lying troll: I sense your spinelessness. Tell you what, just answer one question out of the list (the most important one).

You claim there's back door dealings amongst the brothers who were ousted. Please elaborate.

If you can't, just for fun I think I'll forward your comment to Vincent Leaw. Who knows, if it's a slow day in the office he might decide to rip you a new one in the courts.

I can sense you "kecut"-ing.

Reposting the above since a certain lying troll (namely kukuuman in his latest iteration) said that "someone who ask me something just disappeared".

Since he's implying that he's willing to answer questions, well voila, above are my questions that I have posted to him that he has of course (being a lying troll) refused to answer till now.

Let's see if he finally grows a pair and is willing to answer. (Of course I sincerely doubt it, since thus far all he's shown himself to be is a lying troll)

Going to repost this since I think it's necessary.

To recap on what issues the lying troll kukuman has raised but refused to elaborate on:


1. He stated, "Mr ben should have sued The Edge for such a strong commentary new report, but mr ben dare not."

The Edge Malaysia printed only factual statements based on Benalec's announcements.

When I requested that he elaborate on how one can sue for libel when all that is reported is true, he responded with "you are now so obsessed with libel matters." even though it was he who raised the issue in the first place.


2. He stated, "tinyvestor, tough for mr ben. the ousted brother directors will not sit still doing nothing. they too need to make a living to survive through one way or another. There is always back door dealing. "

When asked to explain his statement (which can be considered libellious), he of course refused to answer.


3. He stated, "Have you go out to meet the people to know about the company? do you know any of the staffs or ex-staffs for that matter? Knowing the boss is not enough because he will definitely gives bias information."

When asked if he knows any staff or ex-staff? He refused to answer.



So if you read all of these statements, would you believe in the honesty and integrity of kukuman?

To the other readers, you may dislike Benelac for one reason or other but I urge you to always argue or question rationally if something is on your mind.

Please don't turn out to be a lying troll like kukuman.

staind86: I don't believe it's someone impersonating him, but the troll himself.

If you click on the nick kukuman, you'll see that that account has been banned until 15 May. After that happened, he registered kukumon which is now suspended until 12 May. Thereafter we have kukuuman which doesn't seem to have been banned as yet.

I don't really follow as to why he was banned, but pretty sure it's the same person. The last post for kukuman prior to banning was on May 3. Kukumon lasted from May 3 to 4. Then kukuuman appeared on May 5.

Evidently he can't just sit it out the suspension quietly.

king7: At the moment, disagree. They don't really need funds at the moment and the company's gearing is already very low.

If/When the 1 Malaysia Strategic Oil Terminal EIA gets approved, then yes, they may need additional funds.

Of course there could be other proposals that they haven't disclosed which might require funds. I.e. they're buying over another company or increasing the amount of machinery they have (ala Inai Kiara's billion ringgit dredger). Then yes, they would need funds.

But based off what we know right now, a rights issue is very unlikely at the moment.

king7:Over the long term, I'm still bullish on this company.

I don't do buy/sell recommendations for the short term. And I'm the last person around who'll tell you tomorrow the share price will go up xxx/down xxx.

For the Leaw family's (the stake that was sold is not owned by Leaw Seng Hai alone) stake of reduction, I sitll believe it was sold to interested parties for "kangtao" reasons. Hence the price discount.

RM203m, that's pretty decent. And it's not a payment in kind job either. Hmm.

http://www.bursamalaysia.com/market/listed-companies/company-announcements/1614029

BENALEC HOLDINGS BERHAD (“BENALEC” OR “COMPANY”)
LETTER OF AWARD FOR CONSTRUCTION, COMPLETION & MAINTENANCE OF COASTAL RECLAMATION AND ASSOCIATED WORKS FOR ULTRA GREEN SDN BHD FOR PHASE 2A, PHASE 3A, PHASE 3B AND PHASE 4 IN MELAKA COVERING A TOTAL AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 415 ACRES

The Board of Directors of Benalec Holdings Berhad (“Benalec” or “Company”) is pleased to announce that Benalec Sdn Bhd, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (“BSB”), had on 2 May 2014 accepted the Letter of Award dated 2 May 2014 from Oriental Boon Siew (M) Sdn Bhd (“OBSSB”), a subsidiary of Oriental Rubber & Palm Oil Sdn. Berhad, which in turn is a sub-subsidiary of Oriental Holdings Berhad, to undertake the construction, completion & maintenance of coastal reclamation and associated works for Ultra Green Sdn Bhd for Phase 2A, Phase 3A, Phase 3B and Phase 4 in Melaka covering a total area of approximately 415 acres (“Project”). The contract sum for the Project, which excludes rock revetment works, is RM203,894,750.00.

The Project shall be executed in 2 stages, as follows:-

(a) Stage 1 – Phase 2A, Phase 3A, and Phase 3B (total 275 acres)

Date of Site Possession : Subject to OBSSB securing the relevant approvals for the Phase 2A, 3A and 3B

Date of Completion : 30 months from the date of site possession

(b) Stage 2 – Phase 4 (total 140 acres)

Date of Site Possession : Subject to OBSSB securing the relevant approvals for the Phase 4

Date of Completion : 30 months from the date of site possession

The Project is scheduled to commence tentatively in the 3rd quarter of 2014 and is expected to be completed by the 4th quarter of 2016. The Project is expected to contribute positively to the earnings and net assets of the Benalec Group for the financial years ending 2015 through 2017.

