In addition to my previous blog post about this subject, things have possibly made a clear turn for the worse, according to its latest announcement.
The Company’s auditor, PKF has requested to carry out certain procedures that include the verification of the Company’s value added tax devices with the relevant tax authorities’ system directly and complete the verification of the consignment notes/appropriate delivery documentation against the sales invoices. The Company wishes to inform that the tax system in Fujian Province, China underwent three major upgrades and reforms within a year and this may have resulted in certain tax information being inaccurate. In order to meet PKF’s request, the person in charge of the Company is in the midst of liaising with the tax department, so that the auditor can clarify directly with the tax department where necessary.
This seems like a good action by PKF, comparing the official tax numbers with the alleged comparable numbers as provided by CAP. Many short sellers use indeed tax numbers of the company, its subsidiaries or trading partners.
On the auditor’s request to seek confirmation with the banks on the Company’s recorded bank balances, the Company will co-ordinate and make the necessary arrangement with the bank for PKF to seek confirmation verification where applicable.
And this also deserves attention, in several cases of Chinese companies listed on Bursa I have strong doubt about the bank balances. I even recommended Bursa to let all these China based companies to do a voluntarily, independent confirmation of the bank balances by an expert party. If the cash is not there, immediate action can be taken, and there would be no need to throw more good money after bad money (for instance through a rights issue). However, if the cash is really there, then that might add to the credibility of the company.
This confirmation has to be done in a proper way though, there have been cases where a company falsified the statements and the online banking system, and even the regional branch manager of the bank was in the fraud.
The auditor highlighted that it has come to their attention that there appears to be certain ongoing litigation involving the Company and certain of its directors whereby certain records appear to indicate amongst others that the Company had undertaken significant borrowings and had defaulted in repayment, resulting in a claim and litigation during financial year ended 31 December 2016 (“FYE 2016”) against the Company and certain of its directors by the lending bank. The Company wishes to inform that it has appointed a lawyer, Fujian Shi Long Law Firm, to verify and confirm the litigation cases involving the Company and certain of its directors. The Company will make announcement on the development of the above matter in due course if necessary.
If the underlined is indeed true (and the auditor must have had pretty reliable information regarding this, otherwise the above would not have been published), then that would be an extremely serious matter.
Shareholders should brace themselves for the worst.