PRTASCO (5070) : "Pity the Protasco minorities"
This column has argued against the requisitionists’ opacity, and has pointed out that transparency and willingness to engage with minority shareholders will earn goodwill.
The recent developments at Protasco, which calls itself an infrastructure development provider, take us to the other extreme, and it’s equally troubling and frustrating. Here, the problem is not that the principal players are not saying anything. On the contrary, a lot of information is flowing out from both sides, directly and openly or otherwise, but there are so many allegations and counter-allegations of wrongdoings that the minority shareholders can’t be expected to make confident conclusions as to whom they should back.
Lawsuits have been initiated and the saga will probably drag on for many months at least. The EGMs are by no means the final battles, but they’re important because a board seat is a valuable vantage point.
The EGMs are lawful as long as they’re convened and conducted according to the Companies Act’s provisions and the company rules. However, there’s more happening now than those meetings. The brawl has spilled over into the media and the blogosphere, and one wonders how much of this fits the requirement for “full, accurate and timely disclosure”.
Also, there’s little indication that the regulators are at hand to prevent things from going too far. Bursa Malaysia and the Securities Commission may prefer the quiet and subtle way of delivering warnings and gathering facts, but they should also recognise that the unusual events at Protasco offer them a unique opportunity to draw the line between disclosure and negative campaigning. When there’s plenty of mudslinging going on, nobody walks away spotless.
I think this is one of those moments that the regulators and the independent directors of Protasco should step up their game. Sometimes working behind the scene is possible (and may be even preferable), but not in the above case. I think actually a lot of the problems could have been avoided if regulators and/or independent directors had been more active in the first quarter of 2013, almost two years ago. If they had asked the right questions and done independent research then a lot of information would have been gathered.
Please use Google and the keywords "protasco board tussle" to find the many blogs about this case.
"Executive editor Errol Oh is only sure that Chong and Tey can’t both be right."
Correct, and I don't even exclude the possibility that both sides are (at least to some extent) wrong.
The proposed acquisition was always announced as a "non related party transaction" even as recent as August 5, 2014 :
I strongly doubt that was the case.
http://cgmalaysia.blogspot.com