None of the directors and/or major shareholders of the Company and/or persons connected to them have any interest, direct or indirect, in the Project.
This announcement is dated 5 May 2014.

As per the clueless lying troll's response, let me quote his statement: (emphasis via capitalisation mine)

"Penangites are going all out to protest this project and will EXPOSE THOSE INVOLVE IN THE PROJECT. "

Knowing your background as a lying troll, you seem to be trying to insinuate that Benalec is involved in this "exposure".

I of course took the (minimal) effort to debunk your (pathetic) trollishly blatant "expose".

And who's panicking? If anyone, I would assume it's the person whose accounts keep getting banned and postings removed.

As is per usual, the lying troll kukuman (along with his numerous other similar registered monikers) has highlighted something that is yet again irrelevant.

Quote: "kukuuman: Beware. strong resentment in Penang for land reclamation developments. Penangites are going all out to protest this project and will expose those involve in the project.

http://www.theantdaily.com/Outspoken/The-DEIA-of-Sri-Tanjung-Pinang-II-a-meaningless-official-formality"

How this relates to Benalec leaves me baffled. Benalec does not own the Sri Tanjung Pinang 2 (STP2) site (E&O does) and as far as I know neither Benalec and E&O are related to each other in any way.

In fact to my knowledge tenders for the job haven't even been called for!

So how the "exposure" of those involved in the project affects Benalec is again something of a figment of this lying troll's (limited, in my humble opinion) imagination.

Please lah, if there's no news for you to use to condemn the company don't lah start grasping at straws. I know you're probably feeling pretty desperate what with your accounts getting banned (only temporarily - sadly for me) but it's embarassing to see your mediocre efforts (once again) at condemning Benalec.

Then again on second thought, do carry on. Perhaps the board administrators might ban you permanently. Heh.

zero: Ohh, didn't realise he has sand mining concessions as well (although not surprising la :p).

I try not take anything he says to heart (although it is fun to tear his statements to shreds) although at times I have to resist to stoop to his height. (i.e. making an "I am tracking his statements for xxx days for which he has yet to answer" :p).

And yes indeed, he is very powderful. :p

Good friday to you too and a happy weekend!

zero: Is that meant to be a pun since he's getting involved in land reclamation? :p Am hoping that you're not implying that he's akin to Dream/Morpheus. :p

SavvyOne: Are you certain that Benalec's gotten the EIA approvals for Johor? I've spent some time doing some indirect checking with the consultancy firm that's handling it for them and been told that it's still pending.

To recap on what issues the lying troll kukuman has raised but refused to elaborate on:

1. He stated, "Mr ben should have sued The Edge for such a strong commentary new report, but mr ben dare not."

The Edge Malaysia printed only factual statements based on Benalec's announcements.

When I requested that he elaborate on how one can sue for libel when all that is reported is true, he responded with "you are now so obsessed with libel matters." even though it was he who raised the issue in the first place.

2. He stated, "tinyvestor, tough for mr ben. the ousted brother directors will not sit still doing nothing. they too need to make a living to survive through one way or another. There is always back door dealing. "

When asked to explain his statement (which can be considered libellious), he of course refused to answer.

3. He stated, "Have you go out to meet the people to know about the company? do you know any of the staffs or ex-staffs for that matter? Knowing the boss is not enough because he will definitely gives bias information."

When asked if he knows any staff or ex-staff? He refused to answer.

So if you read all of these statements, would you believe in the honesty and integrity of kukuman?

To the other readers, you may dislike Benelac for one reason or other but I urge you to always argue or question rationally if something is on your mind.

Please don't turn out to be a lying troll like kukuman.

I would strongly urge everyone to disregard the lying troll kukuman's comments. As you can see once again he has declined/is unable to answer my queries above.

He claims that there exists back door dealings within the brothers but can't justify his statements. And of course he doesn't have the balls to publicly say it (libel) but would rather hide behind a moniker on the internet.

Oh one more thing, bursa disallows you from announcing the name of the buyers if you sell shares to them and no one person gains/crosses the 5% threshold (what is known as a substantial shareholder stake).

What the lying troll kukuman doesn't understand is that if Benalec were to try to make that announcement, they would be reprimanded and fined.

There was a case of a company (can't recall the name offhand) about 10 years ago which was proud to announce that they had sold a stake to a major institutional (which increased it's stake to 3%). Bursa came down on them hard and reprimanded the BoD severely.

kukuman: I'm left somewhat speechless. I tried to ask you nicely for some answers on statements that you have made. You've once more completely ignored them.

And again you call me a spinner when I'm trying to lay out facts.

You condemn my statement about the 7 day bursa requirements on announcing the interests of a new major (more than 5%) shareholder.

I stated very clearly that such an announcement would only occur if that 45 million trade (which occurred in four transactions) went only to a single buyer.

