Sabana Shari'ah REIT

[cfa]

Meran of Metro used to own 4% , hope you guy get Metro on yourside .

[yeokiwi]

For a nominal charge, you can get the register of shareholders. This register which is generally kept at the registered office of the company would provide information as to the names and addresses of the shareholders and their shareholdings.


UNIT REGISTRAR
Boardroom Corporate & Advisory
Services Pte. Ltd.
50 Raffles Place
#32-01 Singapore Land Tower
Singapore 048623
Phone: (65) 6536 5355
Fax: (65) 6536 1360

[weijian]

i took this from the blog. 

....

HOW DO WE DO IT?

The external manager may be removed by way of a resolution passed by a simple majority of participants present and voting at a general meeting.  A general meeting may be convened at the request in writing of not less than 50 Unitholders (Appendix 6 of the Code on Collective Investment Schemes). 


Is the above true? If it is, i dont mind buying some shares to show support

First, i went to take a look at the code of CIS. It state as below under appendix 6:
....
 4.1 The trust deed of a property fund should contain the following provisions: 
a) the manager may be removed by way of a resolution passed by a simple majority of participants present and voting at a general meeting, with no participant being  disenfranchised; 
b) a general meeting may be convened at the request in writing of not less than 50 participants or participants representing not less than 10% of the issued units in the property fund.
...
source: http://www.mas.gov.sg/Regulations-and-Fi...hemes.aspx
comment: So it does seem the numbers are right but whether does it applies in the CORRECT context is another issue.

According to SIAS, there are separate requirements to call for EGM and then to put resolutions to vote.

sias advice: https://sias.org.sg/?option=com_content&...02&lang=en

From my experience thus far, such requirements should come from either the company or listing rules and its the first time i heard of CIS been used for such issues. In addition, most resolutions require a majority (based on share votes) to pass with some variations like certain shareholders cant vote due to conflict of interest. A dependence on majority of human count to pass has been only used by Scheme of Arrangement (SOA) that many vbs are familar with.

I am pretty sure other vbs who are more experienced than me can comment to shed more light. Looks like an interesting case study

[ACTIVIST SPEAKS]

Greatly appreciate your investigative study. We read the Code of CIS. Together with "Response to Feedback Received - Consultation on Enhancements to the Regulatory Regime governing REITS and REIT Managers" dated 9 Oct 2014, we believe we have the right to call for a general meeting to try and remove the Manager. Like you say, it has never been done before....so we can only rely on the spirit of the Code to guide us.

We do not have a lawyer. As this is a gathering of strangers from the internet. We need all the help we can get. Please email me at jerrylow9292@gmail if you come across anything that is of concern to us. tq

P.S. Thanks for letting us use this forum to broadcast.

sabanareit.blogspot.sg

[ACTIVIST SPEAKS]

There are a total of 12,636 unitholders holding 734m shares. Almost all the top 20 are held by nominees companies and 20th biggest shareholder only hold 3m shares. So the list can be of limit use to us.

P.S Metro has 8m shares left

[opmi]

"a general meeting may be convened at the request in writing of not less than 50 participants" - this one easier to get..

get 50 people you know to buy 10 shares, get them to sign the request and ask for a general meeting.

the Trust might ask you to pay for the meeting and the printing and mailing of circular. So only make sense for people who holds more...

...more minority shareholders have a 'free-rider' mentality. Dont expect much from them. And most will just 'sell and move on'....
IF you succeed in changing something, I doubt anyone will come thank you...it is a thankless job..

[TTTI]

"a general meeting may be convened at the request in writing of not less than 50 participants" - this one easier to get..

get 50 people you know to buy 10 shares, get them to sign the request and ask for a general meeting.

the Trust might ask you to pay for the meeting and the printing and mailing of circular. So only make sense for people who holds more...

...more minority shareholders have a 'free-rider' mentality. Dont expect much from them. And most will just 'sell and move on'....
IF you succeed in changing something, I doubt anyone will come thank you...it is a thankless job..

"the Trust might ask you to pay for the meeting and the printing and mailing of circular. So only make sense for people who holds more..."

I don't think they can do that
It's the trust that calls for the EGM right?

Unfortunately, you're right, most MI will prob just sell and accept losses.
But there's a chance this can succeed, and even if it doesn't, the spotlight thrown on the issues brought up, is sometimes a greater force for change than trying to push it through...

I don't see the media picking this up as yet though, if there's more traction, this could well change

[cfa]

"a general meeting may be convened at the request in writing of not less than 50 participants" - this one easier to get..

get 50 people you know to buy 10 shares, get them to sign the request and ask for a general meeting.

the Trust might ask you to pay for the meeting and the printing and mailing of circular. So only make sense for people who holds more...

...more minority shareholders have a 'free-rider' mentality. Dont expect much from them. And most will just 'sell and move on'....
IF you succeed in changing something, I doubt anyone will come thank you...it is a thankless job..

"a general meeting may be convened at the request in writing of not less than 50 participants" - this one easier to get..

get 50 people you know to buy 10 shares, get them to sign the request and ask for a general meeting.

the Trust might ask you to pay for the meeting and the printing and mailing of circular. So only make sense for people who holds more...

...more minority shareholders have a 'free-rider' mentality. Dont expect much from them. And most will just 'sell and move on'....
IF you succeed in changing something, I doubt anyone will come thank you...it is a thankless job..

"the Trust might ask you to pay for the meeting and the printing and mailing of circular. So only make sense for people who holds more..."

I don't think they can do that
It's the trust that calls for the EGM right?

Unfortunately, you're right, most MI will prob just sell and accept losses.
But there's a chance this can succeed, and even if it doesn't, the spotlight thrown on the issues brought up, is sometimes a greater force for change than trying to push it through...

I don't see the media picking this up as yet though, if there's more traction, this could well change

Remember the CK Tang saga, even it was delisted , SGX/MAS also got involved with  the minority shareholders . If the issue is being blown up , consequence may be different .

[opmi]

Dont count on MAS/SGX/SIAS to help you fighting for your interests.

Leading the activist exercise is a solo and thankless task. UNLESS you have money and balls.

Not worth to put a fight when the position is <$50k MARKET VALUE (not cost). Unless you are a fighter type.

[slowandsteady]

This is a good initiative, I don't mind buying some shares to contribute another name. 50 seems to be quite an achievable number, but of course that is just to bring it to the discussion table.

I think it may actually be viewed positively by SGX, with some investor activism, it brings more interest to the market, and helps improve the quality of listed stocks (and maybe share price?). In the long run, this should increase interest to list in Singapore. Plus, it's not like the trust manager is any big shot that's "too big to fail"- if they were replaced it'll not have any ripple effects as they are rather small time to start with.