kukuman: Desperate eh? Can't argue against any of my postings, just claim that they're "spin story".

I feel your anger. It's okay, you're still "special". There, there.

where: This "U damn funny. Asked the company how long it took for them to finalise the land sale" does not explain

"Reclaim land but cannot sale."

Did the company sell land ever since the criminally liable Leaw Tua Choon et al resigned, yes or no?

You as a "lawyer" should be able to answer a simple yes or no question.

You claim they reclaim land but cannot sell. That is quite obviously false. If you want to argue that it takes them a long time to sell the land then say so, but don't lie to us by saying that they cannot sell it.

Do elaborate further, if you have the courage that is, which I doubt at this stage.

where: Oh and still waiting for you to elaborate, "i am much better than you when you only display good news which in fact all false. "

Do tell, what is the "good news" which I have displayed which is "in fact all false".

Either explain your statement or admit you tried to lie to us.

where: Still waiting for you to justify:

"Reclaim land, but cannot sale."

Again I'll state the following:
Teobros Development - 23 acres
Ultra Harmony - 128 acres
Jadex - 59 acres

are lands that were sold after the criminally liable Leaw Tua Choon et al resigned from the company.

Please explain your statement or admit that you tried to lie to us.

kukuman: No I did not, you lying pustulent cesspool of a boil on a buttock.

As I do not delete any of my previous postings (unlike certain lying scum), anyone can review my archive of postings and see that I have never, ever once stated whether approval is a given.

On the other hand, you as the great anti-spinner of this forum continue to spew your vitriolic example of pure rubbish.

It's okay though, I know you're stressed and pressured by what's happening. I can feel your anger...

Here's an interesting tidbit about the RM200m convertible bond issue by Benalec.

The minimum subscription price per institution (only institutions are subscribing) is RM5m.

Which means that there should be not more than 40 subscribers for the bond issue.

In all honesty, I don't think said subscribers bother to read this forum.

where: Okay, what's the "good news" which I displayed which is "in fact all false"? Please, do tell for all of us here.

Also, I am still waiting for you to justify your earlier statement:

"Reclaim land, but cannot sale"

I highlighted the land sales that have been made by Benalec since the criminally liable LTC et al have resigned. So how do you justify your statement?

I call your statement bad news which is in fact all false.

Till now you have refused to explain that statement. So isn't that an outright lie by you then?

where: getting desperate? You made the posting, not me. You tried to twist my words, and will not admit it when I call you out for it. You insult me, apologise, and the insult me with the same term again (MD's dog, whatever that is).

And now you are scraping the bottom of the barrel, you call me an "old fussy fat lady". Come now, if you are really a "lawyer", surely you can try to marshal some effort to argue rationally.

How pathetic, simply pathetic. You want people to believe you, but you cannot even lay out any rational points. All you give are supposed rumours, market talk and pure ridiculous assumptions.

You idolise Leaw Tua Choon, who for all intents and purposes is a criminal and claim that you can get him off if you were his "lawyer" when you cannot even argue properly.

I'd sooner trust a fresh out of school paralegal for legal advice rather than you, a supposed "lawyer".

You are not only an embarrassment to your supposed profession, but to your own self.

This is a posting that where made at 11.09am which he shortly after deleted. Let it be reproduced here for the record:

***
where also commented on "Stock: [BENALEC]: BENALEC HOLDINGS BERHAD":

Posted by taciturn > Jun 3, 2014 10:53 AM | Report Abuse

Just got a call from a friend. He spoke to someone in Benalec. EGM circular still waiting for Bursa's approval but they're looking for it to happen in the last week of June.

This tidbit (about speaking to someone in Benalec) is confirmed (my friend is reliable on this).

EGM occurring end of this month to be considered as highly likely but not confirmed since it's still in Bursa's ballpark.

Comment by where at Jan 20, 2015 11:09 AM
***

where: Your point being? You quote a post of mine made on June 3, 2014 about the EGM involving the ratification of the HoA as well as the approval of the RM235m land sale to Ultra Harmony.

Notice of EGM was issued on June 9, 2014. Circulars were issued on June 10, 2014.

