Kimly

I suspect pokka bosses were under the impression that Asian Story was their own brand. When the sale was announced by kimly, they must hv been scratching their heads. All asian story marketing materials point to pokka. Just google it.

KIMLY'S executive chairman and executive director were arrested by the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) on Tuesday for allegedly flouting the Securities and Futures Act and later released on bail.

https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/compani...ed-on-bail

In Chinese, surname Ong and Wang MAY be the same 王. What a coincidence.

If they are proven guilty , hope not just a fine , maximum jail term for them serving as a warning to other potential scamers !

(01-12-2018, 10:48 AM)Triple70 Wrote: https://singaporeinvestmentresearch.word...o-be-true/

(02-12-2018, 04:16 PM)Triple70 Wrote: I suspect pokka bosses were under the impression that Asian Story was their own brand. When the sale was announced by kimly, they must hv been scratching their heads. All asian story marketing materials point to pokka. Just google it.

(01-12-2018, 11:04 PM)opmi Wrote: Another old news for Pokka...

Pokka“内部审计”为由 撤赖怡伶丈夫王咏生总裁职务
https://www.channel8news.sg/news8/singap...39394.html

Interesting... My guess is Alain Ong has been abusing authority as Pokka International CEO... now that he is kicked out he wanted to carve out /cashout the ASC that he helped to build... provided Wang Jia Ye is not a "proxy"

"a Pokka spokesman said Mr Wang "was an employee of Pokka but became an external marketing consultant this year"." but he is the sole owner of ASC which was established 2009

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/p...d-10m-loss

...

Wang Jia Ye was indeed a proxy, but whose? Ong Eng Sin or Lim Hee Liat? The answer will decide the fate of both men.

If Wang was proxy of Ong, then it implies that Ong was abusing his Pokka position by causing Pokka to be in a disadvantageous commercial deal with ASC. The sale of ASC also would have benefited Ong. This is indeed the argument that Pokka is pursuing.

It was, however, revealed that Wang's shares in ASC were transferred to a related party of Lim. So it appears that Wang is a proxy of LHL.

If Wang was the proxy of Lim, then it implies that Ong was not interested in whatever commercial advantages that ASC accrues from Pokka. This means that Ong did not gain from any "losses" incurred by Pokka; he was merely doing facilitating a deal between Pokka and ASC, where the former went into a poor contract manufacturing and distribution deal, with eyes open. Indeed, it was revealed the Pokka's BOD were aware of, and approved the deal between itself and ASC. This was not some hush deal where Pokka's BOD was kept in the dark.

If this were the case, that Ong was not working in concert with Lim to take advantage of Pokka, and that Wang was the proxy of Lim, then Lim/Kimly may be prosecuted/punished for lying about the unrelated relationship between Kimly's BOD and ASC.

So why did Lim/Kimly not reveal the relationship between itself and ASC? An IPT acquisition might have raised an eyebrow, but it certainly wouldn't have been blocked as such, given the size of ASC vs Kimly.

When Ong joined Kimly's BOD, he must have required the consent and blessing from Pokka. Ong's angle to convince the BOD may be to increase sales of Pokka's products to Kimly, which is a good thing for Pokka. Since Ong's entry to Kimly's BOD was not blocked, it is likely that at this point, Pokka was not aware that ASC was beneficially owned by Lim/Kimly.

The point at which the truth started to unravel might have been when Ong was alleged to join Kimly, after he was suspended by Pokka, in September 2018. Thereafter, Pokka might have realised that Ong's years of promotion of Pokka's support for ASC's products, was Ong's long-term 'plan B.'

Does Ong know that ASC is beneficially owned by Lim/Kimly? It will be difficult for Ong to claim otherwise, since he has relationships with both. Ong, in his capacity as Pokka's employee, sells products to ASC, and he was for some time on Kimly's BOD.

So if it is true that Lim is the beneficial owner of ASC, and Ong is aware of this, why would Ong want to build ASC, for the benefit of Kimly, which now appeared to have been at the expense of his own career?

What is the relationship between Ong and Lim?

There are at least possible three narratives to this case:

1. Ong, as an employee of Pokka, was conducting business with ASC on normal commercial terms. Ong's relationship with his employer soured. Thereafter, Ong decided to move to Pokka's customer (and competitor) ASC/Kimly. Pokka became upset at Ong's departure to their competitor, particularly because Ong spent much of Pokka's resources to build up the competitor. Pokka decided to retaliate against Ong and ASC.

No conspiracy. A normal case of employee moving to competitor. Everything happened above board, and as a matter of coincidence.

