china sky - final report dated 19 june 2013 · pdf filechina sky chemical fibre co., ......
TRANSCRIPT
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 12
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background Information
1. China Sky Chemical Fibre Co., Ltd (“the Company”) was incorporated in Cayman
Islands on 29 March 2005 and was listed on the Mainboard of Singapore Exchange
Limited (“SGX”) on 3 October 2005. The principal activity of the Company is that of an
investment holding company.
2. The current structure of the Company and its subsidiaries (“the Group”) is as follows:
China Sky Chemical Fibre Co., Ltd
(Incorporated in the Cayman Islands)
Winburg Company Ltd (Incorporated in BVI)
100%
Quanzhou Tianyu Chemical Fiber &
Weaving Industry Co., Ltd
(Incorporated in PRC)
100%
Way Big Holdings Limited
(Incorporated in BVI)
100%
Tianjian Special Polymede Fibre
Technology Fujian Co., Ltd
(Incorporated in PRC)
100%
Deluxe Dragon International Limited (Incorporated in BVI)
100%
Qingdao Zhongda Chemical Fibre
Company Limited (Incorporated in PRC)
100%
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 13
3. The Company is the ultimate holding company of Quanzhou Tianyu Chemical Fibre &
Weaving Industry Co., Ltd (“Quanzhou Tianyu”), Tianjian Special Polymede Fibre
Technology Fujian Co., Ltd (“Tianjian”) and Qingdao Zhongda Chemical Fibre
Company Limited (“Qingdao Zhongda”). Quanzhou Tianyu, Tianjian and Qingdao
Zhongda are incorporated in The People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) (collectively
known as “PRC Operating Subsidiaries”). The PRC Operating Subsidiaries are
principally engaged in the manufacture and sale of chemical fibres (mainly high-end
nylon fibres).
4. Quanzhou Tianyu was previously a wholly-owned subsidiary of Kam Wai Chemical
Fibre Industrial Limited (“Kam Wai”), an investment holding company, which was
incorporated in Hong Kong on 25 January 2002. Kam Wai was in turn wholly-owned
by Winburg Company Ltd ("Winburg"). According to the SGXNET announcement on
30 April 2012, Kam Wai was dissolved on 27 April 2012 and Quanzhou Tianyu
subsequently became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Winburg.
5. On 16 November 2011, pursuant to Mainboard Rule 704(12), SGX issued a directive to
the Company to appoint a special auditor to investigate certain affairs of the Company.
In compliance with the directive, the Audit Committee (“AC”) of the Company appointed
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd (“SFCA”) on 25 October 2012 as the special
auditor.
6. The AC of the Company has engaged SFCA to review:-
(a) The circumstances surrounding the major acquisitions related to and in
connection with the purchase (and subsequent return) of a piece of land in Fujian
province, PRC. Such ‘major acquisitions’ refer specifically to major acquisitions
which are related to and in connection with all the circumstances surrounding the
abortive purchase of the Fujian Land;
(b) The nature, circumstances and manner in which interested person transactions
were conducted with a former independent director of the Company; and
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 14
(c) The nature and circumstances of the transactions surrounding the repairs and
maintenance costs which were incurred in the first quarter of the financial year
2009.
Fujian Land
7. On 24 November 2006, the Company announced that it had managed to secure a land
in the Fujian province of China (“Fujian Land”). The relevant excerpts of the
announcement are reproduced below:
“The Company has managed to secure an offer of land of around 600 acres in Fujian
province at a very reasonable price. The land will be reserved for future expansion. As
the Company is presently considering venturing into upstream business, part of the
land to be acquired will also be reserved for such purposes.
Accordingly, approximately 30% to 40% of the estimated net proceeds from the
Placement (after deducting estimated expenses) of approximately US$68.8 million will
be used for the acquisition of land for future expansion….”
8. On 22 December 2006, the Company made another announcement on the SGXNET
that they had utilised HK$70 million (from the placement of 80 million ordinary shares in
the Company on 1 December 2006) towards the acquisition of the Fujian Land.
According to the same announcement, the acquisition of the Fujian Land was made
through the acquisition of a new wholly-owned subsidiary, Mega Force Investments
Limited (“Mega Force”), by Winburg. Winburg is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
Company.
9. During the visit to the Company’s office premises in Quanzhou in November 2012,
SFCA was provided with a legal due diligence report prepared by Fujian Qiaosheng
Law Firm (“Fujian Qiaosheng”) dated 25 October 2012 (“Legal Due Diligence
Report”). The Company had appointed Fujian Qiaosheng to perform a legal review of
the transactions relating to the Fujian Land at the request of its current Group CEO, Mr.
Ling Yew Kong. The salient points of the Legal Due Diligence Report (which was
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 15
written in Chinese) are translated and reproduced (in English) in the following
paragraphs:
(a) Mega Force was incorporated in the British Virgin Islands on 5 January 2005.
The sole shareholder of Mega Force (during the material time) was as follows:
Name of Sole Shareholder Period ���
Before 18 Dec 2006
Winburg Between 18 Dec 2006 and 17 Oct 2011 ��� From 18 Oct 2011 todate
(b) Fujian Fuyuan Chemical Co., Ltd ("Fujian Fuyuan") was incorporated in PRC on
15 September 2005. The sole shareholder of Fujian Fuyuan was Mega Force.
(c) Fujian Fuyuan and the Quanzhou City Quangang District People’s Government
(��������) (“Local PRC Authority”) entered into an agreement on
20 April 2004 for the purchase of the Fujian Land1.
(d) Subsequently, on 20 October 2006, Fujian Fuyuan and the Local PRC Authority
entered into a supplementary agreement for the purchase of the Fujian Land.
(e) The Fujian Land is located at Quanzhou City Quangang District. It has a land
area of 401,728.68 square metres (approximately 602 acres).
(f) On 2 December 2006, Winburg and
���entered into a share transfer
agreement for the acquisition of 100% interest held by���
in Mega Force
(“Share Transfer Agreement”). The key terms of the Share Transfer
Agreement were as follows:
(i) With the acquisition of Mega Force, Winburg gained full control over Fujian
Fuyuan and the Fujian Land;
1 The 20 April 2004 agreement was entered into between the Local PRC Authority and � � (not Fujian Fuyuan).
While the Legal Due Diligence Report erroneously stated that the agreement was entered between the Local PRC Authority and Fujian Fuyuan on 20 April 2004, SFCA notes that it correctly pointed out that Fujian Fuyuan was only incorporated on 15 September 2005.
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 16
(ii) The purchase consideration for the acquisition of Mega Force was RMB149
million. ���
would be responsible for the payment of any outstanding
amount due for the purchase of the Fujian Land; and
(iii)
���would be responsible for obtaining the land use rights certificate for
the Fujian Land, failing which, Winburg could terminate the Share Transfer
Agreement. In the event that the Share Transfer Agreement is terminated
by Winburg, ���
has to refund to Winburg the sum of RMB149 million
paid for the Fujian Land and all costs incurred for the development of the
Fujian Land.
(g) The sum of RMB149 million was paid in full between 19 December 2006 and 24
December 2007.
(h) According to the share register provided by Winburg, Mega Force was a
subsidiary of Winburg during the period from 18 December 2006 to 17 October
2011.
(i) Winburg had entrusted Quanzhou Tianyu to manage the development of the
Fujian Land for RMB114 million.
(j) The Local PRC Authority confirmed that (in the early stages) the progress on the
development of the Fujian Land was smooth. However, there were issues (such
as expropriation of seabed, migration of graves and protests by the locals) which
caused the delay in the development of the Fujian Land. As at 27 June 2011, the
Local PRC Authority could not complete the conversion of the land from
agricultural and forestry purposes to non-agricultural purpose.
(k) As
��� was unable to obtain the land use rights certificate, it was agreed
between Winburg and ���
that the Share Transfer Agreement entered on 2
December 2006 be terminated. On 27 June 2011, both parties signed an
agreement terminating the Share Transfer Agreement (“Termination
Agreement”).
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 17
(l) In light of the Termination Agreement, Winburg transferred its 100% shareholding
in Mega Force back to ���
and returned the full rights and control over Fujian
Fuyuan and the Fujian Land to ���
.
(m) Winburg authorised Quanzhou Tianyu to receive on its behalf, funds of RMB263
million from���
. Winburg had received the full refund of RMB263 million from ��� and thus did not suffer any losses on the Fujian Land.
(n) The transactions (i.e. entering of the Share Transfer Agreement and Termination
Agreement) between Winburg and ���
were legitimate and the signing of the
Share Transfer Agreement and the Termination Agreement were not related
party transactions.
(o) According to the land agreement entered into between Fujian Fuyuan and the
Local PRC Authority (in 2006), the red line map (���) of Fujian Land and the
relevant documents, it was confirmed that Fujian Fuyuan had the rights to
develop the Fujian Land.
10. During the interview with
��� on 13 November 2012, he informed SFCA that in April
2004, he signed an agreement (“Letter of Intent”) with the Local PRC Authority to
purchase the Fujian Land for RMB168 million. After the incorporation of Fujian Fuyuan
in September 2005, Fujian Fuyuan formally entered into an agreement with the Local
PRC Authority (in October 2006) for the purchase of the Fujian Land at RMB149 million
(“Land Use Agreement”). SFCA was shown the Letter of Intent and Land Use
Agreement by ���
on 14 November 2012, but was not permitted to retain copies of
these documents.
11. The Share Transfer Agreement was entered into between Winburg and
��� on 2
December 2006 in respect of the acquisition of the Fujian Land. Under the Share
Transfer Agreement, it was agreed that Winburg would purchase the shares fully held
by ���
in Mega Force for a consideration of RMB149 million which was to be paid
before 31 December 2007.
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 18
12. Fujian Fuyuan was described in the Share Transfer Agreement as a wholly owned
subsidiary of Mega Force. At the time of the acquisition of Mega Force in late 2006,
Fujian Fuyuan apparently owned the Fujian Land but the land use rights (for non-
agricultural purpose) had yet to be obtained. While the acquisition of Mega Force was
announced by the Company on the SGXNET on 22 December 2006, SFCA notes that
no information was disclosed via announcement or in the Company’s Annual Report
that Fujian Fuyuan was a subsidiary of Mega Force.
13. It was stated in the Share Transfer Agreement that part of the Fujian Land was
reserved for agricultural and forestry purposes. In the event that ���
fails to obtain
the land use rights (for non-agricultural purpose) within a period of time (not specified in
the Share Transfer Agreement), Winburg could terminate the Share Transfer
Agreement and ���
would have to repay the purchase consideration (i.e. RMB149
million) and all the costs incurred on the development of the Fujian Land.
14. SFCA was provided with a copy of an agreement dated 10 January 2008 entered into
between ���������������� !"#$ ! (“%&'(”) and
Quanzhou Tianyu (“Guangxi Jiangong Agreement”). According to the Guangxi
Jiangong Agreement, SFCA notes that ���� was engaged to develop the Fujian
Land and the major works to be carried by them were as follows:
(a) Land excavation ()*+,);
(b) Land refilling ()*-.);
(c) Blasting (/*01); and
(d) Land leveling (2345).
15. On 8 October 2008, Quanzhou Tianyu and ���� entered into a construction
agreement (“Phase One Construction Agreement”) to carry out the land-leveling
works. The construction works were carried out at the site located at ���6789
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 19
:;<=> at an agreed sum of RMB58 million. The period of construction was stated
in the agreement to be between 10 October 2008 and 30 April 2009.
16. On 23 February 2009, Quanzhou Tianyu and ���� entered into a second
construction agreement (“Phase Two Construction Agreement”) to carry out further
land-leveling works at an agreed price of RMB56 million. The period of construction
was stated in the agreement to be between 24 February 2009 and 30 September 2009.
17. The Company’s external auditors in their various memoranda / reports to the AC
indicated that they had performed site inspections at the Fujian Land. SFCA also
performed a site visit on 22 January 2013, together with the representative of ����,
to the Fujian Land.
18. The total sum of RMB114 million was first disclosed in an announcement dated 7
March 2011 by the Company in response to SGX's queries on the Group’s full year
results for the financial year ended 31 December 2010 ("FY2010"). SFCA also notes
that the total sum of RMB114 million was disclosed in Note 15 of the Notes to the
Financial Statements at page 57 of the FY2010 Annual Report as “deposit for
construction work on a piece of land to be acquired”.
19. During an AC meeting on 7 January 2010, the former Group Financial Controller, Mr.
Hui San Wing (“Sunny”) informed the meeting that the Fujian Land “is still held by the
original proprietor / vendor company which is a PRC company (“Vendor”). The Vendor
has since run into difficulties in completing the sale or transfer…. Mega Force is now
looking into acquiring the Vendor, in whose name the land is registered in”. At the
material time of the AC meeting, the Fujian Land was owned by Fujian Fuyuan, which
was a subsidiary of Mega Force. SFCA notes that no due diligence was performed by
the Company prior to the acquisition of Fujian Fuyuan (and Mega Force).
20. Based on the Share Transfer Agreement,
���was responsible for completing the
conversion of the land use rights (to non-agricultural purpose). During the interview
with ���
on 13 November 2012, he informed SFCA that he was unable to obtain the
land use rights (for non-agricultural purpose) as required under the Share Transfer
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 20
Agreement. Accordingly, at the request of Winburg in 2011, he agreed to terminate the
Share Transfer Agreement with a full refund to Winburg.
21. SFCA was provided with the Termination Agreement entered into between Winburg
and ���
dated 27 June 2011 terminating the Share Transfer Agreement entered on
2 December 20062. The salient points of the Termination Agreement are as follows:
(a) The relevant governmental authority (����) could not convert the land from
agricultural and forestry purposes to non-agricultural purpose and accordingly
both Winburg and ���
agreed to terminate the Share Transfer Agreement;
(b) Winburg had to (within 100 days) transfer its 100% shares in Mega Force to
��� and at the same time, return all documents in relation to Fujian Fuyuan and
the Fujian Land to ���
; and
(c) In return,
��� will (within 100 days) make payment of RMB263 million to the
bank account designated by Winburg.
