Renowned Peranakan cuisine chef Violet Oon is now battling her business partner of nine years, Manoj Murjani, in court.
The culinary doyenne and her family took legal action against the latter after rejecting his S$6 million offer to buy them out.
The family alleges that the businessman made “commercially unfair” decisions, and attempted to write the narrative that he was a co-founder of Oon’s eponymous brand.
The Straits Times (ST) reported that Ms Oon had given Mr Murjani’s holding company Group MMM a 50% stake of her company in 2014.
Meanwhile, Ms Oon owns 20% of the company and her two children, Ms Tay Su-Lyn and Mr Tay Yiming, each hold a 15% stake.
“The company represented Ms Oon’s life’s work and the claimants’ collective dream,” said the family’s legal representative, Ms Meryl Koh.
“Within just three months of meeting him, they gave half of all that to Mr Murjani, believing that he too shared their dream and that he could help them realise it.”
Source: Violet Oon Singapore
According to ST, Ms Oon and her children did not have any employment contracts and discussions happened over group chats.
The family claimed in court that they had expected to share an even financial responsibility with Mr Murjani.
They also believed the latter would provide funds and mentorship to help the company expand.
However, the businessman failed to meet their expectations. He allegedly only contributed an additional $400,000 loan on top of a capital injection of $750,000 to match the family’s.
Their relationship started to sour in Nov 2017, when Mr Murjani tried insert himself into the brand narrative as a co-founder of the company.
The Business Times reported that the businessman had written an email to Ms Oon, suggesting that his name be put before hers and her children’s on the company website when listing the parties involved in their partnership.
Ms Oon noted that she perceived his request as a personal attack.
The founder explained,
I objected to the fact that his name came first, to be honest, because we formed the business and the brand and the company. The brand was rooted in me.
Ms Oon later confronted Mr Murjani in a meeting around Oct 2018 for attempting to rewrite the company’s history and belittling the Oon family.
She wrote, “Yes, you have played a big part in rebranding it, and making the brand a success, but you do not own me, and you have not bought us out.”
Following their first falling out, more cracks started forming in the business partners’ relationship.
ST reported that the businessman accused the family of over-paying themselves, after they increased their salaries from 2014 to 2018.
Ms Oon’s salary increased from S$5,000 a month in 2014, to S$8,000 a month in 2018.
Ms Tay and Mr Tay, on the other hand, saw increases from S$1,000 per month to S$5,000 a month, and S$4,500 per month to S$8,000 a month respectively.
Source: Her World Singapore
According to the family’s lawyer, the values were in line with prevailing market rates at the time.
However, Mr Murjani allegedly began inflating the overpayment figure and even threatened to sue them and shut down the company.
The businessman apparently then pressured the family into signing an agreement in Feb 2019.
The agreeement detailed that:
Additionally, the company was expected to pay him a monthly salary of S$21,000.
The family took legal action against Mr Murjani in 2022, hoping to buy him out.
In April, the latter in turn offered to buy the family out for S$6mil, provided that the family agreed to forgo the use of the “Violet Oon” name in the future.
The family refused his offer, prompting the current trial.
Mr Murjani’s lawyer asserted that his client’s offer was “more than reasonable”. He additionally suggested that the family was trying to squeeze Group MMM out “at as lowball a price possible”.
Source: The Edge Singapore
Mr Murjani also rebutted Ms Oon’s claims that she signed the 2019 agreement under duress.
He instead claimed that they made the agreement “in the spirit of amicably moving forward” and to further develop the company together.
Mr Murjani additionally denied threatening legal action, claiming the “loan” outlined in the agreement was an agreed solution to resolve the issue of the family’s overpaid salaries.
Ms Oon and her children are now seeking a court order. They hope the court will allow the family to buy Group MMM’s shares, at a price determined by the court or a court-appointed valuer.
Have news you must share? Get in touch with us via email at news@mustsharenews.com.
Featured image adapted from PinkyPiggu and Violet Oon Singapore. Image on the left for illustration purposes only.
Tong Aik Huat also sold a winning ticket for the 21 Oct draw.
The seller was soured by the experience with Mercari, saying the platform only provided compensation…
The woman walked away naturally despite the boxes between her thighs.
He was allegedly last seen on 11 Nov.
The leopard reportedly jumped off the truck once it saw zoo staff approaching.
The trailer driver made a V sign for the media while being escorted to the…