Of course MSWG had questioned the Sime/E&O deal.
- Minority Shareholders Watchdog Group (MSWG) chief executive officer Rita Benoy Bushon had also questioned the deal and asked if there would be an MGO although the share purchase was below the 33 per cent threshold to trigger a mandatory buy. “Where does this leave the minority shareholders? Is it fair to them?“We believe that in the circumstances, the Securities Commission should investigate whether the other conditions for an MGO have been fulfilled,” Bushon wrote in The Star newspaper yesterday.
Fair to which minority shareholder?
Because the problem is the conflict of interest between SC Chairman and and E&O chairman. They are related. Husband and wife.
And E&O chairman stake would still be considered a minority shareholder.
So if MSWG and SC calls it unfair to the minorities and forces Sime to do an MGO, what's the implication?
What if someone asked for whom did MSWG and SC fought the case for?
See the complication caused by this conflict of interest?
In my opinion, this conflict of interest must be stopped.
The local stock market cannot have A Securities Chairman whose husband is so actively involved in the stock markets.
Yesterday, blogger M.A.Wind blogs on SC & BM: (perceived) Conflict of Interest?
Let me highlight this following issue from that posting.
- Conflicts of Interests
An integral part of ethics and integrity is the avoidance of conflict of interest. In this regard, all SC staff and their immediate family members have the obligation to avoid putting themselves in situations of conflict where their personal interest is conflicted with the interest of the SC. A process on declaration of interest has been put in place within the SC to ensure that SC employees adhere to this requirement.
(Mind you that was taken from SC own website! http://www.sc.com.my/main.asp?pageid=980&menuid=983&newsid=&linkid=&type= )
Despite what was written, the Malaysian stock market have this messed up conflict of interest between SC Chairman and her husband!
Where's the integrity in the stock exchange if this was to continue on?
Consider one older incident.
Now, I have seen many privatisations deals in the market the past several years. Most of the time, the minorities shareholders attempt to stop the privatisations failed. There was this case where a privatisation attempt actually failed. Jan 2010: Be fair to minority shareholders
For me, despite what was written, it wasn't a clear case against the privatisation offer. And as mentioned, in the article, the offer carried a decent premium.
- On Jan 11, when the proposal was first mooted, that would have given entitled shareholders a chance to exit their investment at a premium of about 23% and 33% over the five-day and three-month volume-weighted average market price. Of course, the shares have since rallied in response to the news, and today, sit just short of the offer price
And guess who is one of the minority shareholder in MBF Holdings? Datuk Azizan Abd Rahman!
How would you want to interpret this?
And from a conflict of interest perspective, won't one question why MSWG fought so hard to stop the privatisation? And why didn't MSWG fought harder in many more clear cut cases where the minorities shareholders were clearly shortchanged?And yes, sadly, that MBF Holdings case would have been one stellar victory for the minorities but the problem is that one of the minority is such a prominent figure, and one who is related to the Securities Commission.
Isn't it all so disappointing?