Hyflux's ex-director pleads guilty to disclosure-related charge, fined S$90,000 and barred from directorships
Rajsekar Kuppuswami Mitta's plea of guilt came ahead of the trial against six others, including founder and former chief executive Olivia Lum, scheduled for the coming Monday.
He was fined S$90,000, and has been barred from becoming a director in any company. He also cannot take part, directly or indirectly, in the management of any company for five years, effective Thursday.
The statement of facts indicated that, at the board of directors' meetings on Nov 4, 2010 and Feb 22, 2011, Mitta was briefed by the Hyflux management on the company's bid to design, build, own and operate Tuaspring, Singapore's second and largest seawater desalination plant.
Hyflux then released an announcement to SGX on Mar 7, 2011 about having been named the 'preferred bidder' for the project, which was to have a concession period of 25 years, during which the desalinated water produced at the plant would be sold to PUB.
The announcement also stated that the cost of Tuaspring was S$890 million.
BT in your inbox
Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.
Sign Up
Sign Up
Hyflux added that it would build a 411MW combined-cycle, gas-turbine power plant to supply electricity to the desalination plant.
However, it failed to disclose that Tuaspring was Hyflux's expansion into a new business of selling electricity, which was outside its core competency area of desalination.
It also did not mention that the revenue from the sale of electricity from Tuaspring's power plant was projected to make up the significant majority of Tuaspring's turnover.
Neither was it disclosed that the profitability of Tuaspring was to be contingent on revenue from the sale of electricity from the power plant, and this had implications for Tuaspring's resulting exposure to market risks arising from the volatility of electricity prices.
The statement of facts said it would have been necessary for the listed firm to make this disclosure to avoid the establishment of a false market in relation to Hyflux's securities, because the material information could influence investors' decisions on whether to trade in its securities.
Mitta was a non-executive, independent director of Hyflux from April 2007 to December 2013. The 68-year-old Australian, who has permanent residency in Singapore, was chairman of the board's risk-management committee.
Hyflux reported about S$115.5 million in net losses for 2017, and attributed its first loss to the weak power market in Singapore, on the back of Tuaspring contributing to the bulk of the losses.
Hyflux suspended trading in its stock in May 2018, and was placed under judicial management in November 2020.
To the prosecution's seeking general deterrence in the sentencing, the district court handed down that S$90,000 fine and the mandatory five-year disqualification order.
Mitta could have been fined up to S$250,000, sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or to both.
One other charge against him was taken into consideration during sentencing; he had been accused of being liable for Hyflux's omission to state the material information regarding Tuaspring in the 2011 Offer Information Statement issued for the offer of S$200 million, 6 per cent preference shares in April 2011.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
2 hours ago
- CNA
SGX says over 30 companies in IPO pipeline as bourse posts highest revenue since 2000
More than 30 companies are currently in the pipeline to list on the Singapore Exchange, although the bourse declined to reveal the sectors and timeline of their debuts. The update came during SGX's financial results briefing, where it reported its highest full-year revenue and net profit since 2000. Strong growth across equities, currencies and commodities lifted SGX's net profits by 8.4% to S$648 million. Five IPOs have launched on SGX so far this year, compared to four in all of 2024. Kate Low reports.
Business Times
6 hours ago
- Business Times
Issue 158: Who says what's material for Singapore firms; catastrophe payouts pile up for insurers
This week in ESG: Study finds lack of external input in materiality identification; US$80 billion of insured losses from natural catastrophes in H1 2025, says Swiss Re Institute Sustainability reporting Reporting in a material world Singapore-listed companies should seek more external perspectives to determine the non-financial issues that could most affect their businesses, a new analysis suggests. Large companies listed on the Singapore Exchange (SGX) tend to rely on internal feedback, peer benchmarks and international standards significantly more than external stakeholder feedback in identifying material sustainability-related factors, shows a report co-authored by Professor Mak Yuen Teen of the National University of Singapore and Tina Thomas, Baker Tilly's head of environmental, social and governance (ESG) and sustainability. The report is published by Governance for Stakeholders – an advocacy platform run by Prof Mak – and Sustainable Finance Institute Asia. The study assesses disclosures about materiality identification by 300 listed companies – 100 each from the Australia, Malaysia and Singapore stock exchanges. The companies come from 10 industry sectors that are either high emitters of greenhouse gases or major sectors with many large companies. Materiality identification is a critical aspect of ESG and managing sustainability-related risks and opportunities (SROs). In essence, companies need to prioritise SROs. The more important ones should be addressed and disclosed, while the less important ones do not need to be reported. A NEWSLETTER FOR YOU Friday, 12.30 pm ESG Insights An exclusive weekly report on the latest environmental, social and governance issues. Sign Up Sign Up One of the questions the study asks is how companies identify material SROs. The analysis grouped the identification methods into five key channels: Internal stakeholder feedback External stakeholder feedback External sustainability consultancy Peer benchmarking International standards alignment There are two additional methods for unspecified channels: Unspecified stakeholder feedback Unspecified standards alignment The study finds that of the 100 Singapore-listed companies, only 20 report using external stakeholder feedback, which is fewer than half of the 42 that report using internal stakeholder feedback. It's also fewer than half of the 46 that use international standards alignment and the 49 that use peer benchmarking. There is also a drop-off – albeit not as steep – for external stakeholder feedback in Malaysia. On Bursa, 16 companies report using external stakeholder feedback, which is about 65 per cent of the 25 companies that report using internal stakeholder feedback. Australia-listed companies are more balanced, with 68 using internal stakeholder feedback and 63 using external stakeholder feedback. However, Australian firms are less likely to seek the independent industry-wide perspective. Only 47 companies report using international standards alignment, which is 70 per cent of those that use internal stakeholder feedback. A significant number of companies from the Singapore and Malaysia samples disclose unspecified stakeholder feedback, but that's