The quantity of the response is good, 19 pages filled with information. Certain points look convincing, but others leave questions, at least to me.
- Page 3, Glaucus claimed that Hong Kong Yifenli Trading Co. was incorporated only in November 2009, Minzhong responds by showing sales contracts. But when was Yifenli then incorporated, and would it not have been more convincing to show the incorporation papers?
- Putian Daziran Vegetable Produce Co did not report any cost of goods sold according to Glaucus, Minzhong responds again with sales contracts, but did this company file them with the SAIC?
And there is even a Malaysian twist to the story, quite a few of the vegetable contracts that are shown are shipped to Klang.
Interesting to watch how events will unfold, the suspension of the shares will be lifted from tomorrow onwards (at least Minzhong has requested that), how will the share price react?
Also, what will the answer of Glaucus be, it is hard to believe they will not come with a response from their side.
And lastly, will the SGX order (for instance) an independent investigation in the case, with the documents supplied by Glaucus and Minzhong to start with? To clean the air for once and for all?