China Sky Chemical Fibre
08-01-2012, 11:39 AM
(08-01-2012, 10:53 AM)freedom Wrote: if SGX delists China Sky Chem, will minority shareholders protest in front of SGX/MAS? After all, if they have done their proper jobs, minority shareholders should be protected in some way. Going by the Singaporeans' nature, do you think it will happen? But, seriously, it is a good suggestion. (08-01-2012, 10:53 AM)freedom Wrote: if SGX delists China Sky Chem, will minority shareholders protest in front of SGX/MAS? After all, if they have done their proper jobs, minority shareholders should be protected in some way. Frankly is passing the Sh** around if indeed there is an issue. Continue listing is to allow existing Sh** to be passed to another ignorant minority. And allow the company to keep churning and gorging more minorities to continue their scheme. Two wrongs doesn't make a right. What's needed is people who earns from the chains be held accountable if things go wrong. That's lacking seriously today. Some folks already run far far away laughing to the bank due to this loop hole.
08-01-2012, 11:45 AM
(08-01-2012, 11:39 AM)yeokiwi Wrote:(08-01-2012, 10:53 AM)freedom Wrote: if SGX delists China Sky Chem, will minority shareholders protest in front of SGX/MAS? After all, if they have done their proper jobs, minority shareholders should be protected in some way. if SGX intends to issue more directives to more foreign issues, especially s-chips, probably more will fight SGX directives. More minority shareholders are going to suffer. This would be a much bigger public outcry than lehman saga. let's see how MAS/SGX handle it.
08-01-2012, 12:05 PM
what exactly are the roles and responsibilities of Independent Directors? it amazes me that these 3 IDs can just leave like that without any accountability as well.
08-01-2012, 12:07 PM
Inherently the SGX by having both profit generating exchange activities and regulatory functions is flawed with major conflicts of interests:
Quote:Four main types of conflict present themselves: The regulatory function ought to be separated completely from the SGX, as it is with the ASX. IIRC several business journalists had already argued for this in the past. The ball is with MAS not SGX.
08-01-2012, 02:32 PM
(08-01-2012, 12:07 PM)swakoo Wrote: Inherently the SGX by having both profit generating exchange activities and regulatory functions is flawed with major conflicts of interests:what u said is quite right - if i am not wrong, in HK their HKeX is separate from SFC. SFC being their exchange regulator is an independent not-for-profit watchdog.
09-01-2012, 08:20 AM
(09-01-2012, 05:32 AM)Behappyalways Wrote: From The Straits Times.... He was right. Delisting and punish those who believe in buying into the IPOs that they bring in. 
A few points worthy of note in last Friday's lat night announcement from the CEO of China Sky.
1. A meeting was arrange by Mr Er Kong Wah and a major shareholder for the CEO to meet up with SGX. The meeting took place on 24 Dec. The SGX officer in charge of China Sky's case did not turn up. Another officer went instead. Another ID Mr Yeap also attended the meeting. 2. The issue of maintenance expense took place in 2009. At that time, the audit comm requested for the external auditors, Deloitte, to expand on the scope of year end audit to specifically include these expenses. Deloitte did not find anything wrong then and the 2009 AR was an unqualified opinion. 3. On the issue of IPT with another ID Mr Lai, it was mentioned during the meeting that Mr Er had approved of these transactions previously and were within rules and guidelines. Mr Er concurred during the meeting. 4. On the issue of land acquisition in Fujian, the ID Mr Yeap propose that this be included as part of 2011 year end audit as an expanded scope. On 29 Dec, with no further communications with China Sky, the SGX officer in charge issued the ultimatum for China Sky to comply with it's directives by 5 Jan 2012. One question that has not been answered is on what basis/grounds did SGX issue the directive to appoint special auditor? This is the question China Sky is asking but not getting an answer. Is it enough to just say that the directives is justified under the rules and regulations? But why is it justified? Was there specific wrong doing/fraud detected which SGX knows of but has not announced to the public? Or is the suspicion of an SGX's officer of wrong doing at the company sufficient justification for issuing a directive? When a listed co receives SGX's directive to appoint a special auditor, it's reputation is tarnished, regardless of the outcome of the audit. If the sentiments of a "bullied child" felt by the CEO of China Sky is justified, is there a need for some safeguards on how this power is wield? These questions are ones about fairness and not just about the meaning of the rules and regulations.
Well, it is the right of SGX to demand independent audit.
It does not need to give a reason. I suppose China Sky did not object to this house rule when it listed itself in the mainboard. 3.5.1 Scope of Inspection and Audit Rights The Exchange, in its discretion, may inspect, audit and take copies of the accounts, books, contracts and other records and documents of that Member to the extent that is necessary or desirable in connection with the discharge of the Exchange's regulatory obligations. The Exchange may also appoint or cause the Member to appoint independent Persons to do the same. Such Person shall report to the Exchange on all or any of the following: (a) whether that Member's accounts are being kept and maintained in compliance with this Rules; (b) whether that Member's financial position is being maintained in compliance with this Rules; © whether that Member's business is being conducted in compliance with this Rules; (d) whether that Member's accounts, financial position or any non-compliance with this Rules may jeopardize the integrity of the Exchange; and (e) such other matter as the Exchange may direct. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Homepage
PR Newswire
