Suggestion
This is an anonymous post. All you need to know is that I am a person well versed in the law who is sympathetic to your plight. Do not bother replying because this is a one-off. What follows is merely a suggestion. If you choose to follow the suggested course of action, YOU DO SO AT YOUR OWN RISK.
Before using this suggestion, CONFIRM THAT IT CONFORMS WITH THE FACTS OF YOUR OWN CASE. DO NOT LIE TO FIT YOUR CIRCUMSTANCES WITHIN THIS SUGGESTION, AS YOU WILL ONLY HURT YOUR OWN CASE AND JEOPRADISE THE CASES OF OTHER BORON INVESTORS.
This suggestion applies to:-
A. Boron investors, whose claim does not exceed $10,000; and
B. any Boron investor who is willing to limit his claim to $10,000 because you are not willing to foot the potential legal bills of pursuing a larger claim in the Subordinate Courts. Keep in mind that limiting your claim in this way means that you cannot later claim the balance.
A claim less that $10,000 can be brought in the Small Claims Tribunal, where you will not be represented by a lawyer, but neither will Profitable Group, so there should be no worry about legal fees.
Your claim is based on the infringement of the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act. You can find a copy of the relevant statute at statutes.agc.gov.sg
Explain to the judge that your claim is against both Profitable Group (Dubai)("PGD") and Profitable Plots (Singapore)("PP").
Explain that on the face of the contract, PGD owes you money which remains unpaid.
Explain that you are ALSO alleging the tort of conspiracy to commit a wrongful act which has damaged you. The judge should know what you are talking about. The conspiracy in question is between PGD and PP as their agent on record.
Your allegation is that PGD conspired with PP to commit an unfair practice as defined in section 4 of the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act. The unfair practice in question was that they failed to explain to you the significant risk of non-payment involved in the Boron Bonds, namely that even as you were being sold the product, already PGD was defaulting on its obligations to other previous Boron investors. On the contrary, their brochures and advertisements gave the impression that payment was guaranteed.
IMPORTANT. To establish that there was material non-disclosure of the risk, you must show the judge that there other Boron investors who were already being denied payment even before you got on board. This means finding Boron investors whose products defaulted even before you can on board. The more you find the merrier. Get written statements from them confirming their experience, with attachments of their contracts. Ideally, these investors should be willing to come forward to act as your witnesses. Necessarily, this argument and my suggestion does not apply to the earliest defaulting Boron investors.
ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT. This is a tricky one, and the merits are untested. Tell the Court that buried in a collateral agreement (the purchase form) in the small print is the caution that Profitable Group does not dispense legal or financial advice. Tell the Court that you believe this was not because Profitable Group actually refrains from giving advice. If anything, your statements and the statements of your witnesses should confirm that their employees were all too willing to give (wrong) advice and RECOMMEND the product (important that you use the word "RECOMMEND
. Tell the Court you believe this clause was inserted in spite of knowing that employees do RECOMMEND Boron products and give advice, and that you believe it was inserted purely so that PGD and PP could weasel their way out of the ambit of section 27(2) the Financial Advisors Act, which would otherwise require them in law to conduct a Financial Needs Analysis before selling you the product.
Lastly, because you will want judgment against PP, explain that at the roadshow or whatever, you dealt with PP employees, who must have been acting as agents for PGD. Explain to the Judge that the conspiracy lies in PP helping PGD to sell the Boron bonds to you whilst knowing that simultaneously other Boron investors were being denied payment and/or not being afforded the protection of the Financial Advisors Act. Tell the Court that PGD and PP acted hand-in-hand to perpretrate this unfair practice, and thus have committed the tort of conspiracy to commit a wrongful act.
Good Luck.
