<p>[新加坡] 房地产公司史丹福置地已将大华银行告上高等法院，指控该银行在 2021 年公司进行配股时违反了其职责。史丹福置地索赔 188 万新元的损失和赔偿。</p>
<p>史丹福置地在决定于 2021 年 11 月进行配股时，聘请大华银行作为其发行经理，并向当地银行支付了 150,000 新元（不含商品及服务税）以提供其服务。</p>
<p>该房地产公司通过配股筹集了 2.389 亿新元的净收益。</p>
<p>根据大华银行的辩护，M&amp;C Services 也被史丹福置地聘用，因为它具备 “生成（超额配股分配）情景的软硬件能力和原始数据”。</p>
<p>该索赔的核心是新加坡交易所（SGX）主板上市规则中的 877(10) 条款，该条款概述了配股中超额配股的分配。</p>
<p>公司需要考虑该规则，该规则规定在超额配股的分配中，优先考虑奇数股的四舍五入（如有）。对公司日常事务有影响的董事和主要股东，以及他们的关联方在奇数股的四舍五入和超额股份的分配中优先级最低。</p>
<p>大华银行的辩护称，股份登记处 M&amp;C 已生成关于如何分配这些超额配股的提案。</p>
<p>在这些提案中，选择并实施的方案涉及抽签，其中小股东获得超额配股的成功率高于董事和主要股东等受限个人。</p>
<p>这意味着在超额配股分配给董事和主要股东之前，少数股东的所有申请并不会完全满足。</p>
<p>在一名股东对配股的投诉后，SGX 对史丹福置地启动了上市纪律委员会程序，指控其违反该规则。</p>
<p>最终，双方达成和解，未承认任何责任。</p>
<p>作为和解的一部分，SGX 和史丹福置地于 2023 年 12 月 15 日发布了联合声明。声明指出，“在决定超额分配时，史丹福置地及其董事依赖于大华银行作为主承销商的专业建议”。</p>
<p>SGX 对该规则的立场是，“控股股东和董事只有在少数股东的超额配股申请完全满足后，才有权获得超额配股”。</p>
<p>根据史丹福置地提交的索赔，大华银行被指控 “未采取任何措施检查” 其提议的配股分配是否符合上市规则。</p>
<p>史丹福置地还声称，该银行 “未告知（其）存在配股不合规的风险”，并且大华银行表现出 “严重疏忽”。</p>
<p>由于大华银行未能履行其提出适当分配基础的义务，史丹福置地认为其在为 SGX RegCo 辩护的纪律程序中遭受了成本和法律费用的损失。</p>
<p>“我们没有理由怀疑大华银行，因为他们是我们的顾问，” 史丹福置地前首席执行官班尼迪克·谭在 1 月的听证会上被交叉询问时表示。</p>
<p>大华银行否认表现出 “严重疏忽”，并声称史丹福置地 “同意被告对上市规则 877(10) 的解释”，因为其通过电子邮件批准了分配提案。</p>
<p>大华银行补充说，877(10) 条款 “并未规定小股东提出的所有超额配股申请必须在任何超额配股分配给董事或主要股东之前完全满足”。</p>
<p>它表示，SGX 对该条款的解释 “在配股时并未公开”，因此该规则的措辞 “存在解释的空间”。</p>
<p>在联合声明发布的同一天，SGX 发布了一篇监管专栏 “SGX Regco 对上市公司在分配超额配股时的期望”。大华银行辩称，这是 SGX 首次就如何解释上市规则提供指导。</p>
<p>为期两天的听证会于 1 月 21 日结束。</p>
<p>史丹福置地的股票在 2 月 9 日（周一）收盘时持平，报 0.495 新元，而大华银行收于 38.70 新元，上涨 0.5% 或 0.20 新元。</p>

史丹福置地

<p>史丹福置地已在高等法院对大华银行提起诉讼，索赔 188 万新元，理由是与 2021 年的配股问题相关的疏忽。该房地产公司聘请大华银行作为其发行管理人，筹集了 2.389 亿新元。史丹福置地指控大华银行未能确保遵守新交所关于超额配股的分配规则。大华银行否认这些指控，声称史丹福置地已批准配股提案，并且当时对规则的解释存在模糊性。此案是在新交所对史丹福置地启动的纪律程序之后提起的</p>

<p>[SINGAPORE] Property company Stamford Land has taken UOB to the High Court over what it says is a breach of the bank’s duties in relation to the company’s rights issue in 2021. Stamford Land is claiming for losses and damages of S$1.88 million.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>[新加坡] 房地产公司史丹福置地已将大华银行告上高等法院，指控该银行在 2021 年公司进行配股时违反了其职责。史丹福置地索赔 188 万新元的损失和赔偿。</p>
</div><p>Stamford Land had engaged UOB as its issue manager when it decided to proceed with a rights issue in November 2021, where a sum of S$150,000 before goods and services tax was paid to the local bank for providing its services.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>史丹福置地在决定于 2021 年 11 月进行配股时，聘请大华银行作为其发行经理，并向当地银行支付了 150,000 新元（不含商品及服务税）以提供其服务。</p>
</div><p>Net proceeds of S$238.9 million was raised by the property company from the rights issue.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>该房地产公司通过配股筹集了 2.389 亿新元的净收益。</p>
</div><p>M&amp;C Services was also engaged by Stamford Land as it possessed “the software capability and the raw data to generate (excess rights shares allotment) scenarios”, according to UOB’s defence.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>根据大华银行的辩护，M&amp;C Services 也被史丹福置地聘用，因为它具备 “生成（超额配股分配）情景的软硬件能力和原始数据”。</p>