2. Ong, as an employee of Pokka, was conducting business with ASC on terms which are beneficial to ASC, and injurious to Pokka. The purpose of doing so, was to build up ASC's business substantially, for the benefit of Lim/Kimly. To compensate Ong for his effort, Lim/Kimly offers Ong certain 'kickbacks,' perhaps such as the top job in Kimly. Pokka realised they had been the victim of a long con, and decided to retaliate against Ong and ASC.

Ong and Lim/Kimly masterminded the abuse of Pokka.

3. Ong, as an employee of Pokka, was conducting business with ASC on terms which are beneficial to ASC, and injurious to Pokka. The purpose of doing so, was to build up ASC's business substantially, as Ong is the beneficial owner of ASC. Ong decided to monetise ASC, by selling it to Kimly, as he had a prior relationship (as Non Executive Director) with Kimly's BOD. Pokka realised that Ong was the beneficial owner of ASC, and became upset at Ong for abusing his position in Pokka, for his own personal gain. Pokka decided to retaliate against Ong and ASC. Kimly is the hapless victim, unaware that ASC's profits were boosted by Pokka's marketing efforts, but managed to pull out of the deal when Pokka threw light on the matter. Kimly is thankful to Pokka for helping them avoid a bad deal.

Ong is the mastermind perpetrator. Lim/Kimly and Pokka were victims.

(29-08-2019, 10:11 AM)karlmarx Wrote: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/p...d-10m-loss

...

Wang Jia Ye was indeed a proxy, but whose? Ong Eng Sin or Lim Hee Liat? The answer will decide the fate of both men.

If Wang was proxy of Ong, then it implies that Ong was abusing his Pokka position by causing Pokka to be in a disadvantageous commercial deal with ASC. The sale of ASC also would have benefited Ong. This is indeed the argument that Pokka is pursuing.

It was, however, revealed that Wang's shares in ASC were transferred to a related party of Lim. So it appears that Wang is a proxy of LHL.

If Wang was the proxy of Lim, then it implies that Ong was not interested in whatever commercial advantages that ASC accrues from Pokka. This means that Ong did not gain from any "losses" incurred by Pokka; he was merely doing facilitating a deal between Pokka and ASC, where the former went into a poor contract manufacturing and distribution deal, with eyes open. Indeed, it was revealed the Pokka's BOD were aware of, and approved the deal between itself and ASC. This was not some hush deal where Pokka's BOD was kept in the dark.

If this were the case, that Ong was not working in concert with Lim to take advantage of Pokka, and that Wang was the proxy of Lim, then Lim/Kimly may be prosecuted/punished for lying about the unrelated relationship between Kimly's BOD and ASC.

So why did Lim/Kimly not reveal the relationship between itself and ASC? An IPT acquisition might have raised an eyebrow, but it certainly wouldn't have been blocked as such, given the size of ASC vs Kimly.

When Ong joined Kimly's BOD, he must have required the consent and blessing from Pokka. Ong's angle to convince the BOD may be to increase sales of Pokka's products to Kimly, which is a good thing for Pokka. Since Ong's entry to Kimly's BOD was not blocked, it is likely that at this point, Pokka was not aware that ASC was beneficially owned by Lim/Kimly.

The point at which the truth started to unravel might have been when Ong was alleged to join Kimly, after he was suspended by Pokka, in September 2018. Thereafter, Pokka might have realised that Ong's years of promotion of Pokka's support for ASC's products, was Ong's long-term 'plan B.'

Does Ong know that ASC is beneficially owned by Lim/Kimly? It will be difficult for Ong to claim otherwise, since he has relationships with both. Ong, in his capacity as Pokka's employee, sells products to ASC, and he was for some time on Kimly's BOD.

So if it is true that Lim is the beneficial owner of ASC, and Ong is aware of this, why would Ong want to build ASC, for the benefit of Kimly, which now appeared to have been at the expense of his own career?

What is the relationship between Ong and Lim?

There are at least possible three narratives to this case:

1. Ong, as an employee of Pokka, was conducting business with ASC on normal commercial terms. Ong's relationship with his employer soured. Thereafter, Ong decided to move to Pokka's customer (and competitor) ASC/Kimly. Pokka became upset at Ong's departure to their competitor, particularly because Ong spent much of Pokka's resources to build up the competitor. Pokka decided to retaliate against Ong and ASC.

No conspiracy. A normal case of employee moving to competitor. Everything happened above board, and as a matter of coincidence.

2. Ong, as an employee of Pokka, was conducting business with ASC on terms which are beneficial to ASC, and injurious to Pokka. The purpose of doing so, was to build up ASC's business substantially, for the benefit of Lim/Kimly. To compensate Ong for his effort, Lim/Kimly offers Ong certain 'kickbacks,' perhaps such as the top job in Kimly. Pokka realised they had been the victim of a long con, and decided to retaliate against Ong and ASC.

