Posted by fortunebullllz > 2014-06-18 18:30 | Report Abuse

Hah! What did I missed! The big bully at it again! But one was banned and the other one take his place!

Posted by taciturn > 2014-06-18 18:32 | Report Abuse

Bleh, misread his posting, groggy with flu.

I have to reiterate, I don't trust you enough to give you my name and phone number. I suspect you'll use it for other means instead of what you claim. You claim your "lawyer" will speak to me. Tell you what, why don't you give me your lawyer's name and contact number. I'll speak to him/her directly.


Oh and if you actually have "confidential evidences" that there's something funny going on with Benalec, why you don't report it to the Securities Commission?

They'll come down on the company like that hand of god IF what you say is true.

And the company's share price will then drop drastically.

Wouldn't that make you happy?

Posted by fortunebullllz > 2014-06-18 18:37 | Report Abuse

Hah! Fortunebullz !

Posted by Kukuman > 2014-06-19 12:15 | Report Abuse

For those who is misinformed, the coming EGM is NOT mr ben's own initiative but it is a Bursa's directive. Bursa did not agreed with mr ben's explanation that the HOA agreement is a related-party-transaction. Bursa wants the HOA agreement to seek shareholder approval first before any such agreement is to be signed. But mr ben tried to go the other way round. If shareholder did not approved it during the coming EGM, Bursa may reprimand the company and imposing fines. Be correctly informed and warned!

Posted by splendid_ignorance > 2014-06-19 12:36 | Report Abuse

Kukuman, I for one would welcome discussions whether favourable or not to the company. We are all investors and as such information is good for us to make decisions. However, ironically, while preaching to inform the misinformed, I can't help but notice your previous post would only cause more confusion.

i) "the coming EGM is NOT mr ben's own initiative but it is a Bursa's directive" - you are partially right. But it is not exactly Bursa's directive. In that I mean a directive is an instruction. I doubt Bursa directed the company specifically. Instead, there are Bursa Listing Requirements that have to be adhered to if you are a listed entity. Every listed entity have to adhere to it

ii) "Bursa did not agreed with mr ben's explanation that the HOA agreement is a related-party-transaction" - not very sure what you mean by this. Why would the company argue that it is a related-party-transaction if what it is trying to do is not have a EGM. A related party transaction requires shareholder's approval and hence EGM

iii) "If shareholder did not approved it during the coming EGM, Bursa may reprimand the company and imposing fines. Be correctly informed and warned!" - as far as I am aware this is also not true. If shareholders do not approve of it, it just means the company cannot proceed with their actions. Correct me if I am wrong but resolutions get turned down quite often and there are no fines attached to them

I am not advocating a buy or sell. Make your own decisions but make an informed one.

Posted by Kukuman > 2014-06-19 13:39 | Report Abuse

splendid, regarding your reply on point (i) - It is Bursa's decision and NOT mr ben's. It seems you were misinformed. Not your fault. many spinners here caused that.
Your point (ii) - If Bursa agreed that the HoA is related-party-transaction, then there is NO need for an EGM because related-party-transaction was already approved prior to this.
Your point (iii) - true or not true, we don't know just yet as Bursa has make any judgement on this matter pending EGM. In the eye of Bursa, mr ben has made the wrong move by signing the HoA without proper shareholders' approval and that is why Bursa's decision for an EGM.
All said and done, please don't forget why the need of HoA in the first place. That is the biggest and shameful matter that should not have happened.

Posted by flower > 2014-06-19 15:08 | Report Abuse

Hi, reading the sharing. Any advice should this counter be of holding or dispose.

Posted by taciturn > 2014-06-19 15:13 | Report Abuse

Kukuman: The name and contact number of your lawyer, please. You made the challenge, so now I'm waiting to see whether you dare stand by what you said earlier.

Posted by taciturn > 2014-06-19 15:47 | Report Abuse

And with regards to kukuman's statement on the HoA, he's spouted (yet again) another load of crap.

