23-12-2015, 03:28 PM
(This post was last modified: 24-12-2015, 09:44 AM by CityFarmer.)
(23-12-2015, 12:57 PM)HitandRun Wrote:(23-12-2015, 10:56 AM)CityFarmer Wrote:(23-12-2015, 10:39 AM)HitandRun Wrote: A bloody waste of time and resources (my heart bleeds for SingPost shareholders).
Just an open and shut case. Check the minutes of meeting and confirm that 1. Keith Tay has declared his interests and 2. He has abstained from voting. Chairman and/or Company Secretary are good enough to make the declarations. Why succumb to the crazy comments of the sh*it stirrers and throw good money at some special auditors for nothing!
Insiders to check-and-confirm another insider? An 3rd party is needed, and the best is external auditor.
At every instance when someone throws a spurious accusation?
And if a shareholder is so KS, would he be satisfied with merely the external auditor? What if they are in cahoots (e.g. Enron)? Where would this road end?
P.S. The way I read the facts, this is probably a case whereby the lawyer/company sect did not vet the circular properly. There is no need to waste further resources on such an administrative mistake.
Not at any instance, but at a sensitive period, after the CEO resigned abruptly, and public articles on the company governance.
I am advocating that simple and low-cost preemptive measures are the most efficient and effective solution. At a billion-dollar market cap company, getting an external auditor to vet the issues, is a low-cost decision.

(not vested)
“夏则资皮,冬则资纱,旱则资船,水则资车” - 范蠡