors who lost S$900 million on the company's preference shares and perpetual securities, its lenders were also previously reported to have suffered close to S$1 billion in losses. While the liquidators, on behalf of the company, filed civil suits against former chief executive Olivia Lum for over S$690.6 million and former auditor KPMG for over S$684.6 million, public prosecutors went after Lum and other key executives for allegedly not disclosing material information regarding the Tuaspring Integrated Water and Power Plant. The charges In the trial that opened on Aug 11, Lum, former chief financial officer Cho Wee Peng, and four independent directors – Teo Kiang Kok, Gay Chee Cheong, Christopher Murugasu and Lee Joo Hai – are contesting the charges under Section 203 of the Securities and Futures Act (SFA). They are accused of intentionally failing to notify the Singapore Exchange (SGX) of crucial information about the Tuaspring project. The prosecution argues that Hyflux won the tender for the project with a bid that priced the desalinated water at a loss. The project's viability was allegedly contingent on a co-located power plant, which was to sell surplus electricity to the national grid. Revenue from this was meant to cover losses from the desalination plant. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up This pivot into the volatile energy market – a business in which Hyflux had no experience – was a fundamental risk that prosecutors say was not properly disclosed to retail and institutional investors who funded the project through a S$200 million preference share issue in 2011. The law assigns different degrees of culpability for this alleged failure. Lum is charged with consenting to the non-disclosure, Cho for conniving in it, and the independent directors for neglect. A second charge alleges that Lum and the four independent directors omitted the same material information in the offer prospectus for the preference shares in 2011. The capital-raising exercise was therefore supported by a deliberate omission of material information regarding Tuaspring's reliance on electricity sales and the associated risks from volatile power prices. What is non-disclosure? Under Rule 703(1)(b) of the SGX Listing Manual, a listed company is obliged to disclose information it knows about itself, its subsidiaries or associated companies if the information 'would be likely to materially affect the price or value of its securities'. According to the Singapore Institute of Directors, under Section 203 of the SFA, the intentional, reckless or negligent failure to notify the SGX of any such information is a criminal offence. Not announcing the material information immediately could create a 'false market' in the trading of its shares. A 'false market' is one where investors trade on incomplete or misleading information. The materiality test For the prosecution to succeed in a non-disclosure action, the withheld information must be proven to be 'material'. Singapore courts apply a two-pronged test to determine this. First, the information must prove to be 'materially price-sensitive', meaning it would likely cause a significant change in the price of the company's securities. The impact of the non-disclosed information on the share price is evaluated over a reasonable period of time, and not just on the first trading day after the announcement is released, according to case study notes by Venture Law. In the Hyflux case, the prosecution argues that revealing the Tuaspring project's dependence on the volatile electricity market would have fundamentally altered its risk profile and negatively impacted Hyflux's share value. Second, prosecutors in non-disclosure cases must show that the omitted information is 'trade-sensitive', meaning it would likely influence a reasonable investor's decision to buy, sell or hold the securities. Prosecutors contend that knowing Hyflux was entering a new and high-risk industry to subsidise its core business would have influenced any investor's decision. Potential penalties The SFA gives statutory force to the SGX's rules on non-disclosure, making a breach a potential criminal offence. If convicted of consenting to Hyflux's intentional non-disclosure, each of the accused may face up to seven years' jail, a fine of up to S$250,000, or both. For making an offer of securities to the public with omissions about the electricity sales, Lum and the four independent directors could additionally face up to two years' jail, a maximum fine of S$150,000, or both.
