Legal spat over finance classes

Firm says students harmed business, but latter claim breach of contract
By Elena Chong, Court Correspondent
Jun 13, 2007
The Straits Times

A LEGAL spat has arisen between 17 people who attended a home-grown company's options-trading seminars and the company itself.

Freely, founded by entrepreneur Clemen Chiang, 32, filed a writ of summons against the 17 last month, alleging that they conspired to disparage, disrupt and destroy the company's business operations.

The company is seeking costs and damages from each of the defendants.

Last week, the 17 filed their defence and counter-claims against Freely for misrepresentation and breach of contract.

Alternatively, they allege that Freely violated the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act.

The defendants say they were promised that they would be taught how to design their own financial plans and use professional tools on their desktop computers.

They were also promised that they would learn how to carry out extensive research without spending exhaustive time.

But contrary to what Freely promised, the defendants say they were not taught these matters and they did not analyse real trade cases. No profit-building strategies were discussed, and their class size exceeded what was promised.

Mr Sanjiv Rajan is representing three of the defendants who are claiming a refund of $8,995 each. The others, represented by Mr Rey Foo, are also seeking refunds.

In its statement of claim, Freely claims that the first three defendants made defamatory statements in March to all the students of its coaching programme via e-mail.

The statements alleged that Freely's coaching programme was not of satisfactory 'quality and value'', 'did not deliver what was stated'', and 'over-promised and under-delivered'' the benefits and results of the coaching programme.

Freely claims that these statements were false and that they damaged the company's reputation as well as caused it to suffer financial losses.

The other defendants are accused of conspiracy.

In March, 38 students, including the defendants, went to the Small Claims Tribunal to seek redress from the company.

Freely alleges that the defendants gathered together these people in order to disrupt its business operations and disparage its reputation.