Cachet Multi Strategy Fund v Feng Shi: Discovery Dispute over Fraudulent Misrepresentation & Conspiracy
In Cachet Multi Strategy Fund SPC on behalf of Cachet Special Opportunities SP v Feng Shi, Alex SK Liu, and Haven Global Network Pte Ltd, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore addressed an appeal concerning the production of documents in a case involving claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy. Cachet alleges that Mr. Shi made false representations inducing their investment in Haven, and that Mr. Liu conspired with Mr. Shi. The court dismissed the claimant's appeal for specific discovery but ordered Mr. Liu to provide an affidavit stating whether he possesses known adverse documents related to specific aspects of the case.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Mr. Liu is ordered to provide an affidavit regarding possession of known adverse documents.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court addresses discovery dispute in a case involving alleged fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy related to a hedge fund investment.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cachet Multi Strategy Fund SPC on behalf of Cachet Special Opportunities SP | Claimant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Alex SK Liu | Defendant | Individual | Ordered to file affidavit | Neutral | |
| Feng Shi | Defendant | Individual | Default judgment entered | Lost | |
| Haven Global Network Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Default judgment entered | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Choo Han Teck | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Cachet invested US$20m in Haven for a 10% shareholding.
- Cachet alleges Mr. Shi made fraudulent representations to induce the investment.
- Cachet rescinded the Subscription Agreement and demanded the return of the Investment Sum.
- Cachet commenced arbitration proceedings against Haven and obtained an Interim Award.
- Mr. Shi executed a Deed of Undertaking to contribute US$1.15m to Haven but failed to do so fully.
- Cachet commenced a separate arbitration against Mr. Shi to enforce the Deed.
- Mr. Liu claims his focus in Haven was on technical aspects, not investor relations.
5. Formal Citations
- Cachet Multi Strategy Fund SPC(on behalf of Cachet Special Opportunities SP)vFeng Shi and others, Originating Claim No 10 of 2024, [2024] SGHC 327
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Feng Shi became co-founder, CEO, chairman, majority shareholder and director of Haven. | |
| Cachet and Haven entered into a Subscription Agreement. | |
| Cachet paid the Investment Sum to Haven. | |
| Mr. Shi executed a Deed of Undertaking in favor of Cachet and Haven. | |
| Cachet rescinded the Subscription Agreement and demanded Haven return the Investment Sum. | |
| Mr. Shi was to contribute the full amount of the Capital Contribution. | |
| Cachet commenced arbitration proceedings against Haven. | |
| Cachet recovered the Investment Sum through enforcement proceedings in Hong Kong. | |
| The Haven Tribunal released a final award. | |
| Haven was struck off the companies register. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment date. |
7. Legal Issues
- Production of Documents
- Outcome: The court dismissed the claimant's appeal for specific discovery but ordered the defendant to provide an affidavit regarding the existence and possession of known adverse documents.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Discovery of internal correspondence
- Disclosure of known adverse documents
- Materiality of documents
- Related Cases:
- [2024] SGHCR 9
- Legal Privilege
- Outcome: The court found that litigation privilege applied to documents under Appeal Request (e) but required the defendant to demonstrate privilege for known adverse documents under Appeal Requests (a) to (d).
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Solicitor-client privilege
- Litigation privilege
- Fraud exception to privilege
- Related Cases:
- [2016] 4 SLR 829
- [2007] 2 SLR(R) 367
- [2016] 5 SLR 590
- [2010] 1 SLR 833
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court did not find a prima facie case of fraud by Mr. Liu.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages for conspiracy
- Damages for fraudulent misrepresentation
9. Cause of Actions
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Conspiracy to defraud
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Finance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rohan St George v 4Fingers Pte Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2024] SGHCR 9 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of 'known adverse documents' as encompassing documents that are adverse and known to be adverse. |
| Mykytowych, Pamela Jane v V I P Hotel | High Court | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 829 | Singapore | Cited for the conditions that must be satisfied for litigation privilege to apply. |
| Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ), Singapore Branch v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 367 | Singapore | Cited for the application of litigation privilege to every communication for the purpose of litigation. |
| ARX v Comptroller of Income Tax | High Court | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 590 | Singapore | Cited for the standard for discharging the onus of proof for asserting privilege. |
| Gelatissimo Ventures (S) Pte Ltd and others v Singapore Flyer Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 833 | Singapore | Cited for the application of fraud and illegal purpose exceptions to litigation privilege. |
| Lutfi Salim bin Talib and another v British and Malayan Trustees Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2024] 5 SLR 86 | Singapore | Cited regarding the denial of possession of documents on affidavit. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 11 Rule 5 of the Rules of Court 2021 |
| Order 11 Rule 2(1)(b) of the Rules of Court 2021 |
| Order 11 Rule 6 of the Rules of Court 2021 |
| Order 11 Rule 3(1)(b) of the Rules of Court 2021 |
| Order 11 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2021 |
| Order 11 Rule 1(2)(a) of the Rules of Court 2021 |
| Order 3 Rule 1(e) of the Rules of Court 2021 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Evidence Act 1893 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Subscription Agreement
- Investment Sum
- Alleged Representations
- Haven Arbitration
- Deed of Undertaking
- Deed Arbitration
- Known adverse documents
- Litigation privilege
- Fraud exception
15.2 Keywords
- Discovery
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Conspiracy
- Legal Privilege
- Singapore
- Rules of Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Litigation | 80 |
| Civil Litigation | 75 |
| Fraud and Deceit | 70 |
| Misrepresentation | 65 |
| Arbitration | 60 |
| Commercial Disputes | 60 |
| Breach of Contract | 50 |
| Evidence Law | 50 |
| Corporate Litigation | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Discovery
- Fraud
- Arbitration