Swiber   

Swiber Holdings Limited

If they move the vessels out of Emirates, creditors will seize the vessels?

swv001      ( Date: 30-Sep-2016 13:27) Posted: KPMG IJM says it has US$1.67B order book. Why is it idle?   Khoolie      ( Date: 30-Sep-2016 10:13) Posted: http://www.tradewindsnews.com/weekly/870864/swiber-holdings-tonnage-idle-in-emirates-safe-haven

 

KPMG IJM says it has US$1.67B order book. Why is it idle?  

Khoolie      ( Date: 30-Sep-2016 10:13) Posted: http://www.tradewindsnews.com/weekly/870864/swiber-holdings-tonnage-idle-in-emirates-safe-haven

 

http://www.tradewindsnews.com/weekly/870864/swiber-holdings-tonnage-idle-in-emirates-safe-haven

 

Anyone has got the IJM' s Report and the Supplement Report? Any news?

 

Some other O& G companies are converting debt to common shares and let the company be a going concern. If bondhoders convert their notes to shares, when the situation goes better and better, share price goes up and up and then both bondholders and shareholders win.   So only Win-Win solution is the real solution. Bondholders, please feedback to the IJM. 

jeremyow      ( Date: 23-Sep-2016 10:34) Posted: Yup, shareholders are the last ones to receive leftovers (if any) after a company has ceased operations and close shop officially, and settled all financial debts and obligations after disposing (selling) of all its assets. So, even though a shareholder may have shares of a company bought at below net asset value (NAV) of that company, it does not guarantee that he/ she will receive back the equivalent of the NAV of his/ her shares when a company has stopped its operations and ceased to be an ongoing concern. A shareholder may not receive anything back at all if there is nothing leftover after the company has settled its financials with creditors and bondholders which come before its shareholders of ordinary voting shares.     pnuklis      ( Date: 23-Sep-2016 10:23) Posted: Share holders will be last in the Q to get their money back if anything is left. Situation seems to be grim.

 

http://www.straitstimes.com/business/companies-markets/sgx-needs-option-of-dual-class-share-listing

A writeup by Straits Times on the dual class listing of shares. The exact rules and structure have not been finalised yet. I like the last part of the writeup which speaks about independent directors of a company that they can do more for the shareholders in terms of their role as balance and check on the company. They are also drawing good renumeration for their role and should do more for shareholders and not sit around for bad things to happen before taking any action. I think we really need better corporate governance in the companies listed on SGX looking at the many cases of company failures, some of which are due to bad corporate governance.    

dragonboy76      ( Date: 23-Sep-2016 10:42) Posted: then lets ' congraulate' SGX for going to even implement dual class listing. buy the shares but minimum voting rights.  more mishap for retail investors will come in due time.

 

then lets ' congraulate' SGX for going to even implement dual class listing. buy the shares but minimum voting rights. 

more mishap for retail investors will come in due time.

 

Yup, shareholders are the last ones to receive leftovers (if any) after a company has ceased operations and close shop officially, and settled all financial debts and obligations after disposing (selling) of all its assets. So, even though a shareholder may have shares of a company bought at below net asset value (NAV) of that company, it does not guarantee that he/ she will receive back the equivalent of the NAV of his/ her shares when a company has stopped its operations and ceased to be an ongoing concern. A shareholder may not receive anything back at all if there is nothing leftover after the company has settled its financials with creditors and bondholders which come before its shareholders of ordinary voting shares.    

pnuklis      ( Date: 23-Sep-2016 10:23) Posted: Share holders will be last in the Q to get their money back if anything is left. Situation seems to be grim.

 

Yes bro....very grim to think about getting any money back. Already kaput!! Sad even to think about it.

pnuklis      ( Date: 23-Sep-2016 10:23) Posted: Share holders will be last in the Q to get their money back if anything is left. Situation seems to be grim.

 

Share holders will be last in the Q to get their money back if anything is left. Situation seems to be grim.

 

How much can noteholders expect to get for each $1 ?

Khoolie      ( Date: 23-Sep-2016 02:52) Posted: Noteholder can get copy of IJM report. Noteholder can also object to Judicial Management application . Refer below news.  http://swiber.listedcompany.com/newsroom/Announcement_BMT_20092016_v2.pdf

 

Noteholder can get copy of IJM report. Noteholder can also object to Judicial Management application . Refer below news. 

http://swiber.listedcompany.com/newsroom/Announcement_BMT_20092016_v2.pdf

 

 

Possible going to happen to swiber also? 

http://www.straitstimes.com/business/companies-markets/hanjin-shippings-former-chairman-under-probe-for-possible-insider-trading

 

 

They still owe korean exchange listing & trading fees i think..

swv001      ( Date: 21-Sep-2016 13:48) Posted: Hanjin Shipping is also under JM. Anyone knows why it' s share is still trading in Korea Exchange?