Ong and Lim/Kimly masterminded the abuse of Pokka.

3. Ong, as an employee of Pokka, was conducting business with ASC on terms which are beneficial to ASC, and injurious to Pokka. The purpose of doing so, was to build up ASC's business substantially, as Ong is the beneficial owner of ASC. Ong decided to monetise ASC, by selling it to Kimly, as he had a prior relationship (as Non Executive Director) with Kimly's BOD. Pokka realised that Ong was the beneficial owner of ASC, and became upset at Ong for abusing his position in Pokka, for his own personal gain. Pokka decided to retaliate against Ong and ASC. Kimly is the hapless victim, unaware that ASC's profits were boosted by Pokka's marketing efforts, but managed to pull out of the deal when Pokka threw light on the matter. Kimly is thankful to Pokka for helping them avoid a bad deal.

Ong is the mastermind perpetrator. Lim/Kimly and Pokka were victims.

Apr 2015 Wang shares was transferred to Ms Seah Li Ling, wife of Mr Glenn Seah, former Kimly executive director. Ms Seah becomes the proxy (Pokka said its investigations found Mr Lim Hee Liat, then executive chairman and controlling shareholder of Kimly, became the beneficial owner of the ASC shares under Ms Seah's name from at least March 2016.)

Mar 2017 Kimly IPO received SGD43m proceeds

July 2018 Kimly buy ASC for SGD16m about 1/3 of proceeds without IPT, with earn-out payment in Kimly shares. Funny thing is the seller is still Wang.

Nov 2018 Kimly cancels the acquisition
https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/compani...s-to-pokka

Prima facie I would think Wang is Ong's proxy and for Lim's peace of mind, transferred to Ms Seah. Lim/Seah/Kimly likely not a victim and Ong likely derived major benefit if deal went through. ASC is the gravy train.

Kimbly has posted a lengthy reply to a series of questions by SGX regarding the role of Alain Ong and the acquisition of ASC.

ST ARTICLE ENTITLED ‘POKKA SUES ACTRESS VIVIAN LAI’S HUSBAND, ALLEGING HE WAS PART OF CONSPIRACY THAT CAUSED $10M LOSS’ DATED 29 AUGUST 2019 - RESPONSES TO SGX-ST QUERIES


Am I the only one feeling a little disconcerting that our stock regulatory body is only questioning the company following an article in the press? Shouldn't they have query Kimly when the acquisition for ASC was aborted? Of course, it's not the first time it has happened but such action by SGX does not inspire investor confidence.

This tells us that SGX is probably also not privy to the progress of CAD's investigation. Because if they knew what was going on, they wouldn't have to ask.

Since the investigation is still on-going, an SGX query is probably not expected to yield any material discovery. Everything will, hopefully, eventually be revealed once CAD is done. And so that is why Kimly's response to SGX is also not particularly enlightening.

But SGX is probably doing it to show that they are aware of the news report, and doing something about it. Lest, they get public flak for no/slow response.

There are two things from Kimly's response, that stood out to me. The first is the list of professional firms engaged by Kimly to advise on the ASC acquisition. The second is movement of shares between Wang and Seah Li Ling, which again suggests that the acquisition of ASC by Kimly may have been in the works, long before Q417; that being the period that Kimly claims the deal was first brought up.

My take.

1. Pokka Claim to have lost at least $10M. There is some loss for sure but it maybe much less. ASC is not successful in the first place. While certain resources might have been shared (and hence 'lost'), Pokka probably lost very little in terms of revenue. Pokka is doing more or less the same with or without ASC.

2. What was shared are the resources
i) 3rd party factories
ii) Warehousing
iii) Formulation of drinks
Iv) Sales/Distribution channels

3. So who cooked up the plan? My best guess is both parties, it takes too hands to clap but from my perspective, it is unlikely a coffeeshop chain would hatch or initiate such an elaborate plan.

4. Pokka on its part, probably failed in its check and balance and allowed ASC to share its resources without benefiting itself. Then again, see point 1. Also See point 5.

5. Cant be sure when Pokka realized its folly because after all Ong is part of Pokka and holds great sway and makes important decisions there. In this respect, there is a great distinction of the company Pokka before and after Ong has left.

6. Failed in so many respects. ASC failed to take off. Planned sale of ASC failed, hence the grand plan failed. Ong failed to get a job. Pokka failed to see what is happening until very much later. But one thing is right though, ASC can probably sell and push its unknown brands at coffeeshops(ie kimly), many people will order beverage without specifying brand.