Homepage
PR Newswire
13-12-2023, 03:45 PM
the definition of the related party is and controlling shareholder is provided in the listing manual. Unless the ESR owned manager is removed, it is a related and interested party. period.
I have read the comprehensive 17 page letter from SGIC which looks to be drafted by the legal counsels. Kudos to these shareholders for fighting for minority interest.
One of the main argument is trustee certification for trust deed amendment from para 50. The trust deed explicitly states that trustee should provide certification if the amendment does not materially prejudice unitholders or release the manager and trustee from any responsibility.
I agree with them that internalization does not do that. it actually gives shareholders more rights and value. Shareholders have also voted for internalization which confirms this again. So Trustee should provide certifications in line with what shareholders want.
The letter raised the example of the trustee giving certification given to remove shariah compliance even though no shareholders voted for it and which also disenfranchised a number of muslim shareholders who had to sell their units.
I also remember the trustee giving certification for a number of amendments which were not even voted by unitholders
seems like clear double standards from the trustee??
The example of croesus conducting internalization without the need for any extraordinary resolution is also mentioned there.
So the big question is, is the trustee adding extra hurdles for its own shareholders? why are they doing this?
I have read the comprehensive 17 page letter from SGIC which looks to be drafted by the legal counsels. Kudos to these shareholders for fighting for minority interest.
One of the main argument is trustee certification for trust deed amendment from para 50. The trust deed explicitly states that trustee should provide certification if the amendment does not materially prejudice unitholders or release the manager and trustee from any responsibility.
I agree with them that internalization does not do that. it actually gives shareholders more rights and value. Shareholders have also voted for internalization which confirms this again. So Trustee should provide certifications in line with what shareholders want.
The letter raised the example of the trustee giving certification given to remove shariah compliance even though no shareholders voted for it and which also disenfranchised a number of muslim shareholders who had to sell their units.
I also remember the trustee giving certification for a number of amendments which were not even voted by unitholders
seems like clear double standards from the trustee??
The example of croesus conducting internalization without the need for any extraordinary resolution is also mentioned there.
So the big question is, is the trustee adding extra hurdles for its own shareholders? why are they doing this?