Guess what? Evidently it wasn't a single buyer. So obviously there is no announcement I know this is hard for you to understand, but when it isn't one buyer, they cannot make an announcement, even if it is to soothe your bloated ego.

Enough is enough, trying to be polite with you is a waste of time. Call me names all you want, when you can'T even justify your blatant accusations (you claim the brothers have back-door dealings, but no elaborations till today),

In other words, you are a liar.

You made an accusation but you can't back it up. Just FYI, that is a statement worthy of libel.

I will no longer try to behave civilly towards you.

To put it in the nicest sense, go sod yourself you worthless, miserable excuse of a liar.

viktor2u: To clarify further, on 31 March 2014, Benalec made an announcement to Bursa on a tentative timetable for the EGM, regarding the Heads of Agreement ratification by shareholders.

Tentatively they're aiming for an EGM at the end of May 2014. You can find the announcement at:
http://www.bursamalaysia.com/market/listed-companies/company-announcements/1580877

With the tentative timetable for the EGM under item 19.

Oh and one more thing, you claim that there's still back door dealings involving the brothers. Please do elaborate on this more.

If you can't/won't aren't these just wild allegations?

I'm asking these questions of you as nicely as I can. I am not insulting you but really want to know more if you have something to contribute.

So I'd ask that we keep it civil and you refrain from insulting my prior postings. You don't like my stance fine.

But if you're posting on this forum and genuinely have something to share by all means, please do.

Kukuman: You said, "Have you go out to meet the people to know about the company? do you know any of the staffs or ex-staffs for that matter? Knowing the boss is not enough because he will definitely gives bias information."

Do you then know staff or ex-staff? If so, then tell us more.

If someone tells me, Benalec is a good company to buy, I'll ask, "Why?". If no reason is attached, I wouldn't buy. Even with a reason, I'd still do my own research before making a decision to buy.

Likewise, you infer Benalec is a bad company. When I asked, "Why?" you refused/couldn't elaborate.

So, please give us your reasons. All I've seen is your comment, but no explanation attached to it. If you want us to believe you, give us a reason to.

Kurangmanis: For listed companies, Benalec is the only one which is an almost a pure reclamation specialist.

According to analyst notes and my own research, they're in second place in Malaysia with an estimated market share of 15-20%. Benalec's paid up capital is a little over RM400m.

In first place is Inai Kiara Sdn Bhd with an estimated market share of 25-30%. Their paid up capital (as of a couple of years ago) is between RM150m-RM250m. (This is very impressive for an unlisted firm) They are also (interesting enough) fully bumiputra owned.

See Yong & Sons Sdn Bhd is in third place with market share of below 10%. A family owned firm, paid up capital IIRC is about RM5m or there abouts. Revenue wise they're somewhere in the RM50m-RM60m a year range.

Tidal Marine Engineering Sdn Bhd is in 4th place according to one analyst, although I disagree with that. In my view they're not a reclamation specialist but more of a marine engineering firm. Market share is very small in comparison.

There are a fair number of listed companies that do land reclamation, however as a percentage of their revenue/business it's usually not substantial.

The 45 million shares disposed was only by Oceancove Sdn Bhd. The four other parties listed above include Oceancove's ultimate holding company (Oceanview Cove Sdn Bhd), as well as the shareholders of both Oceancove directly (Foo Polin, Leaw Ah Chye & Leaw Seng Hai) and shareholders of Oceanview Cove (Leaw Ah Chye & Leaw Seng Hai).

The way you listed it above makes it seem like each of them disposed off 45 million shares individually. :P

If it was one single party/company buying the shares, we should find out over bursa announcements tomorrow after the end of trading (bursa regulations require disclosures within 7 days).

It is also possible that it could be delayed to Friday as some parties interpret the disclosure rulings to be 7 working days instead of 7 days flat.

Until then, it's purely guesswork as to why the shares were transacted at a 15% discount to market price. These are following (plausible) reasons that are possible. Take your pick:

The Good
1) Strategic investor - not unheard of for large stakes to be sold at a discount if they'll bring brand name/expertise to the table
2) Institutional investor - as per above, but more for credibility purposes.
3) Royalty - considering the fact that Benalec's Johor concessions are shared 70-30 with members of the Johor royal family, also plausible that they might come in at the holding company level. And if it's royalty, heh discounts is very plausible.

The Bad
1) The major shareholders require a cash call of some sort for their _personal_ (not Benalec) needs. I.e. they could have loan facilities at either holding company or directly in their names. If it's only in one of their names, such a sale would of course require the agreement of the other two members of the family who own shares. Note that any such facilities doesn't seem to involve margin/pledging of their shares (almost all their shares are directly owned by Oceancove Sdn Bhd - not under a nominee account). A direct business transaction (unlike 2 below) is preferable since it doesn't cause as many waves as an open market sale.
2) Cashing out of the major shareholders - whilst unlikely, it's possible. I.e. if they were to dispose it off over the open market, upon disclosing it to bursa everyone would know. An open market sale (for a company rebuilding it's credibility) is usually a prelude to a cash out. But selling it through a direct business transaction to just a few buyers (in this case up to 4, since the 45 million was done through 4 trades) at a discount might be used to cloak this.

