Bloomberry v Global Gaming: Wrongful Termination & Fraud in Singapore Arbitration Enforcement

Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels Inc. and Sureste Properties, Inc. challenged a Partial Award in favor of Global Gaming Philippines LLC and GGAM Netherlands B.V. for wrongful termination of a Management Services Agreement. The High Court of Singapore, presided over by Belinda Ang Saw Ean J, dismissed the challenge, finding no evidence of fraud or corruption that would violate Singapore's public policy. The court also dismissed the application to set aside the enforcement orders, but allowed the time extension to the plaintiffs’ application to set aside HC/ORC 6609/2016 and the Enforcement Judgment made in default of the plaintiffs’ non-compliance with the relevant timeline. The plaintiffs' claim was to set aside the Partial Award and resist its enforcement.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application to resist enforcement of the Partial Award is dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court dismisses Bloomberry's challenge to enforce an arbitration award, finding no fraud or public policy violation in a wrongful termination dispute.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels Inc.PlaintiffCorporationApplication DismissedLostAlvin Yeo
Sureste Properties, IncPlaintiffCorporationApplication DismissedLostAlvin Yeo
Global Gaming Philippines LLCDefendantCorporationJudgment for DefendantWonCavinder Bull, Aaron Lee Teck Chye
GGAM Netherlands B.V.DefendantCorporationJudgment for DefendantWonCavinder Bull, Aaron Lee Teck Chye

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw EanJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Alvin YeoWong Partnership LLP
Cavinder BullDrew & Napier LLC
Aaron Lee Teck ChyeAllen & Gledhill LLP

4. Facts

  1. Bloomberry and Sureste (Plaintiffs) challenged a Partial Award favoring Global Gaming and GGAM Netherlands (Defendants).
  2. The dispute arose from the termination of a Management Services Agreement (MSA) for the Solaire Resort & Casino.
  3. Plaintiffs alleged wrongful termination of the MSA and claimed fraud and corruption by the Defendants.
  4. The Tribunal found in favor of the Defendants, stating no misrepresentations induced the Plaintiffs to enter the MSA.
  5. Plaintiffs sought to set aside the Partial Award and resist its enforcement based on new evidence of fraud.
  6. The new evidence consisted of findings from the US DOJ and SEC regarding Las Vegas Sands (LVS) and its executives.
  7. The High Court dismissed the challenge, finding no evidence of fraud or corruption that would violate Singapore's public policy.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels Inc and another v Global Gaming Philippines LLC and another, Originating Summons No 1432 of 2017, [2020] SGHC 01

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Management Services Agreement signed
Assignment and Assumption Agreement signed
Notice of Termination of the MSA issued
Arbitration commenced
SEC Order published
Partial Award issued
HC/ORC 6609/2016 made in OS 979
DOJ Agreement published
Enforcement Judgment filed
OS 1432 filed
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Enforcement of Arbitration Award
    • Outcome: The court held that the enforcement of the Partial Award would not be contrary to Singapore's public policy and that the plaintiffs were not deprived of the opportunity to present their case.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Public Policy Violation
      • Fraud
      • Breach of Natural Justice
  2. Extension of Time
    • Outcome: The court allowed the time extension to the plaintiffs’ application to set aside HC/ORC 6609/2016 and the Enforcement Judgment made in default of the plaintiffs’ non-compliance with the relevant timeline.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Setting Aside of Arbitration Award
  2. Resisting Enforcement of Arbitration Award

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Fraudulent Misrepresentation

10. Practice Areas

  • Arbitration
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Hospitality
  • Gaming