EGM was on June 25, 2014.

Every single point I made in my original posting turned out true. Trying to highlight my accuracy, eh? Why, thank you! I knew deep down inside you that you valued my accurate input, especially vis a vis your less than stellar postings.

where: For once in your life, try and use your "lawyer" skills and read my statement properly.

"FYI for all rational, logical investors. The DOE's decision on Tg Piai's DEIA is expected to be announced this Friday (23 Jan 2015).

Here's to keeping our fingers crossed that the decision will be a positive one for Benalec."

I said decision. I did not say approval. Whilst I am hoping for approval, I do not know if it will happen. (Hence the latter part of my statement)

Stop trying to twist my words.

FYI for all rational, logical investors. The DOE's decision on Tg Piai's DEIA is expected to be announced this Friday (23 Jan 2015).

Here's to keeping our fingers crossed that the decision will be a positive one for Benalec.

Proof:

What the liar, kukuman said:

***
Dec 23, 2014 03:49 PM , kukuman posted:

Posted by taciturn > Apr 23, 2014 10:55 AM | Report Abuse
I've just got news that Benalec has obtained EIA approval for both the Tanjong Piai and Pengerang land reclamation projects and work should start as early as next month. (Kukuman, if you are there, don't buy!)
***


I rebutted with:
***
Dec 23, 2014 07:41 PM
And the liar has struck again:

Posted by taciturn > Apr 23, 2014 10:55 AM | Report Abuse
I've just got news that Benalec has obtained EIA approval for both the Tanjong Piai and Pengerang land reclamation projects and work should start as early as next month. (Kukuman, if you are there, don't buy!)
23/12/2014 18:35


The above posting was made by Savvyone, and not me. The lying piece of crap that is kukuman quietly ascribed my name to it.

Frankly, I hope you rot in the deepest, lowest level of hell.

You can't even argue honestly.
***


And with:
***
Dec 23, 2014 07:47 PM

Proof of my statement:

http://klse.i3investor.com/servlets/forum/800001011.jsp?ftp=150

Go down the list and look for the posting done as per Apr 23, 2014 10.55am. Posted by Savvyone. That lying piece of crap attributed that quote to me instead of to savvyone.

I hope you rot in hell, kukuman.
***


I am still waiting for the lying gasbag, kukuman to grow a pair and apologise. How dare you attribute my name to somebody else's statement.

Lying piece of crap. Go hide lah, we all know you kecut already. Don't have the guts to admit when you're wrong.

Oh and BTW, I am still waiting for you to explain your statement, "Reclaim land but cannot sale".

I note you have completely ignored my questions in my posting toward you, but I am certain since you made such a damning statement, surely you (as a lawyer) have some evidence to back it up, no?

I await your clarification on that statement with bated breath.

Oh, you're kukuman's lawyer? That explains everything! So do you have the "confidential evidences" that he keeps talking about? Or is it all hot air? A bit like the big gasbag himself.

And wow, you suspect my real identity? Hmm, it's not a big secret. Anyone who attended the past 3 Benalec general meetings would have spotted me. (I'm usually the one sitting in the front row of shareholders)

Two have even come up to me and introduced themselves. It was nice to meet them. Evidently, you were not one of them.

I have never once made postings in defence of the share price.

I merely post on matters of fact and at times my opinion on said facts.

This is unlike kukuman who has stated that he has evidence of the company's wrongdoings but never presented them.

The liar who claims he would give me his "lawyer's" contact for said evidence but doesn't dare to do so.

The coward who falsely attributed me to a quote made by someone else (savvyone) and when called out for it, doesn't have the guts to respond.

In his perspective, only negative issues about the company are acceptable. Neutral/postive issues are completely unacceptable.

Till today, I am still waiting for him to at least attempt to answer one of my damning statements about him.

I am still waiting with bated breath.

@where: You again bandy insults against me.

I have highlighted whatever points are necessary in my previous postings, feel free to read them if you have difficulty in recalling them.

You have highlighted points that are irrelevant (van donation? Wow - has absolutely no point with respect to the company's performance)) or absolutely wrong (your points on legal issues) in my personal opinion.

