Post Reply
241-260 of 540
THE Singapore Exchange has pressed on with its queries to the embattled manager of Sabana Shariah-Compliant Real Estate Investment Trust (Sabana Reit), this time in relation to the resignation of a non-executive director who cited " certain internal dynamics" that has led to her decision.
In its response announced late Wednesday night to SGX queries, Sabana Reit' s manager Sabana Real Estate Investment Management said that Ng Shin Ein felt that the Reit' s fundamental issue related to its inability to access a good pipeline of properties but it was difficult to achieve this given the Reit Manager' s shareholding structure.
The regulator also pushed for more clarity on Ms Ng' s remarks in her resignation letter, specifically on her lack of confidence over the framework and process in place to address the internal dynamics, which she said coud hamper her ability to contribute meaningfully.
To this, the Reit manager replied: " The board understands from Ms Ng that while strategic shareholders with substantial quality assets would usually want to take over majority interest in the Reit Manager, it is beyond the board' s control to compel any shareholder of the Reit Manager to divest its stake."
The SGX also queried the manager on whether the audit committee was aware of the internal dynamics within the company that led to her resignation and to disclose the committee' s views on the issues raised by Ms Ng.
" This matter does not relate to the Audit Committee. As set out in the resignation announcement, Ms Ng has stated that there are no unresolved differences with the board," replied the manager.
laksaman57 ( Date: 02-Mar-2017 10:04) Posted:
|
http://www.theedgemarkets.com.sg/article/manager-sabana-reit-says-mulling-potential-asset-sale-and-strategic-partnership-part-review
The non executive director, Mr. Ng Shin Ein resigned on 16 January, 2017 and reinstate to resign with effect today. He expressed that his inability to contribute to the SREIM.
Our concerted effort shows result to root up the incapacable directors
Please refer to SGX for details.
to kick arse
| laksaman57 ( Date: 20-Feb-2017 22:54) Posted: |
I search Vibrant and found these interesting links.
http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/david-v-goliath-tussle-in-lease-v-licence-dispute
AND the verdict
http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw/attachments/95624/[2017]%20SGHC%2006.pdf
Get ready to attend the EGM! We expect a clear explanation!
Our money must be well spent on investment!
Get ready your boots
https://www.reitsweek.com/2017/02/sabana-reit-prepares-for-egm-in-face-of-calls-to-remove-manager.html
Hope that the 'black & white' Business Time's article bring clarity to all investors to help make informed vote on resolutions. GL ✌
laksaman57 ( Date: 20-Feb-2017 14:29) Posted:
|
For the clearest of clarity, all vested investors should read today, 20Feb, Business Time article on Sabana. 👍
MAS gives the rights for unitholders to remove the Manager.
It is the Trustee' s job to appoint a replacement Manager.
We should not doubt the abilities of the Trustee.
Then for benefits of all unitholders, please state if you have personally confirmed with the trustees that they will undertake the task to " accept your direction to search for an alternative Reits manager" on your behalf, based on your resolution.
If you claim that trustees are required under MAS rule to do so, please get a confirmation from HSBC trustee or MAS that this is indeed the intention of the trust deed.
There is a difference between regulatory action versus corporate action. That a regulatory body can direct an entity to do something does that necessary imply the same rights is given to the shareholders/unitholders.
Trustees in a Reits currently do not have the structure to search for and approve a new Reits manager. That is not legislated in the trust deed. It is also not in the trust deed that they are oblige to take on this function (i.e. search for a new reits manager) on behalf of the unitholders. The fact that they can appoint the " replacement manager" also does not imply they will also " search for the replacement manager" .
The value of this forum should be to share factual knowledge so that all investors can make appropriate decision based on their risk appetite. Any assumption/opinions should be clearly and unambiguously qualify.
Everyone has different risk profile. Some can take exceptional risk (making all sorts of assumptions that they cannot substantiate, nor stand up to scrutiny) and others are more cautious (i.e. bondholders or reits unitholders). If you like taking exceptional risk, please keep all your assumptions to yourself or qualify it clearly upfont (in every post) that it is your own assumption/hopeful guess and there is no legal basis to your claims.
Don' t misled others to take on unknown risk that is way beyond the losses that they can suffer.
Unitholders beware. DYODD.
MAS gives the rights for unitholders to remove the Manager.
Someone claim that " the moment you pass the resolution, the Manager is gone, you don' t have a staff to help you to collect the renrals and to renew leases
Do you believe that it is the intention of MAS?
There is a saying that is forever true in the cruel business world. " Fail to plan, plan to fail" . Success is never based on just luck and assumptions.
Unitholders take note and exercise caution. Do your own due diligence (DYODD).
THe answers to all your question is here,
Just remove the manager and then we will talk later
In addition, even if a new mgr is found by anyone or by trustee, who will decide if the new mgr is acceptable. Is there any SOP for trustee to hold meeting to vote on new mgr ? Really doubt so
laksaman57 ( Date: 19-Feb-2017 18:08) Posted:
|
Procedure wise of course the trustee suppose to do the official appointing but they aren' t obliged to find new mgr to appoint mah. So unless have new mgr ready before kicking out the reit mgr, it' s still better to support Koh proposed resolutions to bring back value to the reit in a structured way.
ACTIVIST_SPEAKS ( Date: 19-Feb-2017 06:16) Posted:
|
In any corporate action, don't assume there will be always someone backing you up. Only in case where we can prove fraudulent intent will authorities step in. MAS will not step in to interfere in corporate actions.