Viz Branz

Who has an idea what the reason behind the unfavourable inventory development of Viz Branz could be?

Here are the numbers.

inventory turnover the latest 12 months per

2. half 2007: 6,6
1. half 2008: 5,9
2. half 2008: 5,4
1. half 2009: 4,9
2. half 2009: 4,1
1. half 2010: 3,9
2. half 2010: 3,9

or similarily inventory to revenue of latest 12 months in per cent

2. half 2007: 10,1
1. half 2008: 11,5
2. half 2008: 14,8
1. half 2009: 15,2
2. half 2009: 15,6
1. half 2010: 16,7
2. half 2010: 18,1

The installment of the creamer facilities can't be a sufficient explanation, as this effect should have been vanished a year ago.

Has anybody experiences with Viz Branz referring the provision on information of this type when asked. Who was the contacted person and how was it done (e-mail, phone ...).

WEB-CM

(18-02-2011, 11:37 PM)d.o.g. Wrote: 2. Above 30%, increase by more than 1% within 6 months.

See the Listing Manual for details.

If that is the case, then Mr. Ben Chng Beng Beng would definitely have breached the '1% within 6 months' threshold.

Before his purchase on 01 Sep 2010, he owns 63,754,572 shares or 37.1949 % of the company.

Based on his latest filing on 14 Feb 2011, he now owns 177,306,144 or 49.8917 % of the company.

I dun see any whitewash resolution granted to Mr Chng that exempt him from making a GO. And I dun believe this to be an isolated case. It is trivial for any Substantial Shareholders to breech this 1% limit in 6 months especially for small cap companies.

lonewolf Wrote:I dun see any whitewash resolution granted to Mr Chng that exempt him from making a GO. And I dun believe this to be an isolated case. It is trivial for any Substantial Shareholders to breech this 1% limit in 6 months especially for small cap companies.

I have not studied this company in detail so I can't say much. But certainly if there was a breach anyone could complain to the SGX about a breach of the Listing Manual rules. Then it would be up to SGX to investigate. If SGX doesn't do anything then of course nothing will happen, since the Listing Manual rules are merely commercial guidelines and do not have the force of law.

I know that at least for UIC, Wee Cho Yaw and John Gokongwei appear to be very careful about the "1% creep" rule.

I believe Ben's shareholding is considered together w his father's shareholding which together exceeded 50% since years ago.
Any increment of shareholdings beyond 50% will not trigger GO.

Actually it is the The Singapore Code on Take-overs and Mergers that governs the rule on when a GMO need to be made.

This document in itself is thicker than then entire SGX Listing manual. I try going through it but just reading the section 14 which governs Mandatory offer makes my head spins. I'm still trying to digest the information but there appears to be provisions and exceptions in the codes that allows for person/persons holding more than 50% of a company and not triggering a GMO.

lonewolf Wrote:Actually it is the The Singapore Code on Take-overs and Mergers that governs the rule on when a GMO need to be made.

Oops, thanks for the correction. I actually have that PDF saved up haha. Been a while since I looked at takeover issues.

lonewolf Wrote:I try going through it but just reading the section 14 which governs Mandatory offer makes my head spins.

Essentially, Section 14 of the Code only talks about 2 situations that trigger a GO:

1. When owning less than 30% and going to 30%; and
2. When owning at least 30% but less than 50%, and increasing by more than 1% in 6 months

The Code is silent on those who already own 50% or more.

The rest of the Section deals with non-standard situations like holdings predating 1 Jan 2002, parties acting in concert, part-sales, the chain rule, in-specie distributions etc.

Just saw this announcement.

DISPUTE BETWEEN SHAREHOLDERS IN RELATION TO SHARES OF THE COMPANY

The Company has today received a copy of a writ of summons filed by Mr Chng Khoon Peng (as plaintiff) against Mr Ben Chng Beng Beng (as defendant) in the High Court of Singapore in relation to a dispute over the ownership of shares in the Company amounting to approximately 19% of the issued share capital of the Company (excluding treasury shares). Mr Chng Khoon Peng is an Executive Director of the Company and Mr Ben Chng Beng Beng is the Group Deputy Chairman and Managing Director.

The dispute does not concern the operations of the Company and the Company is not directly involved, nor does it expect to become directly involved, in the dispute.

The Company has requested Mr Chng Khoon Peng and Mr Ben Chng Beng Beng to keep it appraised of developments relating to the dispute, to enable the Company to update shareholders accordingly, as and when appropriate.

BY ORDER OF THE BOARD

Tan Kok Hiang
Director
23 February 2011

What does it says about the company's senior management if the ED and the Deputy Chairman/MD of the company cannot settle this privately and need to settle this by suing one another??

Mr Chng Khoon Peng is still listed on the Viz Branz site as Group Executive Chairman but has relinquish his executive duties on 29 Oct 2010. Source

They are related right? Father and son as attributed by MrValue in post#54.

hmm..something inconsistent with these sgx announcements:

today's: .. 'Mr Chng Khoon Peng is an Executive Director of the Company'...
29 oct '10's: ... 'The Company would like to announce that Mr Chng Khoon Peng and Mr Tan Kok Hiang would relinquish their executive duties and step down as the Executive Chairman and Executive Director of the Company respectively. With effect from 1 November 2010, they will be designated as non-independent/non-executive directors.' ...

so is Mr Chng Khoon Peng an executive or non executive director?

(22-10-2010, 10:37 AM)yeokiwi Wrote: I suppose if senior Chng wants to get some cash, he could inform junior Chng that he wanted to offload shares to him.
Since they are father and son, they can just do a married deal or go to CDP to pay a transfer fee to transfer the shares from father to son.

Funny isn't it?

Does it mean that the father-son relationship is not cordial?

Scenario 1:
Senior Chng wanted to sell away the company. Junior Chng refused and to stop the sale, he actively scooped up all the shares in the market.

Scenario 2:
Junior Chng wanted to sell away the company but Senior Chng refused. So Junior Chng is actively scooping the shares to improve the chance of a successful delisting. Senior CHng is in need of money and he do not wish to sell his shares to Junior Chng.

Scenario 3:
??

http://info.sgx.com/webcorannc.nsf/Annou...endocument