The Roe Corp and others v Berhero Pty Ltd (trading as Acuity Funding) (Singapore High Court HC/RA 117/2026; [2026] SGHC 201)

Procedural record

1. 22 October 2025Arbitration

   22 October 2025Arbitration

   Final Award dated 22 October 2025

   Singapore International Arbitration Centre

   Decision summary

   The Tribunal ordered The Roe Corporation, 267 Partners, LLC and Buhm Jung Roe to pay Berhero Pty Limited (trading as Acuity Funding) a US$11.2m Fund Arrangement Fee, late payment interest, legal costs and expenses, arbitration costs, and 5.33% simple interest per annum on the sums until payment in full.

   Participants

   The Roe Corporation

   267 Partners, LLC

   Buhm Jung Roe

   Berhero Pty Limited (trading as Acuity Funding)

   Singapore International Arbitration Centre

   Arbitrator

   Stuart Isaacs KC

   Institutional administrator

   Singapore International Arbitration Centre

   8 months and 14 days later · 257 days

2. 6 July 2026Singapore

   6 July 2026Singapore

   Judgment of the General Division of the High Court of Singapore in HC/RA 117/2026 dated 6 July 2026

   General Division of the High Court of Singapore

   Case no.

   HC/RA 117/2026

   Citation

   [2026] SGHC 201

   Decision summary

   The court dismissed the appeal against the Assistant Registrar's refusal to order production of criminal complaints. It held that the complaints were not in Acuity's possession or control and that production would not be ordered even if they were.

   Participants

   Application

   HC/OA 96/2026 — Application to set aside the Final Award; appeal proceedings described in the judgment

   Application

   HC/SUM 1086/2026 — Application for production of criminal complaints dismissed by the Assistant Registrar

   Application

   HC/RA 117/2026 — Appeal dismissed

   The Roe Corporation

   267 Partners, LLC

   Buhm Jung Roe

   Berhero Pty Limited (trading as Acuity Funding)

   General Division of the High Court of Singapore

   Judge

   Chua Lee Ming J

   Authorities cited

   21

   • Rules of Court 2021 (Singapore)
     statute
   • International Arbitration Act 1994 (Singapore) (International Arbitration Act 1994 (2020 Rev Ed))
     statute
   • UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985)
     treaty
   • Rules of Supreme Court (Revision) 1965 (United Kingdom) (Rules of Supreme Court (Revision) 1965 (SI 1965 No. 1776) (UK))
     statute
   • Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (United Kingdom) (Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (SI 1998 No. 3132) (UK))
     statute
   • Interactive Digital Finance Ltd v Credit Suisse AG ([2023] 5 SLR 1735)
     case-law
   • Rafidain Bank v Agom Universal Sugar Trading Co Ltd ([1987] 1 WLR 1606)
     case-law
   • SK Shipping Co Ltd v IOF Pte Ltd ([2012] SGHCR 14)
     case-law
   • eSave AG v eSave APAC Pte Ltd ([2026] SGHCR 17)
     case-law
   • Various Airfinance Leasing Companies v Saudi Arabian Airlines Corpn ([2022] 1 WLR 1027)
     case-law
   • Natixis, Singapore Branch v Lim Oon Kuin ([2024] 3 SLR 1502)
     case-law
   • Hai Jiao 1306 Ltd v Yaw Chee Siew ([2020] 3 SLR 142)
     case-law
   • Alliance Management SA v Pendleton Lane P ([2008] 4 SLR(R) 1)
     case-law
   • Wuhu Ruyi Xinbo Investment Partnership (Ltd Partnership) v Shandong Ruyi Technology Group Co, Ltd ([2025] 4 SLR 1262)
     case-law
   • Dirak Asia Pte Ltd v Chew Hua Kok ([2013] SGHCR 1)
     case-law
   • Ardila Investments NV v ENRC NV ([2015] EWHC 3761 (Comm))
     case-law
   • Loreley Financing (Jersey) No. 30 Limited v Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Ltd ([2023] EWHC 548 (Comm))
     case-law
   • Phones 4U v EE Ltd ([2021] 1 WLR 3270)
     case-law
   • Berkeley Square Holdings Ltd v Lancer Property Asset Management Ltd ([2021] EWHC 849 (Ch))
     case-law
   • Principles of Civil Procedure (Jeffrey Pinsler, Principles of Civil Procedure (Academy Publishing, 2013))
     academic
   • Response to Feedback from Public Consultation on the Civil Justice Reforms (Ministry of Law & New Rules of Court Implementation Team, 11 June 2021)
     government-publication