1) The entire step of the HoA process required Bursa's input. If Bursa disagreed at any point in time, they would have told them to shut it down and required that Benalec undo everything they had done thus far.


2) An RPT of this issue DOES require shareholders agreement. Bursa's Listing Requirements, 10.08, subparagraph 2 states very clearly, "where any of the of the percentage ratios of a related party transaction is 5% or more" vis a vis the Heads of Agreement circular, Section 19 which states that the highest percentage ratio here 5.07%.

Perhaps instead of stating what is completely untrue and trying to confuse readers here you might want to consult with your "lawyer" to try and understand the legalities before making any more of your "learned" statements.


3) If any fines are imposed, it is on the _individual directors of the Board_ not Benalec. Their stewardship comes into question, and they are the ones to be punished, not the minority/non-interested shareholders (via their stake in the company).


4) And this is what really annoys me the most. You're stating complete untruths with this statement, "Your point (iii) - true or not true, we don't know just yet as Bursa has make any judgement on this matter pending EGM. In the eye of Bursa, mr ben has made the wrong move by signing the HoA without proper shareholders' approval and that is why Bursa's decision for an EGM. "

I've stated point regarding RPT in item 2 above. To follow up even further, please read the HoA circular again. Section 14:

"As set out in Section 13.1 above, with regard to the HoA settlement arrangements as set out in Sections 2 to 10 of this Circular, notwithstanding the outcome of the EGM for the Porposed HoA Ratification, those items that had been completed shall remain effective."

_BURSA_ approved this statement. In other words, even if the shareholders vote no, what is done CANNOT be undone. The only thing that remains at risk of failure if the shareholders vote no is "The Citypoint Suit" as per Section 6/Section 13.1. And that is not a major item in the settlement agreement.

Again I'd like to highlight the fact that _BURSA APPROVED THIS CIRCULAR_. If they disagreed, they would have removed that point allowing them to undo everything if shareholders vote no.


I'd like to reiterate again, you wanted me to have an "informal chat" with your "lawyer" regarding the "confidential evidences" about Benalec's misdeeds. Give me your lawyer's name and number and I will contact him/her directly to hear whatever it is that you claim.

If you do not agree to do so, then I would have to say you yet again been a complete liar by stating complete untruths.

Posted by Kukuman > 2014-06-19 16:34 | Report Abuse

"The entire step of the HoA process required Bursa's input" - NONSENSE !

""As set out in Section 13.1 above, with regard to the HoA settlement arrangements ........ _BURSA_ approved this statement " - NONSENSE !

Posted by Kukuman > 2014-06-19 16:46 | Report Abuse

Mr Koo informed that holding the EGM because it was Bursa's decision !!! He also said that if shareholders don't approve the resolution, the implication of that occurring may lead to Bursa reprimanding the board and imposing fine.

You better check with Mr Koo. Don't simply spin. By the way, do you know who is he?

I really enjoying this - exposing the spinner's tactic. write long long essay no point one. I forgot. write long long essay is spinner's modus operandi.

Posted by sl_goh > 2014-06-19 17:03 | Report Abuse

Hahaha a joke!

Posted by Kukuman > 2014-06-19 17:11 | Report Abuse

goh, are you enjoying the joke? it is like unmasking the magician

Posted by taciturn > 2014-06-19 17:32 | Report Abuse

I will speak with Victor Koo tomorrow to confirm that what you said is of course bullshit.

As usual you rebut my statements with one word, "nonsense".

Someone with a modicum of intelligence would have rebutted with, "nonsense because..."

You evidently don't have any intelligence. If you want to bullshit at least try to pretrend you actually know what you're talking about.

And I note you have declined to give me your lawyer's name and contact number so that I can speak to him/her regarding this "confidential evidences" that you claim to have involving the management's supposed shenanigans.

Kukuman, I call you out as a spineless liar and a crook. You have the no integrity at all.

Posted by Kukuman > 2014-06-19 18:09 | Report Abuse

What!!?? You dont know all these despite your ultra long spin essay?!
Why need to wait tomorrow? Call him now la. Try another spin here ?

