From latest QR, my personal opinion, the trigger is inevitable without any capital injection or restructuring. (early to late Jun 2022)
PN17 criteria: "shareholders' equity of the company on a consolidated basis is 25% or less of the share capital (excluding treasury shares) of the listed issuer AND such shareholders’ equity is less than RM40 million."
Share capital 10,872,078m Total equity 254,177m Current equity is only a mere 2.3% of share capital. Lucky them their equity still above RM40m, current stood at RM254m.
However, this won't last long.
Look at the total equity trend from Q1 to Q4 2022: 8,943,307 -> 7,658,687 -> 6,843,468 -> 254,177
So only another 214,000 to go before trigger the criteria.
Secondly, Annual Audited account will be released in early June.
We can only make a guess whether will their external auditor raises material uncertainty relating to going concern.
So yeah, it would be either early Jun or late June. one way or the other.
skyu yup.. the transcript is very detailed and would be helpful for every investor here...
seemingly when direct probing question being asked by multiple analysts, they more like avoiding answering the actual question but pusing around with words..
1 analyst did state about this kitchen sinking exercise in Q4 and since there is an impairment of 212 millions happened, they are worried of the assets and goodwill quality. from the transcript, management fail to addressv the analyst worries
In view of the situation, PNB is assuring its unitholders that the situation at SEB has a minimal impact on its portfolio.
At current market prices, its exposure is less than 1% of its assets under management (AUM). PNB adds it remains steadfast and committed to. protecting and acting in the best interest of its unit holders.
Does it sounded more like PNB will pump in more money into Sapura or just write it off from the book under worst case scenario?
On the Allowance for impairment of receivables RM23m
From previous AR "As at 31 December 2020, trade receivables of the Group and of the Company RM173,437,636 and RM2,100,000 (2019: RM184,108,159 and Nil) were past due but not impaired. These relate to a number of independent customers for whom there is no recent history of default."
With amount of RM141,065,779 pass due more than 90 days as of 31 Dec 2020.
Pursuant to Paragraph 16 (c) of Bursa circular on Additional Relief Measures dated 16 April 2020, and Paragraph 8 (c) of Bursa circular on Additional Relief Measures dated 17 February 2021, the Company is required to re-assess its condition at the expiry of the Relief Period. In this regard, the Company wishes to announce that it CONTINUES TO TRIGGER the prescribed criteria pursuant to Paragraph 8.04 and Paragraphs 2.1(a) and 2.1 (e) of PN17 of the Main LR.
The Board of Directors also wishes to advise that the Company had submitted its application to Bursa for the Relief Period to be extended beyond 7 January 2022 and is currently awaiting for Bursa's decision.
Further announcement will be made in due course regarding the outcome of the Company’s application to Bursa for the extension of the PN17 Relief measures.
This announcement is dated 7 January 2022.
As announced by the Company on 7 January 2022, the Company continued to trigger the prescribed criteria pursuant to Paragraph 8.04 and Paragraphs 2.1(a) and 2.1(e) of PN17 of the Main LR, and an application was submitted to Bursa for the Relief Period to be extended beyond 7 January 2022 (“Application”), and an appeal following the decision by Bursa for the Application.
The Board of Directors wishes to inform that after due consideration of all facts and circumstances including all written representations and documents submitted before Bursa, Bursa has decided to dismiss the appeal.
Further announcement will be made in due course regarding this matter.
This announcement is dated 13 January 2022.
CONTINUES TO TRIGGER the prescribed criteria pursuant to Paragraph 8.04 and Paragraphs 2.1(a) and 2.1 (e) of PN17 of the Main LR.
I think the outcome is quite clear. Waiting for the announcement.
Category Notice of Person Ceasing To Be Substantial Shareholder Pursuant to Section 139 of CA 2016 Name EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND BOARD Date of cessation 25 Jun 2021 No of securities disposed 96,000,000 Circumstances by reason of which a person ceases to be a substantial shareholder i. Disposal of shares in open market.
This is on 24 Jun 2021. Date of notice 24 Jun 2021 Direct (units) 281,084,600 Direct (%) 7.577 Total no of securities after change 281,084,600
Since 25 Jun EPF disposed 96,000,000 shares in a single day and subsequently ceasing as substantial shareholder.
As of cessasion, 185 million shares left.
So anyone that think EPF still holding the share trying to comfort yourselves, do you think EPF unable to offload the remaining 185m or so share from Jun to Nov 21??
Come on, time to wake up
----------------------- Newbie099 Why so many people are happy for SD to be delisted..like to laugh to other people misery..EPF still have around 7% stake in SD and its citizens retirement money!! Just wish all of this can be settled with the least financial damage to all parties 08/11/2021 8:02 PM
"At the moment, everything is very much work-in-progress and in piece-meal basis, hence it's very inappropriate to release the findings which otherwise would further cloud the achievement of our target rather than to resolve the problem at hand," they said today.
this statement in the news pretty much imply how the SIR findings would be like.
getingreal They cannot run form the fact that Directors traded in shares and warrants when in possession of inside information. They acknowledge they had been been briefed by EY, and the public had not, therefore they were in possession of inside information good or bad as such they have an unfair trading advantage. The wise and proper thing for them to do would be not to trade until all matters relating to the report are released. Without question they have indulged n insider trading and the Stock exchange must act.
probably anyone here can drop an email to SC or MSWG?