"Reclaim land but cannot sale"
Teobros Development - 23 acres
Ultra Harmony - 128 acres
Jadex - 59 acres

These are the above lands that were sold ever since the criminally liable directors (LTC and LAC) resigned.

Of these three bundles of land that were sold, only one was fully reclaimed at that time (Teobros Development - this was the land that LTC and LAC secretly acquired for their own interests in a criminally liable unreported RPT).

Of the other two bundles, the lands were sold BEFORE they were even reclaimed. In other words, the buyers put 10% down for something that's still covered by the sea.

So do tell, I'd be delighted to hear how you can justify "Reclaim land but cannot sale".



The articles that you posted regarding Indonesia and Vietnam were done just around the listing time of Benalec (2010-2011). You may not understand this but plans do change. You may intend to do something but then change your mind. Did Benalec pump in money in setting up Indonesia and Vietnamese branches and staffing them? No, they did not.

Projects for Johor...what exactly does that mean? Tanjung Piai and Pengerang? It took Ngau of Dialog fame about 10 years from start to finish before he could even break ground on Pengerang.

It has been... 5 years or so since Benalec got the concession for Johor. When they receive EIA approval, they intend to break ground within a month or so (after getting the state developmental order). That's about half the time that it took Dialog.

Do explain how all this is "just talk and syiok sendiri".

Feel free to try to rebut any of the above points if you disagree (especially with regards to "Reclaim land but cannot sale". If you don't even bother (which is what is likely to happen), that will tell readers exactly how valid your arguments are.

@where: Why just look at that. That was my sentiment about you too! What a great coincidence , eh?

TAGS80: Answer these damned questions.

Based on the link above I gave, which is a bursa disclosure and which if any party lies, well the crap can hit the fan.

1) Did LTC and LAC do unreported related party transactions by selling land to firms that they had vested interests in? [Seaside Synergy Sdn Bhd and Sunshine 2000 Sdn Bhd]

2) Did LTC and LAC granting a contract for the transport and unloading of sea sand to a company from which they themselves derived secret profits? [Citypoint Engineering Sdn Bhd]

3) Did LTC allow a restaurant to operate on one of Benalec's lands without the knowledge of the other directors of Benalec? The restaurant operated on the land either free of charge or with payments that were _NOT_ made to Benalec. This was only discovered when Benalec had to deliver vacant possession of the land to a buyer! [Sunshine Bistro Restaurant]

4) Did LTC allow a cement plant to be operate on one of Benalec's reclaimed lands, land which was supposed to be handed over to the Melaka state government, without the knowledge of the other directors of Benalec? The cement plant operated either free of charge or with payments that were _NOT_ made to Benalec? [Vimix Concrete Sdn Bhd]

You damned well better answer these questions and then tell me whether these are lies instead of facts. I am sick and tired of dealing with people who accuse me of lying when they can't damned well read the documents themselves.

If any of these are lies, there would be serious defamation concerns. Instead you see LTC, LAC et al _signing_ the Heads of Agreement with Benalec. So which is it? Did they commit a wrong or didn't they?

You should be ashamed of yourself, sir. I'd suggest you either stand up and respond like a man, or shut up and hide with your tail between your legs.

TAGS80: Uh... wow I don't know why you suddenly seem to have an axe to grind with me.

Suddenly you accuse me of:

1) "stating false facts"
2) "too free la you seriously post so much facts here and there"

Let's look at the source documents that were issued.

Circular for the Heads of Agreement
http://www.bursamalaysia.com/market/listed-companies/company-announcements/1652537

I'm not going to restate all the points. But you want to see the _wrongdoings_ committed by LTC, LAC et al, read the freaking goddamn document.

If you think that document is a lie, why the hell didn't LTC et al _SUE_ Benalec and its directors for defamation. After all, the document is pretty damning.

You think I pulled all these facts out of a hat? It's in the bloody document.

Yes, I spoke to the other directors and got their version of what happened. But if these are all lies, let me ask a simple damned question:

Why didn't LTC, LAC, LTC's son et al sue Benalec? Why didn't they stand their ground and say these are all lies?

