The SC should investigate and find out whether there are any elements of insider trading or stock manipulation if someone were to make a complaint to the SC. This is also UMA.

This can be a strategy by the syndicates to sell down and let other share holders to lose money. SC and bursa must investigate and give a satisfactory explanation. Is this consider a form of share market manipulation?

TAR was setup because BN government knew they had given Malay students more seats than other races in the university. LGE you are not qualified to speak anything about TAR issues until now. Anyway, it is still not too late if your government is willing to give back, if not more than what the previous government gave.

The government is asking the judge to 'buang the case'

This matter is now in the hand of the judge, Muhiddin can say what he likes, Presbhd's lawyer is not stupid also, if no good chance to win why want to fight? If win the case can get double the price or more, do you want to wait? unless you got a better counter

Insider trading simply means the illegal practice of trading on the stock exchange to one's own advantage through having access to confidential information. Don't tell me nobody will complaint to SC about this?

Any company directors, directors' family members, staffs or whoever know the company wanted to declare something bad about the company like losing money, to put to PN17 but not announced to the public yet, and they sell even 1 lot are consider committing insider trading. So don't play play, just look at Supermax boss and his wife

Then it's good news, they will chase up the stk price

Minorities share holders can form a group to sue the BOD if they have suffer any losses as the result of this selfish personal decision made by the board

If complaint to Bursa and if they take action, the present BOD may be suspended

You are not aware or allowed all this hanky panky things going on? Is this new Malaysia bolih?

This is obvious manipulation of the stock market by the intended parties, if no action is taken by Bursa, SC and investigation by MACC, then you don't expect foreigners will dare to put their money in our stock exchange, MOF, Bank Negara, are you still sleeping?

lclwyp - You are right, the payment is due on 26/4 to pay, and only after this date unpaid only can consider as default, and the Bursa has also conspire with this BOD, and is usually after the bank has taken court action to sue to recover the amount owed and really in no ways the company can pay, then all the creditors may appoint a liquidator to recover the amount owed and any balance will be distributed to share holders, and Bursa after knowing the creditors has obtained judgement from the court that the company really cannot pay (because anytime before the court case end, they can still negotiate to pay) will declare this company under PN17 because this company has more assets than liabilities and has the ability to settle the loan. So technically Bursa must open back and declare Seacera is not under PN17.

So share holders should file complaints and don't just keep quiet

In 2.1.a(e) Seacera can easily sell some of the assets and pay, the question of insolvency does not arise at all!

2.1​ Pursuant to paragraphs 8.04(2) of the Listing Requirements, where a listed issuer triggers any one or more of the following Prescribed Criteria it must comply with the provisions of paragraph 8.04 and this Practice Note: FAQ 8.17
​ ​ ​
​ ​(a) ​the shareholders' equity of the listed issuer on a consolidated basis is 25% or less of the issued and paid-up capital (excluding treasury shares) of the listed issuer and such shareholders' equity is less than RM40 million; FAQ 8.18
​ ​ ​
​ (b) receivers or managers have been appointed over the asset of the listed issuer, its subsidiary or associated company which asset accounts for at least 50% of the total assets employed of the listed issuer on a consolidated basis;
​ ​ ​
​ ​(c) a winding up of a listed issuer's subsidiary or associated company which accounts for at least 50% of the total assets employed of the listed issuer on a consolidated basis; FAQ 8.19
​ ​ ​
​ (d)​ ​the auditors have expressed an adverse or disclaimer opinion in the listed issuer's latest audited financial statements;
​ ​ ​
​ ​(e) ​the auditors have expressed an emphasis of matter on the listed issuer's ability to continue as a going concern in the listed issuer's latest audited financial statements and the shareholders' equity of the listed issuer on a consolidated basis is 50% or less of the issued and paid-up capital (excluding treasury shares) of the listed issuer; or FAQ 8.18, FAQ 8.20
​ ​ ​
​ ​(f) a default in payment by a listed issuer, its major subsidiary or major associated company, as the case may be, as announced by a listed issuer pursuant to paragraph 9.19A of the Listing Requirements and the listed issuer is unable to provide a solvency declaration to the Exchange.
​ ​ ​
2.1A ​In relation to a listed issuer which is a business trust, where the business trust triggers any one or more of the following Prescribed Criteria ("PN17 Business Trust") instead of the Prescribed Criteria in paragraph 2.1 above, it must comply with the provisions of paragraph 8.04 and this Practice Note:
​ ​ ​
​ ​(a) ​the unit holders' fund (excluding non-controlling interest) on a consolidated basis is negative;
​ ​ ​
​ ​(b) ​receivers or managers have been appointed over the asset of the business trust, which asset accounts for at least 50% of the total assets employed of the business trust on a consolidated basis;
​ ​ ​
​ ​(c) a winding up of a business trust's subsidiary or associated company which accounts for at least 50% of the total assets employed of the business trust on a consolidated basis;
​ ​ ​
​ ​(d) ​the auditors have expressed an adverse or disclaimer opinion in the business trust's latest audited financial statements; or
​ ​ ​
​ ​(e) a default in payment of loans or credit facilities of a business trust or its major subsidiary or major associated company, as announced by the trustee-manager pursuant to paragraph 9.19A of the Listing Requirements and the trustee-manager is unable to provide a solvency declaration to the Exchange.