</div><p>The claim centres on Rule 877(10), a provision in the Singapore Exchange’s (SGX) Mainboard Listing Rules that outlines the allocation of excess rights shares in a rights issue.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>该索赔的核心是新加坡交易所（SGX）主板上市规则中的 877(10) 条款，该条款概述了配股中超额配股的分配。</p>
</div><p>Companies need to consider the rule which states that in the allotment of any excess rights shares, preference will be given to the rounding of odd lots, if any. Directors and substantial shareholders who have influence over the day-to-day affairs of the company or have representation on the board and their respective associates will rank last in priority for the rounding of odd lots and allotment of the excess shares.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>公司需要考虑该规则，该规则规定在超额配股的分配中，优先考虑奇数股的四舍五入（如有）。对公司日常事务有影响的董事和主要股东，以及他们的关联方在奇数股的四舍五入和超额股份的分配中优先级最低。</p>
</div><p>UOB’s defence said that the share registrar M&amp;C had generated proposals for how these excess rights shares would be allotted.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>大华银行的辩护称，股份登记处 M&amp;C 已生成关于如何分配这些超额配股的提案。</p>
</div><p>Out of these proposals, the one that was chosen and implemented, involved balloting, where the small shareholders had a higher success rate of receiving the excess rights shares compared with restricted individuals such as directors and substantial shareholders.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在这些提案中，选择并实施的方案涉及抽签，其中小股东获得超额配股的成功率高于董事和主要股东等受限个人。</p>
</div><p>This meant that not all the applications by the minority shareholders would be fully satisfied before excess rights shares would be allocated to the directors and substantial shareholders.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>这意味着在超额配股分配给董事和主要股东之前，少数股东的所有申请并不会完全满足。</p>
</div><p>Following a shareholder complaint about the rights issue, SGX commenced Listings Disciplinary Committee Proceedings against Stamford Land for breaching the rule.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在一名股东对配股的投诉后，SGX 对史丹福置地启动了上市纪律委员会程序，指控其违反该规则。</p>
</div><p>Eventually, a settlement was reached without any admission of liability.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>最终，双方达成和解，未承认任何责任。</p>
</div><p>As part of the settlement, a joint statement was published by SGX and Stamford Land on Dec 15, 2023. The statement stated that “in deciding on the excess allocation, Stamford Land and its directors relied on UOB’s professional advice as the lead manager”.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>作为和解的一部分，SGX 和史丹福置地于 2023 年 12 月 15 日发布了联合声明。声明指出，“在决定超额分配时，史丹福置地及其董事依赖于大华银行作为主承销商的专业建议”。</p>
</div><p>SGX’s position of the rule is that “controlling shareholders and directors are entitled to receive excess rights shares only after the excess rights applications by minority shareholders have been fully satisfied.”</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>SGX 对该规则的立场是，“控股股东和董事只有在少数股东的超额配股申请完全满足后，才有权获得超额配股”。</p>