 

Hanjin Shipping is also under JM. Anyone knows why it' s share is still trading in Korea Exchange?

 

There was an earlier post about the huge number of valid points made, and these should be sent to BT/ST instead.....so as to have strength in numbers in seeking solutions rather than simply raising the grouses here with not much objective. I believe no one actually referred to that post after that....why? If I have the knowledge and ability to express the thougths in this topic well (which I don' t), I would do it. Let' s not just be passive and adopt inertia... 

 

At least AbL give ample time for retailers to run

sheerluck      ( Date: 20-Sep-2016 22:31) Posted: Should penalise the whole board.   Cannot blame retailer for not being careful for this case.   Even their financiers who needs to monitor their borrower situation closely also kanna shows how sneaky this bunch of scums are. By the way, MAS, CAD and SGX still on ABL case?   Then this one needs to wait how long?   5 years?  mepkoh      ( Date: 20-Sep-2016 18:35) Posted: sgx should penalise directors plenty $$$...who do  bs minority shareholders as in swiber case

 

What will unfold next..??

Will the three top executives who throw in their towels face criminal investigations...like Well Fargo..??

Did they intentional withhold material information and mislead investors on the actual state of affairs.One even dispose his shares in a timely manner to save his own skin and let others drown.

This does not bode well for those holding the bonds and the banks that lend them money..

 

swv001      ( Date: 21-Sep-2016 11:02) Posted: I have already sent message of my email address to you. Can you please send the IJM' s report to me? franklinfour      ( Date: 20-Sep-2016 23:50) Posted:   1) In the IJM report, they mentioned that OMX would like to unwind Swiber Mexico transaction. What is the update? Anyone knows? Is the reason for their unwinding because they realise that the books are cooked and the ' projects' are not as attractive and they paid a super over-valuation for Swiber' s fanciful story again? Can someone assist to find out? 2) Sheerluc wind2 dragonboy. You are absolutely right. If one complains, SGX and CAD may ignore. But if everyone complains, power lies in the force of the group. What happen to this SGX probe since August? They take it easy and let the directors go free? http://business.asiaone.com/news/sgx-goes-after-swiber-potential-rule-breach The Singapore Exchange (SGX) is going after Swiber Holdings for potential breaches to the exchange' s Rule 703 pertaining to disclosure of material information. In the letter obtained by The Business Times relating to the potential breaches, SGX made reference to Swiber Holdings' disclosure lapses on the US$710 million (S$963 million) West Africa project first announced in late 2014 and two separate litigation claims by Likpin International Ltd and Greene Energy Group Asia Pacific Pte Ltd. SGX said citing disclosure lapses on the US$710 million project, Swiber has potentially breached paragraph 25 of Appendix 7.1 to Rule 703. SGX in its letter alluded to the fact that since Swiber' s first SGX filing on Dec 15, 2014, for the US$710 million project, the listed group in addition to an observed lapse in disclosing a delay in the project execution, did not proactively identify the client nor flag any pre-conditions tied to the project. The project, as disclosed in Swiber' s SGX filing on July 8 in its response to a private query from SGX, has been deferred indefinitely due to a weakness in the oil and gas sector. The listed group in its second response to an SGX query on July 29, acknowledged that the award from RoyalGate Energy is a letter of intent that still needs to be formalised as a contract in due course. This confirmed BT' s report on July 9, which pointed out that Equatorial Guinea-based RoyalGate has signed on Swiber for a project tied to Block Z field development off the West African country. In its Aug 12 response to a third SGX subsequent query for an update, Swiber further clarified that no contract has yet to be entered into between the listed group' s subsidiary, Swiber Offshore Construction and the end client. The listed group added the contract award has been held back due to a delay in an appraisal drilling that is a pre-requisite for front-end engineering and design studies to commence. It blamed the delayed drilling on a persistent weakness in the O& G sector. SGX, in taking in Swiber' s responses, has however, noted disclosure lapses on the listed group' s order book. " The company did not inform its shareholders and the investing public about the delay in the US$710 million project during a prolonged period from Dec 15 2014 to July 8 2016," SGX wrote. In addition, the US$710 million project was accounted for " in all (Swiber' s) disclosures on the group' s order book without any qualification that the contract has yet to be signed or the project has been delayed" , the regulator added. On Dec 15, 2014, Swiber laid claims with the alleged US$710 million project award, it had clinched contracts totalling US$1.03 billion. BT also understood following Swiber' s dramatic reversal from its now aborted winding-up petition, the interim judicial managers of the distressed group has included the US$710 million LOI in the US$1.67 billion secured projects tabled under a report filed with the High Court for the judicial management application. SGX in invoking Paragraph 8 of Appendix 7.1 to Rule 703 also noted Swiber has not made any announcement on material litigation claims by Likpin and Greene Energy amounting to S$10.7 million and S$9.6 million, respectively. The exchange viewed these litigation claims as significant taking into account Swiber' s profits recorded for the financial year 2014 and for the first quarter ended March 31, 2015. Swiber posted a net loss of US$2.5 million for Q1 FY2015 and a net profit of US$21.7 million for FY2014.