At that time, collectively, LTC+LAC's shareholding in the family firm is bigger than VLSH and their niece's stake. The two of them _HAD_ majority control. They could have told VLSH to bugger off, if _they were in the right_.

TAGS80, if you don't like me stating facts, and for that matter they are real facts, that's your bloody goddamn business. But don't you ever say that I stated "false facts". Every freaking goddamn thing I try to have a relevant source to refer to.

How dare you? Who the hell are you act as judge, jury and executioner?

You don't like my posts, skip them. But never, ever call me a liar. You, sir, are the idiot.

Fact: LTC and LAC committed breach of fiduciary duties as directors of Benalec. They committed to RPTs involving (but not limited to) land sales.

Breach of fiduciary duties is a criminal (and not just a civil) act.

Benalec could have sought remedies in a civil action against them in court.

LTC, LAC, LTC's son and their associated companies settled with Benalec to restitute Benalec for all their wrongdoings. This was done through the Heads of Agreement (HoA) which all parties involved signed and was ratified by shareholders in an EGM.

One of the final clauses in the HoA stated that no party could pursue another via a civil action after the HoA is completed.

I'm not sure how LTC et all is supposed to sue Benalec since they signed the HoA when you look at this clause.

As a final note, the actions of LTC et all were criminal by nature. No HoA can prevent the attorney-general's chambers from pursuing a criminal case against them for their wrongdoings.


@where: If you believe that they still have a case after all this, why are you just posting on this forum? You should be contacting them directly to offer your services.

zero: Lol. I just skimmed through his one liner without really reading it, just saw the regular insult "stupid and childish" and ignored it.

But your highlighting that line made my day too. Heh.

Pop-kon, pop-kon. :p

*munches popcorn*

This is fairly entertaining, all newly revealed angles over what has happened in the past.

I'm not going to rebut any of the points here unless anyone specifically requests me to do so.

I'd like to think that most readers here are rational and logical and come to their own conclusions.

This paragraphs is exceptionally amazing in its entertainment value, IMHO.

"Benalec sells land at RM28 per sq ft for bigger size of lands no issue and shareholders approve it. Years back selling land also at RM28 but just forgot to disclose and Independent Directors kicked them out."

Just forgot to disclose. ROFLMAO. If I ever tried that my partners would probably lynch me from the nearest tree.

The Heads of Agreement highlighted so many other issues, and not just because they "forgot to disclose".

Again I'll ask, please do tell me, what was the "personal attack" I made against you?

This is my third time asking, and I still have no idea what you're referring to.

I accept your apology. But I do wish to stress, you did not delete that post. That post was removed by the forum moderators.

where: You still haven't answered my question. You say I made a "personal attack" against you. I have reviewed posts and cannot figure out what you are referring to. Please, do tell me what it was?

And you've ignored my second point. You can attack me personally with "the MD's dog", and it seems okay for you to do so but it's not okay for me to do a "personal attack" against you.

Please, do enlighten me and the other readers of this forum as to why that's okay to you.

And I made no mention about Melaka in any of my postings in the past one month at the very least. I have no idea what that has to do with my questions to you.

where: Please do tell, what exactly was my "personal attack" towards you?

Thus far all I can see is me refuting (okay, lambasting if you prefer) your points.

You even called me "the MD's dog" if I recall correctly when you disbelieved my statement that I was sitting on a large paper loss. This posting has of course since been removed by the forum moderators since that was a very personal attack against me.

It's okay for you to do so, but not okay for me to do it seems. Although thus far, I can't find any postings I made towards you that I'd deem to be a "personal" attack.

Hello pot, my name is kettle. You are very black.

It's always amusing to see someone delete their owns posts when they get called out. For those that missed it:

"Taciturn ... u too sensitive.. I mean is offence."
Comment by where at Jan 6, 2015 04:07 PM

"Iayo.... u too sensitive. Pls show me my post. I mean is unfair to capital markets since u look like having advantages and first hand info than us. I just highlight that it may constitute offence. Then you start challenge me to report."
Comment by where at Jan 6, 2015 04:22 PM

"I doubt u will give me ur full name too."
Comment by where at Jan 6, 2015 04:22 PM

"never thought u so childish like what Kukuman and Jj wong said on u."
Comment by where at Jan 6, 2015 05:21 PM

For those who just tuned in and are wondering why I seem to be having a recent one-sided conversation on this forum.

