Monday, 22 September 2014

Protasco's Puzzling Purchase (5)

A pretty shocking (albeit not unexpected, at least for this blogger) announcement by Protasco:

Protasco Berhad (“Protasco” ) wishes to announce that Protasco has today filed a legal suit at the Kuala Lumpur High Court against PT Anglo Slavic Utama (“1st Defendant”) and two of its directors, namely Tey Por Yee (“2nd Defendant”) and Ooi Kock Aun (“3rd Defendant”) (“Legal Proceeding”).

Protasco’s claim against the 1st Defendant is for the refund of the Purchase Price paid under the Restated SPA dated 28 January 2014 and/or damages and/or for damages arising from the breach of contract. Apart from the Restated SPA being void, and as a further or alternative claim, as the Conditions Subsequent were not fulfilled within the Condition Period, Protasco proceeded to terminate the Restated SPA and demanded for the return of the Purchase Price from the 1st Defendant vide its letter dated 4 August 2014.
Protasco’s claim against the 2nd Defendant and the 3rd Defendant is premised on the breach of their fiduciary and statutory duties including the duty to disclose their interest in the transaction, conspiracy to defraud Protasco and the making of secret profit. Protasco is seeking damages against the 2nd Defendant and the 3rd Defendant.
Protasco wishes to state that the Legal Proceeding it has initiated has no significant immediate adverse impact on the current financial position of Protasco. Protasco will make impairment on the Purchase Price if necessary in consultation with its Auditors.

I wrote many times about Protasco and the rather strange proposed acquisition of the Indonesian oil & gas company which didn't seem to make much sense at all (at least to me), most notably here, here, here and here.

Thanks (of course) to the (anonymous) person who drew my attention to this interesting case in the first place. Keep the good comments coming!


  1. We all know this is just a show they are genuine to seek their money back....wait...was it not the plan to take out the money in the first place? will the authorities or shareholders hold the board responsible and accountable for being negligent or complicit for this less than arms length transaction in the first Boleh!

  2. Why not force sell the Inovisi shares that have been pledged?

    What are the authorities doing about this?

  3. It might not be that easy, we don't know the exact text of the contract between the parties. Looks like there is some problem, otherwise they would not sue. Authorities should definitely look into the whole case.

  4. if it is charade...minority shareholders should jump in and join the expose the scam....maybe the minority watchdog should give it a thought.