Bloomberry v Global Gaming: Setting Aside & Enforcement of Arbitral Award for Alleged Fraud
Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels Inc and Sureste Properties Inc (the Appellants) appealed against the decision of the High Court of Singapore to dismiss their applications to set aside an arbitral award and resist its enforcement in favor of Global Gaming Philippines LLC and GGAM Netherlands BV (the Respondents). The Appellants argued that the award was induced or affected by fraud because the Respondents concealed evidence of fraud later revealed in United States investigations. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the award was not induced or affected by fraud.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court dismisses Bloomberry's appeal to set aside/resist enforcement of an arbitral award, finding no fraud affected the award.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels Inc | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Yeo Khirn Hai Alvin SC, Leo Zhen Wei Lionel, Wong Zheng Hui Daryl |
| Sureste Properties Inc | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Yeo Khirn Hai Alvin SC, Leo Zhen Wei Lionel, Wong Zheng Hui Daryl |
| Global Gaming Philippines LLC | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Bull Cavinder SC, Ong Chee Yeow, Kong Man Er, Lee Teck Chye Aaron, Marc Wenjie Malone, Chong Xue Er Cheryl |
| GGAM Netherlands BV | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Bull Cavinder SC, Ong Chee Yeow, Kong Man Er, Lee Teck Chye Aaron, Marc Wenjie Malone, Chong Xue Er Cheryl |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | No |
| Judith Prakash | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Woo Bih Li | Judge of the Appellate Division | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Yeo Khirn Hai Alvin SC | WongPartnership LLP |
| Bull Cavinder SC | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Ong Chee Yeow | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Kong Man Er | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Lee Teck Chye Aaron | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Marc Wenjie Malone | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Chong Xue Er Cheryl | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Leo Zhen Wei Lionel | WongPartnership LLP |
| Wong Zheng Hui Daryl | WongPartnership LLP |
4. Facts
- Bloomberry terminated its Management Agreement with GGAM, alleging failure to provide prudent management services.
- GGAM commenced arbitration proceedings against Bloomberry for wrongful termination.
- Bloomberry applied to set aside the arbitral award, alleging fraud based on FCPA Findings.
- The FCPA Findings related to investigations into LVS, where GGAM principals previously worked.
- The High Court dismissed Bloomberry's application, finding no fraud that affected the award.
- Bloomberry appealed the High Court's decision.
5. Formal Citations
- Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels Inc and another v Global Gaming Philippines LLC and another, Civil Appeal No 14 of 2020, [2021] SGCA 9
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Management Services Agreement signed | |
| Email sent to Mr. Saunders regarding LVS investigation | |
| Mr. Weidner sent statement regarding LVS investigation | |
| Mr. Weidner replied with formal statement regarding LVS investigation | |
| Solaire Casino began operations | |
| Appellants alleged failure to comply with obligations under Management Agreement | |
| Notice of Termination of Management Agreement issued | |
| SEC Order issued | |
| Arbitral Award dated | |
| High Court made order ORC 6609 | |
| DOJ Agreement issued | |
| High Court entered judgment in terms of the Award | |
| Appellants requested Tribunal reconsider Award | |
| Appellants applied to set aside judgment and resist enforcement of Award | |
| Hearing date | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Setting Aside Arbitral Award
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that the application to set aside the award was time-barred and that the award was not induced or affected by fraud.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Time Limit for Setting Aside
- Fraud as Grounds for Setting Aside
- Enforcement of Arbitral Award
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that there was no ground on which to refuse enforcement of the award.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Public Policy Exception
- Inability to Present Case
- Fraud
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that the award was not induced or affected by fraud.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Concealment of Information
- Misrepresentation
- Perjury
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting Aside Arbitral Award
- Resisting Enforcement of Arbitral Award
9. Cause of Actions
- Wrongful Termination of Contract
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Arbitration
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Hospitality
- Gaming
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels Inc and another v Global Gaming Philippines LLC and another | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 01 | Singapore | The judgment under appeal; the Court of Appeal is reviewing the High Court's decision to dismiss the application to set aside the arbitral award. |
| Sun Jin Engineering Pte Ltd v Hwang Jae Woo | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 196 | Singapore | Cited for the factors the court considers when deciding whether to grant an extension of time. |
| AD v AE | High Court | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR(R) 505 | Singapore | Cited for the factors the court considers when deciding whether to grant an extension of time. |
| Swiss Singapore Overseas Enterprises Pte Ltd v Exim Rajathi India Pvt Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 573 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there must be a causative link between fraudulent conduct and the claim for enforcement of the award to justify interference by the court on public policy grounds. |
| BVU v BVX | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 69 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the fraud referred to in s 24(a) of the IAA must include procedural fraud, that is, when a party commits perjury, conceals material information and/or suppresses evidence that would have substantial effect on the making of the award. |
| Koh Pee Huat v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR(R) 816 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements to prove fraud. |
| ABC Co v XYZ Co Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 546 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the reference in Art 34(3) to “may not” should be construed as “cannot” as the intention was to limit the time during which an award may be challenged. |
| PT Pukuafu Indah and others v Newmont Indonesia Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 1157 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the reference in Art 34(3) to “may not” should be construed as “cannot” as the intention was to limit the time during which an award may be challenged. |
| Astro Nusantara International BV and others v PT Ayunda Prima Mitra and others | High Court | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 636 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the reference in Art 34(3) to “may not” should be construed as “cannot” as the intention was to limit the time during which an award may be challenged. |
| BXS v BXT | High Court | Yes | [2019] 4 SLR 390 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the reference in Art 34(3) to “may not” should be construed as “cannot” as the intention was to limit the time during which an award may be challenged. |
| Sun Tian Gang v Hong Kong & China Gas (Jilin) | Court of First Instance | Yes | [2016] HKCFI 1611 | Hong Kong | The appellants argued that the court should adopt the approach of the Hong Kong Court of First Instance in Sun Tian Gang, under which the reference to “may not” in Art 34(3) was read permissively rather than as mandatory. The Judge held that the reasoning in Sun Tian Gang, which used the permissive “may” in Art 34(2) to conclude that the “may not” in Art 34(3) was similarly permissive was wrong. |
| Ching Chew Weng Paul v Ching Pui Sim | High Court | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 869 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that timelines should not be imposed so rigidly as to cause injustice in a situation where the fresh evidence uncovers fraud on the part of the other party. |
| Obegi Melissa v Vestwin Trading Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 540 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that whether a law “relates to limitation” depends on whether it extinguishes a right of action or merely imposes a deadline for the taking of a procedural step. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, Rule 5) |
| International Bar Association Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A) | Singapore |
| Foreign Corrupt Practices Act 15 USC (US) 1977 | United States |
| Securities Exchange Act 15 USC (US) 1934 | United States |
| Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Arbitral Award
- Setting Aside
- Enforcement
- Fraud
- FCPA Findings
- Management Agreement
- Solaire Casino
- Junket Operators
- Material Breach
- Procedural Fraud
- Causal Fraud
15.2 Keywords
- arbitration
- fraud
- setting aside
- enforcement
- gaming
- casino
- contract
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Contract Law
- Gaming Law
- Fraud
17. Areas of Law
- Arbitration Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law