Latest news with #OliviaLum
CNA
9 minutes ago
- Business
- CNA
Hyflux trial: Ex-CEO Olivia Lum's lawyer grills lead investigation officer
SINGAPORE: The lead defence counsel for Olivia Lum Ooi Lin, the former chief executive officer of now-defunct homegrown water treatment firm Hyflux, on Monday (Aug 11) grilled the investigation officer in charge of a probe into the company's top officers about the way she handled the investigation. Lum, 64, is on trial for two charges under the Securities and Futures Act for leaving out information about Hyflux's Tuaspring project pertaining to its sales of electricity in two key public statements in 2011. Hyflux successfully bid for the project in 2011, in response to a tender conducted by the Public Utilities Board, now known as PUB. The project had been pitched to the market as Hyflux's second and largest seawater desalination plant in Tuas, with the company raising S$400 million (US$310 million) from the issuance of preference shares. However, the company allegedly did not reveal at the time that it would fund the sale of water at a very low price to national water agency PUB, with a new business of selling electricity from a power plant it would build. Hyflux, Singapore's first publicly listed water treatment and seawater desalination company, later suffered massive losses after a fall in electricity prices and entered liquidation in July 2021. The collapse of the company left investors with significant losses, including about 34,000 investors holding perpetual securities and preference shares who were owed a total of S$900 million. DAVINDER SINGH PLACES IO UNDER CROSSHAIRS On Monday afternoon, Lum's lead lawyer Senior Counsel Davinder Singh questioned the prosecution's first witness about the manner in which she had taken statements from Lum. In response to his questioning, lead investigating officer Wei Maojun, Jacqueline from the Commerical Affairs Department (CAD) shared her background: She studied accountancy at Nanyang Technological University before joining PricewaterhouseCoopers as an audit associate. She then joined the CAD in 2014. "So you have never been in the industry? In the market, in listed companies?" asked Mr Singh. "Yes," said Ms Wei. She added: "I may not have had experience in the corporate world, but in my experience as an investigator ... we do (understand) the (SGX) listing rules. Besides that, we did seek views from regulators, experts and the prosecution before ... (framing) the charges," she said. She had agreed earlier to Mr Singh's suggestion that she had been the one who came up with what was defined as the omitted information in the charges faced by Lum. Initially, she said she approached a securities expert, Mr Kevin Gin, before the investigations into the case commenced. She agreed that she had provided Mr Gin with a document called "terms of reference", where she asked Mr Gin to assume certain facts concerning the allegedly omitted information in forming his expert opinion. Mr Singh questioned Ms Wei on when she provided the terms of reference to Mr Gin, but she said she could not remember. "You see it's interesting that you say that about events that took place just two to three years ago. You can't remember, right?" said Mr Singh. "You were the IO in charge of this investigation. And getting expert opinion was an important part of this investigation." The judge intervened and said it would not be fair to ask Ms Wei on the stand like that to test her memory, asking if she could look at some notes or her diary. Mr Singh then showed evidence to Ms Wei that the terms of reference had been given to Mr Gin in December 2023. "It would therefore appear, Ms Wei, that my client was charged in November 2022 about omitting the information, even before you obtained Mr Gin's expert report in relation to the implications of the omission of the information, correct?" asked the seasoned lawyer. Ms Wei agreed. "Therefore, I suggest to you that what happened was that, having come to the view of what the information was, which should have been included but was omitted, you then set about to get an expert to back you up on that, right?" asked Mr Singh. He also put it to Ms Wei that when Lum was charged, Ms Wei "did not even have Mr Gin's expert view on the implications of the omission of the information". Ms Wei disagreed and said the investigators had engaged Mr Gin and sought his view even before investigations commenced. However, she later agreed with Mr Singh when he said it was she who came up with the list of information that should have been disclosed and not Mr Gin. Mr Singh then repeatedly asked Ms Wei about specific questions she had asked Lum during her statement taking. He pointed out that Lum had stated many times that she simply could not recall because it had been nine or 10 years ago. At one point, Mr Singh parsed an answer by Lum in a police statement, saying that Lum was saying it happened 10 years ago and that she could not recall primarily because of the time gap. Ms Wei replied: "Possibly." "Not possibly, primarily," said Mr Singh. "You had trouble with two years ago." Ms Wei responded that it was not for her to speculate how Lum felt. CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT At another point, Mr Singh pointed Ms Wei to one question she had asked Lum during the statement recording, where Ms Wei asked Lum why Hyflux had not disclosed the "extent of the significant revenue exposure". Lum had said "I cannot remember why we didn't do so". She then added: "I also want to let you know that we have to abide (by) a confidentiality agreement signed with PUB, so there were limitations on the extent of disclosure we can make as well." Mr Singh questioned Ms Wei on whether she was aware about this confidentiality agreement. "Did you yourself check and confirm there was this confidentiality agreement?" asked Mr Singh. "I don't recall whether we did check whether there is a confidentiality agreement," answered Ms Wei. "But it's an important point that she made, right? And yet you didn't check it?" asked Mr Singh. "We asked if PUB would have concerns if they wanted to disclose (certain things), so in a way we did check," said Ms Wei. "But that's not answering my question," countered Mr Singh, repeating his question again. Ms Wei later said the investigators did ask for a few agreements between PUB and Hyflux, and they understood that as part of the agreement, there was "some confidentiality involved", with regard to the proposal and the purchase of water agreement. Mr Singh had earlier told the court that he would take at least the whole afternoon to cross-examine Ms Wei. Once he is done, the lawyers for the other accused former leaders of Hyflux will take their turns cross-examining Ms Wei on Tuesday. The others on trial are Cho Wee Peng, 56, former Hyflux chief financial officer; as well as former independent directors of Hyflux Gay Chee Cheong, 68; Teo Kiang Kok, 69; Murugasu Christopher, 66; and Lee Joo Hai, 69. The trial is set to continue until Wednesday this week, before resuming next Monday. Trial dates have been set as far as January next year. If convicted of consenting to Hyflux's intentional failure to disclose the electricity sale information to the securities exchange, Lum can be jailed for up to seven years, fined up to S$250,000, or both.