Think that's a big difference between me and him right there.

I don't delete my posts to hide my screw ups.

http://www.bursamalaysia.com/market/listed-companies/company-announcements/1845021

Benalec's official response to Bernama's Dec 31 article which implied that the company has received EIA approval already,

Benalec's point, EIA approval is still pending. DOE has not made its decision yet.

Hopefully my posting this isn't considered insider trading (or dealing, if you prefer).

I guess when I write comprehensively and logically (IMHO); and someone can't seem to respond in kind, the solution is to accuse me of childishness.

How pathetic. If you'd at least attempt to argue against any of my points above it'd be something.

Far easier to wave the white flag, I'm sure.

How confusing. He threatens to report me to the SC.

And now he's asking me for my full name...? Uh, right, I don't think so. Why don't you reveal your full name for everyone to see first?

The SC's smart enough to find out my details, if they so feel that a case needs to be opened against me. Just tell them you believe taciturn of klse.i3investor has committed insider trading.

So I'm going to ask once again. Why have you not reported me to the SC since you believe I have committed a crime?

Quote:
"I mean is unfair to capital markets since u look like having advantages and first hand info than us."

Uh-uh... unfair how? I do my own research. I take the time and effort to meet IR officials for firms that interest me. I take the time to attend company meetings. That's how you get first hand information.

This is something anyone can do, if they're so inclined to put in the effort. Taking the time to do any of this does not make one an insider.

Or are you saying the only acceptable way to get information is to listen to rumours or just what's published by the media?

The irony is that I share what findings I learn to this forum, as accurately as possible.

And I get condemned for it. I am a "spinner", I am a "liar", I am a "follower of MD", I have committed "breach of insider dealing". [And till today, I still don't understand the latter two claims or in what way I've committed whatever "crime" that entails]

How exactly have I profited? The share price up to the last week or so has been on a downtrend. With my "insider dealing", I am still sitting on a very substantial paper loss.

Quote: where Taciturn ... u too sensitive.. I mean is offence.
06/01/2015 16:07

I'm too sensitive and you mean offence?

I don't think I'm too sensitive. And I'm not offended even though you state here that you mean to offend me.

Your posts fall so far off the mark (to me, I don't know how others feel) that I find them more entertaining (in a sardonic sense) than offensive.


You said you're going to report me to the SC for insider trading. I'm still waiting. Care to comment as to when you intend to do so?

FYI to all rational followers of this board.

I made a mistake in one of my previous postings. On Dec 6, 2014 in one of my comments I stated that the EIA submission had been made by Benalec to the DOE on November 12.

It was pointed out to me that is a mistake (I was using the LPD from notes to the accounts for quarterly results ended September 2014, where the EIA submission was mentioned).

The actual EIA submission was made on October 30, 2014. This means that following DOE's KPI, we should hopefully see a response by the end of this month.

[ZOMG, hopefully this is not considered insider trading... if not how lah? Someone DID say he was going to report me to the SC. And I am still waiting to see that happen...]

Heh, nicely put guys.

The postings are confusing. I can't fathom whether he's for or against the company.

And looks like I still haven't been reported to the SC for his version of insider trading, whatever that is.

I'm snickering as I read these postings. I need some popcorn.

Speaking of which, have you reported me to the SC for insider trading yet?

And... oh... my... god... you stated:

"More to come........................... rest P n C."

Insider trading! You know privileged information!

So are you reporting yourself to the SC too?

http://www.bursamalaysia.com/market/listed-companies/company-announcements/1843445

CB conversion price has been set at RM0.705 per unit. Bah, wish this had been delayed for a few days, then the conversion price would be a little higher resulting in a lower earnings dilution potential.

ykloh: Yep, praying real hard that everything works out.

One fact of interest, if I'm not mistaken, the Forest City joint venture came about in early 2014. They only got the EIA submission done in the latter half of 2014. Even with all the flouting of the rules (started reclamation etc) and the location of their concession, they still received approval for 400 hectares.

