NEWSFLASH  NEWSFLASH  NEWSFLASH  NEWSFLASH  NEWSFLASH  NEWSFLASH  

Further to our revelation on September 4, 2013 on the breach of Paragraph 9.03(1) Part C Immediate Disclosure of Material Information, Chapter 9 Continuing Disclosure of The Main Market of Bursa Malaysia by the Board of Directors of Lii Hen as appeared in our article "Hey My Bosses In Muar, Why Are You Keeping Mum?", we were tipped that Bursa Malaysia had made that call to "my bosses" in Muar after a copy of a letter containing the article of September 4, 2013 was sent to Bursa Malaysia by a shareholder. Kudos to Bursa Malaysia for heeding the call of minority shareholders.

Bowing to the request to made an immediate announcement as required under the aforesaid rules, Lii Hen reluctantly released a short description on the development of the Writ and Statement of Claim through an announcement yesterday, September 18, 2013. It was a very brief announcement to state nothing more than the date of Case Management which is on September 25, 2013.

We are utterly disappointed by the level of professionalism in the Board of Directors and the Company Secretary of Lii Hen in handling a simple and material information announcement like this. As we have played the role of Mr. Nice Guy in our article "Hey My Bosses In Muar, Why Are You Keeping Mum?", more informative and precise details were provided than Lii Hen's said announcement. Sigh.

We were also informed that this is not the first time Bursa Malaysia is after the tail of Lii Hen for its reluctance, silence and procrastination in releasing material information to the public. To prove our point, after Lii Hen was served with a letter of demand from a legal firm Messrs Mahendran Kevin & Associates on behalf of a concerned shareholder on June 4, 2013, for the clarification of whether Lii Hen was the public listed company named in the news report in The News Straits Times on May 29, 2013, the Board of Directors and the Company Secretary of Lii Hen did not intend or respond to that said letter of demand nor make any announcement to the public. As though a letter of demand on the company is a tissue paper that the board couldn't care less.

It was Bursa Malaysia that made the call to Lii Hen requesting clarification as the former was also served a copy of the said letter. Bursa Malaysia responsibly communicated and consulted the Securities Commission pertaining to this letter as the said news article involved a police investigation.

The regulators concluded and ordered that Lii Hen must hold an immediate meeting for the board of directors to deliberate the matter and to convey their final decision to Bursa Malaysia by way of a Board Resolution whether Lii Hen is going to disclose the existence and the content of the said letter of demand or not.  We were told that the said board meeting took place urgently on June 7, 2013, and the board of Lii Hen decided that Messrs Cheang & Ariff is to be appointed to handle specifically the police report matters and that no announcement will be made to the public. Henceforth the deprivation of an important and material information to the minority shareholders.

You may say that by doing so, Bursa Malaysia is sticking to its "self disclosure regime" by the issuers it governs. But legal opinions will held that Bursa Malaysia is in effect ring fencing themselves for any possible legal backlash now that an issuer had breached firstly its regulations and secondly, the letter of demand may evolve into a full-blown legal tussle in the courtroom. True to Bursa Malaysia's "foresight", this letter of demand is now an active and ongoing legal suit in the High Court of Muar.

Meanwhile, after being notified by Bursa Malaysia on June 4, 2013, the Securities Commission immediately despatched a lady officer to meet up with the Investigating Officer ("IO") in charged of the police investigation in the RM 150 million fraud, Superintendent Ramli Mohd Nor in the Negeri Sembilan Police Contingent ("IPKNS") on June 7, 2013, for further details of the police report. Supt Ramli Mohd Nor is the Head of the Commercial Crime Department in IPKNS.

We understand that the lady officer from Securities Commission had also given her input and a statement to the IO on the same day. The SC concern is the bearing that the police report will have on its enforcement actions of September 4, 2012 against Dato' Goh and Siow Chung Peng. We were given to understand that the SC is attempting to have a grip on this investigation but the Royal Malaysian Police at Bukit Aman did not balk since the report was premised on multiple allegations of cheating, forgery and criminal breach of trust which are indeed under the purview of the police under the Penal Code.

Notwithstanding the ongoing police investigation and courtroom tussle Lii Hen are embroiled in, the demeanour in which and the handling of dissemination of material announcements by the Board of Directors and the Company Secretary of Lii Hen clearly highlighted the severe lack of responsibility and accountability on their part. And Lii Hen as a result.

Little wonder why the street is undermining Lii Hen shares price by a steep discount of 42% to its Net Tangible Assets Per Share (RM 2.24) and a meagre 3.61 times Price Earning Ratio, based on the Annual Report 2012. It would seems that all these huge discounts are the risk premium the investors are staking in Lii Hen shares price.

Lii Hen, it looks like you will need to buckle up a whole lot more with your corporate governance and accountability aspects before the market return you with a more respectable rating in term of your shares price!