I think may be nothing to do with Securites Commission

The default is only due on the same day 26-04-2019 and not few weeks back, and normally the bank will wait until the 3rd default will take legal action to sue to recover the arrears or to recall back the whole loan, that is another part of the story, Bursa will not just put you into PN17 for this reason and no company will apply this for his own company, unless the creditors have complained! Go to Bursa Malaysia and see why a company fall into PN17. I think both the BOD and Bursa should be investigated by MACC and Securites Commission too

Since NTA is 1.78 and dispose the company, share holders can get more tutup mata!

If the share is no good, more people will sell, do you think the syndicate don't want to push down to buy cheaper? I believe a few parties are collecting

According to the Edge on 16 April 2019, the company had already filed a legal case against the government, nothing to worry as PNB and EPF are major share holders and the price have been holding well, there is more good news than bad news

Our KLCI index must above 1667 only confidence will return

Look at MYEG who invested about RM 150 mil in developing the GST software and can't claim back from the government and have to write off through impairment and the price today still can stay above Rm1.60, but Skin is a totally different case as it can claim back more than Rm700 mil, you think the price will be how much?

One thing is certain, that the court case will sure win one and will not take too long, but we really don't know the management will really proceed with the summon, (or just talk only), it is proper that the company have to inform bursa and the share holders the contents and its latest development of the case.

So you are not alone, my friends, these people who hold much larger share than you also don't worry, why should you? You think the government will let them die?

10 Largest Share holders (Yet to confirm whether this is the latest)
Areca Capital Sdn. Bhd. 80,806,400 16.7%
Affin Hwang Asset Management Bhd. 40,000,000 8.26%
Kumpulan Wang Persaraan 28,503,200 5.89%
AIA Bhd. 18,704,200 3.86%
Permodalan Nasional Bhd. 17,745,400 3.67%
Employees Provident Fund 16,055,500 3.32%
Pacific Straits Holdings Ltd. 14,700,000 3.04%
Bumiputra Investment Foundation 9,599,900 1.98%
Brahmal Vasudevan, MBA 8,000,000 1.65%
Mohd Yunus Ramli bin Abbas, MBA 7,300,000 1.51%

For this case where everything is properly and clearly written, (like a bank want to sue you) you only need to file a summary judgement which don't need a normal trial, this is so much I can say.

Before you want to sue somebody, you must issue a Letter Of Demand, after two weeks, if the other party do not reply, then only to file the summon, the company is doing the right thing and a good job for his share holders to sue the government, nowadays the time taken for court procedure is much faster, moreover the government cannot afford to wait too long to improve this old and slow immigration system.

Tiger share price until now still cannot move up more than 10 cent after so many years, no improvement, why? either expenses too much or company don't have much projects, do you hope this type of management teams here? i rather choose the existing team with the new share holders!

Muyuddin thought he can do what he likes?

Already announced

Prestariang's sub-subsidiary Prestariang Skin Sdn Bhd (PSkin) is suing the Government in light of the latter's termination of the SKIN project.

According to Prestariang, the concession agreement clearly spells out the government's obligations in the event the project is terminated by way of expropriation. PSkin had secured the 15-year concession on Aug 9, 2017, to design and manage a new immigration and border control system for the Immigration Department to replace the older system.

The claim of RM732.86mil is calculated based on the contractual formula provided in the concession agreement which had been agreed to by the government, said Prestariang. In addition to the RM732.86mil, Pskin is also claiming interest on the sum at a rate of 5% per annum from the date of the judgment, and costs.

So why CIMB Research said the latest news was negative as it suggests negotiations between both parties have broken down? I feel the matter will be solve and the price shares will shoot up higher very soon.


Read more at https://www.thestar.com.my/business/business-news/2019/04/16/quick-take-prestariang-shares-fall-11pc-after-filing-legal-claim-against-government/#D8a072wKR9lGxYFA.99

You never heard Dr M said if we do not proceed with ECRL, we have to compensate about RM20 bil to China, and why the company only take action now? not before or after? Go and check up Dr M's speech

Do you think if the chance is slim or may lose the case , the company dare to sure the government?

Many shares also drop terok terok like Yongtai, steel counters etc

Today you think who is buying quietly? KYY, Andy or the retailers?

Fair price - should be above Rm1.50

Annual production of steel bar by Masteel = 650,000 ton
Assume the cost of production = RM 2,000
Average price of steel bar price = RM 2,450 (lowest Miti price)
Annual gross profit = 450 * 650,000 = RM 292.5 Million
Less operating and finance expenses = RM 60 Million
Annual net profit = RM 232.5 Million
Total number of shares = 427.2 Million
EPS = 0.54
Income tax = 25%
Net profit after tax = 0.405
If share price at 0.71 , PER = only 1.75, now at 0.66, PE is less than 1.75 ! So what is the fair price if PE is at x 5?

possible

Up with big vol and close near the top