CDL’s Sherman Kwek points to father’s former PA and board adviser Catherine Wu as reason for dispute

SINGAPORE: The legal wrangle and public war of words between property tycoon Kwek Leng Beng and his son Sherman continued on Thursday (Feb 27), with the younger man singling out his father’s associate as the source of a dispute within their company City Developments Limited (CDL).

Dr Catherine Wu is an adviser to the board of Millennium & Copthorne Hotels, a subsidiary of CDL.

In a statement, Mr Sherman Kwek said Dr Wu has been “interfering in matters going well beyond her scope”, adding that “she wields and exercises enormous influence”.

“These matters have troubled us as directors. Due to her long relationship with the chairman, efforts that were made to manage the situation were done sensitively, but to no avail,” said Mr Kwek, the group CEO of CDL.

The internal tussle at CDL was thrust into the public eye on Wednesday when CDL executive chairman Kwek Leng Beng issued a statement, saying he was taking his son to court over alleged governance lapses and an attempted power grab at the board level.

He characterised his son’s actions as an attempted “coup” and said he was seeking to restore corporate integrity. In a second statement late on Wednesday, the elder Kwek announced that his son and other directors acting with him have agreed to cease further action following a court hearing. 

Mr Sherman Kwek said on Thursday that his father’s first statement failed to present a “full picture” of the dispute.

“The chairman’s claim that there is an ‘attempted coup’ by the majority directors to consolidate control of CDL’s board is not only incorrect, it distracts from the nub of the issue, therefore requiring us to respond to present the full picture.

“There has been no attempt by us to oust the chairman.”  

He said the primary reason for the dispute relates to a “very serious issue” of corporate governance within the CDL group arising from the conduct of Dr Wu.

Her actions prompted the directors to propose a resolution to terminate the advisory agreement she has with the board of M&C and another “to affirm that Dr Wu has no power and authority, among other things, to influence or advise the directors, management and staff of the CDL and M&C Groups”, he added.

“We considered them to be necessary to protect the interests of the shareholders and relevant staff of the CDL Group, and to restore proper corporate governance and accountability.” 

Mr Sherman Kwek said these resolutions were passed by a majority of the board on Feb 21.

The application for the injunctions was filed on Feb 25 and the minority directors asked the court to hear them on the merits on an urgent basis, unsuccessfully asking that these resolutions be reversed.

“The majority directors are alive to their duties and will continue to uphold corporate governance and accountability within the CDL Group,” he said. 

According to an employment tribunal judgment in London in 2018, Dr Wu was described as the personal assistant to the older Kwek, although she was not an employee and was paid by the chairman.

The judgment said she acts as his “eyes and ears” due to his age. 

COURT HEARING

Mr Sherman Kwek also touched on the court hearing that took place on Wednesday afternoon. 

“It has not been disclosed that the minority directors, comprising the chairman, Mr Kwek Leng Beng, Mr Philip Yeo, Mr Colin Ong and Mr Chong Yoon Chou, served five of us court papers just after noon on Feb 26, 2025 for a hearing that was held only two and a half hours later.

“Without giving us the opportunity to respond in time to give the court the full picture, the minority directors tried to get the court to grant interim injunctions to restrain the majority directors on the board of CDL, comprising six independent directors and myself, from implementing a number of resolutions, to restrain two independent directors from exercising powers as directors and to reverse a number of resolutions that had been passed by the majority directors on the board of CDL,” said the younger Kwek, 

He added that the suggestion in Mr Kwek Leng Beng’s second press statement that the minority directors succeeded in their application and that lapses of corporate governance at CDL and its subsidiaries have been halted is “most unfortunate”.

“As the chairman must know, yesterday the minority directors failed in their application to reverse the resolutions that were passed,” he said.

“What in fact happened was that because the majority directors did not have the opportunity to present our case, we voluntarily offered undertakings, as defendants often do in such urgent applications, to preserve the status quo until a full hearing where we would have that opportunity.”

As a result, Sherman Kwek said the court recorded their undertakings that they would not take any further action for the time being in relation to a number of the resolutions that had been passed, and undertakings from two independent directors that they would not for the time being exercise powers as directors of CDL.

He said this explains why the court made it a point to say it was not making any substantive orders on the minority directors’ application, adding that this point is not found in the chairman’s second statement.

“The chairman also did not mention that all the directors, including the chairman and the minority directors, were directed by the court to refrain until the dispute is resolved from doing anything in relation to CDL’s subsidiaries, Singapura Developments (Private) Limited and Millennium & Copthorne Hotels Limited, that would prejudice the other party’s position in the dispute.”

Mr Sherman Kwek also said that there was no mention by Kwek Leng Beng of the fact that the lawyers for the minority directors were questioned by the court about whether they had been validly appointed by CDL.

This led the lawyers to say that they would “leave out CDL” for the hearing, he said, adding that his group was the one who asked for the full hearing to be held early. The court agreed to this. 

“Therefore, despite the attempt to ambush us, the minority directors did not succeed in persuading the court to hear and decide the merits, and in fact ended up on the receiving end of directions themselves and unable to use CDL’s name at the hearing.”