Sabana Shari'ah REIT

It seems that SGX is not going to deal with the issue , they just leave it to the investors to grill the valuers .

(07-03-2017, 03:57 PM)cfa Wrote: It seems that  SGX is not going to deal with the issue , they just leave it to the investors to grill  the valuers .

The referee join in for the game? The referee should only to ensure all complied with existing rules and a fair game.

(07-03-2017, 04:23 PM)YMPL Wrote:

(07-03-2017, 03:57 PM)cfa Wrote: It seems that  SGX is not going to deal with the issue , they just leave it to the investors to grill  the valuers .

The referee join in for the game? The referee should only to ensure all complied with existing rules and a fair game.

But it is funny right? In any games, referee has to be in the game to ensure all play fairly (or as you said, according to the rules). Without being in the game, or if the referee is lousy, by & large, the odds are tilted to the big player!

SGX questioned the Sponsor, Vibrant Group Ltd on 8 Mar 17. SGX has queried Sabana REIT and its Sponsor 4 times.

http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/Vibrant-...eID=442608

(09-03-2017, 10:39 AM)PACTIVIST SPEAKS Wrote: SGX questioned the Sponsor, Vibrant Group Ltd  on 8 Mar 17.  SGX has queried Sabana REIT and its Sponsor 4 times.

http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/Vibrant-...eID=442608

I might have missed out a reply in earlier comments, pls pardon me if that is so.

So for Jerry Low and co to succeed in removing the manager:
1) only a 51% majority is needed. Is this only for the votes counted, or is it 51% of all units? How about the shareholders who do not submit any votes?
2) Are the managers allowed to vote on this resolution? (Vote on their own removal)
3) Is the Sponsor allowed to vote on this resolution as well?

Thanks

To Remove the Manager, a simple majority (51%) is needed from those present and voting. Both the Sponsor and the Manager are allowed to vote.

(12-03-2017, 11:01 PM)ACTIVIST SPEAKS Wrote: To Remove the Manager, a simple majority (51%) is needed from those present and voting.  Both the Sponsor and the Manager are allowed to vote.

Despite the disagreements in approach between yourself n the other group led by Mr Koh, are u aware if the other group would vote in your favor in the EGM?
It seems like there's a lot of common ground n the only difference is in whether a new manager should be found before the removal

And do u know what's the latest combined shareholdings of the manager and the sponsor currently?
(Taking into account the effects of the rights issue and the managers fees paid in units)

According to their latest announcement, the manager and the sponsor has 12.1%.

As far as Mr Koh is concerned, I was told he has stopped as his last position to keep the manager was not well received. In any case, as you might have read from The Edge, what he proposed was never legally executable.

Our stand has never changed from day one. We want to remove the Manager. If we cannot do it, we want to wind up the REIT. After the requisition letter was submitted, we never solicit support as we feel this is a personal choice. What is good for us may not be appealing to the next guy. As such, we present our stand and our research, everybody is free to either vote for or against the resolutions put up by the 66 of us. You may wish to see our views at https://www.facebook.com/groups/15863995...0/?qsefr=1

(12-03-2017, 11:58 PM)ACTIVIST SPEAKS Wrote: According to their latest announcement, the manager and the sponsor has 12.1%.

As far as Mr Koh is concerned, I was told he has stopped as his last position to keep the manager was not well received.  In any case, as you might have read from The Edge, what he proposed was never legally executable.

Our stand has never changed from day one.  We want to remove the Manager.  If we cannot do it, we want to wind up the REIT.  After the requisition letter was submitted, we never solicit support as we feel this is a personal choice.  What is good for us may not be appealing to the next guy.  As such, we present our stand and our research, everybody is free to either vote for or against the resolutions put up by the 66 of us.  You may wish to see our views at   https://www.facebook.com/groups/15863995...0/?qsefr=1

Thanks 
Aside from attacking them on the valuation report front, have u guys considered reporting the directors to MAS for neglecting their fiduciary duties?
There's disagreement now, n if u crank up the pressure on each of them individually, we might see some finger pointing
Even if it doesn't succeed, the spotlight n embarrassment alone is gg to be real bad for their reputation
Even the non executive independent director Ms Ng, who stepped down, has failed miserably IMO
These "independent" directors have been ard since IPO, and in the 7yrs of collecting fees, she didn't flag anything wrong, and now she's trying to act as a hero for minority. 
She is/was the Singaporean ambassador to Hungary btw, n sits on many boards as an "independent" director.
As someone earlier in this thread commented, these guys should be called up individually instead of hiding behind a general term "Sabana reit manager"

IMO, that's gg to be more effective than focusing on the validity of the valuation reports by the 3 valuers

Fully agree with GFG , the resignation of miss Ng has shown some untold wrong doings within the BOD.  When the Sh** hit the fan, figures will be pointing to one another .