If you're a rabid naysayer for this company (a certain troll on this forum is one of them) you'd probably take option number 2 under "The Bad".

Take your pick. I've probably missed out some other plausible explanation (can't think of any others though).

Will throw in a bone for those who believe in one of The Good" options though. If the major shareholders really are cashing out, it was rather foolish of them to report the sale to bursa announcements the very same day it happened. (the earliest they could have done so - although a certain troll seems to believe that the announcement should have been done the very second it went through)

They could have taken on the 7 day disclosure rules and continued to sell out (direct business trades or open market) on April 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16 and then disclosed their initial sale at the end of trading on April 16. By then with a bit of fiddling they could have reduced their stake substantially.

Finally, they sold it at 77 sen. Has the share come down near that level since then? Keep in mind, buying a substantial stake in a company at premium does not necessarily mean the share price will advance to that level. Neither does selling at a discount mean that it should go down there either.

My dear troll, you were the first one to bring up "libel matters", not I. And as is usual you don't have the capability to finish it.

As I predicted you are unable to defend yourself on the issue. (Hey you brought it up at least try lah to defend your point). Instead you of course try to deflect it to something else.)

Also I have never once tried to "shift focus" from the share price nor am I bothered as to how it performs in the short term. You can't seem to get it in your head that I'm in this for the long haul.

As to the long posts how else do I rebut your farcical and laughable statements?

I am not angry, I just have a sardonic disdain for your points.

Let me put it into simpler terms for you. You post stupids, I tear it to shreds. Notice I've not made any rebuttals against other people who have made negative statements on Benelac? Mainly because none of them have made such outlandishly ridiculous claims as you have.

Being positive about a company doesn't make one a promoter.

Am I bullish for Benalec's long-term prospects? Yes.

Am I comfortable at how things are going in the short term? Yes.

Am I utterly confident in the sense I can see the share price definitely hitting XXX in XXX days. No. I am not an astrologer, I cannot read the future. Hence you will notice I have never once made a claim as to what price the company will be at in XXX days.


And once again, you have declined to answer the simple question I've put above. I will repeat it (in case you somehow (of course) missed it).

You said Benelac should sue The Edge for libel. The Edge printed only what was true. Please explain to all readers how once can sue for libel against someone who printed the truth.

Ladies and gentleman, here I will bring in my astrology side. Once again said someone will:
a) avoid answering the question
b) answer with, "why should I tell you" or along those lines.
c) give some bullshit answer that anyone who understands even the law will recognise it for what it is, bullshit.

How strange I'm assuming that I'm the "promoter" being referred to by someone here.

I have never once claimed to be a promoter for the company.

All I have done is rebut what I saw as incomprehensibly stupid and illogical arguments.

For instance, said someone has stated that Benalec should have sued The Edge for statements that they printed. Nevermind that all the statements were true.

Till now, I'm still waiting for said someone to explain how one can sue for libel against another party for stating what is the truth.

No doubt said someone will give the long song and dance of, "why should I bother to explain" or the like in response.

This of course shows his utter spinelessness (hey, looks like said someone is like roti najib, takde telur) in having the (lack of) guts (and balls) to argue coherently. Or maybe it's not a question of (lack of) guts (and balls). Maybe it's just a question of (the lack of) intelligence on said someone's part.

SavvyOne: Thanks for the update. Hopefully that's the case.

How strange, Oceancove made the announcement to bursa of the sale the very same day for everyone to see. I wonder how they're supposed to be more "immediate" n the announcement.

No doubt some people believe that the announcement should be heralded with a press conference, marching band and pom-pom girls the second the transaction occurs.

Thankfully, most of the public is not like said "some people".

Disposal of 45 million shares by Oceancove (the principal holding company of Benelac):
http://www.bursamalaysia.com/market/listed-companies/company-announcements/1590229

zero: Don't think it's part of the HoA settlement. At least there was never any reference to it in the first place. At first I actually thought it was Vincent Leaw exercising his option to buy 30% of his brother's stake but guess not. Ah well.

staind86: Well if it is a single buyer, we'll find out either by Wednesday next week (7 days) or Friday next week (7 working days).

Tsk tsk at Star. 4.20am? :p

http://www.thestar.com.my/Business/Business-News/2014/04/09/Shareholders-building-up-position-in-Benalec/

KUALA LUMPUR: Benalec Holdings Bhd is attracting investor attention with a block of 45 million shares traded off-market on Wednesday.

Stock market data showed the block of shares accounts for a 5.56% stake based on the marine and civil engineering-based company's paid-up of 808.117 million shares.

The shares were transacted at 77 sen a share, which was at a discount of 14 sen to the current trading price of 91 sen.

At 4.20am, Benalec was up one sen to RM90.5 sen with 5.62 million shares done.

Bullbear: Thanks for highlighting the 45 million DBT. Would have missed it otherwise (don't really monitor DBTs).

The DBTs comprise four trades. Collectively, 45 million shares comprise 5.6% of the paid up capital of the company.

If it's one single buyer (or seller), we'll see it in disclosures in 7 days (or working days) time. Else, ah well. :p

On my part, not commenting on the transacted price. There are pros and cons there, make sure you talk to your broker (or an experienced trader) if you're not sure what it means or can mean.

zero: You were an investor from before the scandal broke out? If so, I can't blame you. Of course the long wait for Tanjung Piai/Pengerang is stressful.

