Eratat Lifestyle

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
I didn't pay too much attention on the company. By glancing on the preliminary disclosure, here are my view

Indicative value of Target is US$68 mil, so "10% of the enlarged issued share capital of the Target" means less than US$6.8 mil of paper money. After completion, the paper money will be shared by creditors, than shareholders, before others, in that order. Base on my source, the latest total liabilities of the company, was S$36 mil. There are net asset value, but I doubt on the reliability of the asset, but liabilities should be pretty reliable. So paper money of US$6.8 mil, vs a liability S$36 mil. I guess nothing much left, after creditors, even not all the S$36 mil are belong to creditors.

From the Target perspective. It seems pretty cheap to pay with only US$6.8 mil of paper money, for a company worth more than S$47 mil, before suspension. Listing shell alone might already worth the bet.

(not vested)

(13-01-2015, 08:54 AM)sykn Wrote: I've already written off my previous investment in Eratat as a bad dream and cost of attending school. This announcement is puzzling; not sure I understand what it really means. Are they saying that existing holders of Eratat shares do not have to fork out money to get a piece of the 10% new shares that the "target" is putting out? Then what does the "target" get for handing out 10% of its equity? Just a chance to be listed in SGX without the cost and travails of listing? Anything else? In any case, Bali already has too many resorts, IMHO. Eager to hear those experienced in reading such things share their views please.

(12-01-2015, 10:55 PM)desmondxyz Wrote: Is this considered an unconventional way of RTO? at least shareholders of eratat still get something....

http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/20150112...eID=331161
“夏则资皮,冬则资纱,旱则资船,水则资车” - 范蠡
Reply
The Final Nail in the Coffin

http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/817500%2...eID=449961

Discharge of the JM Order and Winding Up of the Company
The JM Order dated 22 August 2014 expired on 28 February 2017.
On 28 February 2017, the Company made an application to the High Court to wind up the Company (“Winding Up Application”). The Winding Up Application was heard before the High Court on 7 April 2017. At the hearing, the High Court has, inter alia, made the orders (“Orders”) that:
1. the appointment of JM was discharged;
2. the Company was wound up; and
3. Cosimo Borrelli and Jason Aleksander Kardachi of Borrelli Walsh Pte. Limited were appointed the Joint and Several Liquidators of the Company (“Liquidators”).

Delisting of the Listing Status of the Company
The Liquidators are preparing the necessary application to SGX-ST to delist the shares of the Company from the Mainboard of the SGX-ST.
Reply
DELISTING OF THE COMPANY FROM THE SGX-ST

On 17 May 2017, the SGX-ST approved the Delisting Application and advised that the Company will be removed from the official list of the Mainboard of the SGX-ST on 19 June 2017.

http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/20170616...eID=458079
Reply
(17-06-2017, 10:23 AM)weijian Wrote: DELISTING OF THE COMPANY FROM THE SGX-ST

On 17 May 2017, the SGX-ST approved the Delisting Application and advised that the Company will be removed from the official list of the Mainboard of the SGX-ST on 19 June 2017.

http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/20170616...eID=458079


The link seems like broken.
Anyway, so they just delist like that?
No offer price? Existing shareholder all gone case?
My views are your Gilbert & Sullivan's:
"The flowers that bloom in the spring, have nothing to do with the case".
Reply
(17-06-2017, 11:03 AM)ksir Wrote:
(17-06-2017, 10:23 AM)weijian Wrote: DELISTING OF THE COMPANY FROM THE SGX-ST

On 17 May 2017, the SGX-ST approved the Delisting Application and advised that the Company will be removed from the official list of the Mainboard of the SGX-ST on 19 June 2017.

