Thursday, 13 November 2014

Maemode: are a 100k fine and reprimands enough?

Bursa announced that it:

.... has publicly reprimanded MALAYSIAN AE MODELS HOLDINGS BERHAD (In Liquidation) (MAEMODE) and 6 of its directors for breaching the Bursa Malaysia Securities Main Market Listing Requirements (Main LR). In addition, the Managing Director, Datuk Dr Lim Kee Sinn was fined RM100,000.

MAEMODE was publicly reprimanded for breaching paragraphs 9.03(1) and 9.04(l) of the Main LR read together with paragraphs 2.1(c) and/or (d) of Practice Note 1 (PN1) for failing to make an immediate announcement of the default in payment of the Syndicated Working Capital Facilities of up to RM400 million from RHB Bank Berhad (RHB) and Malayan Banking Berhad to MAEMODE and its subsidiaries, AE Automotion (M) Sdn. Bhd. and Matromatic Handling Systems (M) Sdn. Bhd. (the Syndicated Facility).

Notwithstanding that MAEMODE was de-listed on 2 July 2014, the breach had been committed while MAEMODE was listed on the Official List of Bursa Malaysia Securities.

And further:

MAEMODE had defaulted in payment of the Syndicated Facility which was secured under a debenture as early as / prior to RHB’s  letter dated 16 April 2013 which had, amongst others, highlighted the arrears/ overdue position of the Syndicated Facility to MAEMODE.

Subsequently, vide letter dated 4 June 2013, RHB had informed MAEMODE that the financiers had declared the occurrence of an event of default and demanded MAEMODE to pay the total outstanding sum of RM96,082,818.51 due as at 31 May 2013 which represented 39.3% of the Group’s net assets at the material time.

However, MAEMODE only announced the default in payment of the Syndicated Facility on 20 June 2013.

Are the above fine and reprimands sufficient punishment? Is this really a credible deterrent for future violations?

I have blogged several times about Maemode, the worrisome deterioration of its financial situation between 2007 and 2013, the sudden collapse (predicted and explained in detail by blogger "Ze Moola"), the lack of subsequent transparency (the last quarterly report was for the period until May 2013, no other quarterly report followed, nor an audited year report or annual report over the years 2013 and 2014), etc.

No comments:

Post a Comment