All I can say is keep in mind that it's still profitable with almost non-existent gearing. And with the announced land sales able to keep it going for the next two years, it's just a question if whether they can get new jobs.

Penang was the probably the other big job prospect for land reclamation, but with the recent hue and outcry by residents (too much reclamation/development) it may put a damper on things.

Thus making Johor an even more important decision.

If you're thinking of cutting out, I'd personally wait until the EGM to see where things are going. With it being so close to the MoU's next expiry date, you might be able to get a better handle of things then.

I'll probably be attending the EGM (or will get a like-minded fellow investor/proxy to go on my behalf) with a decent number of questions. (will probably reproduce the answers here after that)

Hopefully we'll get a clearer picture then.

zero: Most welcome. And ha, very true. Check out executive compensation for HSL vis a vis Benalec if you have the time. That's something I think which is very good on HSL's part.

zero: It's rather difficult to compare against HSL. Whilst they do some marine construction (wharves, jetties, and land reclamation), a major part of their revenue also comes from general construction work (roads, buildings, drainage) and property development.

This is vis a vis Benalec where you can say 85-90% of their revenue is to do with marine construction, and almost all of it involving land reclamation.

Whilst comparing them is not strictly apples vs oranges, it can be said it's like comparing washington apples with fuji apples. :p Margins for different segments vary.

And of course a major construction firm relies on continuous progress payments (contract works, property) compared to Benalec which has lumpy payments (land sales for it's reclamation works in-kind payments).

balvin71: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93sales_ratio

This should be used strictly as a comparison tool versus companies in the same industry/sector. (There's an assumption that profit margins will be roughly the same amongst companies within the sector)

However as a measurement tool this doesn't really work in Malaysia. There are no real listed peers to compare Benalec against. Firms like Muhibbah only have a small portion of their revenue coming from land reclamation. Any comparison is pointless.

Only useful if Inai Kiara or See Yong & Sons decide to list one day.

Final post to the troll on this topic: I gave a long post just to go and rebut all your points. I did not lose the plot, you did. You can yammer on as much as you want, I couldn't care less.

The post took me all of 15 minutes to do. And I enjoyed doing it to prove that your post is completely bereft of any factual support.

If another kukuman gives a bad comment _AND_ (this is very important for trolls to understand) includes logical, legible reasons for doing so, I would enjoy debating it with him/her. I do not just swallow good information, I look for the bad as well, as long as they (and this is I know a part that's very difficult for you to understand) come backed up with some reasons or facts.

You on the other hand have only posted "rubbish company". When I once asked you to elaborate on your reasons for saying so, you disclaimed it with something along the lines of "why should I take the effort to give you details". If you cannot even take the effort to enunciate your arguments, why in the world would anyone want to listen to you?

Let me iterate again for other readers (I couldn't care less about the opinions of the singular troll), I believe in this company for the long term. Unlike certain trolls who put the company down unless it shoots up a massive amount within a day or a week, I'm looking at the gains over a horizon of more than a year.

To sum up, I no longer waste my times reading your comments (I tend to gloss over them) except when you put links (as you did earlier) trying to argue a point to put down the company (and in my opinion) failing miserably at it.

Carry on trolling. Whenever you make another illogical, half-baked argument, it is my privilege to rebut it. And I will certainly enjoy doing so since I sincerely believe it makes you look a bit like an extremely bitter person, with a massive chip on your shoulder hence your pointless (not backed up by any facts/reasons) arguments.

And at the end of the day, it is rest the readers who read the postings who will judge as to who comes across with the better arguments.

Carry on trolling. I shall continue to snicker and rebut as and when necessary.

5) Again some trolls will have difficulty in understanding the difference between a civil and a criminal suit.

To put it simply (so that even trolls might be able to comprehend), if Benalec were to sue someone that's a civil suit. If a person or a company sues it's always a civil suit.

Criminal suits on the other hand can only be done by organisations that have such statutory authority. I.e. the government, governmental bodies (police, MACC, Securities Commission) can file criminal suits through either the Public Prosecutor (the attorney-general in our country) or someone authorised on his behalf (a deputy Public Prosecutor attached to other bodies).

Now this agreement by Benalec resolves all family disputes. The issue will be habis cerita, no civil lawsuits on these issues possible by the brothers or their families (basically trying to avoid a Tan Chong, Kian Joo family feud situation). So once the agreement is signed and assuming ratified by shareholders, the case is finished (habis cerita, end of story) from the point of further civil lawsuits by those involved. No protacted arguments, which I feel is a good thing.

However to be very clear, this agreement has absolutely nothing to do with criminal lawsuits. Benelac, the brothers, shareholders, none of them can tell the government, "Eh please, don't take criminal action ah?". If the AG's chambers, Securities Commission, heck even Commercial Crimes Department in the Police want to sue either Leaw Ah Chye, Leaw Tua Choon, the son Leaw Yongene or even their vested companies, they can.