</div><p>According to the claim filed by Stamford Land, UOB allegedly “took no steps to check” whether its proposed rights shares allocation was compliant with the listing rules before advising the company.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>根据史丹福置地提交的索赔，大华银行被指控 “未采取任何措施检查” 其提议的配股分配是否符合上市规则。</p>
</div><p>Stamford Land also claimed that the bank “did not advise (it) that there was a risk” of the rights issue being non-compliant and that UOB had displayed “gross negligence”.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>史丹福置地还声称，该银行 “未告知（其）存在配股不合规的风险”，并且大华银行表现出 “严重疏忽”。</p>
</div><p>As a result of UOB’s failure to perform its obligation to propose an appropriate basis for allotment, Stamford Land maintained that it suffered loss in the form of costs and legal expenses incurred in defending disciplinary proceedings brought by SGX RegCo.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>由于大华银行未能履行其提出适当分配基础的义务，史丹福置地认为其在为 SGX RegCo 辩护的纪律程序中遭受了成本和法律费用的损失。</p>
</div><p>“We had no reason to doubt UOB as they were our advisers,” said Benedict Tan, the former CEO of Stamford Land, who was cross-examined during the hearing in January.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>“我们没有理由怀疑大华银行，因为他们是我们的顾问，” 史丹福置地前首席执行官班尼迪克·谭在 1 月的听证会上被交叉询问时表示。</p>
</div><p>UOB denies displaying “gross negligence”, and asserted that Stamford Land “had agreed with the defendant’s interpretation of Listing Rule 877(10)”, as it approved the allotment proposal over e-mail.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>大华银行否认表现出 “严重疏忽”，并声称史丹福置地 “同意被告对上市规则 877(10) 的解释”，因为其通过电子邮件批准了分配提案。</p>
</div><p>UOB added that Rule 877(10) “does not state that all applications for excess rights shares made by small shareholders must be fully satisfied before any excess rights shares may be allotted to directors or substantial shareholders”.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>大华银行补充说，877(10) 条款 “并未规定小股东提出的所有超额配股申请必须在任何超额配股分配给董事或主要股东之前完全满足”。</p>
</div><p>It said that SGX’s interpretation of the provision “had not been made publicly available at the time” of the rights issue exercise, thus the wording of the rule was “open to interpretation”.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>它表示，SGX 对该条款的解释 “在配股时并未公开”，因此该规则的措辞 “存在解释的空间”。</p>
</div><p>On the same day as the joint statement was issued, SGX published a Regulator’s Column “What SGX Regco expects of listed issuers when allotting excess rights shares”. UOB argued that this is the first time SGX gave guidance on how the listing rule should be interpreted.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在联合声明发布的同一天，SGX 发布了一篇监管专栏 “SGX Regco 对上市公司在分配超额配股时的期望”。大华银行辩称，这是 SGX 首次就如何解释上市规则提供指导。</p>
</div><p>The two-day hearing concluded on Jan 21.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>为期两天的听证会于 1 月 21 日结束。</p>
</div><p>Shares of Stamford Land closed flat at S$0.495 on Monday (Feb 9) while UOB closed at S$38.70, up 0.5 per cent or S$0.20.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>史丹福置地的股票在 2 月 9 日（周一）收盘时持平，报 0.495 新元，而大华银行收于 38.70 新元，上涨 0.5% 或 0.20 新元。</p>
</div>

史丹福置地起诉大华银行，指控其在 2021 年配股问题上提供了不当建议