22. According to a valuation report dated 7 March 2011 prepared by Asset Appraisal
Limited (“Asset Appraisal”) (“Fujian Land Valuation Report”), the Fujian Land,
situated at Xiazhu Village, Jieshan Town, Quangang District, Quanzhou City, was
valued at RMB264 million as at 31 December 2010. It was stated in the Fujian Land
Valuation Report that Asset Appraisal had relied on the legal opinion of Fujian
Qiaosheng issued on 30 January 2011. The legal opinions of Fujian Qiaosheng quoted
in the Fujian Land Valuation Report are reproduced verbatim below:
“ (a) The land use rights of the property were legally held by Fujian Fuyuan;
(b) Fujian Fuyuan has settled the land premium in full; and
2 The former AC Chairman, Mr. Lai and former AC member, Mr. Yeap, in their joint maxwellisation response dated 5
June 2013, informed SFCA that “the Termination Agreement entered between Winburg and [?@A] dated 27 June 2011 was never disclosed to the IDs. The ex-IDs only discovered the existence of all these agreements when they received [SFCA’s] [draft] report”.
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 21
(c) There is no legal impediment for Fujian Fuyuan to obtain the land use rights for the
property.”
23. Based on another agreement entered into between Winburg and Quanzhou Tianyu on
30 June 2011 (“30 June 2011 Agreement”), SFCA notes that Winburg authorised
Quanzhou Tianyu to receive on its behalf, sums of RMB262,828,741 from���
.
24. A total of 191 Bank Acceptance Drafts (BCDEFG) were received by Quanzhou
Tianyu purportedly from ���
during the period from 1 July 2011 to 10 October 2011.
A summary of the sums received is shown below:
S/No. Date of Receipt Amount
RMB
No. of Bank
Acceptance Drafts
1. 1 Jul 11 1,100,000 2
2. 4 Jul 11 420,000 2
3. 5 Jul 11 750,000 3
4. 13 Jul 11 1,300,000 3
5. 20 Jul 11 1,380,000 8
6 5 Aug 11 8,800,000 23
7. 11 Aug 11 10,710,000 13
8. 25 Aug 11 4,800,000 15
9. 21 Sep 11 149,596,613 72
Subtotal 178,856,6133 141
10 8 Oct 11 23,100,000 17
11. 9 Oct 11 39,200,000 15
12. 10 Oct 11 21,700,000 18
Total 262,856,613 191
3 Based on the Group’s statement of cash flows for the 3 months ended 30 September 2011 (as announced on the
SGXNET on 14 November 2011), it was stated that the “refund of the deposits paid on the land and construction costs” was RMB184,247,000, instead of RMB178,856,613.
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 22
25. SFCA notes that there was a slight discrepancy in the amount received from ���
.
The 30 June 2011 Agreement states that the amount to be received from ���
was
RMB262,828,741 but the actual amount received was RMB262,856,613, giving rise to
a surplus of RMB27,872. SFCA reviewed the accounting ledgers of Quanzhou Tianyu
and noted that the surplus of RMB27,872 was recorded as interest income of
Quanzhou Tianyu.
26. Although the Termination Agreement states that the payments from
��� would be
remitted into the bank account designated by Winburg, SFCA notes that the payments
were made through Bank Acceptance Drafts instead. During his interview on 14
November 2012, Mr. Hu Xiao Jin ("Mr. Hu") confirmed to SFCA that Quanzhou Tianyu
had received the payments of RMB263 million from ���
via Bank Acceptance Drafts,
which are negotiable financial instruments in China.
27. Although SFCA was provided with copies of the Bank Acceptance Drafts amounting to
RMB262,856,613, SFCA notes that Quanzhou Tianyu did not keep copies of the
overleaf of the Bank Acceptance Drafts. In the circumstances, SFCA was unable to
determine:
(a) the original source or the transferor of the Bank Acceptance Drafts was indeed ���
(or parties related to him); and
(b) the bearer or payee of the Bank Acceptance Drafts to be Quanzhou Tianyu.
28. The Bank Acceptance Drafts of RMB263 million were subsequently used to pay a
major supplier of raw materials.
29. In the course of reviewing the current AC Chairman, Mr. Er Kwong Wah's ("Mr. Er")
past emails, SFCA notes that there was an email (dated 29 June 2011) sent by Sunny
to the AC members and Loo & Partners LLP ("Loo & Partners") enclosing an
agreement purportedly entered into between Quanzhou Tianyu and Fujian Fuyuan
dated 27 June 2011 (“Quanzhou Tianyu Agreement”). The Quanzhou Tianyu
Agreement was affixed with the official seals of Quanzhou Tianyu and Fujian Fuyuan.
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 23
The subject of the email was “HI)3JKLM”. In the email, Sunny requested Mr.
Teo Boon Hai of Loo & Partners to prepare an announcement for the Fujian Land.
30. On the following day, 30 June 2011, Sunny sent another email to the AC members,
Loo & Partners and Mr. Huang Zhong Xuan ("Mr. Huang"), the former Group CEO,
enclosing an agreement purportedly entered into between Mega Force and Fujian
Fuyuan dated 27 June 2011 (“Mega Force Agreement”). The Mega Force Agreement
was affixed with the official seals of Mega Force and Fujian Fuyuan. The subject of the
email was “Fuyuen Land”. SFCA notes from the email that Sunny advised the parties
to ignore his previous email (presumably the email that was sent by him on 29 June
2011).
31. The salient points of the Mega Force Agreement are as follows:
(a) Both parties, Mega Force and Fujian Fuyuan, agree to terminate the agreement
for the purchase of the Fujian Land;
(b) Fujian Fuyuan will refund the purchase consideration for the Fujian Land of
RMB149 million and the development costs of RMB114 million; and
(c) The sums will be refunded (by way of remittance) to Quanzhou Tianyu
(authorised by Mega Force) as follows:
(i) RMB80 million by 31 July 2011;
(ii) RMB100 million by 31 August 2011; and
(iii) RMB82,828,741 by 30 September 2011.
32. The Termination Agreement was entered into between Winburg and
���, while the
Mega Force Agreement was purportedly entered into between Mega Force and Fujian
Fuyuan. The contents of the Mega Force Agreement were consistent with the
announcement made by the Company on the SGXNET on 1 July 2011. The relevant
excerpts of the announcement are reproduced below:
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 24
“In 2006, Mega Force Investment Limited (“Mega Force”), an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company, had entered into an agreement (“Agreement”) with the land
owner, Fujian Fuyuan Chemical Fibre Co., Ltd. (“Fujian Fuyuan”) to acquire the
Quanzhou Land. This acquisition has not been completed as the title transfer has not
been executed.
Given the foregoing, Mega Force has initiated negotiations with Fujian Fuyuan to
rescind the Agreement. It has now been agreed with Fujian Fuyuan that the
Agreement be rescinded. As a result, a sum of monies amounting to approximately
RMB263 million shall be paid by Fujian Fuyuan to Mega Force, being the total amount
spent by Mega Force on the Quanzhou Land.”
33. During the interview, Sunny acknowledged that his understanding was incorrect in light
of the Share Transfer Agreement. Sunny clarified that Mr. Huang was directly involved
in the negotiation process with���
on the acquisition and the subsequent return of
the Fujian Land. Sunny said that he was not aware of the existence of the Share
Transfer Agreement and the Termination Agreement at the material time in June 2011
because he was never involved in the negotiation process. The relevant excerpts of
Sunny’s interview transcript (which are translated to English from Chinese) are shown
below:
“I will explain the transaction from the beginning when the Company bought the Fujian
Land. According to my understanding, it was Mega Force which bought the Fujian
Land from Fujian Fuyuan. At the material time, the Company’s management
mentioned that the Fujian Land would be returned to the seller and the seller was
willing to refund the amount paid previously. Accordingly, I was of the view that an
agreement should be entered into with Fujian Fuyuan to document the return of the
Fujian Land. At that time, I informed parties in China to obtain an agreement with
Fujian Fuyuan on the return of the Fujian Land. I realised that the agreement given to
me was wrong as it was an agreement between Quanzhou Tianyu and Fujian Fuyuan.
Subsequently, based on my understanding of the transaction, I informed them that the
agreement should be entered into between Mega Force and Fujian Fuyuan and not
Quanzhou Tianyu and Fujian Fuyuan. That was how the 2 agreements came about.”
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 25
34. Based on the Company’s Annual Reports for the financial years ended 31 December
2006 ("FY2006") to FY2010, SFCA notes that the following amounts were disclosed as
“deposits made for land use rights”:
RMB (‘000) FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010
Deposit on land use rights
(as shown in the Balance
Sheet of the Group)
97,000 158,549(a) 148,829 148,829(b) 148,829
Notes:
(a) It is unclear what was the composition of RMB158 million recorded in the Group’s
Audited Financial Statements for the financial year ended 31 December 2007
("FY2007") in light of the purchase price of RMB149 million for the shares in
Mega Force as described in the Share Transfer Agreement.
(b) SFCA notes that it was disclosed for the first time in the Audited Financial
Statements for the financial year ended 31 December 2009 ("FY2009") that the
deposits amount “represents a deposit made for acquisition of a land use right by
the group through an independent third party (the “Third Party”). In 2006, the
group has entered into an agreement with the Third Party, whereby the group
made an advance to the Third Party for acquiring a piece of land situated in the
PRC for a total consideration of RMB168,725,000 and the Third Party has agreed
that it will, after its acquisition of the land use right, transfer the land use right
certificate in respect of that piece of land to the group by making the appropriate
application with the relevant PRC authority. In the opinion of the directors of the
group, the advance made to the Third Party in substance represents a deposit
made for acquisition of a land use right. As at December 31, 2008 and 2009, the
Third Party has not yet obtained the land use right certificate in respect of the
land”. Based on SFCA's findings, the acquisition of the Fujian Land was
achieved through the acquisition (by Winburg) of shares in Mega Force which
owned the Fujian Land (through Fujian Fuyuan).
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 26
35. SFCA notes that the Company made several announcements on the SGXNET during
the years 2010 and 2011 (in responses to the queries raised by SGX) concerning the
Fujian Land. The relevant excerpts from these announcements are reproduced in a
chronological order together with SFCA's comments, as follows:
Relevant Excerpts of the SGXNET Announcements SFCA’s Comments
No.1 - Announcement dated 13 March 2010
“‘Deposits made on acquisition of land use rights’ were paid to
the local authority of NOP in FY2007 to acquire a piece of
land in Quanzhou Harbour, Fujian Province (“Fuyuan land”).
The Group acquired the Fuyuan land with the intention to
expand upstream into the production of caprolactum, a key
raw material used in the manufacturing of nylon-6 polyamide
chips. Polyamide chips, in turn, are used in the Group’s
production of nylon yarns.
The Group has not made significant progress with this
acquisition as it was busy with the introduction of new
products and the acquisition of Qingdao Zhongda Chemical
Fibre Company Limited, which were supposed to provide the
critical base for the manufacture of its key raw materials.
With uncertainties accompanying the global economic crisis
and the need to conserve cash, plans for the production of
caprolactum have been postponed until market conditions
improve.
The acquisition of the Fuyuan land is expected to be
completed in the first half of FY2010.”
The consideration was paid in full to QRS (and pursuant to his instruction,
were paid to the 3 individuals namely,
Wong Chi Chung, Cai Wenshu and
Wang Meipo), and not to the local
authority in Quanzhou Harbour. It is
incorrect to state that the acquisition of
the Fujian Land has not been
completed. Instead, the Company
should have disclosed that the
application for the conversion of the
land from agricultural and forestry
purposes to non-agricultural purpose
had not been approved by the local
authority.
No.2 - Announcement dated 22 April 2011
“In 2006, the Group was desirous of venturing upstream to
produce raw material for its ongoing business operations
where it was then anticipated that such production business
would generate profit for the Group. In view of the expansion
plan, the Company’s subsidiary, Mega Force Investments
Limited (“Mega Force”) had entered into an agreement with
The contents of this announcement
were inconsistent with those of the first
announcement on 22 December 2006
concerning the Fujian Land. The
Share Transfer Agreement for the
purchase of the Fujian Land was
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 27
Relevant Excerpts of the SGXNET Announcements SFCA’s Comments
Fujian Fuyuan in 2006, to acquire the land (more particularly
described in response (7)(ii) above) at a total consideration of
RMB149 million1. As part of the expansion plan, the Group
had also engaged TUVWXYZ[\]^_`\] as the
contractor to develop the land. The payment for the first stage
of construction was valued at RMB114 million.
Note 1: To date, the Company has paid up to 88% of the total
consideration of RMB149 million. It was expressly indicated in
the letter of confirmation issued by Fujian Fuyuan on 10
February 2011 that the deposit of RMB149 mil representing
approximately 88% of the consideration for the purchase of
land will be refunded to Mega Force Investments Limited, a
wholly owned subsidiary of the Company if Fujian Fuyuan fails
to obtain the land use rights from the People’s Government of
Quanzhou Municipality (NOabcde).”
entered into between Winburg and QRS on 2 December 2006, instead of
a sales & purchase agreement
between Mega Force and Fujian
Fuyuan, which was erroneously
disclosed by the Company in this
announcement.
There are various discrepancies in this
announcement concerning the
purchase consideration. It was stated
in this announcement that the total
purchase consideration for the Fujian
Land was RMB149 million. However,
in note 1 of the same announcement,
the RMB149 million was described as
“representing approximately 88% of
the consideration”.
It was also incorrect to mention that the
Company “paid up to 88% of the total
consideration of RMB149 million” when
RMB149 million had already been fully
paid at the time of this announcement.
If the purchase consideration was
refundable, the Company should have
disclosed this information on the 22
December 2006 announcement.
“As Mega Force is a foreign entity incorporated in British Virgin
Islands, the transfer of land use rights is subject to approval
being obtained from the People’s Government of Quanzhou
Municipality (NOabcde). As the transfer of land use
rights is from a local entity to a foreign entity, the turnaround
Fujian Fuyuan owned the Fujian Land
and according to QRS , he had
submitted the application to the local
PRC authorities for the conversion of
the land from agricultural and forestry
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 28
Relevant Excerpts of the SGXNET Announcements SFCA’s Comments
time in obtaining such approval is very extensive. As such, the
land is still under the name of Fujian Fuyuan.”
purposes to non-agricultural purpose. QRS did not apply to transfer the
land use rights to Mega Force, which
was already a sub-subsidiary of the
Company at the material time of the
announcement. Hence, this
announcement is incorrect and SFCA
is perturbed by the explanation.
“The Third Party referred to is Fujian Fuyuan Chemical Fiber
Co., Ltd. (fXghijklmnop\]) (“Fujian Fuyuan”).
Fujian Fuyuan is a PRC company incorporated in Quanzhou
in 2005 (the shareholder being an individual third party who is
independent and is not related to the Group). Fujian Fuyuan
is presently dormant but solvent.”
