PLB rejects online allegations over retrenchment, unpaid commissions and internal management

Singapore real estate firm PropertyLimBrothers (PLB) has rejected allegations concerning its retrenchment exercise, unpaid commissions, internal management practices and legal actions involving former employees and agents.

The allegations circulated through online platforms, including Reddit, and were also raised by former employees and agents in accounts received by The Online Citizen (TOC).

PLB responded on 30 June 2026, denying claims of arbitrary retrenchment, unfair human resources practices, unpaid obligations and improper conduct.

The company said its decisions were made in response to a severe operational and revenue downturn following major leadership changes.

PLB said the restructuring was necessary to stabilise and reshape the business after a series of departures that affected leadership, revenue generation and operational capacity.

The retrenchment exercise reportedly affected approximately 90% of PLB Media staff, as previously reported.

Former staff raise concerns over retrenchment process

A now-deleted Reddit post, together with accounts received by TOC from former employees and agents, raised allegations involving PLB’s retrenchment procedures, HR decisions, financial obligations, legal actions, exit protocols and internal leadership arrangements.

Former employees alleged that affected staff were given only two days to decide between voluntary resignation and retrenchment during the restructuring exercise.

Questions were also raised over whether the compensation provided met expectations under Singapore’s Tripartite Advisory on responsible retrenchment practices.

According to the allegations, affected employees were reportedly offered compensation equivalent to one week’s salary for each year of service.

Some former staff members described the process as lacking dignity and sufficient communication during a significant employment transition.

The claims raised broader questions about how the company handled employee exits and whether affected workers were given adequate time and support during the process.

Questions raised over HR decisions and retention criteria

Additional allegations suggested that decisions over which employees were retained during the restructuring may have been influenced by personal relationships rather than objective considerations.

Former employees questioned whether retention decisions were based on performance, business requirements or other factors.

PLB rejected these claims, stating that retention decisions were guided by operational needs, including continuity, compliance requirements and support for remaining sales functions.

The company said the restructuring was not driven by personal preferences or disregard for employees.

“This was not a casual decision, nor was it done as an act of convenience,” PLB’s leadership said, describing the move as a response to “a genuine contraction in revenue, capacity, and leadership direction.”

Former agents raise unpaid commission concerns

Former agents also alleged that some commissions remained unpaid, with certain cases reportedly dating back to November 2024.

The allegations raised questions over whether outstanding payments existed, the total amount involved and the expected timeline for settlement.

Concerns were also raised over whether financial difficulties had affected PLB’s ability to fulfil commission obligations.

PLB said it had not ignored outstanding payments and was actively resolving legacy commission matters.

“Many exited and remaining salespersons have received their commissions, while a smaller number of items remain under reconciliation and progressive processing,” the company said.

PLB attributed delays to the sudden decline in revenue and the departure of a significant portion of its sales force.

“Notwithstanding that, PLB has continued to make good on obligations progressively, and we are grateful to those affected parties who have given the company time to do so,” the company said.

Legal correspondence and exit procedures questioned

Several former agents reported receiving legal correspondence or facing legal proceedings after leaving the company.

Some former agents described these actions as disproportionate.

PLB declined to provide detailed comments on ongoing legal matters but confirmed it was addressing what it described as a serious matter involving a former technology staff member relating to company media assets and confidential information.

The company said any legal action taken was intended to protect company rights and should not be characterised as excessive.

Questions were also raised over exit procedures involving company-issued devices.

Former agents alleged that devices were required to be wiped upon departure, making it difficult to retrieve personal contacts and work-related data.

PLB said device resets and account controls were standard handover measures intended to protect company systems, credentials and data continuity.

“To the extent devices, accounts, or access rights were subject to return, reset, or control measures, those were part of standard handover protection and not imposed for improper purposes,” the company said.

Leadership departures created operational challenges

PLB linked the restructuring exercise to leadership changes earlier in the year.

The company said co-founder Melvin Lim stepped down and resigned from his position due to personal circumstances.

His departure followed online rumours in late January 2026 alleging an extramarital relationship between Lim and then-vice-president of strategy Grayce Tan.

Both executives, who are married, resigned from their respective positions on 28 January 2026 shortly after the allegations surfaced.

Lim has maintained a low public profile since the controversy emerged. His personal social media account remains private.

Meanwhile, the Council for Estate Agencies (CEA) records show that Grayce Tan has joined OrangeTee & Tie, with her registration taking effect on 20 June.

PLB said Lim’s departure had a significant operational impact because of his involvement in media production, content direction, lead generation and client-facing support.

The company said public reassurances in March 2026 that operations would continue as normal did not fully reflect the internal challenges faced by the business.

PLB said Lim had been “deeply involved both in front-facing content and behind-the-scenes execution”, creating a leadership and commercial gap following his exit.

Adrian Lim departure added further pressure

PLB said another major disruption occurred in April and May 2026 when co-founder Adrian Lim resigned from the company and joined PropNex together with 36 agents.

The company said the departure “had a significant impact on revenue, staffing requirements, and day-to-day stability”.

PLB said remaining teams were required to adjust quickly following the second leadership change.

Melvin Lim serving as 'non-salaried director'

Following the departure, PLB said Melvin Lim’s involvement became limited to what was necessary in his capacity as a non-salaried director.

A check of the CEA website shows that Lim remains registered with PLB Realty, with his registration listed as effective from 29 May to 31 December.

The company said this did not represent a return to a front-facing operational role.

PLB stated that Lim remained involved only due to his position as a 50% shareholder and sole Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA)-registered director after Adrian Lim’s resignation.

The company added that his focus was primarily on family commitments.

PLB defends restructuring decision

PLB said the restructuring involved both remote contractors and a smaller number of local staff.

The company said affected employees were spoken to face-to-face and provided with severance packages.

It also said departing employees were allowed to retain company laptops or workstations as a practical farewell gesture.

PLB acknowledged that some former staff members remained dissatisfied with the process but rejected claims that the exercise was conducted carelessly.

The company said it had historically attempted to preserve jobs during difficult periods, including during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PLB said it had not previously undertaken this type of exit exercise and argued that its past approach should be considered when assessing the restructuring.

Company outlines current direction

PLB said its operations are now managed by its leadership team and authorised personnel.

The company added that directors and shareholders may provide transitional or strategic input where necessary.

It said this involvement should not be interpreted as uncertainty over operational control.

PLB described itself as a “much smaller and leaner organisation” focused on stabilisation, fulfilling obligations and continuing operations for remaining clients and agents.

The company said the current period represented adjustment and recovery rather than misconduct.

PLB said it remained committed to “doing good and honest work” as it moved forward.