Former Hyflux CEO Olivia Lum and four former independent directors face criminal charges related to the company’s failure to disclose material information about the Tuaspring project, a now-defunct water treatment facility with significant exposure in the electricity market. The charges stem from announcements and a share issuance made by Hyflux in 2011.
Lum is facing two charges concerning her alleged consent to Hyflux’s omission of key details about Tuaspring that should have been disclosed under Singapore Exchange (SGX) listing rules. The first charge accuses her of intentionally failing to notify SGX in March 2011 that the Tuaspring project marked Hyflux’s expansion into electricity sales—a business line subject to market price volatility that significantly affected the plant’s profitability. Conviction on this charge carries a possible penalty of up to seven years in prison and a fine of up to S$250,000. The second charge relates to omissions in the offer information statement issued in April 2011 for S$200 million in 6% preference shares; a conviction here could result in up to two years’ imprisonment and a fine up to S$150,000.
The four former independent directors—Teo, 70; Gay, 69; Murugasu, 67; and Lee, 70—each face two charges of neglect. These charges allege that they failed in their duty to ensure Hyflux disclosed material information about Tuaspring during the announcements and in the 2011 share offer document. Another independent director, Rajsekar Kuppuswami Mitta, previously pled guilty in August 2025 to neglecting to disclose relevant information in the March 2011 announcement.
Additionally, Hyflux’s former chief financial officer, Choc, faces one charge of conniving in the omission of the Tuaspring-related disclosures.
Defense lawyers have emphasized the presumption of innocence and expressed confidence that the prosecution’s case lacks sufficient merit. Lum’s lawyer, Thong, stated that while his client does not concede the prosecution has established a convincing case, proceeding with the trial is more efficient to reach a definitive conclusion. Similarly, Daryl Fong, representing the four independent directors, maintained that the charges lack the necessary evidence to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and urged for an expedient resolution.
Originally, Lum faced six charges, including four under the Companies Act, which have since been stood down, leaving the prosecution to pursue only the two related to disclosure breaches under SGX rules. The case centers on whether Hyflux’s announcements and documents failed to properly inform investors about the financial risks tied to Tuaspring’s dependency on electricity sales revenue, which was a significant component of the company’s projected income.
The ongoing trial continues to address corporate governance and disclosure standards expected of listed companies, highlighting the legal responsibilities of executives and directors to maintain transparency in financial and operational reporting.