PETALING JAYA: Trading in Oilcorp Bhd shares will be suspended with effect from Oct 12 and the securities of the company risk being delisted from the local bourse on Oct 14 unless an appeal is submitted to Bursa Malaysia within the stipulated timeframe.
The move comes after the PN17 (Practice Note 17) company failed to submit its regularisation plan to the Securities Commission or Bursa within the prescribed deadline.
PETALING JAYA: Oilcorp Bhd shares will be delisted on Jan 25 following a High Court decision to allow Bursa Malaysia Securities Bhd's application to intervene and set aside an earlier High Court order, the engineering services firm said in a filing with the exchange.
On Nov 9, 2010 the Practice Note 17 company obtained an order from the High Court restraining the regulator from taking any action and/or continuing any action including but not limited to de-listing its securities until the valid expiry of the restraining order or any extension of the order.
Bursa Securities had on the same date written to Oilcorp stating that the listing committee had decided to reject its appeal against de-listing.
KUALA LUMPUR: Oilcorp Bhd is considering legal action against auditors Baker Tilly Monterio Heng (BTMH).
According to documents sent to the Securities Commission (SC) by the company that were obtained by StarBiz, it has also disagreed with a directive by the SC for BTMH to conduct a further investigation on Oilcorp's accounts.
BTMH, when contacted, confirmed that it had received a letter from the SC directing it to conduct the further work.
It is learnt that a professional clearance letter has been sent by BTMH to accounting firm Horwath regarding the audit of Oilcorp.
Malaysian Institute of Accountants (MIA) by-laws require incoming auditors to request professional clearance from the outgoing auditors.
Shareholders of Oilcorp Bhd in a near unanimous vote yesterday booted out the existing external auditors. The shareholders were unhappy on finding out the company faced the prospect of delisting after its annual accounts were accompanied with a disclaimer report.
Correction. "There are people pro KPMG inside SD, there are not" Definitely not some, ALL ID including ex-ID & chairman had RESIGNED (Total of 5). From the previous BOD, Only NID Karim, Awang and Kadier stay.
Let's not take those newly appointed ID into account since 1 had already resigned after 1 mere 14 days in office.
----------------- "IbnuShaari it is a cleaning process by SD. There are people pro KPMG inside SD, there are not. I believe it should be ok for the long term as I believe Dtk Karim will try their level best to resolve the issues."
i though they had changed their financial year to 18 months hence buying more times for the audit report.
while for EY appointment, seemingly EY is the one that not accepted the appointment yet according to AmInvest. "At this juncture, Ernst & Young has not accepted the appointment to be the independent reviewer after Serba’s board of directors has agreed in principle"
while for PB invest, they are just posting an update on the issue and so far maybe they feel this incident still did not warrant any change in their TP.
jun1920 noah, mind to enlighten us whether all listed companies do same businesses and operate in same manner? hahahhahahaha 28/05/2021 11:46 AM -------
mind enlighten us how then, this serbadk is so special and so different with the rest of the listed companies? simply because you hold its share so its so special and so different that warrant appointment of independent auditor for "special independent review to assess the veracity and accuracy of the matters" ??
Completeness and existence of material on site Refer to Note 2(g) (accounting policy) and Note 10 (financial disclosures).
Our audit procedures included, amongst others: i) We evaluated the design and implementation of controls related to inventories. ii) We attended inventory count at various locations in Middle East and Malaysia to ascertain the existence and accuracy of the material on site. iii) We verified purchases of material on site to the suppliers’ invoices and goods entry forms as well as verified to goods exit forms for the material on site consumed to ascertain the completeness of the material on site.
While this could raise a problem if auditor not being able to present on site, however, it could be easily overcome through lets say a video call walk around on site. Auditors always have their respective methodology. Situation now is the last thing they wanted to do.
Furthermore, its related to inventories only and NOT revenue.
1) Existence, accuracy and completeness of revenue recognition Refer to Note 2(p) (accounting policy) and Note 21 (financial disclosures)
Our audit procedures included, amongst others: i) We evaluated the controls designed and applied by the Group in the process of determining the revenue recognised in the financial statements.
ii) We inspected material new contracts with customers to determine whether, based on the contract terms and billing schedule as well as overall performance of services, the Group has appropriately accounted the contracts in accordance with MFRS 15.
iii) We inspected job completion certificates and other relevant documents (i.e. timesheets, delivery order, etc.) whether the associated revenue was recognised in the appropriate accounting period.
iv) We tested on sampling basis on the revenue transactions to the job completion certificates, delivery orders and invoices to test on the accuracy and occurrence of the revenue transactions.
v) We verified journal entries for revenue and revenue related accounts based on specific high risk criteria set to ascertain whether there are any unusual, unauthorised or unsupported entries made against revenue.
vi) We confirmed trade receivables balances and performed alternative test on non-replies by sighting to the underlying delivery orders, job completion certificates and other underlying source documents.
vii) We assessed the completeness, accuracy and appropriateness of disclosures as required by MFRS 15.
---------- Based on Audit Report 2019, Does any of it mentioned they physically present to verify to revenue?
There are numerous methods to verify and cross check the revenue. External auditor will only request an independent audit when they are not satisfied based on their methodology, hence they need extra assurance.