Singapore Law Watch
5 hours ago
- Business
- Singapore Law Watch
Criminal trial of Hyflux founder Olivia Lum and five others starts on Aug 11
Criminal trial of Hyflux founder Olivia Lum and five others starts on Aug 11 Source: Straits Times Article Date: 11 Aug 2025 Author: Grace Leong Olivia Lum faces charges for omitting key Tuaspring project details; the project's profitability depended on electricity sales, a new business for Hyflux. Six defendants, including Lum and former directors, contest charges related to disclosure failures; the trial is scheduled for 56 days. The long-awaited criminal trial of Hyflux founder and former chief executive Olivia Lum Ooi Lin, former chief financial officer (CFO) Cho Wee Peng and several former board members will start on Aug 11, nearly three years after they were charged with violations of the Securities and Futures Act. Already, one of the defendants has thrown in the towel. In total, seven individuals have been charged over Hyflux's intentional failure to disclose information relating to the Tuaspring Integrated Water and Power Project, among other things. But six are contesting their charges in a 56-day trial scheduled to run from Aug 11 to Feb 5, 2026. The charges were filed more than a year after the failed water treatment firm was approved for winding up in 2021, leaving about 34,000 investors of perpetual securities and preference shares, who had sunk in a combined $900 million, with nothing. On Aug 11, the prosecution will proceed on 11 charges against the six defendants. These include two of the six charges Lum faces. The remaining four charges against Lum are stood down. The two charges proceeding against Lum relate to her consenting to Hyflux omitting information relating to Tuaspring, when disclosure was required under Singapore Exchange (SGX) listing rules. This information was necessary to avoid the establishment of a false market in Hyflux's securities, the charge sheet said. According to the charge, she consented to intentionally failing to notify SGX that the Tuaspring project was Hyflux's expansion into a new business of selling electricity, and that the plant's profitability was contingent on electricity sales revenue, which was projected to make up a significant proportion of its overall revenue. This had implications for Tuaspring's resulting exposure to market risks arising from the volatility of electricity prices. If convicted of this charge, Lum, 64, faces up to seven years' jail, a fine of up to $250,000, or both. She was also charged over Hyflux's omission to disclose the information about Tuaspring in the offer information statement issued for the offer of $200 million, 6 per cent preference shares on April 13, 2011. If convicted of this charge, she faces up to two years' jail, a maximum fine of $150,000, or both. Cho, 56, who was also Hyflux's group executive vice-president, was charged with conniving in Hyflux's omission to disclose the information about Tuaspring. The former Hyflux independent directors (IDs) also charged with disclosure-related offences are: Teo Kiang Kok, 69; Christopher Murugasu, 66; Gay Chee Cheong, 69; and Lee Joo Hai, 69. The four men were charged with two counts each – one for neglect relating to Hyflux's failure to disclose information relating to Tuaspring as required, and another for omitting material information in the 2011 offer information statement. But one other independent director, Rajsekar Kuppuswami Mitta, on Aug 7 pleaded guilty to a charge of neglect in relation to an announcement by Hyflux to the SGX on March 7, 2011. The announcement stated that Hyflux had been named the 'preferred bidder' by national water agency PUB to build and operate Singapore's second and largest seawater desalination plant in Tuas for a concession period of 25 years. It also mentioned that a power plant would be built to supply electricity to the desalination plant, and that excess power would be sold to the power grid. But it did not disclose that Hyflux was going into the business of selling electricity for the first time. A second charge, for non-disclosure related to Hyflux's offer on April 13, 2011, was taken into consideration during sentencing. Rajsekar, a 68-year-old Australian citizen and Singapore permanent resident, was fined $90,000 over the company's failure to disclose information relating to the Tuaspring project in 2011 as required. He was also barred from acting as a company director for five years. Corporate governance advocate Mak Yuen Teen said that Rajsekar's sentence 'may be a combination of lower culpability and his guilty plea' before trial. In seeking the $90,000 fine for Rajsekar, Deputy Public Prosecutor Kevin Yong noted that the harm caused was high while Rajsekar's culpability was low. The prescribed sentence is a fine of up to $250,000, a jail term of up to seven years, or both. Corporate finance lawyer Robson Lee, a partner at Kennedys Law, noted: 'The fact that one independent director pleaded guilty before the start of trial does not affect the legal positions of the other IDs or executive director and CFO to defend the charges against each of them.' The charges against the seven followed a joint probe in June 2020 by the Commercial Affairs Department, the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority. The probe was initiated after a review of Hyflux's compliance with accounting and auditing standards, as well as disclosure rules. It looked at whether there were lapses in Hyflux's disclosures concerning the Tuaspring project, and non-compliance with accounting standards between 2011 and 2018. Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction. Print