But here's the good thing to bear in mind (for those already invested/thinking of investing in Benalec). Benalec, the current MD Leaw Seng Hai, us shareholders none of us are liable for the actions of the other two brothers. If they get sued, their problem lah, nothing to do with Benalec or its shareholders.

Whilst I'm sure trolls will continue to be trolls and waste time trolling, I hope those of you who take the time to read my postings will be able to come to your own conclusion as to who is giving a better perspective of the company. I'd rather give you qualitative and detail information rather than some people who can only say "rubbish company" but can't even justify their statements with some reasonable explanations.

Whilst as a rule I now no longer waste time responding to trolls, I feel it necessary to correct the one-sided and misconception being put forward by one troll.

1) His comparison of Benalec with Tan Chong (TC) is entertaining. TC did not have a heads of agreement (HoA) ala Benalec to resolve all their disputes. The link by said troll above highlights the exact (HoA) which is going to resolve all these problems assuming it is ratified by shareholders.


2) As is per usual by trolls, they tend not to show all sides of the picture. His link above with regards to the edge malaysia's article whilst correct should be immediately followed by:

http://www.bursamalaysia.com/market/listed-companies/company-announcements/1513989

which does highlight the exact point The Edge was making. Granted this announcement was of course 5 days past the expected due date (10 Jan 2014 versus 5 Jan 2014). Whilst some trolls will consider this as a the end of the world for a company (doomsday, apocalypse, hari kiamat, the end of days), the HoA _was_ announced. It was not hidden, it exists, it is a reality and not a figment of someone's imagination.


3) Of course some trolls would like us all to believe that nothing else has really happened with the HoA since then. But the following announcements shows the updates on how the agreements progressed up till today:

13 March 2014
http://www.bursamalaysia.com/market/listed-companies/company-announcements/1566201

and of course said troll's own link above (reproduced here which shows the finality of the proposal - talk about tembak-ing one's own foot, he wants to criticise the company but instead he's highlighting the proposed solution. Heh)

31 March 2014
http://www.bursamalaysia.com/market/listed-companies/company-announcements/1580877


4) Some trolls (as per this one) again don't understand the concept of libel. You can only sue someone for libel if it's untrue and you have been defamed. Let's look at his examples of what the edge printed:

a) "deadline is over" - True. Benalec announced on 5 Dec 2013 that the were working towards a HoA and it was expected to take one month. The Edge article was printed on 7 Jan 2014. At that time the HoA was still not completed. So The Edge printed the truth here. No libel.

b) "accused of misconduct" - The following announcements should be read in a series:
6 Nov 2013 - Convening of EGM to remove the two brothers
http://www.bursamalaysia.com/market/listed-companies/company-announcements/1454089

18 Nov 2013 (2 links) and 21 Nov 2013 - Lawsuits against the brothers and the son of one brother plus their separate vested companies
http://www.bursamalaysia.com/market/listed-companies/company-announcements/1464433
http://www.bursamalaysia.com/market/listed-companies/company-announcements/1464425
http://www.bursamalaysia.com/market/listed-companies/company-announcements/1468997

Let me just quote part of one paragraph from one of these announcements by Benalec:
"...against Datuk Leaw Tua Choon and Datuk Leaw Ah Chye, for loss and damage and an account of all secret profits, arising from the breach of their contractual, statutory, fiduciary and/or common law duties and/or obligations as Executive Directors..."

Since Benalec themselves announced that the two brothers have breached their fiduciary duties, what The Edge printed here is true. No libel.

c) "it had sued" - I think even an imbecile after reading b) above agrees that Benalec did file a lawsuit against the brothers. One would hope that even a moron should be able to understand that. The Edge printed the truth. No libel.

d) "stripped the two brothers of their executive positions" - As what I stated above
6 Nov 2013 - Convening of EGM to remove the two brothers
http://www.bursamalaysia.com/market/listed-companies/company-announcements/1454089

28 Oct 2013 - Leaw Ah Chye's redesignation from executive to non-executive director of Benalec
http://www.bursamalaysia.com/market/listed-companies/company-announcements/1445473

4 Dec 2013 - Leaw Ah Chye's resignation announcement as a director of Benalec
http://www.bursamalaysia.com/market/listed-companies/company-announcements/1483465

28 Oct 2013 - Leaw Tua Choon's redesignation from executive to non-executive director of Benalec.

4 Dec 2013 - Leaw Tua Choon's resignation as a director of Benalec
http://www.bursamalaysia.com/market/listed-companies/company-announcements/1483461

Perhaps The Edge might have printed it as the brothers voluntarily resigning their positions. But the convening of the EGM stresses that there were strong moves to get them removed. You could theoretically sue The Edge, but most judges would probably kick you out of the courtroom for wasting their time. From a reasonable man test, no libel.

staind86: Not in this announcement, but in the initial land sale announcement (20 March 2014). Item 2.3.1 (a) in said announcement: "the consent of the shareholders of Benalec being obtained at an extraordinary general meeting ("EGM") to be convened within six (6) from the date of the SPA..."

An interesting read. The announcement gives more details on what were the issues caused by the two brothers. Not going to regale the highlights since I feel this is a must read if you're a shareholder/interested to be a shareholder of Benalec.

