Lots of theory here and believe some of u r from both party….question is anyone of us here ever been to a gold mine or been to Bahvest side ? DL set up this gold mine and don’t believe anyone can simply take over the job easily……one of the guy from. DF side was the CFO and he had not raise the issue building on 3rd party land when it happens few years back ? The incoming director non of them had experience or time to visit the side …Law and Federik chong is always away and base in KL ….put aside the legal suit towards the previous management ….how long can Bahvest last without income and with debts and bank loan to service ? Without gold mine income Bahvest is just an empty shell ……as investor we should open our eyes
Cq14134, you may be right Bahvest can sue the previous management but again such legal case take years to settle with various court to appeal….do u think Bahvest have the time with no production ? It will be tough for the new Management to take over the factory to run……
True also. I alwasys belief there is ppl from there camp from both side. And today a lot of dfl gang bright comments, maybe to honour the win which set in soon.
Nickfury from what you said i do belief too that the ex cfo should knows the issue of the land dispute as it is quite an early stage. He should know quite a bit but since holding such post should alert the board too. If such important issue he is not knowledgeable during period then how much he actually knows about the company
And now since fl gang have declare they are the winner and he will sit on board as well. Then i wonder how much he could do.
As the compamy is heading to a plunge as production line problem? Can he substain the incoming finacial problem, and now sure do have finacial impact towards the balance sheet? Will bank pull umbrella and so?
Nickfury03, I seriously wonder whether the Bahvest BOD dares to make the RM13m (2 tranches) payment given the likely lawsuit once the new management comes especially when it is paid to a company controlled by the CEO of Bahvest.
I think FL and gang can easily fund the short term cash needs if they want to especially if it is in the form of ESOS or private placement at the current depressed price level.
I won't be surprised if the SC intervenes at some point. The sale of shares by DL's son and his partner will likely be investigated for insider trading b4 material "trespassing" announcement.
* bahvest trepassed the land illegally, bahvest pays compensation in 2 instalments to the landlord. Whether landlord is related to bahvest is irrelevant. Bahvest is not 100% owned by DL
*DL 's son and Amir offloaded their shares after letter of demand was served upon Bahvest.your mention of insider trading is not tenable.
* Raising fund through PP during the depressed share price is unwise.the company need to issue more shares at low share price which means more shares need to be issued leading to more dilution.
What we saw that especially the comments of the FL GROUP lau or yong still steady as gentlemen buisneman not like the one of their group.. 1...not much education n also not a qualified accauntan 2 always make the nonsense comments
3...bad attitude... 4.. time now is suitable for u to Australia Cather with ur children wife grandson ..no need to make ur group facing the critical situation..loses much...
Both FL and DL are long time good friend. It is just a drama to buy cheap stock from panic selling. After buy enough, they will announce good news and goreng up the share price. Just wait and see.
The saga will end soon. And new chapter for the company which unknown endings. Lets the observe the new management how are they going to resolve the matter of trespass and keep the compang afloat
No positive news but all negative news surrounding the company ,thats the fact. I am afraid. When the tiger appearing right in front of you, I cant pretend it by saying it is a " Pusxy cat" ,not a tiger. Got it ?
I asked ChatGPT the following long winded question: "A Malaysian listed company received a negative material information on day 1, the company directors then sold shares on day 2, and the company made announcement of such negative material information AFTER market close on day 2, are the directors liable for insider trading under the Malaysian Securities Industry Act?"
ChatGPT's answer:
I am not a lawyer, but I can provide some general information on insider trading and the Malaysian Securities Industry Act. Insider trading refers to the buying or selling of securities based on non-public, material information that could affect the price of those securities. It is generally considered illegal in many jurisdictions, including Malaysia.
Under the Malaysian Securities Industry Act 1983 (SIA), insider trading is prohibited. Section 89 of the SIA defines insider trading as trading in securities while in possession of material non-public information. It prohibits any person who has insider information from dealing in securities to gain an advantage or avoid a loss for themselves or others.
In the scenario you described, where the directors sold shares after receiving negative material information but before the announcement was made to the market, it could potentially be viewed as insider trading. The timing of the share sales, occurring before the public announcement of the negative information, raises suspicions that the directors may have used their non-public information to their advantage.
It is important to note that determining liability for insider trading requires a thorough examination of the specific facts and circumstances of the case. Legal authorities, such as the Malaysian Securities Commission, courts, or regulatory bodies, would need to investigate and evaluate the evidence to determine whether insider trading has occurred and if the directors should be held liable.
If you believe you have witnessed insider trading or have concerns about a specific case, it would be advisable to consult with a legal professional or report the matter to the relevant regulatory authorities in Malaysia, such as the Securities Commission or the Bursa Malaysia. They can provide accurate guidance and take appropriate action based on the specific circumstances.
If you trust what the AI says , then you report to the SC for insider trading then. You need to prove beyond reasonable doubts that they were involved insider trading as it is clear stated below It is important to note that determining liability for insider trading requires a thorough examination of the specific facts and circumstances of the case. Legal authorities, such as the Malaysian Securities Commission, courts, or regulatory bodies, would need to investigate and evaluate the evidence to determine whether insider trading has occurred and if the directors should be held liable.
This book is the result of the author's many years of experience and observation throughout his 26 years in the stockbroking industry. It was written for general public to learn to invest based on facts and not on fantasies or hearsay....
NICKFURY03
11 posts
Posted by NICKFURY03 > 2023-05-10 22:39 | Report Abuse
Lots of theory here and believe some of u r from both party….question is anyone of us here ever been to a gold mine or been to Bahvest side ? DL set up this gold mine and don’t believe anyone can simply take over the job easily……one of the guy from. DF side was the CFO and he had not raise the issue building on 3rd party land when it happens few years back ? The incoming director non of them had experience or time to visit the side …Law and Federik chong is always away and base in KL ….put aside the legal suit towards the previous management ….how long can Bahvest last without income and with debts and bank loan to service ? Without gold mine income Bahvest is just an empty shell ……as investor we should open our eyes