Hong Kong-based oil and bunkering firm Brightoil Petroleum Holdings on Friday (31 July) published a quarterly update announcement on its position regarding the Listing Department’s recommendations to delist the company altogether.
When the trading of Brightoil on HKSE was suspended in 2017, the company said it “started preparation of the resumption without delay” based on the given conditions from HKSE.
Brightoil explained that due to certain unexpected events including:
The resumption was expected to take longer than originally contemplated, and it submitted a resumption plan in January 2020, which included an application to seek an extension of the resumption deadline to 29 May 2020.
On 24 February 2020, the Listing Department informed Brightoil that it had failed to fulfil all the resumption conditions and the department would proceed to recommend the Listing Committee to delist Brightoil on 27 February 2020.
On 25 February 2020, Brightoil said it wrote to the Stock Exchange and requested to read the reasons of the Listing Department’s recommendation, to be present in the Listing Committee and make written or oral submission to the Listing Committee.
Brightoil also requested the Listing Department not to present the case to the Listing Committee unless its requests are met.
However on 28 February 2020, the Stock Exchange notified Brightoil that the Listing Committee had decided to:
The committee reasoned that listing rules do not enforce the right of companies to receive written explanations nor grant them any form of oral hearing before the committee for the department’s recommendations.
If any company is dissatisfied with the committee’s decision and would like to be granted the above, an appeal may be made to the Listing Review Committee on a de novo review basis of the company’s merits.
As to the Listing Committee’s decision to delist Brightoil, it explained that it did not consider the ‘unexpected events’ presented by the company to qualify as extenuating circumstances and Brightoil had failed to fulfill the given conditions to resume its trading.
In the published update, Brightoil claims that the Listing Department and the Listing Committee was “grossly unfair” towards the company.
Brightoil added that its applications for judicial review against the delisting decision made by the Listing Committee on the ground of procedural unfairness were dismissed by the High Court of Hong Kong after being heard.
With regards to being delisted, Brightoil noted that listing rules state that the Listing Committee may extend the remedial period in exceptional circumstances or there are factors outside the company’s control.
Alongside the circumstances above, Brightoil states that it has taken various remedial actions to comply with the Resumption Conditions including:
Brightoil said it has since made a formal request to the Stock Exchange for a review of the Listing Committee’s decision by the Listing Review Committee and a hearing date has been set for Monday, 31 August, 2020.
Trading in the company’s shares will remain suspended until further notice and Brightoil said it will make further announcements as and when appropriate.
Earlier developments of Brightoil (since late 2017 to date) can be found in the search results here.
Photo credit: Manifold Times
Published: 4 August, 2020
‘The JMs have failed to discharge their duties by blindly helping the Banks mount a false case against the Defendant,’ wrote defence lawyers representing former IPP Director Dr Goh Jian Hian in court statement.
Lead prosecutor Andreas Myllerup Laursen aims for a fine and a prison sentence in the so-called Syria case scheduled to commence in Odense, Denmark on 26 October, writes the Danish publication.
In a modern re-telling of the story of David versus Goliath, local bunker barge owners/charterers successfully resisted claims brought in the Singapore courts by Phillips 66 for misdelivery of bunkers.
Bunker barge owners and operators; traders and suppliers; banks, including players in other countries, will have to re-examine respective operations, advises Helmsman Associate Director Jonathan Tan.
Vopak BL was a non-essential document with no contractual force and had no effect as a contract of carriage or as a document of title, states written Judgement issued by Singapore Court of Appeal.
Dwivedi Vivek Kumar ended his tenure as Global Head – Bitumen & Shipping & Regional Head – APAC at GP Global APAC on 10 November 2020 due to internal structuring of the GP Global Group.