Lawsuit from ex-advisers adds to claims arising from Hao Mart’s lease of Taste Orchard

[SINGAPORE] Two former advisers hired to handle the discontinuation of Taste Orchard’s lease and sub-tenancies as well as other matters have sued Hao Mart’s owner and his companies, claiming more than S$5.2 million in alleged overdue fees. 

Avista Advisory Partners and Avista Corporate Finance lodged a lawsuit in mid-July against Dr Tan Kim Yong, Advanced Integrated Manufacturing and Hao Corp, alleging that they have not been paid by the defendants who hired them for financial and strategic services.

Dr Tan was the director, chairman and CEO of formerly listed electronics manufacturing company Advanced Integrated Manufacturing. Hao Corp is an investment holding firm solely owned by him. Hao Corp owns Hao Mart, but the supermarket operator is not a party to these proceedings.

The defendants are contesting the claims while Hao Corp is counter-claiming S$120,000 that it has paid Avista Corporate Finance in fees.

Avista Advisory Partners hired to negotiate with landlord OG and sub-tenants

The statement of claim said Dr Tan and Hao Corp hired Avista Advisory Partners on Sep 1, 2025 to negotiate with landlord OG and sub-tenants over discontinuing the lease and sub-tenancies of Taste Orchard respectively.

Taste Orchard was a five-storey concept store operated by Hao Mart at the OG Orchard Point building in Somerset, with its 7.5-year lease discontinued by landlord OG in September 2025 after just 18 months.

Dr Tan and Hao Corp were charged by the adviser a work fee of S$20,000 and a monthly retainer fee of S$20,000, as well as a milestone fee of S$100,000 if in-principle approvals were secured from the sub-tenants, and a success fee of S$550,000 if OG discontinued the lease of Taste Orchard.

Avista Advisory Partners is claiming S$68,679 for these services that it said it has rendered.

Avista Corporate Finance hired as strategic adviser for lease discontinuation

Dr Tan and Hao Corp hired Avista Corporate Finance on Sep 1, 2025 as well, to exclusively provide strategic advisory services for the discontinuation of the lease agreement and the sub-tenancy agreements.

The same rates charged by Avista Advisory Partners for negotiation advisory services were levied by Avista Corporate Finance for providing strategic advisory services. This adviser is claiming S$82,470 against Dr Tan and Hao Corp.

Avista Advisory Partners hired to raise funds

The statement of claim also said Avista Advisory Partners was earlier engaged by Dr Tan and Advanced Integrated Manufacturing on Dec 1, 2024 to raise up to US$50 million for the company from global institutional investors in the form of equity shares, equity-linked instruments, structured products, convertible securities or any form of investment.

The boutique firm charged a preparatory fee of S$40,000, a monthly retainer fee of S$25,000 for six months from January 2025 to June 2025 and a due diligence work fee of S$30,000 per month from July 2025 to September 2025. But these fees could be set off against the success fee of 4 per cent of any funds raised from investors that it introduced.

Avista Advisory Partners claimed that Dr Tan, with its help, sold his shares in Advanced Integrated Manufacturing to a company managed by StateSquare Capital at US$70.5 million.

Therefore, it is claiming S$4.3 million as the success fee, which took into account other funding allegedly received by the subsidiaries, associates or affiliates of Dr Tan and Advanced Integrated Manufacturing.

Also, Dr Tan and Hao Corp appointed Avista Advisory Partners in mid-May 2025 to exclusively secure debt refinancing and to raise additional working capital financing against several properties held by him and the company.

Avista Advisory Partners charged an upfront work fee of S$30,000, and a monthly work fee of S$20,000 from July 2025 to November 2025. It also levied a success fee of 2.5 per cent of the funds raised or a break fee of 1.25 per cent of the financing amount if the Hao Corp group chose not to proceed with a bona fide proposal of investment after accepting it.

The statement of claim alleged that a term loan agreement was entered into on Sep 25, 2025 by OCBC and Dr Tan as the borrower of a S$57.5 million loan secured against mortgages of two properties in Jervois Hill owned by him and his wife.