Fujian Fuyuan was a subsidiary of
Mega Force since its incorporation on
15 September 2005.
No. 3 - Announcement dated 29 April 2011 “Nevertheless, the Company wishes to confirm that the
individual third party, being the shareholder of Fujian Fuyuan,
is independent and is not related to the Group. The deposit
paid to Fujian Fuyuan is also legally refundable.”
At the time of this announcement,
Fujian Fuyuan was a subsidiary of
Mega Force which is not an individual
third party. This announcement is
erroneous.
“Prior to entering into the sale and purchase agreement with
Fujian Fuyuan Chemical Fibre Co., Ltd (“Fujian Fuyuan”) on 5
December 2006, Mega Force Investments Limited (“Mega
Force”), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary…”
“Upon Mega Force having signed the sale and purchase
agreement with Fujian Fuyuan…”
The Share Transfer Agreement for the
purchase of the Fujian Land was
entered into between Winburg and QRS on 2 December 2006. In light of
the Share Transfer Agreement dated 2
December 2006, SFCA doubts the
existence of the “sale and purchase
agreement dated 5 December 2006”
between Fujian Fuyuan and Mega
Force and would question the validity
of it, if it does exist.
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 29
Relevant Excerpts of the SGXNET Announcements SFCA’s Comments
“Pursuant to the conclusion of the sale and purchase
agreement with Mega Force on 5 December 2006, Fujian
Fuyuan had applied to the relevant authorities in Quanzhou to
obtain the consent to allow the transfer of the land use rights
to Mega Force.”
According to the Share Transfer
Agreement, QRS (instead of Fujian
Fuyuan) was responsible to make the
application to the relevant PRC
authorities for the conversion of the
land from agricultural and forestry
purposes to non-agricultural purpose.
In light of the Share Transfer
Agreement dated 2 December 2006,
SFCA doubts the existence of the sale
and purchase agreement dated 5
December 2006 between Fujian
Fuyuan and Mega Force and would
question the validity of it, if it does
exist.
SFCA had requested for the 5
December 2006 agreement
purportedly entered into between
Mega Force and Fujian Fuyuan and
the application documents that were
lodged with the relevant PRC
authorities for the conversion of the
land use rights from agricultural and
forestry purposes to non-agricultural
purpose. However, SFCA was
informed by qrs that the relevant
documents had been returned to QRS subsequent to the entering of the
Termination Agreement.
“… Upon the consent to transfer being granted to Fujian
Fuyuan and the full payment of the total consideration by
Mega Force …”
The Fujian Land was owned by Fujian
Fuyuan, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Mega Force. There was no such
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 30
Relevant Excerpts of the SGXNET Announcements SFCA’s Comments
“… Fujian Fuyuan had encountered difficulties in its
application to transfer the land use rights to Mega Force as
Mega Force is a foreign entity.”
application for the land use rights to be
transferred to Mega Force. The total
consideration had been fully paid.
“… In addition, it encountered funding constraints for the
expansion plan by end of 2007. The Group was, however, not
so ready to embark on this expansion in 2007.
As noted from the Company’s annual reports, the Company’s
sales and profitability had decreased substantially from the
second half of 2008 to 2009. Given the uncertain economic
and industry outlook then, and the need for the Company to
integrate its acquisition of Qingdao Zhongda Chemical Fibre
Company Limited during these two years, the Company was
also cautious to embark on the upstream production of raw
materials too expediently.”
Quanzhou Tianyu entered into 2
construction agreements on 8 October
2008 and 23 February 2009 with tuvwto develop the Fujian Land. The
fact that Quanzhou Tianyu proceeded
to perform leveling works on the Fujian
Land in late 2008 and 2009, appears
to be incongruent with this
announcement which states that the
Company was “cautious to embark on
the upstream production of the raw
materials”.
“Going forward, the Company plans to settle the remaining
balance of 12% of the total consideration, which amounts to
RMB19 million, by Q2 FY2011. Barring unforeseen
circumstances, the Company expects that it might be able to
obtain the land use rights certificate from the relevant
authorities in Quanzhou by 1H 2012, and have the title of the
land transferred to Mega Force. It should, however, be noted
that this timetable is based on best estimates provided by
management and the timing is largely beyond the control of
the Company. Nevertheless, the Company will use its best
endeavors to obtain the certificate of land use rights…
The Company intends to complete the acquisition of land.
Based on information available and the management
assessment, there are currently no legal hurdles to overcome
in order for the land to be transferred to Mega Force.”
The purchase consideration had been
paid in full.
The Fujian Land was owned by Fujian
Fuyuan, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Mega Force. There was no such
application for the land use rights to be
transferred to Mega Force.
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 31
Relevant Excerpts of the SGXNET Announcements SFCA’s Comments
“The Company is also exploring the prospect of acquiring the
shares of Fujian Fuyuan, if necessary. In the unlikely event
that the Mega Force is unable to complete its transaction with
Fujian Fuyuan, it has the option to require Fujian Fuyuan to
dispose the land in the open market. Based on an
independent valuation commissioned by the Group in March
2011, as at December 31, 2010, the land is valued at RMB
264 million.”
Fujian Fuyuan was already a
subsidiary of Mega Force since its
incorporation on 15 September 2005.
“The initial development plan for the production of upstream
raw materials , includes a number of phases and consists of a
rather extensive construction plan which may eventually cost
approximately RMB5 billion if and when completed. The plan
includes inter alia the construction of the production plant,
outfitting of the plant with highly-advanced technical
equipment and technical know-how and royalties to be paid
out for the utilisation of such technical know-how and the
intellectual properties attached thereto. Insofar as for the
development of the land and construction of basic facilities, it
is estimated to be RMB1 billion.”
The planned expenditures of RMB5
billion or RMB1 billion are material
information which should have been
disclosed at the material time when
the expenditures were contemplated,
rather than in April 2011. During the
period between 2006 and 2010, the
Company’s market capitalisation
ranged from RMB0.8 billion to RMB9
billion. Expenditures of such
magnitude (RMB1 billion and RMB5
billion) would be considered major or
very substantial acquisitions
(depending on the time the
expenditures were contemplated) and
would require the prior approval of the
SGX and the shareholders pursuant to
Mainboard Rule 10154.
4 Mr. Huang, the former Group CEO, in his maxwellisation response dated 25 April 2013, expressed that in light of
the facts that “(1) the conversion of the land use rights had not been obtained by the vendor; and (2) the payment consideration and the development / construction costs had always been categorised as deposits, the Share Transfer Agreement had never been deemed to be completed”. Therefore, according to him, the return of the Fujian Land “could not be construed as a disposal (as defined under listing manual) but rather it was an unwinding of an initial acquisition that was never completed”. Mr. Huang explained that the Share Transfer Agreement was subsequently rescinded “upon the suggestion of SGX”.
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 32
Relevant Excerpts of the SGXNET Announcements SFCA’s Comments
“The turnaround time for obtaining the approval from the
authorities has been addressed in the above response. As the
Company has only paid 88% of the total consideration to
Fujian Fuyuan, the application to obtain the certificate is under
the consideration of the relevant authorities in Quanzhou.
However, to date, neither Fujian Fuyuan nor the Company had
been notified by the relevant authorities in Quanzhou as to the
stage of the approval process in which the application is
currently at.”
The total consideration for the
purchase of the Fujian Land
(according to the Share Transfer
Agreement) was RMB149 million
which had been fully paid.
Accordingly, it is erroneous to state
that only 88% of the purchase
consideration had been paid.
No. 4 - Announcement dated 1 July 2011
“In 2006, Mega Force Investment Limited (“Mega Force”), an
indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, had entered
into an agreement (“Agreement”) with the land owner, Fujian
Fuyuan Chemical Fibre Co., Ltd. (“Fujian Fuyuan”) to acquire
the Quanzhou Land. This acquisition has not been completed
as the title transfer has not been executed.”
The Share Transfer Agreement for the
purchase of the Fujian Land was
entered into between Winburg and QRS on 2 December 2006, instead of
a sales & purchase agreement
between Mega Force and Fujian
Fuyuan as announced by the
Company.
“Given the foregoing, Mega Force has initiated negotiations
with Fujian Fuyuan to rescind the Agreement. It has now
been agreed with Fujian Fuyuan that the Agreement be
rescinded. As a result, a sum of monies amounting to
approximately RMB263 million shall be paid by Fujian Fuyuan
to Mega Force, being the total amount spent by Mega Force
on the Quanzhou Land.”
The Termination Agreement was
entered into between Winburg and QRS on 27 June 2011. The total sums
of RMB263 million for the purchase of
the Fujian Land and the development
costs were purportedly refunded (in
the form of Bank Acceptance Drafts)
by QRS instead of Fujian Fuyuan.
Fujian Fuyuan was a subsidiary of
Mega Force since its incorporation on
15 September 2005.
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 33
Relevant Excerpts of the SGXNET Announcements SFCA’s Comments
No. 5 - Announcement dated 10 October 2011
“Fujian Fuyuan has repaid the sum of monies amounting to
approximately RMB263 million to the Group. As of to date,
the total purchase consideration has been refunded in full to
the Group.”
The Termination Agreement was
entered into between Winburg and QRS on 27 June 2011. The total sums
of RMB263 million for the Fujian Land
and the development costs were
purportedly refunded by QRS instead
of Fujian Fuyuan.
36. During his interview on 23 January 2013, Sunny informed SFCA that the information
required for the preparation of all announcements (including the erroneous
announcements on the Fujian Land) was provided by him. He also described the
announcement preparation and approval process in the following excerpts of his
interview transcript (which are translated to English from Chinese):
“The process is very simple. Loo & Partners drafted the announcements before
sending to everyone for comments. In most instances, Mr. Lai would be the first
person to provide his comments. Based on our past practice, Loo & Partners would
only circulate the revised draft announcement to everyone after receiving comments
from Mr. Lai, as he usually has many comments on the draft announcements. Upon
receiving Mr. Lai’s comments, everyone would look at the revised draft announcement.
When nobody has further comments, Loo & Partners would release the
announcements on the SGXNET.
…Mr. Huang would be informed on the contents of the draft announcements after the
amendments of Mr. Lai and when everyone has no objection to the revised contents.
…There were times where I would call Mr. Huang to inform him on the contents of the
announcements. There were times where his secretary in China would translate
(verbally) the documents to him. Most of the time, I was the one who called him.
There were also occasions where Mr. Lai and CC Loo would call him and explain to
him.
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 34
…In most instances, Mr. Huang would give his consent and thereafter I would email
Loo & Partners informing them that the China directors have agreed to the contents of
the announcements.”
37. Based on the search performed by SFCA on Fujian Fuyuan on 18 December 2012,
Mega Force was the sole shareholder of Fujian Fuyuan. However, the search did not
reveal if Mega Force was the shareholder at the date of incorporation of Fujian Fuyuan.
38. On 11 March 2013, SFCA was provided with a copy of the Certificate of Approval on
the incorporation of Fujian Fuyuan by the Company’s Financial Controller, Mr. Lee
Chong Ping. Based on the Certificate of Approval, Mega Force was named as the sole
shareholder of Fujian Fuyuan at the date of its incorporation (i.e. 15 September 2005).
Considering the fact that Mega Force had been the sole shareholder of Fujian Fuyuan
since the time of its incorporation, the information that was furnished to the AC and Loo
& Partners which gave rise to the impression that Fujian Fuyuan was a third party
negotiating with Mega Force on the purchase of the Fujian Land was false5.
39. According to the same search on Fujian Fuyuan, Mr. Huang was still named as the
legal representative (xyz{|��) of Fujian Fuyuan even though Fujian Fuyuan
was no longer a subsidiary of the Company6. The search also revealed that the
directors of Fujian Fuyuan were }~�, ���, ��� and ���. According to Mr.
Huang, all three of them (Mr. Song Jian Sheng ("Mr. Song"), the Executive Director of
the Group, Mr. Wang Zhi Wei, the Non-Executive Director of the Group and himself)
had no further involvement in Fujian Fuyuan after signing the Termination Agreement.
Mr. Huang advised that the necessary documents (e.g. resignation as directors of
Fujian Fuyuan) had been signed and delivered to���
for lodgment with the relevant
PRC authorities at the material time when the shares in Mega Force were transferred
back to ���
(in October 2011, as mentioned in the Legal Due Diligence Report).
5 Mr. Yeap, in his maxwellisation response dated 28 April 2013, informed SFCA that “none of the independent
directors or the external auditor was informed that Fujian Fuyuan was part of the group”. 6 Mr. Lai and Mr. Yeap, in their joint maxwellisation response dated 5 June 2013, informed SFCA that “the fact that
Fujian Fuyuan was a subsidiary of Mega Force was never disclosed to the Board and the ex-IDs only discovered this fact from the draft report compiled by [SFCA]. The fact that Mr. Huang was the legal representative of Fujian Fuyuan and that Fujian Fuyuan was a wholly owned subsidiary of China Sky was only disclosed to the IDs at a meeting held in Hongkong on 30 December 2011”.
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 35
40. In the course of the review, SFCA has requested for the following documents from the
Company concerning the Fujian Land but they have not been provided to us:
(a) Documents on transfer of shares in Mega Force from
��� to Winburg (in 2006)
and from Winburg back to���
(in 2011);
(b) Sale and purchase agreement dated 5 December 2006 purportedly entered
between Fujian Fuyuan and Mega Force as disclosed in the announcement
dated 29 April 2011;
(c) Application documents that were purportedly lodged with the relevant PRC
authorities for the conversion of the land from agricultural and forestry purposes
to non-agricultural purpose before the signing of the Termination Agreement;
(d) Copies of the Bank Acceptance Drafts reflecting the name of the transferor(s)
(either���
or companies under his control) and bearer (i.e. Quanzhou Tianyu);
(e) Application documents that were submitted to the relevant PRC authority on the
changes of the legal representative and directors of Fujian Fuyuan;
(f) Documents from the Local PRC Authority confirming that (in the early stages) the
progress on the development of the Fujian Land was smooth as stated in the
Fujian Qiaosheng's Legal Due Diligence Report; and
(g) Letter of confirmation purportedly issued by Fujian Fuyuan to Mega Force on 10
February 2011 (as stated in the SGXNET announcement on 22 April 2011).
In view of the lack of the aforementioned documents (most of which, according to the
Company, had been returned to ���
), SFCA is unable to conclusively verify whether
the transactions concerning the acquisition and subsequent return of the Fujian Land
were in fact implemented in accordance with the Share Transfer Agreement and
Termination Agreement.