Posted by taciturn > 2014-06-19 18:48 | Report Abuse

It's after office hours, you pathetic excuse for a miscreant.

And my postings are done on my own without any input from Benalec. Of course someone of your limited intelligence can't figure that out.

Yet again, your spinelessness shows. You have declined to:

1) Elaborate on your statement that there are still backdoor dealings between the Leaw brothers.

2) Give me your "lawyer's" name and number to discuss your so called "confidential evidences".

No doubt with regards to 2 you were hoping I'd give you my name and number so that you can get some telemarketing junkie to spam me.

My responses in asking your "lawyer's" contact details no doubt caused you to kecut further, assuming there's anything left to kecut.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the spineless, lying troll kukuman.

Posted by Kukuman > 2014-06-19 19:18 | Report Abuse

Taciturn, you are getting very desperate. So much of your long essay without any input from benalec! You still have the audacity to accuse people talking bullshit. Thats show your credibility, young boy

Posted by taciturn > 2014-06-19 19:42 | Report Abuse

At least take the time to research base off public announcements, quarterly and annual reports plus reading other people's analysis. You on the other hand don't even give one ounce of analysis, one ounce of research.

All you give is bullshit o spineless troll. No credibility nor integrity. Still waiting for your "lawyer's"_ contact. You claim you have one from Skrine. Chances are though you've got a disbarred reject on call assuming you even have on that is.

Pathetic, kukuman the spineless lying troll. Pathetic.

Posted by sunztzhe > 2014-06-19 19:45 | Report Abuse

Hello Kukuman & taciturn,
Please state in short sentences on
IS BENALEC a VALUE BUY?
WHY IS BENALEC A VALUE BUY OR OTHERWISE?

Posted by Kukuman > 2014-06-19 19:58 | Report Abuse

Sunztzhe, this is rubbish company. No valie buy. No long term. Short term play play is ok.

Posted by sunztzhe > 2014-06-19 20:02 | Report Abuse

Kukuman,
Good, crispy clear message and to the point. You r a fine gentleman sir!

Posted by Kukuman > 2014-06-19 20:14 | Report Abuse

Sunztzhe, the world will be much better place with more people like you who is polite, measured and articulate.

Posted by Kukuman > 2014-06-19 20:41 | Report Abuse

The following is extract from Taciturn's statements. It is epic!
1) "The entire step of the HoA process required Bursa's input"
2) "As set out in Section 13.1 above, with regard to the HoA settlement arrangements ........ _BURSA_ approved this statement "

And my response to these epic statements is NONSENSE!!
This kind of epic statement can only come from bookworm-self-search student.

Posted by ckgoh3 > 2014-06-19 21:55 | Report Abuse

Sometimes, talking too much on facts will make you too confident.
it's a waste of time for me to watch these "kids" fighting here, managed to let go all my 500,000 shares again at RM1.12 today and quit, bye bye!

Posted by taciturn > 2014-06-19 22:11 | Report Abuse

sunztzhe: I'm not going to restate all my previous postings, suffice to say that I'm bullish on this company over the medium to long term.

I would suggest you take kukuman's statements with a huge pinch of salt. He has always lied in his statements and has never once elaborated on his statements.

Don't believe me? Click on his nick, and click on postings". Click on my nick, and and click on postings".

He'll say, "rubbish company" but will never tell you why. Notice above he's stated that my statements are "nonsense"? Yet he doesn't tell you why he thinks they're nonsense.

I'll at least give you my reasons when I state something.


Kukuman the lying, spineless troll. I am still waiting for your lawyer's contact number. I note that you have ignored this point in all my postings even though YOU (the spineless one) raised it in the first place.

Once a lying bullshitter, always a lying bullshitter. That's kukuman.

