215 investors of DBS High Notes 5 who lost their money in the complex instrument had their suit against DBS dismissed by High Court Judge Lee Seiu Kin.
The investors had argued that there were inconsistencies in the product’s base prospectus and pricing statement.
Justice Lee agreed with DBS that three of the formulas used by them were completely consistent. While there was a mistake in the fourth, he accepted DBS’s explanation that it was due to an obvious clerical error.
If “clerical mistake” can be used as a defence to wrong information printed on a prospectus, will we ever believe in whatever documents we are given anymore?