unlikely to change the fact that external stakeholders' views are sought less often than internal ones in these markets. That's because it's much easier to obtain feedback from internal stakeholders than external stakeholders, and it's highly probable that most of the unspecified cases will include internal feedback. Unknown unknowns It's important that companies in Singapore and Malaysia take greater effort to obtain external stakeholders' views, to guard against blind spots. The five key channels used in the study reflect three different kinds of perspectives on SROs. From internal stakeholder feedback, companies obtain the internal company-specific perspective on key risks and opportunities. From external stakeholders and external consultancies, companies acquire an external perspective that's specific to them. From peer benchmarking and international standards alignment, companies get an independent, industry-wide perspective of SROs. However, while benchmarks and standards are independent, they do not reflect idiosyncratic circumstances that a company faces. Meanwhile, interpreting and applying those benchmarks and standards to account for circumstances is an internal process. Therefore, the external stakeholders' perspective is valuable because it helps a company to obtain independent views that account for the company's circumstances. Without that perspective, companies risk blind spots – the unknown unknowns. For example, a producer of plant-based health foods might not be aware of customer and civil society concerns about human rights and labour issues at the farms that supply the producer's chickpeas. Companies must also seek out a diversity of external views. The study finds that Singapore and Malaysia companies in the sample engage with non-government organisations less than their Australia-listed counterparts. Defining impact The study notes that there is currently uncertainty about how materiality assessment will evolve as implementation begins for the accounting profession's IFRS sustainability and climate reporting standards. SGX has mandated phased alignment with the IFRS standards starting this year. The phased implementation calls for a climate-first approach, which could lead to climate issues rising in importance in companies' materiality assessments, the study says. But closer alignment to the IFRS standards could eventually narrow the scope of material factors. Most Singapore-listed companies are using the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standards, which approach materiality from a broad understanding of impact. By contrast, the IFRS focuses on financial materiality. When SGX eventually moves towards the full adoption of the IFRS standards, 'the scope of disclosure would narrow', the study states. 'Only topics that present a financial material impact to the company would be required to be reported, potentially reducing the visibility of broader environmental and social issues currently captured under the GRI framework if companies do not voluntarily report'. The IFRS approach doesn't mean that non-financial factors won't be deemed material, but the onus is placed on companies to determine the potential financial impact of ESG factors, which can be challenging when gazing at medium-to-long-term horizons. This raises the importance of engaging with external stakeholders, who can help companies to better understand impact over longer periods. Investors will also have to raise their game when it comes to imposing market discipline. Professional and institutional investors, especially, can play a bigger role in calling companies to task if they're not properly capturing material issues. For Singapore-listed companies, the materiality landscape could change in the coming years. It's good to have some outside insights. Climate risk When protection hurts If there's one sector where climate change directly impacts profit, it might be in insurance. Swiss Re Institute estimates that global insured losses from natural catastrophes stood at US$80 billion in the first half of 2025. That's almost double the 10-year average. The main source of losses came from the Palisades wildfires that hit Los Angeles in the first quarter of the year. Without that fire, total insured losses would have been below trend. The Palisades fires hit especially hard because of the value of assets affected by the blaze. 'With changing climates, unexpected and unseasonal weather conditions may occur more frequently, making loss outcomes more volatile and difficult to predict,' the institute says. The institute worked out that global insured losses from natural catastrophes have been growing at a long-term trend of 5 per cent to 7 per cent. If that trend holds in 2025, full-year losses could approach US$150 billion. Insurers have begun to walk away from parts of the world where catastrophe risk has risen too much. For example, home insurance is too costly to be practical in parts of hurricane-prone Florida. But even in places where catastrophe risk is still manageable, the physical risk of climate change is an unavoidable problem. Asset owners in coastal or low-lying areas must plan for potentially damaging flooding. Assets close to vegetation must confront the higher possibility of wildfires. Either invest in climate adaptation and resilience, or pay higher insurance premiums. These problems exist for a significant portion of the global population. That's why climate change is a global problem, and why businesses should consider climate change to be a material sustainability-related risk or opportunity. That's true even for businesses that don't belong to emissions-intensive sectors. Other ESG reads
Business Times
6 hours ago
- Business Times
QAF H1 net profit drops by 69% to S$3.9 million
[SINGAPORE] QAF posted a drop of 69 per cent in its net profit to S$3.9 million for the half-year of FY2025 ended June, impacted by a marginal dip in revenue and higher costs. In a regulatory filing published on Friday (Aug 8), the baker and provider of distribution and warehousing services reported a 1 per cent year-on-year reduction in revenue to S$306.1 million and a 3 per cent rise in total expenses and costs to S$297.9 million. Hence, earnings per share slid, to 0.7 Singapore cent from 2.2 cents for the year-ago period. Net asset value per share also decreased, to 82.7 Singapore cents as at end-June from 86.9 cents as at end-2024. QAF said it experienced higher operating expenses, particularly in labour, amid sluggish consumer demand. These cost pressures will continue to weigh on its profitability. Meanwhile, foreign exchange rate movements remain volatile, and will continue to affect both reported results and business operations in overseas markets, it noted. It posted foreign currency conversion loss of S$3 million, compared with S$100,000 for the corresponding period of FY2024, mainly due to the conversion effects from Australian dollar to Singapore dollar of its substantial holdings in Australian-dollar-denominated cash. In spite of the drop in net profit, QAF board has declared an interim dividend of one Singapore cent per share – unchanged from the year-ago period – with the payment date to be announced. QAF shares dropped 0.6 per cent or S$0.005 to S$0.885 on Friday, before publishing its financial results.