Posted by Kukuman > 2014-06-19 22:24 | Report Abuse

Let hear from you after you have spoke to mr koo as u proudly claimed. I am assuming u really know him or have access to him. Then we will know who is the true bullshitter. Please dont recycle those pathetic "its already after office hour so cannot get him" excuse

Posted by splendid_ignorance > 2014-06-19 22:33 | Report Abuse

Hmm seems like the discussions are still ongoing. I actually value discussions backed up by facts which will likely lead to longer postings. I guess some would prefer just a "buy now" or "sell now". To each his own but I prefer to make my decisions based on a valid justification.

To reply to Kukuman. Firstly, a listed entity HAS to get shareholder approval via the EGM if it is a related party transaction. So the company is merely complying to the listing requirement. It is irrelevant whether the company initiated it out of their own accord. All listed firms need to follow the listing rules. That is it.

Secondly, you are mistaken about not needing to go for EGM if it is a related party transaction. On the contrary, the whole point of having a EGM IS because of the related party transaction. I work in the field and am quite familiar with the process. I do believe the approval for related party transaction that you are referring to is for the Recurrent Related Party Transaction, of which most companies will get approval every year during the AGM. This is not a recurrent transaction. If you do not believe me, please read the circular to shareholders where Chapter 10 (Related Party Transaction - RPT) of the Bursa Listing Requirement has been quoted. You would also realise that as part of the requirement for Chapter 10 - RPT, an independent financial advisor is needed to advise the shareholders. Part B of the circular is exactly the advise given my Mercury Securities. So, contrary to what you think, the EGM is precisely because it is a RPT and not because of Bursa not agreeing or what-not.

Now, the other concern is with the HOA. The process is quite normal. A HOA can be signed prior to shareholders approval because it is not legally-binding. For a comparison, note that Sona also recently signed a HOA before shareholders approval. Hence, there is nothing out of the ordinary here.

Lastly, we are all aware of the mess-up the company made. This has been reflected by the share price appropriately. I don't think anyone would argue with that. What I am interested in is how they deal with it and the turn-around story. For me, I think the HOA is a step in the right direction and hence I am invested. If you think otherwise it is of course your decision. Again, make your own decisions and for heaven's sake do your own homework instead of just believing whatever you read.

Posted by taciturn > 2014-06-19 22:39 | Report Abuse

After a discussion with my peers, they have advised me that I should treat kukuman differently since he's obviously "special". They've highlighted a simple point that it is useless to argue with someone who's "special".

I don't want to keep reiterating all my points in different postings. I think anyone who reads all the postings can agree that he's a liar since after much prodding he still refuses to give me his so called "lawyer's" contact number.

I of course retain the privilege of tearing down any further stupid statements by said "special" person.

I've got too much work to deal with to waste any more time on these points with this "special" cur.

Posted by Kukuman > 2014-06-19 23:05 | Report Abuse

Taciturn, are u imply u have chickened out? U no more speaking to mr koo tomorrow? U got too much work to deal with? I don't think so. Your ultra long spin essay is a living proof that u r too free and too much anger after being exposed as spinner.

Posted by 8u29song > 2014-06-19 23:18 | Report Abuse

come on, Ben, up another 0.15-0.20 to clear the air !

Posted by Kukuman > 2014-06-19 23:22 | Report Abuse

Splendid, you claimed u work in this field? really? then are you saying mr koo is wrong on this matter? Perhaps mr Ben should sack him and hire u instead ! Why said I have mistaken. i did not said it. It is mr koo. You are just being biased in your statement. Let me repeat what mr koo said below:-

Mr Koo informed that holding the EGM because it was Bursa's decision !!! He also said that if shareholders don't approve the resolution, the implication of that occurring may lead to Bursa reprimanding the board and imposing fine.

Posted by splendid_ignorance > 2014-06-20 00:12 | Report Abuse

Kukuman don't need to have your defences all worked up. I don't attack people personally. Just stating my opinions. You can disagree if you want. Am not pointing a gun at your head. In the field means I am familiar with corporate disclosures for corporate exercises. I don't mind working for Mr Ben to be honest ;)

And the reason I referred to you being mistaken was from your reply to me initially.
Quote "splendid, regarding your reply on point (i) - It is Bursa's decision and NOT mr ben's. It seems you were misinformed. Not your fault. many spinners here caused that. "
There was no mention of Mr Koo there.