CNA
7 hours ago
- Business
- CNA
Olivia Lum and other ex-Hyflux leaders go on trial over omissions to SGX about Tuaspring project
SINGAPORE: Four years after the High Court ordered the once-celebrated homegrown water treatment firm Hyflux to wind up, its leaders are going on trial over alleged omissions in communications to investors and the Singapore Exchange (SGX) regarding the Tuaspring Project. Issues with the project ultimately led to the company's collapse and millions in losses for investors. The six who went on trial on Monday (Aug 11) are mostly in their sixties. They are: Olivia Lum Ooi Lin, 64, then the CEO, director and executive chairman of the board of Hyflux; Cho Wee Peng, 56, former Hyflux chief financial officer; and independent directors of Hyflux Gay Chee Cheong, 68; Teo Kiang Kok, 69; Murugasu Christopher, 66; and Lee Joo Hai, 69. A seventh person in the case, former Hyflux independent director Rajsekar Kuppuswami Mitta, was fined S$90,000 (about US$70,000) last week after pleading guilty. The prosecution said in their opening statement that Hyflux was Singapore's first publicly listed water treatment and seawater desalination company. "The collapse resulted in significant losses to investors, including about 34,000 investors holding perpetual securities and preference shares who were owed a total of S$900 million," the prosecution said. Hyflux's collapse can be traced to the Tuaspring project, a project to design, build, own and operate Singapore's second and largest seawater reverse osmosis desalination plant in Tuas for a concession period of 25 years, with an on-site power plant providing electricity to the desalination plant. Hyflux successfully bid for the project in 2011, in response to a tender conducted by the Public Utilities Board, now known as PUB. Investors were led to believe that Tuaspring Project was primarily a desalination project, with Hyflux's announcement in March 2011 giving an impression that the power plant was to be built to supply power to the desalination plant. But in reality, the financial viability of the Tuaspring Project depended entirely on the sale of electricity, said the prosecutors. This meant that the Tuaspring Project exposed Hyflux to electricity market risks in what was a brand-new business for the company, said the prosecution. These material facts were allegedly not disclosed to the investing public, and the omission was purportedly repeated when the offer information statement was released to raise funds from the public. The prosecution is pursuing charges under the Securities and Futures Act (SFA) linked to two key public statements by Hyflux that contained material non-disclosures: The March 2011 announcement, forming the basis of certain charges against all six Hyflux ex-leaders, and the April 2011 offer information statement, which forms the basis of certain charges against five of them. Both documents allegedly failed to disclose the following: That the Tuaspring Project was Hyflux's expansion into a new business of selling electricity, that revenue from the sale of electricity from Tuaspring Project's power plant was projected to make up the significant majority of the project's revenue, and that the profitability of the project was contingent on revenue from the sale of electricity from the power plant. According to court records, a total of 57 days has been slated for the trial over two tranches between August and October and November and January. The trial is presided over by Principal District Judge Toh Han Li.
CNA
8 hours ago
- CNA
Former CEO of Hyflux Olivia Lum goes on trial
Scroll up for the next video X Former CEO of Hyflux Olivia Lum goes on trial
CNA
9 hours ago
- Business
- CNA
Trial to begin for former Hyflux CEO Olivia Lum, ex-CFO and directors
SINGAPORE: The trial of former Hyflux CEO Olivia Lum and five others begins on Monday (Aug 11) over the company's failure to disclose information about the Tuaspring integrated water and power project. This comes nearly three years after they were charged - the culmination of a dramatic downfall for the water treatment firm. Before Hyflux went into liquidation in July 2021, it was one of Singapore's most successful companies. Lum won accolades at a time when female founders were not common. She now faces a months-long trial, along with former chief financial officer Cho Wee Peng and four independent directors.