He did not consummate the transaction, resulting in the expiry of the offer in March 2026 and the provision for the break fee of S$783,437.50 triggered, Avista Advisory Partners argued through Sreenivasan Chambers.

Additionally, the two claimants are claiming interest of contractual rate of 7 per cent per annum on unpaid sums as well as other costs.

Sums not payable nor due: defence

The defendants disputed the scope of the services allegedly provided by the claimants, the extent of the claimants’ involvement in various transactions, the computation of the fees claimed as well as other allegations.

In particular, Dr Tan claimed in defence that he entered into the 2024 engagement letter in his capacity as the group chairman of Advanced Integrated Manufacturing and on behalf of this company, and denied that he thereby assumed any personal liability.

The defendants argued that Avista Advisory Partners failed to improve the liquidity and cash flow position and the overall financial health of Dr Tan’s companies despite this being the mandate of the engagement. 

The defendants also rejected Avista Advisory Partners’ statement that it was responsible for the US$70.5 million equity sale deal, countering that it did not raise the amount nor procure or introduce the equity injections.

“The refinancing arrangements which the first claimant was engaged to procure were never completed by the first claimant,” said the defence statement filed through Oaks Legal on Aug 7, referring to refinancing for the defendants’ properties.

Additionally, the defendants clarified that OCBC’s offer was not a term loan agreement, but a conditional letter of offer that did not meet their objective to refinance certain portions of the group’s outstanding debt obligations.

This reason was why Hao Corp decided not to proceed with the transaction. The defendants also contended that since Avista Advisory Partners had failed to carry out the responsibilities for which it was engaged, the claimant is not entitled to the break fee.

Avista Advisory Partners has also not been able to get OG to agree to Dr Tan’s request to redeem the mortgage over the Jervois Hill properties despite it representing that an agreement had been reached with OG.

Its alleged misrepresentation caused Dr Tan to obtain OCBC’s offer and instructed lawyers to issue a notice of redemption to OG. But he was told the redemption could not go ahead as there were contingent liabilities secured by the mortgage.

The proposed refinancing and redemption of the mortgage were part of a broader arrangement intended to facilitate the orderly resolution of matters arising from the lease agreement, the agreement for a loan from OG and the mortgage, argued the defendants, but Avista Advisory Partners has allegedly failed to deliver.

Avista Advisory Partners was engaged to negotiate with OG and sub-tenants over discontinuation of the lease and sub-tenancy agreements, but the services it contemplated in the engagement letter included alleged legal services.

Avista Advisory Partners CEO Rajiv Kochhar and the firm are not qualified to provide such legal services, and thus the engagement is void for illegality, argued the defendants.

The defendants also contended that the claimants’ engagements for the lease and sub-tenancy discontinuation have substantially the same terms and their services were in substance a single piece of work but charged the defendants separately. They alleged the claimants did not perform the services that were billed.

Hao Corp is counter-claiming for S$120,000 that it has paid Avista Corporate Finance for fees charged before the engagement started on Sep 1, 2025.

Avista Advisory Partners and Avista Corporate Finance alleged that their services for the lease discontinuation were “distinct and complementary”, with the negotiation advisory being client facing whereas strategic advisory entailed back-end analytical work.

They said Dr Tan and Hao Corp entered into both engagements as “willing, informed” parties, and had not earlier alleged impropriety or questioned the extent of the work.

No legal work was performed, Avista Corporate Finance claimed, as it only provided support for the defendants’ lawyers.

It was not unjustly enriched from the S$120,000 as that was for the services it provided Hao Corp under an earlier engagement from Dec 31, 2024, to reorganise its corporate structure, governance standards, management information systems and reporting processes, Avista Corporate Finance countered.

This lawsuit is currently at case conference phase, and is one of the recent legal actions in a string of litigation cases stemming from the Taste Orchard lease.

Other actions include Hao Mart’s lawsuit against PropNex Realty and its salesperson for alleged misrepresentation over the leasing of Taste Orchard, OG's claim of rent arrears among other fees from Hao Mart, and two other sub-tenants that have separately sued Hao Mart after their tenancy agreements were discontinued.