Business Times
14 hours ago
- Business Times
Olivia Lum trial: What is non-disclosure
[SINGAPORE] After years of struggling with the Tuaspring project, Hyflux was ordered to be wound up in 2021, marking a critical chapter in one of Singapore's most significant corporate collapses. Along with about 34,000 retail investors who lost S$900 million on the company's preference shares and perpetual securities, its lenders were also previously reported to have suffered close to S$1 billion in losses. While the liquidators, on behalf of the company, filed civil suits against former chief executive Olivia Lum for over S$690.6 million and former auditor KPMG for over S$684.6 million, public prosecutors went after Lum and other key executives for allegedly not disclosing material information regarding the Tuaspring Integrated Water and Power Plant. The charges The trial, which began on Aug 11, sees Lum, former chief financial officer Cho Wee Peng, and four independent directors – Teo Kiang Kok, Gay Chee Cheong, Christopher Murugasu and Lee Joo Hai – contesting charges under Section 203 of the Securities and Futures Act (SFA). They are accused of intentionally failing to notify the Singapore Exchange (SGX) of crucial information about the Tuaspring project. The prosecution argues that Hyflux won the tender for the project with a bid that priced the desalinated water at a loss. The project's viability was allegedly contingent on a co-located power plant selling surplus electricity to the national grid. Revenue from this was meant to cover losses from the desalination plant. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up This pivot into the volatile energy market – a business in which Hyflux had no experience – was a fundamental risk that prosecutors say was not properly disclosed to retail and institutional investors who funded the project through a S$200 million preference share issue in 2011. The law assigns different degrees of culpability for this alleged failure. Lum is charged with consenting to the non-disclosure, Cho for conniving in it, and the independent directors for neglect. A second charge alleges that Lum and the four independent directors omitted the same material information in the offer prospectus for the preference shares in 2011. The capital-raising exercise was therefore supported by a deliberate omission of material information regarding Tuaspring's reliance on electricity sales and the associated risks from volatile power prices. What is non-disclosure? Under Rule 703(1)(b) of the SGX Listing Manual, listed companies are obliged to disclose information it knows about itself, its subsidiaries or associated companies if the information 'would be likely to materially affect the price or value of its securities'. According to the Singapore Institute of Directors, under Section 203 of the SFA, the intentional, reckless or negligent failure to notify the SGX of any such information is a criminal offence. Not announcing the material information immediately could create a 'false market' in the trading of its shares. A 'false market' is one where investors trade on incomplete or misleading information. The materiality test For the prosecution to succeed in a non-disclosure action, the withheld information must be proven to be 'material'. Singapore courts apply a two-pronged test to determine this. First, the information must prove to be 'materially price-sensitive', meaning it would likely cause a significant change in the price of the company's securities. The impact of the non-disclosed information on the share price is evaluated over a reasonable period of time and not just on the first trading day after the announcement is released, according to case study notes by Venture Law. In the Hyflux case, the prosecution argues that revealing the Tuaspring project's dependence on the volatile electricity market would have fundamentally altered its risk profile and negatively impacted Hyflux's share value. Second, prosecutors in non-disclosure cases must show that the omitted information is 'trade-sensitive', meaning it would likely influence a reasonable investor's decision to buy, sell, or hold the securities. Prosecutors contend that knowing Hyflux was entering a new and high-risk industry to subsidise its core business would have influenced any investor's decision. Potential penalties The SFA gives statutory force to the SGX's rules on non-disclosure, making a breach a potential criminal offence. If convicted of consenting to Hyflux's intentional non-disclosure, each of the accused may face up to seven years' jail, a fine of up to S$250,000, or both. For making an offer of securities to the public with omissions about the electricity sales, Lum and the four independent directors could additionally face up to two years' jail, a maximum fine of S$150,000, or both.
Business Times
20 hours ago
- Business Times
Data centre firm Equinix issues S$650 million in green bonds to fund sustainable projects
[SINGAPORE] Global data centre operator Equinix on Thursday (Aug 21) announced its issuance of S$650 million in green bonds in Singapore. The offering comprises 2.9 per cent senior notes due in 2032. They closed on Aug 21. The Nasdaq-listed company said that the bonds will be used to advance its sustainability commitments and reduce its environmental impact globally. The company said: 'Proceeds from the offering will be allocated towards future eligible green projects, which will include green buildings, clean and renewable energy, energy efficiency, resource conservation, decarbonisation solutions and climate-change adaptation.' It also said that its allocation strategy involves covering project expenditures for up to two years before issuing the bonds and three years following the issuance of such bonds. Yee May Leong, Singapore managing director at Equinix, said: 'By utilising green financing, we can accelerate innovations in energy-efficient infrastructure and clean and renewable energy, and address the growing demands of artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies like liquid cooling.' As Equinix's second Singapore issuance, it follows the company's debut S$500 million Singapore green bond offering in March. Both offerings bring its total amount raised in Singapore to more than S$1 billion. DBS, HSBC, OCBC and Standard Chartered served as joint global coordinators, joint lead managers and book runners for the offering. DBS was the sole green bond structuring agent.
