In Uncategorized on 26/07/2010 at 5:30 am
[Update 28 july 2010 — Yes, from the perspective of an investor, Khazanah overpaid — Accept offer, I intend to. Reasons tomorrow]
In the offer to buy 51% of Parkway, Khanazah says Khazanah’s core competency lies in improving the corporate governance of its investee companies and providing support and guidance on the strategic direction of such companies through its nominees on the board.
Excuse me K, but what about all those disasters in the KLSE listcos over the years that you invested in? I hope you realise that misleading info in an offer document can lead to law suits.
To be fair, the rest of how it describes itself is very factual. Read the rest of this entry »
In Uncategorized on 26/06/2010 at 6:02 am
Corporate Observer* quoting Reuters said GIC had decided to defer a preferential investment in the Indian healthcare group.
As the row between Fortis and Khanazah over control over Parkway is starting to sound like a row between India and M’sia (bank funding for Fortis seems to be like an all-India line-up); and getting nastier; and since GIC has MM, PM finance minister, trade minister and an ex-DPM as directors (the last an executive director); and as S’pore is trying to settle a long-standing row with M’sia over some land, perhaps GIC decided that it had better not get caught up in India v M’sia.
Update 26 June 2010
‘GIC remains committed to Fortis through our substantial investment in Fortis’ convertible bonds. Like any other major investor, we constantly review our investments and will evaluate participating in the larger fund raising . . . and defer the current preferential investment until such time,’ GIC said in a statement released by Fortis to the Bombay Stock Exchange.
GIC currently has a 6.58 per cent interest in Fortis.
‘Fortis acknowledges the patronage of GIC and believes this development will be a better strategy for the company,’ the Indian group said.
Except from BT
*Who they? Run by two ex-local MSM journalists (considered by other journalists as smart and idealistic), one gets the impression that they are aiming to be a corporate version of Temasek Review without TR’s anti-government stance, inaccuracies, and misreps. Update: they even use the moniker “admin” to sign-off pieces: like TR.