31-08-2012, 01:41 PM
Considering the offer price is 15 cents and the last done price was 24 cents, why can't the majority shareholder just seek waiver for the mandatory unconditional cash offer and save himself the professional fees?
(31-08-2012, 10:23 PM)pianist Wrote: [ -> ]the purpose is to comply with sgx guidelines?
(01-09-2012, 02:27 PM)RBM Wrote: [ -> ]Pity. Zagro is a good company, lead by a particularly good man ..........that has been badly advised, in this instance.
(01-09-2012, 10:55 PM)cif5000 Wrote: [ -> ](01-09-2012, 02:27 PM)RBM Wrote: [ -> ]Pity. Zagro is a good company, lead by a particularly good man ..........that has been badly advised, in this instance.
Does that mean that the man is 100% innocent? And that the advisors have to bear the brunt? Don't you think human nature, such as greed and self interest, plays a huge role in this drama?
pianist Wrote:is it true that for coprorate action in certain circumstances , it could be common that overseas shareholders could not able to participate? if the answer is yes, then it can be quite understandable.
cif5000 Wrote:Don't you think human nature, such as greed and self interest, plays a huge role in this drama?
(02-09-2012, 03:47 AM)d.o.g. Wrote: [ -> ]pianist Wrote:is it true that for coprorate action in certain circumstances , it could be common that overseas shareholders could not able to participate? if the answer is yes, then it can be quite understandable.
Generally speaking, as long as you have a local mailing address it doesn't matter if you are an overseas shareholder. The main thing is that correspondence that requires action can be sent to you.
cif5000 Wrote:Don't you think human nature, such as greed and self interest, plays a huge role in this drama?
I remember years ago when I was at the Zagro AGM and I raised the issue of Section 44 credits. Zagro had about $2m of these credits. Poh Beng Swee's reply was that it would cost the company money ($150k IIRC) to conduct a dividend-cum-rights issue, and since there was no benefit to the company there was no point.
From the company perspective, he was correct. But more importantly, given his large shareholding he wouldn't benefit from the Section 44 credits, as the dividends would put him in the top tax bracket. So perhaps in his view he would be spending money (much of it indirectly his) and getting nothing out of it. The fact that doing nothing would deprive small shareholders of their Section 44 credits did not seem to be important. The company did actually allow its Section 44 credits to expire worthless, thus destroying shareholder value.