JUDGMENT

Quay Chew Soon J:

Introduction

[1] The Defendant ("D") filed an application dated 15 January 2025 vide encl 17 to set aside the Plaintiff's ("P") action. Enclosure 17 is made under O 12 r 10 of the Rules of 2012 and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court . On 27 February 2025. I allowed encl 17. Here are the grounds of my decision.

Background Facts

[2] P is a Cayman incorporated entity. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Attestor Group. The Attestor Group operates as an alternative investment management company, investing in long - term and patient capital in global opportunities. This included purchasing claims from the creditors of FTX Trading Ltd ("FTX"), following the latter's bankruptcy. D is one such creditor of FTX.

[3] The instant suit arises against the backdrop of the United States (US) Chapter 11 bankruptcy of FTX in November 2022, amid allegations of fraud and embezzlement relating to customer funds. Prior to that, FTX was one of the largest and leading global digital cryptocurrency exchange platforms

The Plaintiff's Case

[4] P's case is this.

(a) The Attestor Group had sought to acquire the claims in respect of FTX ("FTX claims") from the latter's creditors as part of its investment strategy. D had represented to P that he was one such claimholder.

(b) Between November 2022 to February 2023, D represented to P that he was in control of an FTX account linked with claims of approximately USD 31 million in value. P was fraudulently induced to purchase D's FTX claims, which D falsely represented to P as being valid claims against FTX (following its bankruptcy in November 2022). Based on the representations made by D, P entered into an agreement with him for the purchase of his FTX claims

(c) The parties originally entered into an agreement dated 8 March 2023 for the sale by D of his FTX claims to P. Subsequently, the parties entered into an agreement dated 20 March 2023 ("agreement"), which superseded the original agreement. The terms contained in the agreement are similar to the terms contained in the original agreement, save that the purchase price of D's FTX claims was increased from USD 3,163,812.31 to USD 3,322,002.92.

(d) In consideration for the purchase, P transferred 3,322,002.92 USDT tokens (equivalent to USD 3,322,002.92 at the material time) to D's wallet. This amount represented approximately 10.5 % of the USD 31 million value of D's FTX claims

(e) P later discovered that the FTX claims did not belong D, but instead belong to a different FTX account holder. The total value of D's actual claim in respect of his FTX account was only approximately USD 39. P says that it was first notified of this by the debtors of FTX in the middle of October 2023. It subsequently conducted its own investigation to confirm this.

The Defendant's Case

[5] D's case is this.

(a) P's unilateral assessment of the value of the FTX claims does not provide a valid foundation for alleging a breach of agreement. The value of the FTX claims was always speculative and subject to risks, which P understood when entering into the agreement.

(b) D himself could not be certain of the value of the FTX claims due to the FTX system crash at that time. This information was communicated to P, who had full knowledge and chose to proceed with the deal nonetheless.

(c) P's allegation of discovering the FTX claims actual debt paper value to be USD 39, as opposed to the purported value of USD 31 million, is based solely on its self - speculation through the so called own self investigation. This self - investigation has not been verified. Nor has any credible evidence been provided to substantiate such a claim, as all the documents shown was dubious.

(d) P referred to a list of top 50 creditors (under Chapter 11, case no 22 - 11068 *JDT) in the US bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. Which indicates D being at position "# 30" on the list. But the debtor (FTX) had stated that the list is not conclusive. So where the US bankruptcy Court and FTX