http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/20170616...eID=458079


The link seems like broken.
Anyway, so they just delist like that?
No offer price? Existing shareholder all gone case?
This is my first and hopefully my last rude shock and totally failed investment! While licking my wounds, I have learned much from this investing experience; if not for this, I doubt I would take seriously the dangers of investing in equities.
Reply
(17-06-2017, 11:56 AM)sykn Wrote:
(17-06-2017, 11:03 AM)ksir Wrote:
(17-06-2017, 10:23 AM)weijian Wrote: DELISTING OF THE COMPANY FROM THE SGX-ST

On 17 May 2017, the SGX-ST approved the Delisting Application and advised that the Company will be removed from the official list of the Mainboard of the SGX-ST on 19 June 2017.

http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/20170616...eID=458079


The link seems like broken.
Anyway, so they just delist like that?
No offer price? Existing shareholder all gone case?
This is my first and hopefully my last rude shock and totally failed investment! While licking my wounds, I have learned much from this investing experience; if not for this, I doubt I would take seriously the dangers of investing in equities.


Good, so as they say
"Experience is what you get when you didn't get what you wanted"

Anyway, speaking from experience, as much as you swear never touch china aS(s) chips, your minds will be hugely challenged when some of them rising fast & furious.

<used to be vested in this when i first started>
My views are your Gilbert & Sullivan's:
"The flowers that bloom in the spring, have nothing to do with the case".
Reply
(17-06-2017, 11:03 AM)ksir Wrote:
(17-06-2017, 10:23 AM)weijian Wrote: DELISTING OF THE COMPANY FROM THE SGX-ST

On 17 May 2017, the SGX-ST approved the Delisting Application and advised that the Company will be removed from the official list of the Mainboard of the SGX-ST on 19 June 2017.

http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/20170616...eID=458079


The link seems like broken.
Anyway, so they just delist like that?
No offer price? Existing shareholder all gone case?

hi ksir,
The link is working (i just tried). The company doesn't seem to have the ability to make any cash offer or even hold AGM to put delisting to the vote. So SGX seems to have approved it to be delisted.

Existing shareholders will get a hardcopy share certificate indicating that they own X amount of shares - a souvenir more than anything else (I know that, because i got one myself, from ChinaMilk Big Grin)
Reply
(17-06-2017, 02:03 PM)weijian Wrote:
(17-06-2017, 11:03 AM)ksir Wrote:
(17-06-2017, 10:23 AM)weijian Wrote: DELISTING OF THE COMPANY FROM THE SGX-ST

On 17 May 2017, the SGX-ST approved the Delisting Application and advised that the Company will be removed from the official list of the Mainboard of the SGX-ST on 19 June 2017.

http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/20170616...eID=458079


The link seems like broken.
Anyway, so they just delist like that?
No offer price? Existing shareholder all gone case?

hi ksir,
The link is working (i just tried). The company doesn't seem to have the ability to make any cash offer or even hold AGM to put delisting to the vote. So SGX seems to have approved it to be delisted.

Existing shareholders will get a hardcopy share certificate indicating that they own X amount of shares - a souvenir more than anything else (I know that, because i got one myself, from ChinaMilk Big Grin)

As much as I do not wish to finger point, but definitely something is wrong here ya?
Can like that delist and no one held responsible?

I think I will get 1 soon from celestial (if i remember the name correctly)
My views are your Gilbert & Sullivan's:
"The flowers that bloom in the spring, have nothing to do with the case".
Reply
I don't think any Chinese authorities will be interested in enforcing any white-collar criminal actions on their own citizens, since no money is ever lost on China's shores. There will not be any PRC citizens (in huge numbers) going to Tiananmen Square or outside some bank/office to protest (it works on ordinary PRC citizens to get back their money from the CCP!)

In addition, Eratat is also not a SOE and so Chairman Xi's anti-corruption drive is not been challenged in any way.

As an OPMI, can only say that the structure is not robust enough in this case - holding company incorporated in SG and assets in subsidiaries incorporated in another place. And that there is too much asymmetry - Mgt has higher incentive to make money via fraud, than anything else.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)