<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 年公司增发权证时违反了其职责。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 月进行增发权证时，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）以提供相关服务。</p>
<p>该房地产公司通过增发权证筹集了 2.389 亿新元的净收益。</p>
<p>根据大华银行的辩护，史丹福置地还聘请了 M&amp;C Services，因为该公司具备 “生成（超额权证分配）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，该条款概述了增发权证时超额权证的分配。</p>
<p>公司需要考虑该规则，该规则规定在超额权证的分配中，优先考虑奇数股的四舍五入（如有）。</p>
<p>对公司日常事务有影响的董事和主要股东，或在董事会有代表的董事及其各自的关联方，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>大华银行的辩护指出，股份登记处 M&amp;C 已生成关于如何分配这些超额权证的提案。</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权证的成功率高于董事和主要股东等限制性个人。</p>
<p>这意味着在超额权证分配给董事和主要股东之前，并非所有少数股东的申请都会得到完全满足。</p>
<p>在股东对增发权证的投诉后，SGX 对史丹福置地启动了上市纪律委员会程序，指控其违反了该规则。</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。</p>
<p>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权证申请完全满足后，才有权获得超额权证”。</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” 其提议的权证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）存在风险”，即增发权证可能不合规，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，史丹福置地认为其遭受了以捍卫 SGX RegCo 提起的纪律程序所产生的费用和法律支出为形式的损失。</p>
<p>“我们没有理由怀疑大华银行，因为他们是我们的顾问，” 史丹福置地前副首席执行官班尼迪克·谭在 1 月份的听证会上被交叉询问时表示。（* <em>见修正说明</em>）</p>
<p>大华银行否认表现出 “严重疏忽”，并声称史丹福置地 “已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权证申请必须在任何超额权证分配给董事或主要股东之前完全满足”。</p>
<p>它表示，在增发权证时，SGX 对该条款的解释 “当时并未公开”，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权证时的期望”。</p>
<p>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）收于 0.495 新元持平，而大华银行收于 38.70 新元，上涨 0.5% 或 0.20 新元。</p>
<p><em><strong>* 修正说明：</strong></em> <em>关于班尼迪克·谭前首席执行官职称的信息由史丹福置地高级副总裁通过电子邮件提供。</em></p>

大华银行

史丹福置地

大华银行(ADR)

<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，理由是其在 2021 年配股中对超额配股的分配存在疏忽。史丹福置地声称，大华银行未能确保遵守新加坡交易所的上市规则，导致在纪律程序中遭受损失。大华银行否认这些指控，表示规则的解释存在争议，并且史丹福置地已批准了配股提案。此案突显了配股和遵守监管标准的复杂性</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 年公司增发权证时违反了其职责。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 月进行增发权证时，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）以提供相关服务。</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>该房地产公司通过增发权证筹集了 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，史丹福置地还聘请了 M&amp;C Services，因为该公司具备 “生成（超额权证分配）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，该条款概述了增发权证时超额权证的分配。</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.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>公司需要考虑该规则，该规则规定在超额权证的分配中，优先考虑奇数股的四舍五入（如有）。</p>
</div><p>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>对公司日常事务有影响的董事和主要股东，或在董事会有代表的董事及其各自的关联方，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 pointed out 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>大华银行的辩护指出，股份登记处 M&amp;C 已生成关于如何分配这些超额权证的提案。</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权证的成功率高于董事和主要股东等限制性个人。</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>这意味着在超额权证分配给董事和主要股东之前，并非所有少数股东的申请都会得到完全满足。</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>在股东对增发权证的投诉后，SGX 对史丹福置地启动了上市纪律委员会程序，指控其违反了该规则。</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.</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。</p>
</div><p>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>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权证申请完全满足后，才有权获得超额权证”。</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” 其提议的权证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）存在风险”，即增发权证可能不合规，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，史丹福置地认为其遭受了以捍卫 SGX RegCo 提起的纪律程序所产生的费用和法律支出为形式的损失。</p>
</div><p>“We had no reason to doubt UOB as they were our advisers,” said Benedict Tan, the former deputy CEO of Stamford Land, who was cross-examined during the hearing in January. (* <em>see amendment note</em>)</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，” 史丹福置地前副首席执行官班尼迪克·谭在 1 月份的听证会上被交叉询问时表示。（* <em>见修正说明</em>）</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 “已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权证申请必须在任何超额权证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，在增发权证时，SGX 对该条款的解释 “当时并未公开”，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”.</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权证时的期望”。</p>
</div><p>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>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）收于 0.495 新元持平，而大华银行收于 38.70 新元，上涨 0.5% 或 0.20 新元。</p>
</div><p><em><strong>*Amendment note:</strong></em> <em>Information about Benedict Tan’s Former CEO designation was given by Senior Vice President of Stamford Land over email.</em></p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p><em><strong>* 修正说明：</strong></em> <em>关于班尼迪克·谭前首席执行官职称的信息由史丹福置地高级副总裁通过电子邮件提供。</em></p>
</div>

史丹福置地因 2021 年发行中超额配股的分配问题起诉大华银行