Tonny Permana v One Tree Capital Management: Fiduciary Duties & Investment Agreement Dispute

Tonny Permana appealed to the Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore against the decision of the trial judge dismissing his claims against One Tree Capital Management Pte Ltd and Gerald Yeo. The claims were based on breaches of fiduciary duties and dishonest assistance related to an investment in a Malaysian shopping mall project. The court, comprising Quentin Loh JAD, See Kee Oon J, and Chua Lee Ming J, dismissed the appeal, finding that Permana had waived the breaches of fiduciary duties by signing a trust deed after being informed of fundamental changes to the investment structure.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Appellate Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Ex Tempore Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding fiduciary duties in an investment agreement. The court dismissed the claims, finding the appellant had waived breaches by signing a trust deed.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Quentin LohJudge of the Appellate DivisionYes
See Kee OonJudge of the High CourtNo
Chua Lee MingJudge of the High CourtNo

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. Appellant invested US$1.6m in a Malaysian shopping mall project through Respondents.
  2. Investment was initially structured as a convertible loan note (CLN).
  3. Respondents terminated the Investment Agreement and discharged the Security Documents without informing the Appellant.
  4. Respondents altered the investment structure to a shareholder's loan provided by OTC.
  5. Appellant signed a Trust Deed after being informed of the changes.
  6. The Project failed and Midas was liquidated, resulting in the loss of the Appellant's investment.
  7. The Appellant was aware that the investment was no longer secured when he signed the Trust Deed.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Tonny Permana v One Tree Capital Management Pte Ltd and another, Civil Appeal No 32 of 2021, [2021] SGHC(A) 8

6. Timeline

DateEvent
OTC sent an email to the Appellant regarding the Project.
Draft documents were sent to the Appellant.
Investment Agreement and Deed of Guarantee were dated.
The designated account received US$1.6m from the Appellant.
GY sent an email informing that the structure of the Appellant’s investment had to be changed.
Email exchanges on details relating to the proposed change began.
Email exchanges on details relating to the proposed change ended.
Respondents entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with TCW and Mr Wang Yingde.
GY emailed Ms Tiolani and informed her that the structure of the Appellant’s investment would be altered.
OTC issued a letter to Midas, TCW and WJG stating that OTC had terminated the Investment Agreement.
Trust deed was dated.
GY sent Ms Tiolani a trust deed to be executed.
GY sent an email summarising what he wished to convey to the Appellant about his investment.
Ms Tiolani sent an email to the Respondents inquiring into the Security Documents under the Trust Deed.
GY replied stating that the Share Charge and Guarantee had been voided.
Appellant signed the Trust Deed.
Judgment delivered.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Fiduciary Duty
    • Outcome: The court found that the Respondents breached their fiduciary duties but the Appellant waived these breaches by signing the Trust Deed.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Conflict of interest
      • Failure to act in the best interest of the principal
      • Termination of Investment Agreement without consent
      • Discharge of Security Documents without consent
      • Altering investment structure without consent
    • Related Cases:
      • [2017] 3 SLR 957
      • [1995] 2 AC 145
  2. Waiver of Breach
    • Outcome: The court held that the Appellant waived the breaches of fiduciary duties by signing the Trust Deed, signifying his agreement to the changes in the investment structure.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2017] 3 SLR 957

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Fiduciary Duty
  • Dishonest Assistance

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Investment Disputes

11. Industries

  • Finance
  • Investment Management
  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Tonny Permana v One Tree Capital Management Pte Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2021] SGHC 37SingaporeThe appeal was against the decision of the trial judge in this case.
Henderson v Merrett Syndicates LtdN/AYes[1995] 2 AC 145N/ACited regarding the attenuation or displacement of an agent's duty of loyalty by the provisions of the underlying contract.
Nordic International Ltd v Morten InnhaugN/AYes[2017] 3 SLR 957SingaporeCited to distinguish between ratification of a transaction and ratification of breaches of fiduciary duties.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Convertible Loan Note
  • Trust Deed
  • Investment Agreement
  • Security Documents
  • Shareholder Loan
  • Fiduciary Duty
  • Waiver
  • Ratification
  • Agent
  • Principal

15.2 Keywords

  • fiduciary duty
  • investment agreement
  • waiver
  • convertible loan note
  • trust deed
  • One Tree Capital
  • Tonny Permana

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Fiduciary Relationships
  • Investment Agreements
  • Breach of Contract
  • Waiver
  • Agency