• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Breaking: High Court rules former prime minister’s son Goh Jin Hian liable for losses of up to US$146million

Hightech88

Alfrescian
Loyal
The informational flows around Aedit’s remarks, and the subsequent reporting on it, were bizarre. Aedit’s remarks were made on January 24th. Jom first received it on January 26th, presumably around the time that some others did. Gutzy.asia, a “Taiwan-based media company”, wrote about it on February 5th. And over the subsequent days, Singapore’s mainstream media (MSM) outlets finally reported it, some two weeks after Aedit’s remarks were first made. Why the delay?

As mentioned before, its likely ESM Goh is using his influence to try all means to whitewash or suppress coverage of the news to prevent it from appearing in the main media. Reason is simple, it is a very xia suay news for his family, worsen by the fact previously he has talked about the importance of ownself check ownself, which apparently failed, LOL.

Even this time round, it only appears in the Business section of ST and then finally in CNA. Strangely, none was reported in other English media outlets like TNP, Today or even Mothership.
 

gingerlyn

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Interestingly, while the foreign outlets all headlined Goh’s relationship to his father, the MSM ones tucked the relevant fact into their narratives, with The Straits Times burying it in paragraph eight.
 

gingerlyn

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset

吴仁轩因失责须赔偿近2亿元 法官:他对业务一无所知​


202309202157304720230920112333cyq0919-01.jpg.JPEG


高庭裁定,吴仁轩医生在担任船用燃料供应商Inter-Pacific Petroleum(IPP)的董事期间失责,须赔偿这家公司1亿4605万美元(约1亿9658万新元),外加利息。

艾迪阿都拉法官宣判时指出,吴仁轩身为IPP的董事却对公司的主要业务货运贸易一无所知,他也无视“危险信号”和没有进一步追问与调查,导致公司蒙受损失。

至于吴仁轩辩称他一直诚实与合理地执行董事职务,因此无须负起赔偿责任,法官说,法庭无法得出吴仁轩“合理行事”的结论。

吴仁轩在2020年被IPP的司法管理人德勤(Deloitte)起诉,指他在担任IPP董事期间违反职责,并向他追索1亿5600万美元的损失,外加利息。此案早前在高庭审理,法官于1月24日裁定德勤胜诉,过后审理吴仁轩须支付的讼费金额。

吴仁轩是荣誉国务资政吴作栋的儿子。他在2011年6月28日至2019年8月12日担任IPP的董事,诉方索讨的1亿5600万美元是公司于2019年6月和7月的贸易融资款项。IPP于2019年9月被司法管理。
 

gingerlyn

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
根据诉方,若吴仁轩谨慎并尽责地执行董事职务,就会发现自2017年最后一个季度开始,已有客户拖欠IPP大量逾期的应收账款;诉方说,由于吴仁轩的疏忽,没有阻止IPP向两家银行申请贷款,影响了债权人的权益。德勤要求客户付款时,也发现许多销售合约是虚假或不存在的。



吴仁轩则辩称,他在2015年6月转任IPP的非执行董事,因此没有参与IPP的日常管理与营运。为了履行有关职责,他必须依靠IPP的管理层;他说,未有任何理由或任何引起他注意的事情,使得他不信任IPP的管理层。

法官:公司董事并非闲职 仍有责任监管公司运作​

不过,法官指出,公司董事并非一份闲职或仅是名义上的头衔,即使无须参与公司的日常运作,董事仍有责任监管公司运作,以维护公司、股东与债权人的利益。何况,在吴仁轩转任非执行董事后,他仍积极管理公司对外与对内的业务,因此他有责任以谨慎的态度来履行职务。

法官也说,尽管货运贸易是IPP的主要业务,但他发现吴仁轩对这个业务一无所知。此外,尽管公司运作已亮起各种“危险信号”,包括公司被拖欠大笔债务,但吴仁轩没有进一步调查以了解情况。


法官认为,若吴仁轩确实尽责,他会发现IPP所涉及的虚假交易,并且不会让公司进行某些交易与借款,以致公司蒙受损失。因此法官裁定,吴仁轩必须为IPP在2019年6月至7月的损失负责,赔偿金额为1亿4605万美元外加利息。

诉方原本向吴仁轩索讨另一笔1050万美元的损失,但法官认为,没有充分证据显示这笔损失与吴仁轩的失责行为有关。

去年9月,也是新丝路集团前主席的吴仁轩和另外三人因涉嫌在2018年操控集团股价,触犯证券及期货法令被控上法庭。这起案件仍在审理。
 
Top