 

I have already sent message of my email address to you. Can you please send the IJM' s report to me?

franklinfour      ( Date: 20-Sep-2016 23:50) Posted:   1) In the IJM report, they mentioned that OMX would like to unwind Swiber Mexico transaction. What is the update? Anyone knows? Is the reason for their unwinding because they realise that the books are cooked and the ' projects' are not as attractive and they paid a super over-valuation for Swiber' s fanciful story again? Can someone assist to find out? 2) Sheerluc wind2 dragonboy. You are absolutely right. If one complains, SGX and CAD may ignore. But if everyone complains, power lies in the force of the group. What happen to this SGX probe since August? They take it easy and let the directors go free? http://business.asiaone.com/news/sgx-goes-after-swiber-potential-rule-breach The Singapore Exchange (SGX) is going after Swiber Holdings for potential breaches to the exchange' s Rule 703 pertaining to disclosure of material information. In the letter obtained by The Business Times relating to the potential breaches, SGX made reference to Swiber Holdings' disclosure lapses on the US$710 million (S$963 million) West Africa project first announced in late 2014 and two separate litigation claims by Likpin International Ltd and Greene Energy Group Asia Pacific Pte Ltd. SGX said citing disclosure lapses on the US$710 million project, Swiber has potentially breached paragraph 25 of Appendix 7.1 to Rule 703. SGX in its letter alluded to the fact that since Swiber' s first SGX filing on Dec 15, 2014, for the US$710 million project, the listed group in addition to an observed lapse in disclosing a delay in the project execution, did not proactively identify the client nor flag any pre-conditions tied to the project. The project, as disclosed in Swiber' s SGX filing on July 8 in its response to a private query from SGX, has been deferred indefinitely due to a weakness in the oil and gas sector. The listed group in its second response to an SGX query on July 29, acknowledged that the award from RoyalGate Energy is a letter of intent that still needs to be formalised as a contract in due course. This confirmed BT' s report on July 9, which pointed out that Equatorial Guinea-based RoyalGate has signed on Swiber for a project tied to Block Z field development off the West African country. In its Aug 12 response to a third SGX subsequent query for an update, Swiber further clarified that no contract has yet to be entered into between the listed group' s subsidiary, Swiber Offshore Construction and the end client. The listed group added the contract award has been held back due to a delay in an appraisal drilling that is a pre-requisite for front-end engineering and design studies to commence. It blamed the delayed drilling on a persistent weakness in the O& G sector. SGX, in taking in Swiber' s responses, has however, noted disclosure lapses on the listed group' s order book. " The company did not inform its shareholders and the investing public about the delay in the US$710 million project during a prolonged period from Dec 15 2014 to July 8 2016," SGX wrote. In addition, the US$710 million project was accounted for " in all (Swiber' s) disclosures on the group' s order book without any qualification that the contract has yet to be signed or the project has been delayed" , the regulator added. On Dec 15, 2014, Swiber laid claims with the alleged US$710 million project award, it had clinched contracts totalling US$1.03 billion. BT also understood following Swiber' s dramatic reversal from its now aborted winding-up petition, the interim judicial managers of the distressed group has included the US$710 million LOI in the US$1.67 billion secured projects tabled under a report filed with the High Court for the judicial management application. SGX in invoking Paragraph 8 of Appendix 7.1 to Rule 703 also noted Swiber has not made any announcement on material litigation claims by Likpin and Greene Energy amounting to S$10.7 million and S$9.6 million, respectively. The exchange viewed these litigation claims as significant taking into account Swiber' s profits recorded for the financial year 2014 and for the first quarter ended March 31, 2015. Swiber posted a net loss of US$2.5 million for Q1 FY2015 and a net profit of US$21.7 million for FY2014.

 

If you have this kind of lawmaker here, it will be helpful.

Warren Says Wells Fargo's Stumpf Should Resign, Face Criminal Investigation
By Laura J Keller and Elizabeth Dexheimer - 20 Sep 2016, 11:43:34 PM

Wells Fargo & Co.?s John Stumpf should resign, give back his compensation and face criminal prosecution for a scandal in which the bank opened unauthorized accounts for thousands of customers, Senator Elizabeth Warren said.

?So you haven?t resigned, you haven?t returned a single nickel of your personal earnings, you haven?t fired a single senior executive,? the Massachusetts Democrat said Tuesday as the bank?s chief executive officer testified before the Senate Banking Committ