41. SFCA has deliberated on all the available evidence gathered from the documents
provided to us and interviews with the relevant persons. Other than the Land Use
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 36
Agreement entered into between Fujian Fuyuan and the Local PRC Authority on 20
October 2006, SFCA has not been given any other documents evidencing that Fujian
Fuyuan was the owner of the Fujian Land. However, SFCA understands that the Land
Use Agreement and the red line map (���) will constitute prima facie title to the land
by the authority.
Areas of Concern
42. The planned expenditures of RMB1 billion and RMB5 billion are considered material
information which should have been disclosed at the material time when the
expenditures were contemplated, rather than in April 2011. Expenditures of such
magnitude (RMB1 billion and RMB5 billion) would be considered major or very
substantial acquisitions (depending on the time the expenditures were contemplated)
and also require the prior approval of the SGX and the shareholders pursuant to
Mainboard Rule 1015. Mr. Huang, in his maxwellisation response dated 25 April 2013,
expressed his view that it “was not necessary for the Company to obtain shareholders’
approval because the plan was only conceptual and no details had been finalised. No
contracts relating to the RMB1–5 billion expenditure were awarded”. According to Mr.
Huang, the expansion plan was contingent upon many conditions to be fulfilled. He
explained that it would be premature for the board of directors of the Company
(“Board”) to seek shareholders’ approval when the plan “was still in its stage of infancy
and there were much uncertainty”. SFCA is of the view that even if the expansion plan
was in an infancy stage, the RMB1 billion and RMB5 billion planned expenditures
should have been tabled for discussion by the Board which should then opine whether
an announcement was required at the material time.
43. There was no documentary evidence of the Board’s approval at the material time on
the return of the Fujian Land (through the entering of the Termination Agreement).
44. Mainboard Rule 1014 requires an issuer to seek prior approval of a major transaction
that is not in the ordinary course of business. A transaction is considered major if its
value exceeds 20% of the Company’s market capitalisation. When the Termination
Agreement was entered into on 27 June 2011, the market capitalisation of the
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 37
Company was about S$106 million (or RMB552 million based on an exchange rate of
RMB5.21 at the material time). The total refund of RMB263 million forms about 47% of
the Company’s market capitalisation at the material time. The return of the Fujian Land
to ���
(via the transfer of shares in Mega Force) was a major transaction which was
not in the ordinary course of business of the Group. The Company did not convene a
general meeting to approve the return of the Fujian Land to���
and hence
Mainboard Rule 1014 may have been breached7. SFCA has considered a potential
legal argument that the approval of the shareholders may not be required in view of the
fact that the Share Transfer Agreement contained a clause allowing the Fujian Land to
be returned to ���
in the event that the land use rights for non-agricultural purpose
could not be obtained from the relevant PRC authorities. While the directors of the
Company could invoke the contractual rights to return the Fujian Land (via the transfer
of shares in Mega Force), it is imperative under the Mainboard Rules that the
shareholders of the Company be the only ones who should evaluate on the commercial
merits of the return of the land and decide on the best course of action.
45. There were numerous erroneous disclosures made by the Company concerning the
Fujian Land and the refund of the "deposits". Sunny, who had been tasked with
coordinating with Loo & Partners on the preparation of the SGXNET announcements
and obtaining the necessary approval from the directors residing in PRC, did not
exercise reasonable diligence that is expected of a Group Financial Controller. Based
on SFCA's findings, it appears that he had failed to ensure that the contents of the
following announcements (concerning the facts surrounding the acquisition and
subsequent return of the Fujian Land) were correct before obtaining approval for their
release on the SGXNET:
(a) Company’s announcement dated 13 March 2010;
7 Mr. Huang, in his maxwellisation response dated 25 April 2013, expressed that in light of the facts that “(1) the
conversion of the land use rights had not been obtained by the vendor; and (2) the payment consideration and the development / construction costs had always been categorised as deposits, the Share Transfer Agreement had never been deemed to be completed”. Therefore, according to him, the return of the Fujian Land “could not be construed as a disposal (as defined under listing manual) but rather it was an unwinding of an initial acquisition that was never completed”. Mr. Huang explained that the Share Transfer Agreement was subsequently rescinded “upon the suggestion of SGX”.
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 38
(b) Company’s announcement dated 22 April 2011;
(c) Company’s announcement dated 29 April 2011;
(d) Company’s announcement dated 1 July 2011; and
(e) Company’s announcement dated 10 October 2011.
46. All the announcements in the preceding paragraph were submitted by Mr. Huang “by
Order of the Board”, as evidenced by his name printed in the announcements. Sunny
said that he would usually translate (verbally) and explain the contents of every
intended announcement to Mr. Huang and obtain Mr. Huang’s approval before
instructing Loo & Partners to release the relevant announcements. Mr. Huang, in his
interview, said that he had placed reliance on Sunny, the former AC Chairman, Mr. Lai
Seng Kwoon ("Mr. Lai")8 and Loo & Partners to draft the necessary announcements
before giving his approval to release them. Given that Mr. Huang had submitted the
erroneous announcements by the order of the Board, the Board9 at the material time
ought to have verified or sought written confirmation from the management that the
contents of the relevant announcements were accurate before their release on the
SGXNET. SFCA is of the view that the Board at the material time did not exercise
8 In his written response dated 2 May 2013, Mr. Lai said that he is incapable of holding “a proper, decent and
meaningful conversation wholly in mandarin”. He explained that “the draft announcements were prepared by the corporate secretarial staff based wholly on information provided by the CFO and that the announcements were only released after the CFO and Mr Huang (through the CFO) confirm that the contents are accurate”. 9 The current AC Chairman, Mr. Er, in his maxwellisation response dated 19 April 2013, said that he had relied “to a
great extent on the information provided by Management and verified by the External Auditor, as well as feedback from the internal auditor at the Audit Committee meetings and further reported at the Board meetings”. Mr. Er also said that the Board acted on the advice from the “Compliance Advisor” (i.e. Loo & Partners) in respect of complying with the SGX listing rules. Mr. Lai, in his letter dated 2 May 2013, said that “there can be no doubt that the management did represent to the Board that the contents were accurate before the release; and there was then no reason to doubt the veracity of such information and confirmation”.
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 39
reasonable diligence in ensuring that the contents of the abovementioned
announcements were correct before approving them for release on SGXNET10.
47. SFCA is also perturbed by the existence of the Mega Force Agreement which
apparently formed the basis of the 1 July 2011 announcement by the Company. The
contents of the 1 July 2011 announcement (which had been prepared according to the
terms of the Mega Force Agreement) were incorrect in light of the Termination
Agreement dated 27 June 2011 made between Winburg and ���
. Sunny should
have obtained from Mr. Huang the factual details of the transactions concerning the
Fujian Land before providing the relevant information to Loo & Partners for the purpose
of drafting the necessary announcements. Instead, he caused the 2 agreements
(Quanzhou Tianyu Agreement and Mega Force Agreement) to be prepared11 based on
his erroneous understanding without informing or consulting Mr. Huang, who was
directly involved in the negotiations with���
on the Fujian Land. SFCA is of the
view that Sunny failed to discharge his duties in this aspect as the Group Financial
Controller.
48. Based on the Legal Due Diligence Report and the Certificate of Approval on the
incorporation of Fujian Fuyuan, SFCA notes that Fujian Fuyuan was a subsidiary of
Mega Force since its incorporation on 15 September 2005. Hence, Fujian Fuyuan
became a subsidiary of the Company through the acquisition of Mega Force in
December 2006. However, no disclosure had been made by the Company via
announcements or in its Annual Reports. The Board at the material time and the
former Group Financial Controller ought to have ensured that the acquisition of Fujian
Fuyuan as a subsidiary was disclosed promptly, as required by Mainboard Rule 703.
10
Mr. Lai and Mr. Yeap, in their joint maxwellisation response dated 5 June 2013, informed SFCA that “the IDs had relied on Mr Sunny Hui (CFO) and Mr. Huang (CEO) to provide correct and complete information as a basis for these announcements and there were no reasons to believe that they did not inform the IDs the relevant details. The details as disclosed in these announcements were consistent with the audited financial statements, which the
external auditors had rendered unmodified [sic] opinions for all the relevant years”. Mr. Yeap, in his written response dated 7 June 2013 issued on behalf of the IDs (at the material time), reiterated that “all the announcements were drafted by the corporate secretarial service provider team based on instructions and information from the chief financial officer”.
11
According to Sunny, the former Group Financial Controller, in his maxwellisation response on 25 April 2013, he said that he did not prepare the 2 agreements but merely provided a template to facilitate the preparation of the agreements.
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 40
49. No due diligence was performed by the Company prior to the acquisition of Mega
Force and Fujian Fuyuan. SFCA is of the view that the Company should have
performed a proper due diligence to determine if it was legally possible for Fujian
Fuyuan to successfully apply for a conversion of the land use rights prior to the
acquisition of Mega Force. Instead, a legal advice (by Fujian Qiaosheng) was obtained
only in January 2011 (subsequent to the acquisition of Mega Force and Fujian Fuyuan
in 2006), to confirm that the Fujian Land was owned by Fujian Fuyuan and there was
no legal obstacle for Fujian Fuyuan to obtain the land use rights certificate.
50. The Phase One Construction Agreement and the Phase Two Construction Agreement
were entered into on 8 October 2008 and 23 February 2009 respectively. Mainboard
Rule 703 requires an issuer to disclose any information concerning its subsidiary which
is likely to materially affect its share price or value. Mr. Huang, in his maxwellisation
response dated 25 April 2013, said that the contract sum of RMB114 million represents
about 3.7% of the Group’s Net Tangible Assets for the financial year ended 31
December 2008 ("FY2008") and expressed his view that the sum is therefore “deemed
immaterial for announcement purposes”. Nevertheless, SFCA is of the view that the
two construction agreements should have been tabled for discussion and approval by
the Board as a matter of good corporate governance. The Board could then opine on
whether an announcement would be necessary.
Recommendations
51. SFCA recommends the Company to:
(a) issue a clarification announcement on the SGXNET informing its shareholders of
the correct material facts concerning the Fujian Land. The Board should take
steps to ensure that the contents of the announcements are correct before they
are released on the SGXNET;
(b) for good corporate governance practice, put in place a framework and
mechanism to record and document key events (such as the return of the land)
as well as the basis for Board’s decisions in relation to these events;
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 41
(c) consider the necessity of ratifying the execution of the Termination Agreement
with ���
for refund of RMB263 million in relation to the Fujian Land (through
the convening of a general meeting of shareholders pursuant to Mainboard Rule
1014 if ratification is deemed necessary); and
(d) circulate all intended announcements to each and every member of the Board
(including the PRC directors) for comments / approval. It is imperative that they
fully understand the contents and satisfy themselves with the accuracy / reliability
of the information to be released before they give their approval for the final
release on the SGXNET.
Interested Person Transactions
52. The Company’s Corporate Governance Statement in the Annual Reports for FY2006 to
FY2009 stated that there were no IPTs for those years. However, it was disclosed in
the Company’s Corporate Governance Statement in the Annual Report for FY2010 that
there were IPTs of RMB1,500,000 and RMB866,000 in FY2009 and FY2010
respectively. The Company neither revealed the particulars of those IPTs, nor
disclosed the identity of the interested person in the FY2010 Annual Report.
53. Information concerning IPTs and related party transactions (“RPTs”) disclosed in the
Company’s Annual Reports since FY2006 are summarised in the following table:
RMB (‘000) FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2009
Comparative
Figure for
FY2010(c)
FY2010
IPTs (As per Corporate
Governance Statement) -(a)
-(b)
-(b)
-(b)
1,500 866
RPTs (As per Notes to the
Financial Statements) 328 657 594 1,500 1,500 866
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 42
Notes:
(a) It was stated in the Corporate Governance Statement in the Annual Report for
FY2006 that there was no “interested person transactions carried out during
FY2005”. There appears to be a typographical error on “FY2005” as it should
refer to “FY2006”
(b) It was stated in the Corporate Governance Statement in each of the Annual
Reports from FY2007 to FY2009 that there were “no interested person
transactions carried out” during the relevant financial periods.
(c) The RMB1.5 million was disclosed as a FY2009 comparative figure in section F
of the Corporate Governance Statement in the FY2010 Annual Report.
54. In the Company’s announcement on 22 April 2011, SK Lai & Co was revealed as the
interested person in question. Mr. Lai was appointed as independent director ("ID")
and AC Chairman of the Company on 25 August 2005. He resigned as an ID and
Chairman / member of the AC on 5 January 2012. Information concerning the nature
of services rendered by Mr. Lai’s firm, SK Lai & Co, was disclosed in the following
excerpts of the announcement on 22 April 2011:
“SK Lai & Co., a firm of certified public accountants has rendered professional services
to the Company. These services relate to assist in the review and recommendations of
the Company’s internal, accounting and reporting controls, reviewing quarterly financial
statements and the results announcements and providing consultancy and advisory
services for the accounting and consolidation of Qingdao Zhongda Chemical Fibre
Company Limited. Mr. Lai Seng Kwoon who is an Independent Director of the
Company, is a partner of SK Lai & Co. The Board considers Mr Lai Seng Kwoon to be
an independent director, notwithstanding his relationship with the Company, which falls
under Guidance Note 2.1(d) of the Code of Corporate Governance, by virtue of his
position as a partner of SK Lai & Co., which renders professional services to the
Group.”
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 43
55. The invoices rendered by SK Lai & Co to the Group since FY2006 are summarised in
the following table:
Nature of Services
Rendered
Relevant
Financial
Years
Fees
S$
Disbursement
S$
GST
S$
Total
S$
Paragraph
Reference
Internal Audit
Services
(including review of
PPE cycle of
Quanzhou Tianyu)
FY2006 to
FY2010
120,500 14,654 - 135,154 56
Accounting Services
(review and
preparation of
quarterly
announcements of
financial results)
FY2007 to
FY2010
315,800 5,400 360 321,560 57
Visit to Qingdao
Zhongda / Goodwill
Assessment Papers /
Due Diligence report
/ Buyback circular
FY2008
and
FY2009
55,000 3,298 - 58,298 58
Total 491,300 23,352 360 515,012
56. Internal Audit Services
(a) The appointment of SK Lai & Co as the Company’s internal auditor was approved
pursuant to a Directors’ Resolution in Writing (“DRIW”) dated 4 August 2006. It
was recorded in this DRIW that the “Audit Committee had in the Audit Committee
meeting held on 8 May 2006, agreed to appoint Messrs SK Lai & Co, a company
owned by Mr. Lai Seng Kwoon, the independent director, to perform internal audit
function in the Group’s operating premises in China”. A proposal of SK Lai & Co
was attached to the DRIW dated 4 August 2006. According to the proposal, the
scope of work of SK Lai & Co was stated as follows:
(i) To identify potential operational, financial and compliance issues that may
adversely affect the Company’s business and its periodic reporting process;
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 44
(ii) To formulate internal audit procedures / programs to be carried out for the
review of each identified key risk area and process; and
(iii) To establish a two-year internal audit plan for the performance of internal
audit procedures in accordance with the specific significance of the key risk
areas and processes identified.