Benalec's concession woes have taken more than 4 years, and the dealings with the DOE and their own EIA consultant must have been nightmarish (heck, the consultant's fees alone are in excess of RM22m). Going by the book all the way, making all the I's are dotted and all the T's crossed, I'm praying they'll be able to get complete approval for the whole concession.

Article today in Malaysian Insider about DOE's decision on Forest City:

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/doe-limits-controversial-johor-straits-housing-project-over-environmental-c

My view: It's a huge cut by DOE (from 1600 hectares to 405 hectares), but I think they knew it was coming. For one thing Forest City is literally next to Singapore, and for another, all reports indicated that they'd started reclamation works before EIA approval and were carrying on works even when official complaints had been lodged. Things only slowed down after Singapore started screaming bloody murder.

With regards to Benalec, do take the time to look at the map in the article (Benalec's shaded area there refers to Tanjung Piai). Whilst it can be considered somewhat of a risk (Forest City got whacked, will Tanjung Piai receive the same treatment too?) bear in mind that Tanjung Piai's location relative to Singapore is a lot further away.

Who knows the answer? Not me. If you have kangtao with the DOE's EIA committee, feel free to find out. :p

In other news, volume for today stands at over 4 million shares as at 9.14am. Price is up 2.5 sen to 66.5. I have no clue why the price/volume is trending upwards but am hoping it continues to do so. I'm sitting on a pretty substantial paper loss at the moment and it can be a bit depressing at times to look at it.

Thanks for the comments guys. Appreciate the support, staind86.

Was having a really rough day (New Year blues) and probably shouldn't have posted my comment today but that guy really gets my goat with his constant new lows of imbecility.

where: Whilst, I stated a point that I do not wish to respond to you I have to as you (once again) made uncalled allegations against me and trying to sully my name.

I spoke to the board and management (COO and CFO) during the past AGM/EGM (which you claim you intended to attend but which proved to be totally untrue). That is where I got the bulk of my answers that I have reproduced here for all to see.

And most recently I called Benalec's office. I asked to speak to whoever's handling to IR. I asked a simple question, "As per the Hwang Affin report on December 31, has the EIA approval been granted, or has some form if developmental order been given?" The answer was, "No. EIA approval pending."

This is something that anyone (yes including someone as dungu as you) can do. And this is not insider trading. Only a moron will believe that verifying something said by an unrelated party to be untrue is insider trading.

I highlighted the reasons for the "high remuneration". Whether anyone wants to believe it, that is their business, not mine. I give you what they tell me. You don't like it, so be it. These are not my words, but theirs. Only the most stupid of persons can't understand that after reading my statements.

You claim I've committed insider trading. Report me to the SC if you believe that to be true.

If not shut up, and run away with your tail behind your legs. I am sick and tired of dealing with people like you. All you seem to interested in is to push the company down (for schadenfreude reasons I'm sure), as can be seen with this quote:

"where: i wont stop anyone who believe approval obtained anyway and buy now
02/01/2015 15:50"

Guess, what? You can't stop anyone. It's not up to you if someone wants to buy or sell their shares. At the end of the day, you're a nobody.

Man up for once, grow a pair. Report me to the SC. I would love to see them responding to your imbecility.

It's strange how when I take the effort to post to this forum that I took the effort to confirm with Benalec's management that no EIA or development approval has been granted, I'm suddenly taken to be an employee of the company (or god knows what this is) "follower of this MD".

I'm giving what's a negative viewpoint of the company. Of course I understand the less than intelligent - especially those who don't explain their allegations against me when I raise them directly via postings - have problems understanding this.

I guess even when the top negative spinner slows down in his postings here, we have less than intelligent (and intelligible) clones who appear.

What a pathetic loser.

rlch: Look I'm not saying Benalec should not bid on any such tenders.

My point here is that a lot of said contracts are not open tenders.

They're either restricted tenders or direct negotiation contracts.

If it were open tenders, no doubt Benalec would (and should) bid on them.

