This report categorizes the companies as below based on their outstanding issues and the Listing Rules requirements.
- Companies that are in severe financial difficulties and/or have ceased to maintain sufficient operations and are in delisting procedure (PN 17 companies);
- Companies which have identified irregularities and/or are under regulatory investigation;
- Companies which have failed to publish financial results and/or identified material internal control weaknesses
Shipbuilder Rongsheng reports 3.8 billion yuan in negative revenue
Tuesday, 31 March, 2015, 9:23am
Embattled shipbuilder China Rongsheng Heavy Industries reported 3.8 billion yuan (HK$4.7 billion) in negative revenue for last year, and a precarious balance sheet with 18.2 billion yuan in borrowings immediately payable. Continue reading
(555) Rexlot: REXLot Holdings Limited issued profit warning for the year ended 31 December 2014 due to impairment loss of goodwill and intangible assets, which relate to the Group’s operating unit engaged in the internet lottery distribution services in China. The board has resolved to deconsolidate the PRC Company and treat it as a long term investment of the Group. The PRC Company will be reclassified as an available-for-sales financial asset in the Group’s consolidated management accounts from 1 January 2014 onwards. The Board has therefore resolved to reclassify the PRC Company as an available-for-sales financial asset from 1 January 2014 onwards rather than to make corresponding adjustments.
Hanergy TFP posts strong profits, says parent failed to deliver ordered solar panels
Monday, 30 March, 2015, 10:12pm
Eric Ng email@example.com
Parent’s inability to supply solar panels adds to concerns about sustainability of profit increase
Hanergy Holding, the hydro-to-solar power investment flagship of the mainland’s richest person Li Hejun, failed to deliver solar panels its listed unit Hanergy Thin Film Power ordered in 2013 and was forced to refund HK$1.26 billion of prepayments. Continue reading
Extent of the overstatement
- It is instructive to conclude by illustrating the extent of the overstatement arising from the round robin transfers described earlier in this decision. The following are the overstated revenue and gross profit of the Company for the years 2007 to 2009 calculated respectively by the Commission and by Mr Morrison under the two approaches used by him in his report, the precise details of which are not relevant for present purposes:
||Overstated gross profit
|Mr Morrison under Approach 1
|Mr Morrison under Approach 2
- As for the year 2012, Mr Morrison’s calculation is as follows:
||Overstated gross profit
- In my view the evidence adduced by the Commission establishes that a fraud on a massive scale has been perpetrated by those in charge of the Company on investors, the Stock Exchange and others involved in the listing of the Company. It seems highly likely that Mr. Chun caused the round robin transactions and the creation of bogus bills of lading with a view to producing significantly better figures than would otherwise be the case. This must have been done in order to advance the IPO and induce investors to subscribe for shares. Having started this process necessarily it had to be continued. There would appear to have been at the very least serious contraventions of section 298 of the SFO and section 342F of the C(WUMP)O.
- As will be clear from the earlier parts of this decision this is not a case of isolated wrongful acts which are unlikely to be repeated. Neither is this a case of wrongdoing which initially was limited in scope but which circumstances caused the instigator to lose control of as it grew like topsy. Clearly this was a carefully planned and carefully implemented scheme to create accounts which significantly overstated the business and profit of the Company for the purposes of the listing and thereafter. This was fraud on an industrial scale, which goes directly to the integrity of the listing. It is difficult to think of a clearer case of it being in the public interest that a petition be brought by the Commission for a winding up. This case would appear to fall firmly into the category of cases in which the courts take the view that a winding-up order is appropriate.
Rasoya Proteins falls 4% as Sebi says capital market ban to stay
Ashwin Ramarathinam, 24 March 2015, Mint
Mumbai, March 24 — Shares of Rasoya Proteins Ltd
fell 4.11% to Rs.0.70 on BSE after the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) said that market ban for alleged fraudulent activities will stay. On Monday, the capital market regulator said restrictions on Rasoya Protein and nine other entities from the capital markets will remain in place, in a case related to fraudulent activities with respect to the company’s global depository receipts (GDR) issue. Sebi on 24 September 2014 barred Rasoya Protein, its four directors and five other entities from the capital markets for alleged fraudulent activities with respect to the company’s Global Depository Receipts (GDR) issue. GDR is a financial instrument used by companies to raise capital overseas. The interim order was passed after a preliminary probe by Sebi found the involvement of these entities in market manipulation. Rasoya Protein and its four directors-Prashant Duchakke, Anil Lonkar, Sameer Damle and Ajay K. Singh-were found to have colluded with Arun Panchariya, India Focus Cardinal Fund (owned by him), Pan Asia Advisors, Vintage FZE and its director Mukesh Chauradiya.
Are markets developed by regulators, or crooked geniuses like Mike Milken & Harshad Mehta?
MC Govardhana Rangan
26 March 2015
The Economic Times
Who is the hero of the ongoing World Cup tournament? Brenden McCullum, or the International Cricket Council? Did Sachin Tendulkars and Kapil Devs make cricket a popular sport in India, or the Board of Control For Cricket in India?
If people ‘play’ in financial markets, what is true for cricket could be true for equities and bond markets as well. Historically, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has been ruling the government securities market. Now, the plan is to shift it to the Securities & Exchange Board of India (Sebi) and equip an ‘independent’ debt management agency to take over the role of RBI as the government’s investment banker. Continue reading