The estimated fees (excluding out-of-pocket expenses) quoted by SK Lai & Co
were as follows:
(i) 2006 - $35,000; and
(ii) 2007 - $25,000.
(b) In a letter dated 6 December 2012, SFCA requested Mr. Lai to provide copies of
all proposals and reports previously prepared by SK Lai & Co for the Group.
During his interview on 31 December 2012, Mr. Lai informed SFCA that all the
documents of SK Lai & Co, including the abovementioned proposals and reports,
had been retained by Commercial Affairs Department ("CAD"). During the review
of Mr. Er’s records (that were retained by CAD), SFCA discovered several reports
/ proposals of SK Lai & Co.
57. Accounting Services
(a) Mr. Lai gave a brief description of the accounting work performed by SK Lai & Co
during his interview on 31 December 2012. The relevant excerpts of his interview
transcript describing the accounting services are reproduced below:
“In a broader sense you can say that is accounting services but we do not
meddle with the Chinese accounts. All we do is the consolidation worksheet
comes out, from all the whatever subsidiaries they have. The consolidation, we
help them to do the consolidation, we help them also to align to IFRS, because
their China accounts are using IFRS not FRS. We check for consistency in terms
of the numbers, we ask for breakdown in terms of some of the numbers like
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 45
stocks and things like that, how much raw materials, how much WIP, and if there
are other major receivables we will ask for breakdown. We also help them to,
they will normally come out with some explanations on the fluctuation. We would,
you know ask question and elaborate, on the format, and then we calculate the
EPS. So it is reporting not compilation.”
(b) Concerning the SK Lai & Co’s billings for the review and preparation of quarterly
announcements of the Group’s financial results, Mr. Lai informed SFCA during
his interview that there was neither any terms of reference nor any proposal
tabled for approval by the Board or AC.
(c) During his interview, Mr. Lai clarified that the provision of accounting services to
the Company was not premeditated and hence there was no proposal or a letter
of engagement entered between the Company and SK Lai & Co concerning
these services. Mr. Lai explained that the draft quarterly announcements initially
prepared by the Company for his review, as AC Chairman, were not compliant
with the SGX requirements. As a result, he had to deploy the resources of his
firm to assist in preparing the quarterly announcements to meet the SGX
requirements.
58. Other Services
(a) During his interview on 31 December 2012, Mr. Lai added that his firm had
performed the following services to the Group:
(i) Purchase price allocation exercise in 2009 concerning the acquisition of
Deluxe Dragon International Limited (“Deluxe Dragon”); and
(ii) Goodwill impairment assessment of Qingdao Zhongda in 2009.
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 46
59. A comparison of the aggregate values of all services rendered by SK Lai & Co against
the Group’s relevant audited net tangible assets (“NTA”) is tabulated below:
Financial
Year
Aggregate
Value of IPTs
(S$)
Equivalent Value
of IPTs (A)
(RMB)
Group’s NTA
(B)
(RMB million)
%
(A/B)
FY2006 36,263 184,940 2,047 0.01%
FY2007 53,334 272,003 2,657 0.01%
FY2008 128,051 640,253 3,057 0.02%
FY2009 164,300 821,500 2,863 0.03%
FY2010 89,40012 447,000 2,973 0.02%
Total 471,348 2,365,696 - -
60. According to Mainboard Rule 905(2), if the aggregate value of all transactions entered
into with the same interested person during the same financial year amounts to 3% or
more of the group’s latest audited NTA, the issuer must make an immediate
announcement of the latest transaction and all future transactions entered into with that
same interested person during that financial year.
61. The aggregate value of the IPTs with SK Lai & Co for each financial year between
FY2006 and FY2010 was less than 3% of the Group’s relevant NTA. Hence, the IPTs
with SK Lai & Co were not required to be announced by the Company.
62. Mainboard Rule 907 requires an issuer to disclose the aggregate value of IPTs entered
into during the financial year under review in its annual report. However, IPTs with an
aggregate value less than S$100,000 during the financial year need not be disclosed in
the annual report. The entire Rule 907 is reproduced as follows:
“An issuer must disclose the aggregate value of interested person transactions entered
into during the financial year under review in its annual report. The name of the
interested person and the corresponding aggregate value of the interested person
transactions entered into with the same interested person must be presented in the
following format:-
12
An invoice dated 24 August 2010 for S$43,664 from SK Lai & Co was not included in the above comparison as SFCA notes that this invoice was not recorded in the Company’s accounting ledger.
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 47
Name of
interested person
Aggregate value of all interested person
transactions during the financial year
under review (excluding transactions
less than $100,000 and transactions
conducted under shareholders’ mandate
pursuant to Rule 920)
Aggregate value of all interested
person transactions conducted
under shareholders’ mandate
pursuant to Rule 920 (excluding
transactions less than
$100,000)”
63. When queried by SGX on the IPTs for FY2009 and FY2010, the Company made an
announcement on the SGXNET on 22 April 2011 (“22 April 2011 Announcement”)
that there were errors in the aggregate value of all the IPTs for FY2009 and FY2010.
The Company said that the aggregate value of the IPTs for FY2009 and FY2010
should have been RMB929,843 (instead of RMB1,500,000 disclosed as a 2009
comparative figure in the FY2010 Annual Report) and RMB358,904 (instead of
RMB866,000 as disclosed in the FY2010 Annual Report) respectively. The Company
explained in the same announcement that it had “inadvertently and erroneously
included non-interested party professional fees” in the earlier figures of RMB1,500,000
(FY2009) and RMB866,000 (FY2010).
64. In the 22 April 2011 Announcement, the Company also explained that the professional
fees of RMB1.5 million were disclosed as RPTs in Note 5 of the Notes to the Financial
Statements at page 53 of the FY2009 Annual Report. However, the figure of RMB1.5
million “was inadvertently omitted in the Corporate Governance section during the final
print of the 2009 Annual Report, which contributed to the discrepancy of the disclosure.”
65. On 6 May 2011, the Company made a further announcement on SGXNET (“6 May
2011 Announcement”) to clarify that the amount of RPTs disclosed in the Company’s
Annual Reports from FY2006 to FY2010 should be as follows:
RMB (‘000) FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010
Amount as per audited financial
statements – Note 5 - 657 594 1,500 866
Revised figures - 4571 640
1 930
1 359
1
Difference - 2002 46
3 570
2 507
2
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 48
Explanatory notes as extracted from the 6 May 2011 Announcement:
(1) This amount relates to professional fees and disbursements paid to SK Lai & Co,
a firm of certified public accountants, of which a director of the Company is a
partner.
(2) The difference is due to the inclusion of fees and disbursements paid to other
professionals which are not related parties.
(3) The difference is due to disbursements not included in the audited financial
statements.
66. International Accounting Standards (“IAS") 24 on Related Party Disclosures requires a
company to disclose amongst others, the amount of transaction and the balance due to
a related party, which include a member of the key management personnel of the
reporting entity, in the Financial Statements.
67. On 10 October 2011, the Company made another clarification in an announcement on
the SGXNET (“10 October 2011 Announcement”), the relevant excerpts of which are
reproduced below:
“The Company wishes to clarify that each of the interested person transactions of the
Company for FY2009 and FY2010 (collectively the “IPTs”), did not exceed S$100,000
individually. Accordingly, there was no requirement for the Company, in pursuance of
and in compliance with Rule 1207(16)13 read with Rule 907 of the Listing Manual, to
disclose the details of the IPTs.”
The re-numbered Mainboard Rule 1207(17) is reproduced below:
“The annual report must contain enough information for a proper understanding of the
performance and financial conditions of the issuer and its principal subsidiaries,
including at least the following:-
13
Rule 1207(16) has been re-numbered to Rule 1207(17) with effect from 29 September 2011 in the amended Mainboard Rules.
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 49
Interested Person Transactions
(17) The information required by Rule 907 in respect of any interested person
transactions entered into during the financial year.”
68. In view of the words in bracket "(excluding transactions less than $100,000…)" as
described in Mainboard Rule 907, SFCA notes that the Company has stated its
position (in the 10 October 2011 Announcement) that any single interested person
transaction with a value less than S$100,000 need not be disclosed in the Annual
Report14. Each of the IPTs with Mr. Lai was less than S$100,000 even though the
aggregate value of all IPTs with Mr. Lai exceeded S$100,000 during the financial years
2008 and 2009. In his letters dated 4 February 2013 and 2 May 2013 to SFCA, Mr. Lai
expressed a similar view that his IPTs need not be disclosed. SFCA notes that those
words in bracket have given rise to different interpretations. SFCA takes the view that
IPTs with an aggregate value exceeding S$100,000 during a financial year would need
to be disclosed in the Company’s Annual Report (even if each individual transaction
could be less than $100,000).
69. As there were indeed IPTs (with Mr. Lai) during the financial years 2006, 2007, 2008
and 2009, it was erroneous to state in the Corporate Governance Statement that there
were “no interested person transactions carried out” in each of the Annual Reports from
FY2006 to FY2009. In light of the Company’s position on the disclosure of IPTs in its
Annual Report, the Company has clarified in the 10 October 2011 Announcement that
the appropriate statement to be included in the relevant Annual Reports should have
been as follows:
“There were no disclosable interested party transactions carried out for the financial
year”
14
In his maxwellisation response dated 28 April 2013, Mr. Yeap said that the Board then (including the independent directors and the Group Financial Controller) clarified and confirmed to him “that as these transactions were ad hoc, non-recurring, insignificant and immaterial, the board had therefore, since its listing, taken the position to exclude transactions that were less than S$100,000 for aggregation for the test of disclosure Rule 907”. SFCA notes that there was no evidence of any Board resolution or minute in respect of the S$100,000 limit.
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 50
70. Based on the review of the minutes of the Board meetings, SFCA notes that there was
no proper disclosure by Mr. Lai of his IPTs during the Company’s Board meetings15.
71. Although there was no proper disclosure of IPTs by Mr. Lai during the Board meetings,
SFCA observed that his IPTs were approved in a DRIW dated 14 May 2011. Pursuant
to the DRIW dated 14 May 2011, it was resolved that the various professional services
rendered by SK Lai & Co were “noted, confirmed and approved”. Mr. Lai abstained
from signing the DRIW. Relevant excerpts of the DRIW are reproduced below:
“1. The Company required certain professional services to be performed at various
times between period 2006 and 2010.
2. Such services were sometimes required to be performed on an urgent and
immediate basis and on each occasion the Company considered the suitability of SK
Lai & Co and found them to be suitable and appropriate.
3. In pursuance therewith, SK Lai & Co. performed various professional services for the
Company between 2006 and 2010. Details of the services are attached as Appendix A.
4. Such services were charged by SK Lai & Co. to the Company at normal commercial
rates.
5. The Company intends to and desires to regularize the appointment of SK Lai & Co in
so far as such appointments may not have been previously memorialised in any record
of the Company.”
72. Details of the services of SK Lai & Co were supposedly attached as an appendix to the
DRIW dated 14 May 2011. However, the appendix was not attached to the DRIW
dated 14 May 2011 and SFCA understands from Loo & Partners that the relevant
records have been retained by CAD.
15
Mr. Lai and Mr. Yeap, in their joint maxwellisation response dated 5 June 2013, informed SFCA that “the transactions between SK Lai & Co. and China Sky had been disclosed to the then AC and approved by the then Board and all the then directors are aware of these transactions”.
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 51
73. SFCA reviewed the minutes of AC meetings since FY2006 and provides the relevant
excerpts that document the AC’s discussion on the IPTs by Mr. Lai together with our
comments, as follows:
Date of AC
Meetings
Relevant excerpts of minutes concerning
disclosure of IPTs by Mr. Lai (SFCA’s remarks in
square bracket)
SFCA’s Comments
21 Feb 2006 None.
8 May 2006 Mr. Lai “proposed to deploy his staff to perform the
internal audit function in the Group’s operating
premises in China.
The Chairman [Mr. Lai] advised that the internal audit
function would be performed twice per annum (i.e.
typically in the months of April/May and
August/September). The Chairman [Mr. Lai] proposed
to commence the first set of internal audit assessments
in late May or early June 2006. The fees were
expected to be less than S$50,000.00. The Chairman
[Mr. Lai] would circulate a proposal to the Audit
Committee and the Board for consideration, with the
main purpose of helping the Company set up an
internal audit department, moving forward.
Mr. Er Kwong Wah agreed with the above proposal.”
A DRIW dated 4 August 2006
resolved that SK Lai & Co be
appointed as the Company’s
internal auditor in view of the AC
meeting held on 8 May 2006.
4 Aug 2006 “The Chairman [Mr. Lai] informed the AC that in
accordance with his plans, auditors from Singapore
from his firm would be involved in the set up and
supervision of the internal auditors employed by the
subsidiary, the terms of the engagement of his firm had
been approved by the AC and the Board.”
16 Oct 2006 None.
11 Feb 2007 “The Internal Audit Assistance Progress Report (“IA
Report”), prepared by Messrs SK Lai & Co. was tabled.
A copy whereof is attached hereto and marked “B” for
identification purposes.”
“The Chairman [Mr. Lai] explained the things had not
worked out to plan in terms of the internal audit
assistance. It was originally intended that the PRC
recruited internal auditor would complete the fieldwork
and SK Lai & Co. would only provide guidance and
perform a supervisory role. As things turned out, the
local PRC internal auditor has not performed the
required in accordance with the audit plan and SK Lai
SFCA was unable to obtain this
report of SK Lai & Co (tabled
during the AC meeting) from Loo
& Partners, as all the relevant
records of Loo & Partners
concerning the Company were
retained by CAD. SFCA also
attempted to obtain a copy of the
report from Mr. Lai without any
success. Mr. Lai informed SFCA
that all his records and the
records of SK Lai & Co were
retained by CAD. During the
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 52
Date of AC
Meetings
Relevant excerpts of minutes concerning
disclosure of IPTs by Mr. Lai (SFCA’s remarks in
square bracket)
SFCA’s Comments
& Co. has to deploy additional resources to perform a
detailed review of selected areas. This detailed review
is set out in the IA Report.”
Mr. Lai declared in the meeting that “there was an
S$40,000 internal audit fees paid by the Company to
his firm, SK Lai & Co., for services rendered to the
Company.”