One thing though, the EGM to ratify this heads of agreement is expected to be held end of May. Also expected is the ratification of the RM235m land sale that was announced earlier. Interesting why it's being delayed till then. Makes you wonder if it's because management is expecting to include a third item to be ratified then. (hopefully it is, since I'm sure we'll all be happy if it is!)

http://www.bursamalaysia.com/market/listed-companies/company-announcements/1580877

TRANSACTIONS (CHAPTER 10 OF LISTING REQUIREMENTS): RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS BENALEC HOLDINGS BERHAD (“BENALEC” OR “THE COMPANY”) PROPOSED RATIFICATION OF THE HEADS OF AGREEMENT (“HoA”) FOR THE GLOBAL SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE COMPANY, DATUK LEAW TUA CHOON (“DLTC”), DATUK LEAW AH CHYE (“DLAC”) AND LEAW YONGENE (“LYG”) (“PROPOSED HoA RATIFICATION”)

zero: Well, I'm ambivalent about this. Based off their annual report, as at Oct 31, 2013; out of the list of their top 30 shareholders, if you exclude Oceancove and KWAP, institutionals and fund managers from that list account for about 99 million shares. (out of 806 million shares - or 12.2%)

If you include KWAP at that time, you get 154m shares (19.1%).

Benalec doesn't have a very strong institutional base, and doubtless even that 12.2% shrank after the whole fiasco with the brothers happened.

The counter argument is that as the free float increased because of this, it becomes easier to accumulate shares. Whether institutionals have been bottom fishing after the heads of agreement/benalec's improved outlook is something I don't know.

The other thing to bear in mind (both good and bad) is that Oceancove still owns a huge part of the company (almost 53%). Bad since eventually it gets harder for institutionals to accumulate / even try to accumulate after a certain point.

For good, well the fortunes of the MD, brother and niece are all tied to the company. It's in their best interests with that kind of stake to see the company succeed after all.

There have been comments as to how the remaining owners have manipulated things to make a quick buck over the whole matter. Those who believe so should bear one thing in mind. For Benalec going from a price of RM1.50 to 90 sen, Oceancove lost a total of over RM250 million in market value based on their stake in Benalec (426m shares)

How they could "profit" over the issue leaves me baffled.

posby: Think you've got it wrong. EPF has never held a major stake in Benalec, KWAP (Kumpulan Wang Persaraan - i.e. Malaysian Pension Fund) did. The 5.84% you're referring to is them, not EPF.

As at 27 Dec 2013, they sold their stake down further to below the 5% threshold. They are no longer a substantial shareholder of the firm.

Till today, no other person/organisation has a minimum 5% stake which qualifies them as substantial shareholders except for Oceancove Sdn Bhd, which is the holding firm for the two remaining brothers and their niece.

http://www.theedgemalaysia.com/in-the-edge-financial-daily-today/281700-benalec-deal-is-positive.html

Benalec deal is positive

Benalec Holdings Bhd
(March 21, 93.5 sen)
Maintain buy with target price of RM1.02: Benalec Holdings, through its unit Jayamas Cekap Sdn Bhd, has entered into a sales and purchase agreement with Ultra Harmony Development Sdn Bhd for the disposal of 22 pieces of commercial land at Kawasan Bandar VI, Melaka Tengah district, for a total consideration of RM235.1 million. We are positive on this development as the disposal is done before the reclamation process, enabling the group to immediately crystalise the value of its landbank, hence improving its cash flow.

The land measuring approximately 128.52 acres (52ha) is valued at RM42 per sq ft (psf) which is about a 5% or RM11.1 million premium to the current market value in the vicinity of RM40 psf.

The land disposal is in line with the group’s business model in selling a portion of the reclaimed land, which involves a settlement in kind for cash. This also provides an avenue for Benalec to raise funds to repay its outstanding indebtness as well as finance ongoing and future reclamation projects.

The net book value of the land upon completion is estimated at RM157.52 million. Thus, the disposal value is a 49.6% or RM77.9 million premium from the net book value translating into RM58.5 million in realised gain from the disposal.

Furthermore, the disposal will reduce the group’s gearing ratio to 0.05 times from 0.06 times in the audited accounts for June 2013.

We are positive on this news and expect there to be a few more disposals in the immediate future, hence maintaining its healthy cash position to fund prospective projects.

We are leaving our forecast unchanged with a target price of RM1.02. — BIMB Securities Research, March 21

Stock Analysts are only human. They don't always get it right, else why work as a stock analyst? After all they can make a lot more money by trading in the market on their own (which they are prohibited to do - on accounts in their name at least :p)

Always do your own research (doesn't have to be extremely in-depth), read news articles, read the annual and quarterly reports (those are gold mines of information at times). Heck even go to the company's website just to see how their IR is like (Benalec's is decent - they link a fair number of analyst reports, although CIMB's is not on there :p)

Talking about analyst reports till today I really wonder if the Affin chap really knows more than the rest or whether he's just exaggerating. Regarding the 1 Malaysia Special Oil Terminal SPA (the 1000 acre job), Affin In their 13 Feb 2004 note stated, “Management guided that negotiations on the SPA are in the final stages. As a measure of management’s confidence, initial works are scheduled to commence in the middle of the year."

