\n<\/p>\n
In its defence, OG denied that there was any legal basis for the plaintiffs’ suit and described the commencement of the action as \u201can abuse of process\u201d.<\/p>\n
It said the plaintiffs were not in a position to fully pay amounts due under both the lease agreement and a loan agreement known as the facility agreement.<\/p>\n
Even after being given time, the plaintiffs were unable to pay what was owed, OG said.<\/p>\n
As a result, OG said it had \u201cmerely exercised its rights of enforcement based on its security rights, after payment was due\u201d.<\/p>\n
The department store owner also rejected allegations of any intent to injure Hao Mart.<\/p>\n
If Hao Mart was correct, every lender’s enforcement action risks being characterised as a conspiracy, OG argued.<\/p>\n
OG further denied the existence of an oral agreement as alleged by Hao Mart.<\/p>\n
“The particulars that the claimants have provided concerning the alleged ‘oral agreement’ are so lacking in detail, including the manner in which the agreement was entered into and the terms of the agreement, that the pleading is frivolous and vexatious,” OG said.<\/p>\n
It said there was no agreement that the mortgaged property would be redeemed for S$57.5 million, pointing out that this alleged sum “does not even satisfy” the principal amount of S$66.2 million due under the facility agreement.\u00a0<\/p>\n
OG said that Mr Emilianou was an OG employee and was acting within the scope of his authority, and that there had been no conspiracy.<\/p>\n
OG also set out the circumstances under which it had entered into a facility agreement as lender and Dr Tan as borrower for a commitment of S$66.2 million.<\/p>\n
An agent from property firm PropNex had first approached OG in 2021 on behalf of Hao Mart, which had expressed interest in leasing the Taste Orchard premises.<\/p>\n
OG said Hao Mart and OG then entered into a letter of intent and subsequently into an agreement dated Nov 26, 2021. The agreement was amended several times at the request of Hao Mart, who wanted to delay the lease commencement date and extend the rent-free period for renovation.<\/p>\n
OG agreed to the amendments out of goodwill, it said. \u00a0<\/p>\n
Around June 2023, Dr Tan informed OG that Hao Mart was facing cash flow, financial and borrowing difficulties. He and Hao Mart then requested financial assistance from OG.<\/p>\n
According to OG, Dr Tan told OG of “continual losses at Hao Mart” and hoped that OG could help him with S$18 million to S$21 million in collateral loans.<\/p>\n
OG agreed to extend credit facilities to Dr Tan, provided that he was agreeable to the terms set out in a 2023 letter of offer, which required security and guarantees to be furnished, including the mortgage on the GCB.\u00a0<\/p>\n
OG said Dr Tan agreed to the terms and conditions around Jun 28, 2023, and a facility agreement was executed around Aug 4, 2023.<\/p>\n
It added that the facility agreement was intended as a short-term bridging loan repayable within 12 months of first utilisation.<\/p>\n
Hao Mart then breached the lease agreement, OG said. The matter, involving rental arrears and unauthorised subletting, is subject to a separate lawsuit initiated by OG against Hao Mart in October last year.<\/p>\n
OG said Hao Mart owed it around S$6.59 million under the lease agreement.<\/p>\n
It added that Dr Tan had also breached the facility agreement by failing to repay sums due to OG. Letters of demand were issued to him multiple times in 2024 and 2025, to no avail.\u00a0<\/p>\n
As Dr Tan failed to repay amounts owed by Aug 10, 2024, events of default were triggered under the facility agreement.<\/p>\n
By that date, about S$66.8 million was due. The sum ballooned to around S$73.5 million by Oct 1, 2025.<\/p>\n
OG denied that the plaintiffs were entitled to any reliefs sought.<\/p>\n
The matter is pending before the High Court.\u00a0The plaintiffs are represented by Vita Law, while OG is represented by Dentons Rodyk & Davidson.\u00a0
\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n