Mr. Lai mentioned that “he would make arrangements
to send his team to the factory more often in 2007 to
provide the necessary training.”
review of Mr. Er’s records at
CAD’s premises on 28 January
2013, SFCA retrieved a report
titled “Internal Audit Assistance
Progress Report as at February
8, 2007” supposedly prepared by
SK Lai & Co dated 8 February
2007.
SFCA also discovered in the
above review an executive
summary dated 8 February 2007
which we infer to be also
prepared by SK Lai & Co as the
contents of this summary are
similar to the Internal Audit
Assistance Progress Report.
8 May 2007 “The Chairman [Mr. Lai] advised the meeting that he
had reviewed with Mr. Sunny Hui on earlier drafts
Announcement and the version tabled has been
amended after taking in his comments and inputs. He
informed the meeting that his office has deployed
professional staff to assist in this review process and
notwithstanding the changes noted so far, the draft as
tabled is still not finalised and may be subject to further
changes.”
13 Aug 2007 “The Chairman [Mr. Lai] informed the meeting that his
firm has been asked to assist in the compilation of the
1H2007 results and many questions had been raised
prior to this meeting and they had been satisfactorily
addressed during the compilation process.”
The first mention by Mr. Lai
concerning SK Lai & Co’s
services in the preparation of the
Company’s quarterly
announcements was made during
this AC meeting (on 13 August
2007). Since then, Mr. Lai had
informed the AC on several
occasions (in AC meetings on 27
February 2008, 12 May 2008, 5
August 2008, 12 November 2008,
etc.) that his firm was assisting
the Company in “compiling” the
quarterly announcements.
However, SFCA notes that there
was no disclosure of any fee
concerning the accounting
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 53
Date of AC
Meetings
Relevant excerpts of minutes concerning
disclosure of IPTs by Mr. Lai (SFCA’s remarks in
square bracket)
SFCA’s Comments
In the meeting, Mr. Lai “proposed that his firm, SK Lai
& Co. deploy the necessary resources to complete an
internal audit of selected areas to ensure that internal
controls are in place. To this end, he tabled a proposal
for the AC to consider. A copy of this proposal is
attached.”
“As Chairman is considered to be interested in the
internal audit proposal (as tabled), the other two
members of the AC approved the internal audit
proposal from SK Lai & Co.”
services of SK Lai & Co during
the relevant AC meetings.
During the review of Mr. Er’s
records at CAD’s premises,
SFCA retrieved a proposal by SK
Lai & Co dated 10 August 2007
which we surmise to be the
proposal that was tabled during
this AC meeting.
1 Nov 2007 “Chairman [Mr. Lai] commented that the work progress
of the internal auditors from PRC is still lacking.
Specifically, the internal audit plan as agreed with the
AC has not been fully implemented.”
“Chairman informed that his firm, SK Lai & Co., would
send the staff to PRC for monitoring the progress of
the internal audit conducted by the PRC internal
auditors in due course and to conduct an internal audit
review of selected areas. To this end, Chairman
tabled a proposal from SK Lai & Co. for the internal
audit work to be completed. A copy of this proposal is
attached.”
“As Chairman has an interest in SK Lai & Co, he
abstained from the discussion and approval of the
proposal. After due consideration, the AC approved
the internal audit proposal from SK Lai & Co.”
SFCA was unable to obtain the
proposal of SK Lai & Co (tabled
during the AC meeting) from Loo
& Partners, as all the relevant
records of Loo & Partners
concerning the Company were
retained by CAD. SFCA also
attempted to obtain a copy of the
proposal from Mr. Lai without any
success. Mr. Lai informed SFCA
that all his records and the
records of SK Lai & Co were
retained by CAD.
27 Nov 2007 “The Chairman [Mr. Lai] highlighted to the meeting,
that the internal audit progress performed by the PRC
internal auditors is less than satisfactory. The PRC
internal auditors were lacking behind the internal audit
plan prepared by SK Lai & Co, and failed to submit the
progress reports on a timely basis. As informed in the
last meeting, SK Lai & Co., would be sending its staff
to PRC to assess the progress of the internal audits
conducted by the PRC internal auditors and to conduct
internal audits of certain identified areas. To this end,
a proposal has been submitted to the AC at the last
meeting and the AC has approved it. The coming
internal audit is expected to commence on 5
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 54
Date of AC
Meetings
Relevant excerpts of minutes concerning
disclosure of IPTs by Mr. Lai (SFCA’s remarks in
square bracket)
SFCA’s Comments
December 2007, subject to agreement on the
convenience of the dates with management. The
Chairman highlighted that the main area of focus for
the coming internal audit would be on the Group’s new
investments in plant and equipment. The Chairman
said that he expects the internal audit report to be
finalised before the next meeting.”
27 Feb 2008 “The Chairman [Mr. Lai] mentioned that a fairly
detailed legal due diligence report on Qingdao
Zhongda (“QZ”) has been obtained. He said that after
the agreement was signed, he sent his staff up to QZ
to conduct a preliminary review of the financials of QZ.
However, given the short duration of the review, the
findings were not sufficiently detailed but have been
sufficiently useful to enable the Board to craft the
announcement on the acquisition and to respond to
queries from SGX. He said that the PPA or valuation
exercise should be carried quickly to ensure that the
Board is fully apprised of the financial impact of this
acquisition.”
“The Chairman stated pursuant to a proposal approved
by the AC and the Board, his firm S.K. Lai & Co. has
completed an internal review of Tianyin, PRC. The
review had concentrated on the Group’s new
investments in plant and equipment, which has been
significant given the Group’s recent expansion plans.
He added that there have been no significant findings,
a copy of the report is tabled. The Chairman
commented the above review was intended to
supplement the works that were currently done by the
PRC internal auditors.”
“The draft of announcement was tabled for review and
approval. Mr Sunny Hui informed the meeting that as
in the past, staff from SK Lai & Co. has been tasked to
assist in the compilation of this announcement”. [This
refers to the draft announcement of the Company’s
results for the full year ended 31 December 2007]
“There were no new interested person transactions
tabled for discussion at the Meeting. A list of the
There is no entity in the name of
Tianyin within the Group. SFCA
believes the entity referred to was
Quanzhou Tianyu. During the
review of Mr. Er’s records at
CAD’s premises, SFCA retrieved
a report titled “Report for Internal
Audit Review” dated February
2008 which was presumably
prepared by SK Lai & Co in
relation to the internal review of
Quanzhou Tianyu.
SFCA was unable to obtain the
list of transactions between SK
Lai & Co and the Group (tabled at
this AC meeting) from Loo &
Partners, as all the relevant
records of Loo & Partners
concerning the Company were
retained by CAD. SFCA also
attempted to obtain a copy of the
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 55
Date of AC
Meetings
Relevant excerpts of minutes concerning
disclosure of IPTs by Mr. Lai (SFCA’s remarks in
square bracket)
SFCA’s Comments
transactions between SK Lai & Co. and the Group for
services rendered were tabled and noted by the
Meeting.”
list of transactions from Mr. Lai
without any success. Mr. Lai
informed SFCA that all his
records and the records of SK Lai
& Co were retained by CAD.
12 May 2008 “The Chairman [Mr. Lai] reminded that pursuant to the listing and compliance requirements, the Company is to report its financial results on a quarterly basis, and hence, the work load is expected to be much heavier as QZ’s financial reports would have to be consolidated into the Group’s accounts, upon the completion of the proposed acquisition. The Chairman also mentioned that although currently his firm, namely S K Lai & Co, assisted the Company with its financial reports, in the long term, however, the Chairman recommended that the Company employ sufficient personnel to carry out the work in order to meet such compliance requirements. The current arrangement was necessitated by the fact that it reduces the risk of erroneous and incomplete reporting given the limited resources that the Company devotes to this process. Chairman felt that the current arrangement of only having Mr Sunny Hui is inadequate now that the Group has grown significantly since it was listed and more so after the recent acquisition. As it is, there is a need for greater depth to ensure that there will be backups. Mr Hui has numerous other responsibilities apart from these periodic reporting. With the acquisition, his responsibility would be heavier. Chairman urged that another accountant should be recruited to assist Mr Hui or that Mr Hui’s responsibilities be split to another person to lighten the load. Mr Huang responded that Management would consider this issue upon the acquisition of QZ.”
SFCA notes that there was no
disclosure of any fee concerning
the accounting services of SK Lai
& Co during this AC meeting.
5 Aug 2008 “The Chairman [Mr. Lai] informed the meeting that as
in the past, his firm has been engaged to compile this
current quarterly announcement.” [This refers to the
draft announcement of the Company’s results for the
quarter ended 30 June 2008]
SFCA notes that there was no
disclosure of any fee concerning
the accounting services of SK Lai
& Co during this AC meeting.
12 Nov 2008 “Chairman [Mr. Lai] stated that, as in the past, his firm
has assisted in the compilation of the Q3 results
announcement.”
SFCA notes that there was no
disclosure of any fee concerning
the accounting services of SK Lai
& Co during this AC meeting.
24 Feb 2009 “As to Mr Cheung’s [D&T] report that there were no
effective internal audit functions developed by the
Group, the Chairman replied that the Group’s auditing
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 56
Date of AC
Meetings
Relevant excerpts of minutes concerning
disclosure of IPTs by Mr. Lai (SFCA’s remarks in
square bracket)
SFCA’s Comments
work is currently being done by an internal auditor
employed by the Company and it is being
supplemented by reviews completed by this firm. The
last visit was in early 2008. Mr Huang added that this
area should be strengthened and requested the
Chairman to assist.”
“The Goodwill Assessment Paper for the acquisition of
Zhongda (the “GAP”), having been previously
circulated, was tabled for discussion and the
Committee’s consideration.”
“Chairman [Mr. Lai] informed the meeting that as in the
past, his firm SK Lai & Co. has been rendering
professional services to the Company to assist in
drafting and review of the quarterly report.”
During the review of Mr. Er’s
records at CAD’s premises,
SFCA retrieved an undated report
titled “Goodwill Paper on the
acquisition of Deluxe Dragon
International Limited”, which we
deduce to be the Goodwill
Assessment Paper tabled during
this AC meeting.
14 May 2009 “Chairman [Mr. Lai] stated that on the assurance of Mr
Huang, the AC will proceed with the announcement but
he would need to review these maintenance expenses
in detail to ensure that they are proper and correctly
classified and that they do not include any capital
expenditure which have been inadvertently expensed.
Chairman said that this matter is likely to be queried by
SGX given that loss incurred and also in light of the
personal financial problems of Mr Huang. Where
needed, he felt that a separate and independent
review by the external auditors may be necessary.
Prior to this external review by the auditors, Chairman
said that it would be useful if his staff could visit the
locations and gather the necessary information first so
that the scope of the external review could be defined.
Mr Huang said that he welcomed the additional
checks. He instructed Mr Sunny Hui to coordinate and
make the necessary arrangements.”
“There was no new IPT for review or ratification.
Chairman [Mr. Lai] asked and it was confirmed by Mr.
Huang that he is not aware of any IPT to be approved.
Chairman reminded the meeting that his firm continue
to assist the Group to compile its quarterly
announcement.”
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 57
Date of AC
Meetings
Relevant excerpts of minutes concerning
disclosure of IPTs by Mr. Lai (SFCA’s remarks in
square bracket)
SFCA’s Comments
11 Aug 2009 “Chairman informed in the meeting that, as in the past,
his firm has assisted the CFO to compile this latest
draft.” [This relates to the draft announcement of the
Company’s unaudited results for the half year ended
30 June 2009]
“Apart from the fees charged by Chairman’s [Mr. Lai]
firm for services rendered, there was no new IPT for
review or ratification.”
SFCA notes that there was no
disclosure of the quantum of fees
concerning the accounting
services of SK Lai & Co during
this AC meeting.
3 Nov 2009 None.
7 Jan 2010 None.
25 Feb 2010 “Chairman [Mr. Lai] reported that there were two
internal reviews being undertaken by his firm, SK Lai &
Co. One took place in June 2009 to look into the
maintenance costs of the Company and the second
one is to be done in Q12010 to review the Company’s
sales and credit procedures. He stated that the
internal audit review would be completed soon and
would be submitted at the next AC meeting.”
“It was agreed by the meeting that the Company would
continue to engage SK Lai & Co. for the internal audit
work. Mr. Lai abstained from deciding on this matter.”
“Apart from the fees charged by Chairman’s [Mr. Lai]
firm for preparing quarterly internal audit report and
performance of internal audit work for the Company,
there were no new IPTs for review or ratification.”
During the review of Mr. Er’s
records at CAD’s premises,
SFCA retrieved a proposal
prepared by SK Lai & Co dated
23 February 2010 which we again
surmise was the one tabled at
this AC meeting.
12 May 2010 “Apart from the fees charged by Chairman’s [Mr. Lai]
firm for preparing quarterly internal audit report and
performance of internal audit work for the Company,
there were no new IPTs for review or ratification.
These fees were approved with the Chairman
abstaining.”
SFCA notes that there was no
disclosure of the quantum of fees
concerning the services provided
by SK Lai & Co during this AC
meeting.
5 Aug 2010 “The internal audit report (the “Report”) dated 5 August
2010 was tabled at the Meeting for discussion, a copy
of which was annexed hereto and marked as Appendix
A” for record. LC [from SK Lai & Co] presented the
Report and the details are as follows:-…”
During the review of Mr. Er’s
records at CAD’s premises,
SFCA found a PowerPoint report
titled “Internal Audit Report:
China Sky Chemical Fibre Co Ltd
Presentation to Audit Committee
August 5, 2010” which we believe
to be the report tabled at this AC
meeting.
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 58
Date of AC
Meetings
Relevant excerpts of minutes concerning
disclosure of IPTs by Mr. Lai (SFCA’s remarks in
square bracket)
SFCA’s Comments
8 Nov 2010 Mr. Lai informed the meeting that “although his firm
assisted in the compilation of the draft announcement,
the progress was very much dependent on the
information provided by Sunny and his team in PRC.”
“Apart from the compilation fees that the Chairman [Mr.
Lai] charges for assisting in preparing the quarterly
reports, there was no new IPT for review or ratification
in this quarter. The Committee approved the fees with
the Chairman abstaining.”
Although no amount was
mentioned, it was clear that fees
would be charged by Mr. Lai for
the compilation.
24 Feb 2011 “There were no new IPT tabled for discussion at the
Meeting. A list of the transactions between SK Lai &
Co and the Group for services rendered were tabled
and noted by the Meeting. The Committee reviewed
and approved the IPT.”
