| Latest Forum Topics / Swiber |
 Post Reply
|
|
Swiber Holdings Limited
|
|||||
|
swv001
Member |
16-Sep-2016 10:01
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Can you please send the IJM' s report to my email box? thanks
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
franklinfour
Member |
15-Sep-2016 22:31
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Khoolie, You are very right. Engaged by DBS, to protect DBS. Men on the street, left to be on the street. Khoolie. Even if they counted the bids as backlog, that is their own internal calculation. If LOI, declare it is LOI. If L1 (lowest priced bid), declare L1. Don' t mislead or post inaccurate announcement to say that they had won. I have a feeling that they were trying to make investors and bankers happy, so we men on the street think they are ok and continue supporting. swv001: fully agree with you. |
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
|
|||||
|
Khoolie
Member |
15-Sep-2016 16:43
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Dont think the JM is interested in uncovering the worms. They only interested in saving the company and pay secured creditors. |
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
Wisely
Senior |
15-Sep-2016 14:51
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
They sell you some papers and you bought them with your hard earn cash and later they come and say, sorry i gave you the wrong info earlier but thanks for investing in me and now are we are done. Do you like it?
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
dragonboy76
Master |
15-Sep-2016 14:38
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
either he is angel' s heart or he haven' t experience the real world outside 
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
|
|||||
|
surefire
Member |
15-Sep-2016 14:22
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
feel sorry for them? you are joking right?
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
FATABA
Supreme |
15-Sep-2016 14:18
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
I think anyone with some basic education would know the diff between LOI ( letter of intent ) and an actual ORDER ( PO Purchase order ) These DIRECTORS dont know and has mis comm this ? And then added this amount to their outstanding order books ? WOW....can you believe this . Directors are paid thousand ( not surprise they cld draw aro 300k to 500k ) .....of dollars so then why is this not reported accurately . Why is there a need to mis lead the public into believing Swiber has a large orders on hand .....on and on . I guess there are a lot of worms under the book for the JM to discover. Time will tell. HONESTY is the number factor needed to run a good company ...unfortunately this important factor went a missing nowadays.
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
dragonboy76
Master |
15-Sep-2016 14:02
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
you shouldn' t feel sorry for them
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
|
|||||
|
pnuklis
Master |
15-Sep-2016 13:27
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Mis-information or giving wrong information to SGX cannot be termed as fraud which is a criminal offence. In any case its directors Raymond and his team are in some kind of deep trouble and will face lot of heat in the days to come. I feel sorry for them. This is a caution to all SGX listed companies to look out for what they say. Best is not to say anything in SGX. |
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
pinkowl
Supreme |
15-Sep-2016 13:17
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
For private limited companies, there limited liability on employees or owners....if I recall correctly. Unless there's a clear intention to cheat or fraud involved.
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
swv001
Member |
15-Sep-2016 12:57
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
After SGX' s investigation, if SGX find the directors had misconducted the company, SGX should punish the diretors instead of the company! |
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
Khoolie
Member |
14-Sep-2016 13:45
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
They probably counted the bids as backlog too soon. Either only LOI or when they are revealed to be L1 (lowest priced bid). Otherwise client cannot suddenly re-tender again. Really need CAD to investigate all their dirty linens. |
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
|
|||||
|
dragonboy76
Master |
14-Sep-2016 12:10
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Change of scope is normal in this industry. Yes need to re-tender again to get best price. The 230 mil most likely is from vendor and subcontractors. Swiber is famous for not paying invoices on time. That why vendors dun like to seal with them | ||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
franklinfour
Member |
14-Sep-2016 11:57
|
||||
|
x 0
x 1 Alert Admin |
Khoolie - I think that is a very good point that you have made. If it is their regular client ONGC, how is it possible that ONGC award them a project and then ask for re-tender, when it doesnt do so for other projects? And if I were Swiber, I would have protested. Wouldnt that be the logic. Oil majors don' t act like this. Something fishy there. Maybe someone can help raise with the authorities, SGX, MAS, CAD, ACRA whatever deals with this. And get them to look into insolvent trading and fraudulent trading. One of the creditor should file for fraudulent trading. How does one end up with USD $230mil of claims in such a long time. The debts and stories would have started earlier, just that poor people like us won' t be in a position to know, unless they announce. |
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
Khoolie
Member |
14-Sep-2016 11:50
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
i see. No wonder now KPMG can mislead ppl. Coz the stock is not trading now. 1.67 billion dollars order????? Lol. |
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
dragonboy76
Master |
14-Sep-2016 07:50
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Misleading the investor by treating LOI as firm order book is not a crime by itself. Only breech of listing rule. However, if they manipulate the share and make personal gain based on this misleading news can be a crime. Authority needs to do a thorough check on all their trade transaction including friends, relatives, etc in order to know if such thing really happen. | ||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
Khoolie
Member |
14-Sep-2016 00:03
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
If announcing project award when there is LOI only is a crime, then I believe West Africa is not the only one. Example announcement below early this year. If the client can retract the project so easily, it was also probably only LOI. Why SGX only question Swiber on West Africa? Feb 2016 http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/143265/Swiber_Clinches_100M_EPIC_Contract_from_South_Asian_NOC Swiber Holdings Limited reported Friday that it has secured a contract worth about $100 million to provide engineering, procurement, installation and construction services for a National Oil Company (NOC) in South Asia. June 2016 http://www.straitstimes.com/business/companies-markets/swiber-bags-new-projects-worth-us215m-one-us100m-contract-re-tendered Separately, Swiber said a US$100 million contract awarded in Feb 2016 has been re-tendered by the customer due to changes in the project work scope and schedule. It will soon be submitting its bid for this project, the company said in a filing to the Singapre Exchange on Tuesday (Jue 7).