Notice that no other stock analyst has reproduced the above statement.

It's examples like this where the phrase caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) comes about. Someone who reads just that report will probably be hangat-hangat tahi ayam. Whereas someone who reads different reports might end up like me, going eh?

Note that I still like what Benalec's doing now after trying to resolve the mess with the two brothers. I do think the Affin fella is a bit overboard in his targets, but for now seeing Benalec's share price going over it's original IPO price looks like reality in the very short term.

Can't wait for the EGM when it's called. Have a fair number of questions to ask.

For those who haven't read the bursa announcement:

http://www.bursamalaysia.com/market/listed-companies/company-announcements/1571525

TRANSACTIONS (CHAPTER 10 OF LISTING REQUIREMENTS): NON RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS BENALEC HOLDINGS BERHAD (“BENALEC” OR THE “COMPANY”) On behalf of the Board of Directors of Benalec, AmInvestment Bank Berhad, is pleased to announce the proposed disposal of twenty two (22) parcels of leasehold commercial land which have been or will be reclaimed by Benalec Sdn Bhd ("BSB"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Benalec, measuring in aggregate indicatively 128.52 acres (approximately 520,102 square meters to be held by Jayamas Cekap Sdn Bhd, a wholly-owned subsidiary of BSB, to Ultra Harmony Development Sdn Bhd for a total disposal consideration of RM235,129,910.40 to be satisfied entirely in cash, further details of which are provided in the attached file. This announcement is dated 20 March 2014.

ymtan: Benalec has two subsidiaries that own the rights for the Tanjung Piai and Pengerang reclamation projects, Spektrum Kukuh S/B and Spektrum Budi S/B.

Benalec owns 70% of each firm. Of the remainer, 21% is owned by the crown prince of Johor and 9% owned by Daing Malek Daing Rahaman. The latter is a member of the Johor royalty council and is said to be a friend of the present Sultan and his father.

Daing Malek appeared in the news recently since he's one of the owners of Seaview Holdings S/B which recently bought the majority stake in Damansara Realty Bhd from Johor Corp.

staind86: None taken. You've stated what is a true and valid point. Sadly the announcement is lacking on the details of how the EIA is progressing (which is the big issue for the delay).

How strange, but I was under the impression people post on this particular forum to keep those who are interested on this counter with regards to any news / announcements that they here. Also included would be any FA / TA points they might have to make, be it their own or from stock analysts. Also to a certain extent, rumours if that's your sort of thing.

On the other hand you kukuman seem to be spilling out vitriol. And you've backed it up with nothing.

You can claim that you know more than meets the eye. But the fact that you have not made one factual point, one real shred of evidence with your statements makes you nothing more and nothing less than a bullshitter.

Do carry on. This is my final post directed at you.

The only time I will reference to you in the future is if Benalec achieves the targets that I believe that they can achieve. Then I will of course gloat incessantly at you.

Cheerio.

posby: Don't feed the trolls. :p Till now said troll still has not bothered to answer my queries to him or give an explanation on his stance.

I did find this sentence of his, "...but with the yet to resolve scandal-settlement deal" entertaining.

I wonder what his basis on judging the scandal-settlement resolved is.

For me it's once the EGM for it is called, and done with (assuming shareholders approved).

For him, it's probably the same as well as all members of the company having to do 20 years of penance, accorded with a vow of silence in a monastic abbey in some remote part of the planet.

Kukuman: It sounds like you're claiming to know more about what happened behind the scenes than is already known.

You claim that everyone that remains with the company is still guilty.

In that case, tell us. I would love to know more, assuming that you actually know something that is.

Thus far all I have seen is you denigrating the company with the standard spiel of "rubbish company" et al.

This is as useful as people who claim target prices for the company within the next day or next week. Utterly pointless.

I try to make a constructive (factual) post, and you give a snide reply instead.

It doesn't sound like you think that the company is going to go downhill as much as you want the company to go kaput.

If you can't at least try to back up your statements with facts then just accept that they're as good and qualitative as promises from our government of the day.

jenabchen: Not sure why you think that's a silly comment.

Your own comment isn't very clear either. You say Benalec needs to be more committed to bring back trust. Do tell on how they're supposed to do that.

jenabchen: Good point. Not insider trading though, more to do with unreported related party transaction / breach of fiduciary duties by a director.

I like (and am in favour of) the HoA simply because it clears up all _civil_legal issues between Benalec and all the other parties.

There is however nothing in the HoA that can prevent _criminal_ legal action to be taken against the two directors et al.

Whether SC / PDRM takes action against them is another matter altogether.

At the end of the day the HoA restores the situation (financially) for Benalec as if the illegal RPT never happened. (Assuming that there are no other illegal RPTs hidden there)

The damage that's left is image wise. Although with the two brothers out as directors and one (the bigger culprit) having sold his stake, it's one step towards restoring credibility.


Also as an aside, I note yet again with amusement comments stating that this company is going to go bankrupt / PN17 / die etc. It makes me wonder as to how on earth that's going to happen once you look at the financial figures of the company.


P.S: I do own shares in Benalec. If you consider me biased due to that, please diregards all my above comments and carry on!