SFCA was unable to obtain the
list of transactions between SK
Lai & Co and the Group (tabled at
the AC meeting) from Loo &
Partners, as all the relevant
records of Loo & Partners
concerning the Company were
retained by CAD. SFCA also
attempted to obtain the list which
was tabled, from Mr. Lai without
any success.
14 May 2011 “There were no new IPT tabled for discussion at the
Meeting. A list of the transactions between SK Lai &
Co and the Group for services rendered were tabled
and noted by the Meeting. The Committee reviewed
and approved the IPT. After taking into account the
nature of the services rendered and the fees charged
by the Chairman’s firm, the AC approved the IPT. The
AC Chairman abstained from voting on this matter.”
SFCA was unable to obtain the
list of transactions between SK
Lai & Co and the Group (tabled at
the AC meeting) from Loo &
Partners, as all the relevant
records of Loo & Partners
concerning the Company were
retained by CAD. SFCA also
attempted to obtain the list which
was tabled, from Mr. Lai without
any success.
12 Jun 2011 None.
11 Aug 2011 None.
2 Sep 2011 “The IPT Report was tabled for discussion. A copy is
attached.”
SFCA was unable to obtain the
IPT Report (tabled at the AC
meeting) from Loo & Partners, as
all the relevant records of Loo &
Partners concerning the
Company were retained by CAD.
SFCA also attempted to obtain
the IPT Report from Mr. Lai
without any success.
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 59
Date of AC
Meetings
Relevant excerpts of minutes concerning
disclosure of IPTs by Mr. Lai (SFCA’s remarks in
square bracket)
SFCA’s Comments
9 Nov 2011 “Chairman [Mr. Lai] declared that there were some
Internal Audit fees for year 2009 and 2010 which was
amounting to approximately S$35k. The same was
tabled for the approval of AC. The Chairman was
abstained.”
22 Nov 2011 None.
74. According to his maxwellisation response dated 8 May 2013, Mr. Er informed SFCA
that his "understanding is that the onus lies with individual Director to disclose
appropriately and formally in writing at the Audit Committee and Board meetings the
nature of the IPT and the amount of money involved. As a matter of good corporate
practice, where there is deemed to be potential conflict of interest, IPT should not
proceed without the approval of the Board. All disclosure and decisions on IPT must
be properly documented in the minutes of the Audit Committee and Board Meetings. It
is incumbent upon management and Directors who are involved in any IPT to table
such IPT matters formally at the AC/Board meetings and to disclose the amount of
money involved, both on individual transaction and cumulatively for the financial year,
and to ensure that the facts and discussions are properly recorded in the minutes of
meeting."
75. According to Mr. Huang and Sunny in their maxwellisation responses, Mr. Lai had
disclosed that there were IPTs for the relevant quarter, at the material time, during the
AC meetings. The supporting documents and the actual IPT figures were however not
furnished by Mr. Lai at the AC meetings. Sunny added that Mr. Lai would subsequently
furnish the relevant documents to the Company.
Areas of Concern
76. Mainboard Rule 1207(17) makes reference to Mainboard Rule 907 which requires all
issuer to disclose all IPTs in its annual report with aggregate value exceeding
S$100,000. SFCA disagrees with the interpretation of the Company and observes that
the aggregate value of the IPTs with Mr. Lai exceeded S$100,000 during each of the
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 60
financial years 2008 and 2009. Accordingly, Mainboard Rule 1207(17) read with
Mainboard Rule 907 may have been breached.
77. SFCA expresses concern on the quality of the information on Mr. Lai’s IPTs being
disclosed by the Company in its Annual Reports and on the SGXNET. SFCA is also of
the view that the Board at the material time and the former Group Financial Controller
ought to ensure that the contents of the Annual Reports and the relevant
announcements were accurate before their publication / release.
78. Sunny who had been tasked with coordinating with Loo & Partners on the preparation
of the SGXNET announcements and obtaining the necessary approval from the
directors residing in PRC, should have exercised more care, as expected of a Group
Financial Controller, in ensuring that the contents of the 22 April 2011 Announcement
(concerning the values of the IPTs) were correct before their release on the SGXNET16.
Sunny could have checked the values of the IPTs to the Company’s accounting
records and / or verify the amounts with SK Lai & Co before the announcement was
released17.
79. The 22 April 2011 Announcement was submitted by Mr. Huang “by Order of the Board”,
as evidenced by his name printed in the announcement. Sunny said that he would
usually translate (verbally) and explain the contents of every intended announcement
to Mr. Huang and obtain Mr. Huang’s verbal approval before instructing Loo & Partners
to release the announcement. Mr. Huang, in his interview, said that he had placed
reliance on Sunny, Mr. Lai and Loo & Partners to draft the necessary announcements
before giving his approval to release them. Given that Mr. Huang had submitted the
announcement by the order of the Board, the Board at the material time ought to have
verified or sought written confirmation from the management that the values of the IPTs
were correct before approving the release of the 22 April 2011 Announcement. SFCA
is of the view that the Board at the material time did not exercise reasonable diligence 16
In his maxwellisation response dated 25 April 2013, Sunny said that “in this particular instance, for the preparation of announcements or clarification announcements made in response to SGX-ST queries, it is the interested party who has disclosed the material information directly to Loo and Partners”. 17
Concerning the mistakes in the announcements, Mr. Lai in his letter dated 2 May 2013 said that he did not check the information in the drafts against his firm SK Lai & Co’s records as he then believed that the information provided by Sunny would be accurate.
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 61
in ensuring that the contents of the abovementioned announcements were correct
before approving them for release on SGXNET. In addition, Mr. Lai, who was the AC
Chairman and director at the material time, should have been able to check and verify
whether the IPTs figures were accurate since the transactions were entered into with
his firm, SK Lai & Co.
80. One of the principal functions of the AC of the Company, according to the Corporate
Governance report as stated in the Company’s Annual Reports from FY2006 to
FY2010, is to supervise the implementation and conduct of the internal audit plan of the
Company. As AC Chairman, the key role of Mr. Lai was to lead the AC in amongst
others, the review of the Company’s internal audit function. In view of the internal audit
services rendered by Mr. Lai’s firm SK Lai & Co, Mr. Lai may have placed himself in a
position of conflict. Mr. Lai, as AC Chairman, would be required to supervise the
implementation and conduct of the internal audit work which was performed by his firm.
This potential conflict could have impaired his independence and effectiveness in the
discharge of his duties as AC Chairman18. SFCA notes that Mr. Lai resigned as the
AC Chairman / member and director of the Company on 5 January 2012. SK Lai & Co
also ceased to render services to the Company since March 2011.
Recommendations
81. As a matter of good governance practice, SFCA would encourage the current AC
members and / or IDs to abstain from providing any services to the Group. Any
services if required to be rendered by the AC members and / or IDs would require the
prior approval of the Board and the other AC members who should consider potential
conflict of interest issues before making a decision.
82. SFCA recommends that the Board put in place procedures such as the approval matrix
to ensure that the contents of future announcements are accurate and approved by all
directors before their release on the SGXNET.
18
In his maxwellisation response dated 2 May 2013, Mr. Lai expressed his view that “there was no conflict of interest in law or in fact”.
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 62
Repairs and Maintenance Costs incurred in the first quarter of 2009
83. On 15 May 2009, the Company disclosed in its quarterly results announcement on the
SGXNET that the Group had incurred maintenance and recalibration expenses of
RMB72 million (“Overhaul Costs”) in the first quarter of the financial year ended 31
December 2009 (“1Q2009”). The expenditure on the Overhaul Costs contributed to the
loss of RMB58 million reported by the Group for 1Q2009.
84. On 28 May 2009, in response to queries raised by SGX, the Company made a further
announcement in the SGXNET providing the breakdown of the Overhaul Costs
incurred in 1Q2009 as follows:
FDY/HOY
Facilities
(RMB million)
New
Operations
(RMB million)
Total
(RMB million)
Maintenance expenses 20 - 20
Recalibration expenses 42 10 52
Total 62 10 72
Notes (as quoted from the 28 May 2009 announcement):
(a) Maintenance expenses comprise costs relating to disassembly and reassembly
of machinery components for cleaning and lubrication.
(b) Recalibration expenses comprise costs relating to system re-integration,
computer reprogramming, fine-tuning of machinery and post-recalibration testing.
(c) FDY and HOY refer to Full Drawn Yarn and High Oriented Yarn products
respectively.
(d) New operations refer to the production facilities of Qingdao Zhongda which were
acquired in July 2008.
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 63
85. According to a report (������������ ) dated 13 November 2008
(“Facilities Upgrade Report”) prepared by Mr. Chen Yu Xian (“Mr. Chen”), Quanzhou
Tianyu’s Plant Manager, he highlighted 6 areas of Quanzhou Tianyu’s plant and
machinery that required a major overhaul at the material time. The relevant excerpts
from the Facilities Upgrade Report are translated and reproduced (in English) below:
“The Company has been in operation for 6 years since 2003 and the equipment has
been running at their full capacity. Although there were routine repairs and
maintenance works performed yearly, the efficiency of the equipment is decreasing and
the softwares used are outdated. According to the government’s energy saving and
emission reduction policy, we have carried out special testing and inspection on the
equipment and discovered many problems. Accordingly, we list down the condition of
the system, the problems faced by the system and recommendations for the
consideration and approval of the management.”
86. Shortly after the Facilities Upgrade Report was issued by Mr. Chen, a meeting was
held on 25 November 2008 (“Project Meeting”) to discuss the issues and
recommendations highlighted in the Facilities Upgrade Report. Based on the minutes
of the Project Meeting, the meeting was attended by, amongst others, Mr. Wu Yi (“Mr.
Wu”), the General Manager of the Group, Mr. Song, Mr. Chen and ���, Financial
Controller of the PRC Operating Subsidiaries. SFCA reviewed the minutes of the
Project Meeting and noted that Mr. Chen’s recommendations as stated in the Facilities
Upgrade Report were fully accepted at the meeting. Mr. Wu was tasked to spearhead
the implementation of Mr. Chen’s recommendations (“Upgrading Project”). It was
agreed during the Project Meeting that the deadline for the completion of the Upgrading
Project be set at 31 March 2009.
87. According to the minutes of the Project Meeting, it was resolved that the Upgrading
Project be performed by the existing vendors of the plant and machinery that were to
be upgraded. During the interview with Mr. Wu on 13 November 2012, he advised
SFCA that the reason for selecting the existing vendors to complete the Upgrading
Project was to maintain the consistent quality of the upgrading works. According to Mr.
Wu, these vendors, with in-depth knowledge on the functions of the existing plant and
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 64
machinery that were the subject of upgrading works, would logically be in the best
position to perform the upgrading works.
88. Subsequent to the Project Meeting, Mr. Chen proceeded to obtain quotes from the
existing vendors for the Upgrading Project and prepared a budget of RMB76 million
based on the initial quotes obtained (“Budget”). The Budget was prepared by Mr.
Chen on 16 December 2008 and approved by Mr. Wu. According to Mr. Wu in his
interview on 13 November 2012, after the Budget was approved, he and Mr. Chen
continued to negotiate for lower quotes before reaching an agreement with the vendors
at a total contract sum of RMB72 million.
89. SFCA notes that the Budget included a quotation of RMB10 million by a vendor to
perform upgrading works at the factory of Qingdao Zhongda. The production facilities
of Qingdao Zhongda were acquired in July 2008. The subject of performing upgrading
works on Qingdao Zhongda’s plant and machinery (“Qingdao Zhongda Upgrading
Works”) was neither mentioned in the Facilities Upgrade Report nor documented in the
minutes of the Project Meeting. During his interview on 22 January 2013, Mr. Wu
recalled that the Qingdao Zhongda Upgrading Works was briefly discussed during the
Project Meeting and it was also agreed in the same meeting that upgrading works be
carried out at the Qingdao Zhongda factory. However, the discussion and approval
process concerning the Qingdao Zhongda Upgrading Works was not recorded in the
minutes of the Project Meeting.
90. The relevant extracts of Mr. Wu’s response (which are translated to English from
Chinese) to the query raised by SFCA on the approval process concerning the
execution of the Upgrading Project are appended below:
“The highest authority on the management of the operations rests with me. There is no
higher approving authority concerning the Upgrading Project…
This is the way our management functions. All budgets will be approved by me and I
am also responsible for the execution process.”
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 65
91. Quanzhou Tianyu proceeded to enter into the following contracts with the existing
vendors in respect of the Upgrading Project:
Date(s) of
Contract(s)
Name of Supplier Quanzhou
Factory
(RMB’000)
Qingdao
Factory
(RMB’000)
Total
(RMB’000)
Note
16 Feb2009 ����� 486.5 - 486.5 (a)
5 Feb 2009 ������ �� ! 1,085.6 - 1,085.6 (b)
12 Feb 2009 ���¡¢£I¤¥¦�� ! 460.2 - 460.2
6 Feb 2009 ��§¨©¨���ª�� ! 764.8 - 764.8
3 Feb 2009 «¬®¯°ª±� �� ! 2,820.0 - 2,820.0
19 Jan 2009
21 Jan 2009
²³´µ¶·¸¹º�»¼�� ! 56,575.0 10,129.9 66,704.9
62,192.1 10,129.9 72,322.0
(a) On 16 February 2009, Quanzhou Tianyu entered into an agreement with�����
whereby ����� provided repair and maintenance works to the boiler
system (��½¾
) (“Boiler System”) in Quanzhou Tianyu’s plant. SFCA
performed site visits to the factory of Quanzhou Tianyu on 12 November 2012
and 23 January 2013. According to Mr. Wu, the Boiler System ceased to operate
on 31 December 2011 due to a recent government environmental policy
restricting usage of conventional Boiler System.
(b) On 5 February 2009, Quanzhou Tianyu entered into an agreement with������ �� ! whereby ������ �� ! performed installation works
and testing services to the refrigeration system (¿À½¾) (“Refrigeration
System”) in Quanzhou Tianyu’s plant. During the site visit to Quanzhou Tianyu’s
plant on 23 January 2013, SFCA also observed that the Refrigeration System
was no longer in use. Mr. Chen explained that the Refrigeration System was
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 66
operationally connected to the Boiler System and hence became inactive (and
redundant) due to the closure of the conventional Boiler System.
92. SFCA perused the Company's minutes of meetings of the Board and noted that the
Upgrading Project (as approved at the Project Meeting) was not tabled for discussion
or approval at any of the Board meetings prior to the execution of the various
agreements between Quanzhou Tianyu and the vendors, even though the Overhaul
Costs involved a material sum of RMB72 million.