Hence why I'm pessimistic at Benalec's chances of securing such contracts.

rlch: You have a point there but personally I'm pessimistic on Benalec's chances to get flood mitigation contracts. Bear in mind that a company like Inai Kiara may be privately oned, but they've got a paid up capital of more than RM200m, which is pretty impressive, and the fact that they control the bulk of existing mitigation works means they've got a good chance to bag any new such contracts.

Also, this is our government we're talking about. How long it'll take them to issue such new contracts (alongside falling oil prices, bigger budget deficit for the country) is also another issue to think on.

rlch: Most such jobs in the past have been given to bumiputra firms in the industry. Especially the long term ones. Inai Kiara and Tidal Marine have gotten some of the more lucrative (especially in terms of recurring income) jobs.

Caveat: This is from personal research as well as from snippets of conversation I've heard from those in the industry, so I could very well be wrong.

where: I note, you have:

1) Completely ignored my point, it wasn't a sibling rivalry fight! The two older brothers committed a freaking bloody crime! That's why they were forced to resign! Boleh kena hukuman mahkamah jenayah, faham ke tidak?
2) declined to respond on my point where you accuse me of insider trading. As this is a serious allegation, I'd suggest you man up, grow a pair and bloody well answer this. You accuse me of committing a crime, goddamn well explain how the hell what I did is a crime.

You have also again highlighted:
"After shareholders asked on his MD remuneration, his ball kecut and tried to find lame excuses and said need to settle board room tussle so getting RM8 million. "

Which is pure bullshit. I gave the answers that _I_ (not you, by your supposed remote control via information from a "friend" who attended) received from the board. I already pointed out The Edge effed up in their reporting and BFM simply picked up on the Edge. The remuneration had absolutely _nothing_ to do with the board room tussle. Re-read my previous postings on this point. Try to get that into your head.

Once again you have conveniently declined to accept all my points on this but instead choose to ignore it (I call this doing a kukuman).

I also note, where convenient, you have deleted your posts (some time earlier this week, or last week) where I had called them out to be what I believe them to be, pure bullshit. Note: we are not talking about deleting posts because of typos but because they've been proven (IMHO) to be bullshit.

One thing most posters on this forum might be aware of is that you can set your account to receive notifications of any replies on this board via email.

I reproduce to you one such notification:

"WE MUST NOT SUBSCRIBE THE BOND RAISING AND REJECT IT SO THAT THE DIRECTORS HAVE NO CHOICE BUT CONSIDER TO REISSUE IT AT 5% HIGHER RATE. ALSO AS VOICE TO SHOW OUR DISSATISFACTION ON THE MANAGEMENT

Comment by where at Dec 31, 2014 11:25 AM"

This comment was of course deleted shortly after it was posted.

If nothing else, this brings me to the conclusion that you're just whinging for the sake of whinging and you are one of those who hope to see the company go bankrupt for schadenfreude purposes.

Why the company should issue the bond at a higher rate (and pay out higher interest, which is an expense - lower net profits for the company) if one is a shareholder defies my understanding.

The only ones who would ask for it are those who are:
a) Not shareholders, hoping to buy in at a lower price - higher expenses lead to lower profit which usually leads to lower share price
b) Those of schadenfreude mentality - hoping to see the company go bankrupt so you can go, "Neener, neener!" - perhaps allies of the two older brothers who were dismissed for CBT?
c) kukuman

I do not know if you're kukuman in disguise, and frankly I don't really care. But for someone who supposedly sold all his shares, it sounds like you're one of the above three.

This is my absolute final posting to you. Feel free to jump up and down like a baboon for all I care.

And to sum up, if anyone wants to find out more about the company, learn to pick up the damned phone and call Benalec,email them, speak to the directors/management during general meetings.

Insider trading is when you learn information that gives you an unfair advantage in knowing how the price should move.

Fact: Leaw Ah Chye still owns a stake in Benalec through the family firm. The reason is a personal one, and if you want to know what it is, ask Vincent Leaw. When I asked him what would be considered harsh/embarrassing questions, he has answered them point blank.

How the f*** does knowing the reason why he's not been bought out make a bloody difference to the share price.

