Week-long trial for Violet Oon and family’s suit against business partner opens
THE civil suit brought by restaurateur Violet Oon and her two children against luxury and lifestyle company Group MMM and its director Manoj Murjani began trial proceedings in the High Court on Monday (Jul 10).
The stakeholders in the restaurant group Violet Oon Inc are disagreeing over salary increments paid to Oon and her children, Tay Su-Lyn and Tay Yiming, as well as a subsequent deal that followed.
Violet Oon Inc runs three Singapore restaurants serving local and Peranakan-inspired cuisine. Oon holds 20 per cent of the company, and her children, 15 per cent each. The other 50 per cent is held by Group MMM, of which Murjani is the sole shareholder.
Oon’s family has filed two cases with the High Court – an oppression case and a winding-up case. Both are being heard concurrently.
In December 2014, Oon was paid a monthly salary of S$5,000; Tay Su-Lyn was receiving S$1,000, and Tay Yiming, S$4,500. By November 2018, Oon and her son were drawing S$8,000 each every month, and her daughter, S$5,000 a month.
Contention arose when Murjani became aware of the increments, which were done “without his knowledge, consent, or approval”, said TSMP Law Corporation’s Stephanie Chew, who is representing him and Group MMM. Chew said: “He was upset. We say, justifiably so.”
A NEWSLETTER FOR YOU
Friday, 8.30 am
SGSME
Get updates on Singapore's SME community, along with profiles, news and tips.
In February 2019, Oon’s family and Murjani came to an agreement, under which Violet Oon Inc owed Group MMM S$1.55 million in reparations for the unilateral salary increases; this negotiated amount was to be repaid as if it were a loan.
It was also agreed that Oon and her daughter would be removed from Violet Oon Inc’s board, and that Murjani was to be appointed its chairman and chief executive.
In his opening statement, Drew & Napier’s Justin Lai, acting for Oon’s family, accused Murjani of having “persistently disregarded the claimants’ interests and actively caused damage to (Violet Oon Inc’s) branding and business”.
Lai urged the court to invalidate the 2019 agreement as it was signed under “duress and undue influence”.
He also called for a ruling that would allow Oon’s family to purchase all of Murjani’s shares in Violet Oon Inc, after accounting for the value the shares would have had “but for the effect of the conduct and acts” of Murjani.
An alternative to the buyout would be for Violet Oon Inc to be wound up by the court, Lai added.
Chew countered that by wanting to purchase all the shares, the Tays would be “squeezing out our clients from the company at a lowball valuation”.
Calling the oppression suit an “abuse of process”, Chew said that Oon’s family have been offered “reasonable offers to settle” and have “in substance, refused to negotiate or mediate”.
She noted that Murjani had “repeatedly” offered S$6 million to purchase the outstanding shares in Violet Oon Inc, but had instead received a counteroffer of S$2.5 million for Oon’s family to purchase Group MMM’s 50 per cent stake in the business.
Other lawyers for the parties include Meryl Koh, Daniel Wong and Shahera Safrin from Drew & Napier, and Senior Counsel Thio Shen Yi and Phoon Wuei of TSMP.
The trial is scheduled to continue from Tuesday to Friday.
Copyright SPH Media. All rights reserved.