93. In the course of the review, SFCA discovered a report named “China Sky Chemical
Fibre Co., Ltd – Salient Features Memorandum to the Audit Committee For the Year
Ended December 31, 2009” which was prepared by the Company’s external auditors
and tabled at the AC meeting on 25 February 2010. The relevant excerpts of the report
concerning the Overhaul Costs are reproduced below:
“Observation Tianyu and Zhongda has incurred maintenance and recalibration expenditure during
the current year of RMB72,293,000. We have not conducted review on
reasonableness of such expenditures, and in view of its materiality, the management
should appoint an external consultant to [sic] reasonableness of these expenditures.
There appears to be no formal tender process on the maintenance and recalibration
expenditure contracts.
Recommendation … We also recommend that the management should strengthen its documentations on
maintenance records and progress log as well as design better control and approval
procedures on tender process in relation to major maintenance and recalibration
expenditure.”
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 67
94. Although the Company has not appointed an external consultant to comment on the
reasonableness of the Overhaul Costs of RMB72 million 19 , SFCA notes that the
Company’s external auditors had performed the following procedures (on sample basis)
and concluded that there were no irregularities:
(a) Sighted the original documents, including contracts, agreements, invoices,
payments and bank statements;
(b) Performed site inspection for construction or installation work in progress;
(c) Understanding the process and procedures in relation to the reasons for incurring
the Overhaul Costs;
(d) Performed searches of the suppliers; and
(e) Visited selected suppliers.
95. The Overhaul Costs of RMB72 million were recorded as research and development
(“R&D”) expenses in the management accounts of Quanzhou Tianyu and Qingdao
Zhongda. SFCA understands from��� that expenses associated with the repairs
and maintenance were, according to past practice, recorded as R&D.
96. In note 10 (Property, Plant and Equipment) of the Notes to the Financial Statements in
the 2009 Annual Report of the Company, an amount of RMB72 million was classified
as overhaul costs and charged to the profit or loss statement during FY2009. It was
stated in the same Annual Report that this amount represented a “write-off of overhaul
component cost upon replacement of certain parts and components of the Group’s
plant and machinery”. During the interview with Mr. Hu on 14 November 2012, SFCA
was informed that the Overhaul Costs of RMB72 million were capitalised as additions
to the Property, Plant and Equipment of the Group during the financial year.
Subsequently, they were written off to the profit or loss statement in the same financial
year 2009. Such an accounting treatment appears to be inconsistent with the
19
Mr. Lai and Mr. Yeap, in their joint maxwellisation response dated 5 June 2013, informed SFCA that “as it was not a recommendation [of the Company’s external auditors], [they] cannot compel management to comply”.
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 68
Company’s significant accounting policies (as stated in the FY2009 Annual Report)
where “overhaul costs incurred in replacing an existing component part of an item or
property, plant and equipment is capitalized and depreciated over the estimated useful
life of the overhaul component part using the straight line method”.
97. There has been no major overhaul or upgrading works performed since the Overhaul
Costs of RMB72 million were incurred in 1Q2009. During his interview on 13
November 2012, Mr. Wu said that the Overhaul Costs were technically not repairs and
maintenance in nature but a major overhaul or upgrading of the plant and machinery.
98. IAS 16 requires the “cost of an item of property, plant and equipment be recognised as
an asset as incurred” (that is on initial acquisition). Where parts of some items of
property, plant and equipment require replacement or overhaul at regular intervals, IAS
16 requires that these costs are recognised as incurred (that is on initial acquisition).
When each major overhaul is performed, “its cost is recognised (as an asset) in the
carrying amount of the item of property, plant and equipment as a replacement if the
recognition criteria are satisfied” and amortised until the next major overhaul. As SFCA
has not been provided with the necessary details and explanation, SFCA is unable to
comment on how much of the Overhaul Costs incurred should or could have been
capitalised as plant and machinery in the Financial Statements of the Company.
Where the conditions in IAS 16 are met, certain Overhaul Costs have to be capitalised
as plant and machinery.
99. Hence, if parts of the Overhaul Costs were indeed major overhaul / upgrading, relevant
parts of the Overhaul Costs should be capitalised and amortised over the remaining
useful lives of the plant and machinery (that were subject to the upgrading works) in
accordance with the Group’s significant accounting policies instead of expensing off in
the profit or loss statement during the financial year.
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 69
Areas of Concern
100. SFCA is of the view that the Upgrading Project should have been tabled for discussion
and approval by the Board before the various contracts were entered into with the
existing vendors20. It appears that much authority has been assumed by the General
Manager, Mr. Wu, to make executive decisions (including the decision to perform
upgrading works on the factory of Qingdao Zhongda which was not documented at the
Project Meeting).
101. The Overhaul Costs of RMB72 million are significant in relation to the net profit of
RMB393 million for FY2008. Mainboard Rule 703 requires an issuer to announce any
information concerning any of its subsidiaries which would be likely to materially affect
the price or value of its securities. The contracts for the upgrading works were entered
into between 19 January 2009 and 16 February 2009. Whilst SFCA observed that
there was no announcement made by the Company at the material time (in February
2009) when the various contracts were entered into21, SFCA notes that the Overhaul
Costs were disclosed during the Company’s announcement of its 1Q2009 financial
results on 15 May 2009. SFCA is of the view that at the very least, the Upgrading
Project should have been tabled for discussion by the Board which could then
deliberate on whether an announcement was necessary.
102. SFCA has reviewed the agreements entered between Quanzhou Tianyu and the
various vendors to determine the nature of the upgrading works, and it appears that the
upgrading works were not entirely repairs and maintenance in nature. It is presently
unclear as to what extent the Overhaul Costs should or could be capitalised as fixed
assets (plant and equipment) in the accounts of the Group in FY2009 and depreciated
over their estimated useful lives, rather than being written off as expenses in the profit
or loss statement.
20
Mr. Huang, clarified in his maxwellisation response dated 25 April 2013, that the Upgrading Project had been carried out “with full transparency” and “there was no intention to hide this expenditure”.
21
Mr. Huang, in his written response dated 25 April 2013, explained that “no separate announcement is needed” because the Overhaul Costs represented only about 4.8% of the Group’s total net book value of the property, plant and equipment at the end of FY2008 and the “work performed are within industry norms”.
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 70
Recommendations
103. SFCA recommends that annual budgets be prepared prior to the commencement of
each financial year and that all major projects or proposed expenditure be approved by
the Board via the budgeting process. Where these items are not identified in the
budgets, ad hoc approval should be sought from the Board.
104. SFCA recommends the Board / AC consider all the facts, including any relevant
information or reports from the Company's external auditors, to decide on the
appropriate accounting treatment of the Overhaul Costs in accordance with the Group’s
significant accounting policies.
105. According to its significant accounting policies, the Group is required to review, at the
end of each reporting period, the carrying amount of its tangible assets to determine
whether those assets have suffered an impairment loss. As the Boiler System and
Refrigeration System ceased operations in December 2011, SFCA recommends that
the Group review the remaining values of these two systems and determine if an
impairment of the remaining net book values of the systems is required in the accounts
for the financial year ended 31 December 2011.
Conclusion
Fujian Land
106. Fujian Land was owned by Fujian Fuyuan. Although Fujian Fuyuan became a
subsidiary of the Company through the acquisition of Mega Force (via Winburg,
another subsidiary) pursuant to the Share Transfer Agreement dated 2 December 2006
with ���
, SFCA notes that no disclosure was made by the Company via
announcements or in its Annual Reports. Mainboard Rule 703 requires an issuer to
announce any information concerning any of its subsidiaries which would likely to
materially affect the price or value of its securities. SFCA is of the view that the former
Group Financial Controller and the Board at the material time ought to have ensured
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 71
that the acquisition of Fujian Fuyuan as a subsidiary was disclosed promptly, as
required by Mainboard Rule 703.
107. Subsequent to the acquisition of the Fujian Land (through the acquisition of Fujian
Fuyuan), two construction agreements were entered into on 8 October 2008 and 23
February 2009 for a total contract sum of RMB114 million on the development of the
Fujian Land. The total contract sum was first disclosed in an announcement dated 7
March 2011 by the Company in response to SGX’s queries on the Group’s full year
results for FY2010. SFCA is of the view that the two construction agreements should
have been tabled for discussion and approval by the Board who could then opine on
whether an announcement is necessary pursuant to Mainboard Rule 703.
108. On 27 June 2011, Winburg and
���entered into the Termination Agreement
following which Winburg transferred its 100% shareholding in Mega Force (together
with the control of Fujian Fuyuan and the Fujian Land) back to���
. SFCA notes
that there was no Board’s approval on the Termination Agreement. Mainboard Rule
1014 requires an issuer to seek prior approval of a major transaction that is not in the
ordinary course of business. A transaction is considered major if its value exceeds 20%
of the Company’s market capitalisation. The Company took the position that this was
not a “disposal” but rather an “unwinding” of an initial acquisition that was never
completed. However, SFCA is of the view that this was a major transaction
(approximately 47% of the Company’s market capitalisation at the material time) which
requires approval at the general meeting of the Company. Hence Mainboard Rule
1014 may have been breached.
109. In view that there was already a termination agreement entered into between Winburg
and ���
on 27 June 2011, SFCA is perturbed by the existence of the Mega Force
Agreement (purportedly entered into between Mega Force and Fujian Fuyuan on 27
June 2011) which apparently formed the basis of the 1 July 2011 announcement by the
Company which contains erroneous information.
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 72
110. There were also numerous erroneous disclosures (see paragraph 35) on the SGXNET
by the Company concerning the acquisition and subsequent return of the Fujian Land
(through the ownership of Mega Force and Fujian Fuyuan). The information for the
preparation of these erroneous announcements was provided by the former Group
Financial Controller based on his incorrect understanding of the transactions involved.
The former Group Financial Controller ought to ensure that the contents of the
announcements were accurate before their release on the SGXNET and hence, SFCA
is of the view that he did not exercise reasonable diligence that is expected of a Group
Financial Controller.
111. As all the erroneous announcements were submitted by the former Group CEO “by
Order of the Board”, the Board at the material time ought to have verified or sought
written confirmation from the management that the contents were accurate. SFCA is of
the view that the Board at the material time did not exercise reasonable diligence in
ensuring that the contents of the announcements were correct before approving them
for release on the SGXNET.
112. In the course of the review, SFCA requested for various supporting documents (such
as the application submitted to the relevant authorities for the conversion of land use
rights) from the Company concerning the Fujian Land but were informed by the
Company that most of these documents had been returned to the original vendor, ���
.
113. While SFCA has so far not seen any persuasive evidence which proves that the
transactions concerning the acquisition and subsequent return of the Fujian Land were
fictitious, SFCA is unable to conclusively verify whether such transactions were in fact
implemented in accordance with the Share Transfer Agreement and Termination
Agreement. Other than the Land Use Agreement and the red line map (���), SFCA
has not been given any other documents evidencing that Fujian Fuyuan was the owner
of the Fujian Land. However, SFCA understands that the Land Use Agreement
together with the red line map (���) would constitute prima facie evidence of Fujian
Fuyuan’s ownership of the Fujian Land.
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 73
114. Under the terms of the Termination Agreement, Quanzhou Tianyu (with the
authorisation from Winburg) has received full refund of RMB263 million (via Bank
Acceptance Drafts) purportedly from ���
. The Bank Acceptance Drafts of RMB263
million were subsequently used to pay a major supplier of raw materials.
Interested Person Transactions
115. The Company’s Corporate Governance Statement in the Annual Reports for FY2006 to
FY2009 stated that there were no IPTs for those years. Based on SFCA’s findings,
there were indeed IPTs with the former AC Chairman during the period from FY2006 to
FY2010. It is therefore erroneous for the Company to state in its Corporate
Governance Statements that there were “no IPTs carried out” during the relevant
financial years.
116. Subsequent to the release of the FY2010 Annual Report and queries raised by SGX,
the Company made several corrections (via its announcements on 22 April 2011, 6
May 2011 and 10 October 2011) on the IPTs amounts. SFCA is of the view that the
former Group Financial Controller who was tasked with coordinating with the corporate
secretarial service provider on the preparation of the announcement should have
exercised more care in ensuring that the contents of the announcements were accurate.
Similarly, the Board at the material time and the former Group Financial Controller
ought to ensure that contents of the Annual Reports and the relevant announcements
were accurate before their publication / release. Hence, SFCA is also of the view that
the Board at the material time and the former Group Financial Controller did not
exercise reasonable diligence in these aspects.
117. Mainboard Rule 1207(17) makes reference to Mainboard Rule 907 which requires an
issuer to disclose all IPTs in its annual report with aggregate value exceeding
S$100,000. The Company has stated its position that any single interested person
transaction with a value less than S$100,000 need not be disclosed in the Annual
Report. SFCA notes that the wordings in Mainboard Rule 1207(17) have given rise to
different interpretations. SFCA takes the view that IPTs with aggregate value
exceeding S$100,000 during a financial year would need to be disclosed in the
CHINA SKY CHEMICAL FIBRE CO., LTD SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT 19 JUNE 2013
Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd 74
Company’s Annual Report (even if each individual transaction could be less than
S$100,000). While the Company may have disclosed the transactions with the former
AC Chairman as “related party transactions” in its financial statements for the relevant
financial years, Mainboard Rule 1207(17) read with Mainboard Rule 907 may have
been breached for FY2008 and FY2009.
118. SFCA notes that there was no proper disclosure by Mr. Lai of his IPTs during the
Company’s Board meetings. As AC Chairman, the key role of Mr. Lai was to lead the
AC in amongst others, the review of the Company’s internal audit function. In view of
the services rendered by Mr. Lai’s firm SK Lai & Co, Mr. Lai may have placed himself in
a position of conflict and could have impaired his independence and effectiveness in
the discharge of his duties as AC Chairman at the material time.
Repairs and Maintenance Costs incurred in the first quarter of 2009
119. Quanzhou Tianyu entered into various contracts amounting to RMB72 million with its
existing vendors in early 2009 for the Upgrading Project at the factories of Quanzhou
Tianyu and Qingdao Zhongda. The Upgrading Project was discussed and approved at
a project meeting.
120. Although the Overhaul Costs of RMB72 million incurred in 1Q2009 were significant
when compared to the net profit of RMB393 million for FY2008, no irregularity was
noted. Nevertheless, SFCA is of the view that the Upgrading Project should have been
tabled for discussion by the Board which could then deliberate on whether an
announcement was necessary pursuant to Mainboard Rule 703.