Bah, my mood is soured when I see stupidity of this level.

where: *facepalm*

Why were the brothers forced to resign? Because they committed CBT! Not because it's brothers fighting each other. It's not because one person says, "I want to be in charge!". Vincent Leaw is telling everyone that to make them understand that this is a more serious case of mala fide/CBT.

Can you please get that in your head? The brothers are out because they committed a CRIME. Faham tak?

And insider dealing? That is the biggest crap load of bullshit I've heard in a long time. Are you freaking kidding me? Tell you what, if you actually believe I've committed "insider trading" (which is the correct term) because I found out the reason why the second brother was not bought out, please do report me to the SC.

Holy mother of god. I am now reminded as to why I made a decision to stop responding to your posts. To call what you stated me to be (committing a crime, that's what insider trading is) imbecilistic would be the understatement of the century.

I try to limit myself from calling others names but seriously, kebodohan yang tidak boleh dibandingi.

ykloh: Was curious enough at what you mentioned that I've just asked someone in Benalec about it. Kenanga is wrong here. No such thing.

Whilst I stated that I'd ignore your posts before, I can't resist asking this one.

where: Please clarify where the MD insisted that there was no misunderstanding with his brothers?

You _do_ realise that the two older brothers were forced to resign or be fired. A Heads of Agreement had to be made and ratified (by minority shareholders) to undo the mess that they had caused, correct?

I hope this is not a case of katak bawah tempurung. You seem to be insisting all is well between the MD and his older brothers, la-la-la.

The older brothers are gone, finito, no longer serving with Benalec. You think that there is still no "misunderstanding" with them? This whole situation might have been swept under the carpet and never brought to light and we would not be aware of it. Instead Vincent Leaw stated, no cover up and everything came out and everyone's reputations (especially the two older brothers) took a hit.

From my perspective, the two older brothers are damned lucky that the AG's chambers have not hauled them up to court and demanded jail sentences for them. (I have not sought out the reasons for this, but it does not take a genius to figure out what has happened here)

The middle brother still retains a stake through their family holding firm, I've been told the reasons why he wasn't bought out, but I'm not going to put it up here. For me, said reasons were reasonably credible.

So please, do me a huge favour. Show me where exactly the MD stated that there is no misunderstanding between him and his brothers. I'd be delighted to read your source document on the matter... if it exists that is.

pooket: Thank you for your comments. It is such sentiments that make me feel my time and effort to make my postings are worth it.

Comments from some of the others here are highly entertaining. They are not as vitriolic as the most famous anti-spinning troll on this forum, but amusing in how well they fail to even raise any new issues.

Especially the one coming from "I have sold all my shares". Not going to spend any time rebutting them, but if anyone else wants me to clarify why I consider those statements to be beyond inane, feel free to ask (be specific, please) and I will be happy to respond.

I find it extremely amusing that you're considered to be a "dictator" because you thanked me for my posts. Not because you said you agree with my postings, but because you thanked me.

What an entertaining start to the day. It's a good thing I wasn't drinking my coffee when I was reading it.

Ah Ha: I have stated in my previous postings the reasons given by the board for the level of remuneration paid out. In the interests of transparency, as you have put it, I have tried to reproduce it here as clearly as possible for all to see. The reasons are not secret, the reasons are not confidential.

I have also stated very clearly that if all the minority shareholders had voted against the resolutions, the board would be facing a huge moral dilemma. If everyone else is opposed, quite obviously they will have to rethink on the matters.

And also I have stated very clearly, voting was done by poll. Poll results are available for all to see. The bulk of minority shareholders voted in favour of the resolutions. So there was no moral dilemma.

What exactly are you referring to when you say "closed internal meeting"? An AGM/EGM is by no means closed. Any shareholder has the right to attend.

And psst, I will tell you a secret. The remuneration bands paid to the directors are listed clearly in the annual report. And this annual report is something that anyone can download from bursa's website. Amazing isn't it?

I have to once again reiterate my point. I am only the messenger. I give you the information as I have learned it. If you do not like my information, feel free to skip it.

ykloh: Thank you for your comment. Hopefully this would be sufficient confirmation for those who don't seem to believe me.