<p>[新加坡] 房地產公司史丹福置地已將大華銀行告上高等法院，指控該銀行在 2021 年公司增發權證時違反了其職責。史丹福置地索賠 188 萬新元的損失和賠償。</p>
<p>史丹福置地在決定於 2021 年 11 月進行增發權證時，聘請大華銀行作為其發行經理，並向當地銀行支付了 150,000 新元（不含商品及服務税）以提供相關服務。</p>
<p>該房地產公司通過增發權證籌集了 2.389 億新元的淨收益。</p>
<p>根據大華銀行的辯護，史丹福置地還聘請了 M&amp;C Services，因為該公司具備 “生成（超額權證分配）情景的軟硬件能力和原始數據”。</p>
<p>該索賠的核心是新加坡交易所（SGX）主板上市規則中的 877(10) 條款，該條款概述了增發權證時超額權證的分配。</p>
<p>公司需要考慮該規則，該規則規定在超額權證的分配中，優先考慮奇數股的四捨五入（如有）。</p>
<p>對公司日常事務有影響的董事和主要股東，或在董事會有代表的董事及其各自的關聯方，在奇數股的四捨五入和超額股份的分配中優先級最低。</p>
<p>大華銀行的辯護指出，股份登記處 M&amp;C 已生成關於如何分配這些超額權證的提案。</p>
<p>在這些提案中，選擇並實施的方案涉及抽籤，其中小股東獲得超額權證的成功率高於董事和主要股東等限制性個人。</p>
<p>這意味着在超額權證分配給董事和主要股東之前，並非所有少數股東的申請都會得到完全滿足。</p>
<p>在股東對增發權證的投訴後，SGX 對史丹福置地啓動了上市紀律委員會程序，指控其違反了該規則。</p>
<p>最終，雙方達成和解，未承認任何責任。</p>
<p>作為和解的一部分，SGX 和史丹福置地於 2023 年 12 月 15 日發佈了聯合聲明。</p>
<p>聲明指出，“在決定超額分配時，史丹福置地及其董事依賴於大華銀行作為主承銷商的專業建議”。</p>
<p>SGX 對該規則的立場是，“控股股東和董事只有在少數股東的超額權證申請完全滿足後，才有權獲得超額權證”。</p>
<p>根據史丹福置地提交的索賠，大華銀行被指控 “未採取任何措施檢查” 其提議的權證分配是否符合上市規則。</p>
<p>史丹福置地還聲稱，該銀行 “未告知（其）存在風險”，即增發權證可能不合規，並且大華銀行表現出 “嚴重疏忽”。</p>
<p>由於大華銀行未能履行其提出適當分配基礎的義務，史丹福置地認為其遭受了以捍衞 SGX RegCo 提起的紀律程序所產生的費用和法律支出為形式的損失。</p>
<p>“我們沒有理由懷疑大華銀行，因為他們是我們的顧問，” 史丹福置地前副首席執行官班尼迪克·譚在 1 月份的聽證會上被交叉詢問時表示。（* <em>見修正説明</em>）</p>
<p>大華銀行否認表現出 “嚴重疏忽”，並聲稱史丹福置地 “已同意被告對上市規則 877(10) 的解釋”，因為其通過電子郵件批准了分配提案。</p>
<p>大華銀行補充説，877(10) 條款 “並未規定小股東提出的所有超額權證申請必須在任何超額權證分配給董事或主要股東之前完全滿足”。</p>
<p>它表示，在增發權證時，SGX 對該條款的解釋 “當時並未公開”，因此該規則的措辭 “存在解釋的空間”。</p>
<p>在聯合聲明發佈的同一天，SGX 發佈了一篇監管專欄 “SGX Regco 對上市公司在分配超額權證時的期望”。</p>
<p>大華銀行辯稱，這是 SGX 首次就如何解釋上市規則提供指導。</p>
<p>為期兩天的聽證會於 1 月 21 日結束。</p>
<p>史丹福置地的股票在 2 月 9 日（週一）收於 0.495 新元持平，而大華銀行收於 38.70 新元，上漲 0.5% 或 0.20 新元。</p>
<p><em><strong>* 修正説明：</strong></em> <em>關於班尼迪克·譚前首席執行官職稱的信息由史丹福置地高級副總裁通過電子郵件提供。</em></p>

大華銀行

史丹福置地

大華銀行(ADR)

