The Monetary Authority of Singapore and Singapore Exchange will look into the possibility of disclosure lapses when Hyflux issued its preference shares in 2011 and perpetual securities in 2017.
Did the board of Hyflux and the financial advisers involved in these issues made adequate disclosures of the financial position of Hyflux at the relevant times?
There was also the need to have "continuous disclosures" of the financial situation. Was this requirement adequately met?
I wish to ask this question - why now? Why was this investigation not done earlier?
https://tklcloud.com/Feedback/feedback2.aspx?id=1250
Did the board of Hyflux and the financial advisers involved in these issues made adequate disclosures of the financial position of Hyflux at the relevant times?
There was also the need to have "continuous disclosures" of the financial situation. Was this requirement adequately met?
I wish to ask this question - why now? Why was this investigation not done earlier?
https://tklcloud.com/Feedback/feedback2.aspx?id=1250
1 comment:
checking on just disclosure lapse is just a lip service.
they should also check on suitability/appropriateness lapse
1 immediate obvious red flag is hyfluz/dbs as the issuer/arranger seems to dunno what size of debt is suitable for the intended purpose of capital, obviousred flag
the issue was launched in such as way that it can increase or even double in size if market/retail sentiments demand is overwhelming. this is already a big obvious red flag, no need to even hire committee of inquiry or paid hefty monies for consultant to review, waster tax payer monies
Post a Comment