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
dragonboy76
Master |
13-Sep-2016 22:55
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
If someone can prove that these snakes announce africa project award when actually is LOI only, and they use this to gain their own $$ advantage, then CAD can get involve. Otherwise, no chance | ||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
franklinfour
Member |
13-Sep-2016 22:49
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
The CAD should go after them, and dig out all their monies to make them personally liable to repay the shareholders, creditors, bondholders and the banks. Singapore THE SINGAPORE Exchange (SGX) is going after Swiber Holdings for potential breaches to the exchange' s Rule 703 pertaining to disclosure of material information. In the letter obtained by The Business Times relating to the potential breaches, SGX made reference to Swiber Holdings' disclosure lapses on the US$710 million West Africa project first announced in late 2014 and two separate litigation claims by Likpin International Ltd and Greene Energy Group Asia Pacific Pte Ltd. SGX said citing disclosure lapses on the US$710 million project, Swiber has potentially breached paragraph 25 of Appendix 7.1 to Rule 703. LISTENING TO THE FINANCIAL CROWD
Market voices on: Swiber
2025304-Aug913050100
Updated: 13.09.2016, 22:35, last 30 days
Paragraph 25 of Appendix 7.1 deals with, among others, three key points - that the contents of a press release or other public announcement is as important as its timing and that the announcement should avoid omission of important unfavourable facts as well as presentation of favourable possibilities as certain or as more probable than is actually the case. SGX in its letter alluded to the fact that since Swiber' s first SGX filing on Dec 15, 2014, for the US$710 million project, the listed group in addition to an observed lapse in disclosing a delay in the project execution, did not proactively identify the client nor flag any pre-conditions tied to the project. The project, as disclosed in Swiber' s SGX filing on July 8 in its response to a private query from SGX, has been deferred indefinitely due to a weakness in the oil and gas sector. The listed group in its second response to an SGX query on July 29, acknowledged that the award from RoyalGate Energy is a letter of intent that still needs to be formalised as a contract in due course. This confirmed BT' s report on July 9, which pointed out that Equatorial Guinea-based RoyalGate has signed on Swiber for a project tied to Block Z field development off the West African country. In its Aug 12 response to a third SGX subsequent query for an update, Swiber further clarified that no contract has yet to be entered into between the listed group' s subsidiary, Swiber Offshore Construction and the end client. The listed group added the contract award has been held back due to a delay in an appraisal drilling that is a pre-requisite for front-end engineering and design studies to commence. It blamed the delayed drilling on a persistent weakness in the O& G sector. SGX, in taking in Swiber' s responses, has however, noted disclosure lapses on the listed group' s order book. " The company did not inform its shareholders and the investing public about the delay in the US$710 million project during a prolonged period from Dec 15 2014 to July 8 2016," SGX wrote. In addition, the US$710 million project was accounted for " in all (Swiber' s) disclosures on the group' s order book without any qualification that the contract has yet to be signed or the project has been delayed" , the regulator added. On Dec 15, 2014, Swiber laid claims with the alleged US$710 million project award, it had clinched contracts totalling US$1.03 billion. BT also understood following Swiber' s dramatic reversal from its now aborted winding-up petition, the interim judicial managers of the distressed group has included the US$710 million LOI in the US$1.67 billion secured projects tabled under a report filed with the High Court for the judicial management application. SGX in invoking Paragraph 8 of Appendix 7.1 to Rule 703 also noted Swiber has not made any announcement on material litigation claims by Likpin and Greene Energy amounting to S$10.7 million and S$9.6 million, respectively. The exchange viewed these litigation claims as significant taking into account Swiber' s profits recorded for the financial year 2014 and for the first quarter ended March 31, 2015. Swiber posted a net loss of US$2.5 million for Q1 FY2015 and a net profit of US$21.7 million for FY2014. Swiber in its July 12 response to a private query from SGX argued that both litigation suits were not material based on calculations against the group' s revenue, total assets and net tangible assets at the relevant time. " In addition, the group' s external lawyers were of the view that the claim for the Likpin suit was unmeritorious," it added. It provided updates to the suits in its response to SGX, in support for non-disclosure:
The SGX letter dated Aug 16 was addressed to Swiber' s board of directors before its July 28 winding-up petition. They are Raymond Goh, Francis Wong, Darren Yeo, Nitish Gupta, Jean Pers, Leonard Tay, Yeo Jeu Nam, Chia Fook Eng and Oon Thian Seng. Mr Wong and Mr Gupta have resigned from the board of the listed group as vice-chairman and executive director, but continue to remain as directors of certain subsidiaries of the company. Swiber retracted its erroneous July 28 announcement on Mr Tay' s resignation and said he remains on board as the group chief financial officer. SGX invited the named parties to make their representations within 14 days from Aug 16 to the alleged breaches of Rule 703 or run the risk of the exchange making findings against their interest. |
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
lglg666
Supreme |
13-Sep-2016 22:39
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Those who ran this coy into the ground should be investigated by CAD and if possible held responsible......do some jail time. | ||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||