<p>史丹福置地已在高等法院對大華銀行提起訴訟，索賠 188 萬新元，理由是其在 2021 年配股中對超額配股的分配存在疏忽。史丹福置地聲稱，大華銀行未能確保遵守新加坡交易所的上市規則，導致在紀律程序中遭受損失。大華銀行否認這些指控，表示規則的解釋存在爭議，並且史丹福置地已批准了配股提案。此案突顯了配股和遵守監管標準的複雜性</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] 房地產公司史丹福置地已將大華銀行告上高等法院，指控該銀行在 2021 年公司增發權證時違反了其職責。史丹福置地索賠 188 萬新元的損失和賠償。</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>史丹福置地在決定於 2021 年 11 月進行增發權證時，聘請大華銀行作為其發行經理，並向當地銀行支付了 150,000 新元（不含商品及服務税）以提供相關服務。</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>該房地產公司通過增發權證籌集了 2.389 億新元的淨收益。</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>根據大華銀行的辯護，史丹福置地還聘請了 M&amp;C Services，因為該公司具備 “生成（超額權證分配）情景的軟硬件能力和原始數據”。</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>該索賠的核心是新加坡交易所（SGX）主板上市規則中的 877(10) 條款，該條款概述了增發權證時超額權證的分配。</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>公司需要考慮該規則，該規則規定在超額權證的分配中，優先考慮奇數股的四捨五入（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>對公司日常事務有影響的董事和主要股東，或在董事會有代表的董事及其各自的關聯方，在奇數股的四捨五入和超額股份的分配中優先級最低。</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>大華銀行的辯護指出，股份登記處 M&amp;C 已生成關於如何分配這些超額權證的提案。</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>在這些提案中，選擇並實施的方案涉及抽籤，其中小股東獲得超額權證的成功率高於董事和主要股東等限制性個人。</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>這意味着在超額權證分配給董事和主要股東之前，並非所有少數股東的申請都會得到完全滿足。</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>在股東對增發權證的投訴後，SGX 對史丹福置地啓動了上市紀律委員會程序，指控其違反了該規則。</p>
</div><p>Eventually, a settlement was reached without any admission of liability.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>最終，雙方達成和解，未承認任何責任。</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>作為和解的一部分，SGX 和史丹福置地於 2023 年 12 月 15 日發佈了聯合聲明。</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>聲明指出，“在決定超額分配時，史丹福置地及其董事依賴於大華銀行作為主承銷商的專業建議”。</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 對該規則的立場是，“控股股東和董事只有在少數股東的超額權證申請完全滿足後，才有權獲得超額權證”。</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>根據史丹福置地提交的索賠，大華銀行被指控 “未採取任何措施檢查” 其提議的權證分配是否符合上市規則。</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>史丹福置地還聲稱，該銀行 “未告知（其）存在風險”，即增發權證可能不合規，並且大華銀行表現出 “嚴重疏忽”。</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>由於大華銀行未能履行其提出適當分配基礎的義務，史丹福置地認為其遭受了以捍衞 SGX RegCo 提起的紀律程序所產生的費用和法律支出為形式的損失。</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>“我們沒有理由懷疑大華銀行，因為他們是我們的顧問，” 史丹福置地前副首席執行官班尼迪克·譚在 1 月份的聽證會上被交叉詢問時表示。（* <em>見修正説明</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>大華銀行否認表現出 “嚴重疏忽”，並聲稱史丹福置地 “已同意被告對上市規則 877(10) 的解釋”，因為其通過電子郵件批准了分配提案。</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>大華銀行補充説，877(10) 條款 “並未規定小股東提出的所有超額權證申請必須在任何超額權證分配給董事或主要股東之前完全滿足”。</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，在增發權證時，SGX 對該條款的解釋 “當時並未公開”，因此該規則的措辭 “存在解釋的空間”。</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>在聯合聲明發佈的同一天，SGX 發佈了一篇監管專欄 “SGX Regco 對上市公司在分配超額權證時的期望”。</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>大華銀行辯稱，這是 SGX 首次就如何解釋上市規則提供指導。</p>
</div><p>The two-day hearing concluded on Jan 21.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>為期兩天的聽證會於 1 月 21 日結束。</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（週一）收於 0.495 新元持平，而大華銀行收於 38.70 新元，上漲 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>* 修正説明：</strong></em> <em>關於班尼迪克·譚前首席執行官職稱的信息由史丹福置地高級副總裁通過電子郵件提供。</em></p>
</div>

史丹福置地因 2021 年發行中超額配股的分配問題起訴大華銀行