27.03.2013 Views

eSys Technologies Pte Ltd v nTan Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd

eSys Technologies Pte Ltd v nTan Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd

eSys Technologies Pte Ltd v nTan Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>eSys</strong> <strong>Technologies</strong> <strong>Pte</strong> <strong>Ltd</strong> v [2013] SGCA 27<br />

<strong>nTan</strong> <strong>Corporate</strong> <strong>Advisory</strong> <strong>Pte</strong> <strong>Ltd</strong><br />

managing director of the company. The Appellant’s commercial relationship<br />

with Seagate Technology (“Seagate”), a US-based multinational company<br />

which designs, manufactures and markets hard drives, was critical to its<br />

business. In particular, the Appellant relied heavily on its distributorship<br />

agreements with Seagate as 40% of its sales comprised Seagate products.<br />

3 On 6 November 2006, Seagate decided to terminate its worldwide<br />

distributorship agreement with the Appellant and filed a public announcement<br />

with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (“the SEC<br />

Announcement”) to this effect. The SEC announcement alleged that:<br />

(a) The Appellant had committed material breaches of its<br />

distribution agreements with Seagate;<br />

(b) The Appellant had refused to allow Seagate to perform a<br />

contractual audit of its sales records to confirm the accuracy of<br />

its rebate claims;<br />

(c) The Appellant’s officials had indicated that an audit would<br />

reveal irregularities in the Appellant’s compliance with the<br />

terms of Seagate’s sales incentive programs and other<br />

unspecified irregularities;<br />

(d) Some US$50 million was owed by the Appellant to Seagate;<br />

and<br />

(e) Seagate fully intended to pursue its contractual audit rights and<br />

claims against the Appellant.<br />

4 The SEC announcement not only had a crippling effect on the<br />

Appellant’s bottom-line but also seriously damaged its commercial reputation.<br />

2

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!