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
ABC Co v XYZ Co LtdSingapore High CourtYes[2003] 3 SLR(R) 546SingaporeCited for the strict interpretation of the time limit prescribed in Article 34(3) of the Model Law.
PT Pukuafu Indah and others v Newmont Indonesia Ltd and anotherSingapore High CourtYes[2012] 4 SLR 1157SingaporeCited for the strict interpretation of the time limit prescribed in Article 34(3) of the Model Law.
Astro Nusantara International BV and others v PT Ayunda Prima Mitra and othersSingapore High CourtYes[2013] 1 SLR 636SingaporeCited for the principle that any challenge made on Article 34 grounds must be brought promptly within the specified period.
Sun Tian Gang v Hong Kong & China Gas (Jilin)Hong Kong Court of First InstanceYes[2016] HKCFI 1611Hong KongCited as an example of a Hong Kong court's approach to extending time limits under the Model Law, which the Singapore court declined to follow.
BXS v BXTSingapore International Commercial CourtYes[2019] SGHC(I) 10SingaporeCited for the legal position in Singapore that the time limit in Article 34(3) of the Model Law is strict, favouring the policy of finality of arbitral awards and legal certainty.
BXY and others v BXX and othersSingapore International Commercial CourtYes[2019] SGHC(I) 11SingaporeCited for the principle that a power to extend time under a Rule cannot overcome a time limitation in primary legislation.
PT First Media TBK (formerly known as PT Broadband Multimedia TBK) v Astro Nusantara International BV and others and another appealSingapore Court of AppealYes[2014] 1 SLR 372SingaporeCited for the principle that the grounds in Article 36(1) of the Model Law are available to an award debtor seeking to resist enforcement of a domestic international arbitral award under section 19 of the IAA.
PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SASingapore Court of AppealYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 597SingaporeCited for the narrow construction of 'public policy' in Singapore law and the high threshold for resisting enforcement of an award.
AJU v AJTSingapore Court of AppealYes[2011] 4 SLR 739SingaporeCited for the principle that the question of public policy under both the setting aside regime and the enforcement regime for foreign arbitral awards is the same.
Beijing Sinozonto Mining Investment Co Ltd v Goldenray Consortium (Singapore) Pte LtdSingapore High CourtYes[2014] 1 SLR 814SingaporeCited for the principle that fraud, corruption, and bribery would generally fall within the rubric of being 'contrary to public policy'.
Swiss Singapore Overseas Enterprises Pte Ltd v Exim Rajathi India Pvt LtdSingapore High CourtYes[2010] 1 SLR 573SingaporeCited for the principle that where fraud is alleged, strong and cogent evidence has to be adduced, and the court will not infer a finding of fraud.
Soleimany v SoleimanyEnglish Court of AppealYes[1999] 3 All ER 847EnglandCited for the principle that an arbitral award can be tainted with illegality by virtue of the underlying illegal contract and hence affected by fraud or corruption.
Dongwoo Mann+Hummel Co Ltd v Mann+Hummel GmbhSingapore High CourtYes[2008] 3 SLR(R) 871SingaporeCited for the principle that perjury and the deliberate suppression or withholding of documents in an arbitration can in a proper case amount to obtaining an award by fraud.
BVU v BVXSingapore High CourtYes[2019] SGHC 69SingaporeCited for the elements that must be proven to establish fraud concerning non-disclosure or concealment of material documents.
Koh Pee Huat v Public ProsecutorSingapore High CourtYes[1996] 2 SLR(R) 816SingaporeCited for the elements that must be proven to establish perjury.
DDT Trucks of North America Ltd v DDT Holdings LtdNot specifiedYes[2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 213Not specifiedCited for the principle that newly discovered evidence must be decisive in that it would have prompted the arbitrator to have ruled in favor of the applicant instead of the other party.
Elektrim SA v Vivendi Universal SANot specifiedYes[2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 693Not specifiedCited for the elements that must be proven to establish fraud concerning non-disclosure or concealment of material documents.
Westacre Investments Inc v Jugoimport-SDPR Holding Co LtdNot specifiedYes[1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 65Not specifiedCited for the principle that where new evidence is being introduced to demonstrate fraud, the applicant would have to demonstrate why it was not available or could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence at the time of the arbitration.
Thyssen Canada Ltd v Mariana Maritime SANot specifiedYes[2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 640Not specifiedCited for the principle that proving fraud, dishonest or unconscionable conduct is essential but not sufficient.
Sinocore International Co Ltd v RBRG Trading (UK) LtdEnglish Court of AppealYes[2019] 1 All ER (Comm) 810EnglandCited for the principle that there must be sufficient degree of connection between the fraud and the award that is being enforced for the ground of public policy under Article 36(1)(b)(ii) of the Model Law to be engaged.
Rakna Arakshaka Lanka Ltd v Avant Garde Maritime Services (Pte) LtdSingapore High CourtYes[2019] 4 SLR 995SingaporeCited for the principle that charges of bribery and corruption in pending criminal proceedings were not considered findings of fact of corruption or bribery, and were only found to be mere allegations.
Boardman v DPPNot specifiedYes[1975] AC 421Not specifiedCited to determine the probative value of similar facts.
Lim Tjoen Kong v A-B Chew Investments Pte LtdSingapore High CourtYes[1991] 2 SLR(R) 168SingaporeCited for the principle that a party may seek to settle a dispute for any number of reasons which do not relate to his legal liabilities or his views of them.
Ng Chee Weng v Lim Jit Ming Bryan and AnotherSingapore High CourtYes[2010] SGHC 35SingaporeCited for the principle that offers to settle did not amount to an admission of liability, in the context of protecting the 'without prejudice' rule and allowing parties to speak freely in settlement negotiations.
Rakna Arakshaka Lanka Ltd v Avant Garde Maritime Services (Pte) LtdSingapore Court of AppealYes[2019] 2 SLR 131SingaporeCited for the principle that a finding of fact by an arbitral tribunal cannot be re-opened by the supervisory court.
Tan Swee Wan and another v Johnny Lian Tian YongSingapore High CourtYes[2018] SGHC 169SingaporeCited for the principle that the court must take a careful and cautious approach in utilising similar fact evidence with regard to establishing fraud and dishonesty.
Ching Chew Weng Paul, deceased, and others v Ching Pui Sim and othersSingapore High CourtYes[2011] 3 SLR 869SingaporeCited for the principle that the non-availability requirement ought not to be imposed rigidly such as to cause injustice in a situation where fresh evidence uncovers fraud on the other party.
Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd and orsUK Supreme CourtYes[2019] UKSC 13United KingdomCited for the principle that where a judgment had been procured by fraud, and no allegation of fraud was raised at the trial, there is no requirement that the evidence of the fraud could not have been obtained before the first trial by exercise of reasonable diligence.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
International Arbitration ActSingapore
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial ArbitrationSingapore
Securities Exchange Act 15 USC (US) 1934United States

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Arbitration
  • Enforcement
  • Partial Award
  • Wrongful Termination
  • Fraud
  • Public Policy
  • UNCITRAL Model Law
  • Management Services Agreement
  • FCPA Findings
  • Solaire Resort & Casino

15.2 Keywords

  • arbitration
  • enforcement
  • fraud
  • public policy
  • singapore
  • international arbitration
  • wrongful termination

16. Subjects

  • Arbitration
  • Contract Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • International Law

17. Areas of Law

  • Arbitration Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • International Arbitration
  • Contract Law