I state things with justification. I don't think that's being bias but again you are free to disagree. Don't need to resort to personal attacks. We are all adults here.

Another point, any fines imposed by Bursa would be on the directors (if Bursa finds any wrong-doings) and would not impact the company.

Anyways I am interested to know your lawyer from Skrine too! Have a couple of friends working there. Perhaps they would know you :)

Cheers

Posted by Kukuman > 2014-06-20 01:06 | Report Abuse

Splendid, Your statement "A HOA can be signed prior to shareholders approval because it is not legally-binding." is not quite the case in mr Ben case. It is legally binding even if egm disapproved. Mr Ben want to quickly settle their shameless dispute without seeking shareholder approval and Bursa see red in this. Hence Bursa wants mr Ben to call for the egm. That's why mr Ben is in shit deal if egm disapproved the resolution. Many shareholders are pissed off the way things were handled in such hush hush manner in the beginning and many want to show their displeasure in the coming egm. The sentiment is that just because it involves brothers therefore no CBT issue? Imagine this, if u r one of the alleged party and u r non-family-related, do u think the company will push for CBT against you or just let u go scot free?

Posted by tzkhoo > 2014-06-20 08:58 | Report Abuse

Hi all, I'm a newbie who entered BEN a month ago. I received the circular document regarding the HoA. so what i need to do is reply on the proxy form & mail back to BEN?

Posted by 8u29song > 2014-06-20 14:43 | Report Abuse

6 - 8 bits today, pls !

Posted by Greedless > 2014-06-20 15:38 | Report Abuse

kukuman shut up. here is not the place for you to shits. you are ruining the page

Posted by Kukuman > 2014-06-20 15:39 | Report Abuse

No problem. I like to play with kids.

Posted by wongwee > Jun 20, 2014 03:37 PM | Report Abuse
tks, kukuman, nice to have fun with u!!! Bye

Posted by james7898 > 2014-06-22 18:45 | Report Abuse

Good counter my LAN CH...

Posted by wongwee > 2014-06-22 21:56 | Report Abuse

don't play2 with kids, man!!! ppl come here cos a hidden gem, man! GOOD ppl come;no good, no ppl will come! kikikiki!!!!

Posted by king7 > 2014-06-23 00:17 | Report Abuse

Federal takes Singapore to pressure on me!

Posted by Simon Lau > 2014-06-23 09:32 | Report Abuse

pls check on news on yahoo.malaysia for the progress on tanjung piai

Posted by Simon Lau > 2014-06-23 09:37 | Report Abuse

https://my.news.yahoo.com/no-eia-johor-coastal-reclamation-projects-already-underway-225834843.html

Posted by lewistee > 2014-06-23 10:05 | Report Abuse

rally because of this news?

Posted by Simon Lau > 2014-06-23 10:10 | Report Abuse

not sure , but i guest they are confident enough to proceed with the project, i think it is just a matter of time the s&p will be sealed soon.

Posted by bonescythe > 2014-06-23 10:23 | Report Abuse

Lai de la
lai de la

Posted by 8u29song > 2014-06-23 10:28 | Report Abuse

gonna hear the roar ???

Posted by Simon Lau > 2014-06-23 10:38 | Report Abuse

if the company is really good, it will roar, otherwise it will die down eventually.

Posted by 8u29song > 2014-06-23 10:44 | Report Abuse

really struggling now, my paper gain is so tempting now....

heart big heart small........

Posted by Simon Lau > 2014-06-23 10:50 | Report Abuse

chance of making big money not always come easily, if u really have faith in this company,just hold otherwise just sell it off and find uself other counter if u believe they are better than what u are holding now.

Posted by andychucky28 > 2014-06-23 10:53 | Report Abuse

Sell or not, it already went up to 1.20. good for those bought when price was 0.90