Latest news with #AustralianSecuritiesExchange
Epoch Times
2 days ago
- Business
- Epoch Times
Virgin Australia Set to Rejoin ASX with $685 Million IPO
Virgin Australia has formally declared its plans to relist on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX), marking a major milestone in its post-pandemic recovery. The airline, which was delisted in 2020 following its voluntary administration during COVID-19, has submitted a prospectus to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), signalling the beginning of a public offering worth $685 million.
West Australian
2 days ago
- Business
- West Australian
Virgin Australia confirms long-awaited return to ASX with $685m IPO
Virgin Australia has confirmed long-awaited plans to launch a near-$700 million initial public offering and re-list on the Australian Securities Exchange. Following days of market speculation, Australia's second-biggest airline issued a prospectus on Friday, with the offer period running between June 16 and June 19. Shares are expected to start trading on June 24 under the ticker VGN. The fully underwritten IPO of 236.2 million shares is priced at $2.90 apiece and is expected to raise $685m, valuing the airline at just over $2.3 billion. Under the float, Virgin's US private equity owner Bain Capital's shareholding will drop from about 70 per cent to 40 per cent, while minority shareholder Qatar Airways will retain its 25 per cent stake. The return to the boards comes after the nation's competition regulator in March cleared Virgin and Qatar's five-year partnership allowing the Australian airline to use Qatar aircraft and crew to operate new services under a so-called 'wet lease' arrangement. From next week, Virgin will return to long-haul flights between Doha and Perth, Brisbane and Sydney. Flights to and from Melbourne will start in December. Bain bought Virgin in 2020 after the airline crashed into administration with billions of dollars worth of debt following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Over the past few years, it has made several attempts to get Virgin back on to the ASX. Virgin chief executive Dave Emerson on Friday said the airline was a simple, focused business with a transformed operational and commercial model. 'We have a clear strategy and an incredible team of people who deliver wonderful flying experiences to our customers every day,' he said. 'We are delivering on our ambition to be Australia's most loved airline and continuing to expand our award-winning Velocity frequent flyer program.' Virgin chair Peter Warne said it was an appropriate time for the business to transition to a publicly listed company. 'This provides an opportunity for new investors to share in the success of Virgin Australia as the airline enters its next phase,' he said. 'I commend all those involved in orchestrating Virgin Australia's remarkable turnaround and setting the business up for long-term success.'
West Australian
6 days ago
- Business
- West Australian
Embattled Toys R Us posts modest sales lift amid recapitalisation plans
Toys R Us, once one of the nation's biggest children's toy and clothing stores, has posted a modest lift in quarterly sales amid plans to recapitalise the business. The retailer — which has become an online-only business after it collapsed in 2018 — reported revenues of $863,000 in the three months to the end of April, slightly up from the $779,000 recorded a year earlier. In its newly filed accounts to the Australian Securities Exchange, Toys R Us said its primary debt holder was supporting short-term cash requirements and working with the board whilst a recapitalisation plan was finalised. Toys R Us said if agreed, the recapitalisation plan would provide it with sufficient capital to fund ongoing operations and enable the business to deliver financially sustainable operations. 'The board and management team have worked tirelessly over the quarter, focused on driving operational efficiencies and implementing robust marketing strategies,' Toys R Us executive chair Kelly Humphreys said. 'This work is now achieving better outcomes for the business and demonstrating the capability to deliver profitable operations when fully funded. 'The board is working to finalise a recapitalisation of the business and remains committed to delivering long term success for your company.' Toys R Us filed for bankruptcy in 2018, closing 44 Australia stores and leaving around 700 people without jobs. Toys R Us re-launched online in late 2019 after reaching a deal with Hobby Warehouse. In 2021, it was bought by ASX-listed retailer Funtastic, which changed its name to Toys R Us the same year. But it has been a challenging re-launch for the toy store chain as it faces stiff competition from bigger rivals like Kmart, Amazon, Shein and Temu. It comes just months after Toys R Us' auditor warned the retailer could soon run out of money due to a near $13 million gap between what it owed and the total value of assets. Toys R Us said a key strategic objective was to grow existing and introduce new online shopping channels, an initiative that was now generating stronger sales and contributing to higher rates of customers returning.
West Australian
21-05-2025
- Business
- West Australian
Regis Resources expands open-pit and underground reserves at Duketon
Regis Resources has expanded both its open-pit and underground ore reserves at Duketon in the northern Goldfields during the past year. Regis told the Australian Securities Exchange this week that Duketon open-pit ore reserves grew to 640,000 ounces across several open pits and stockpiles. The company also said exploration delivered the fifth consecutive year of underground ore reserves growth, with an expansion of 550 per cent since 2019. Duketon underground now had 441,000oz of ore reserves, it said. Overall, across both Duketon and the Tropicana gold mine — which Regis holds 30 per cent of in a joint venture with global mining giant AngloGold Ashanti — Regis had total mineral resources of 7.5 million ounces and ore reserves of 1.7Moz. The ore reserve figure has fallen from 3.5Moz a year ago because that figure included 1.89Moz at the McPhillamys project in New South Wales, which has since become the subject of court action by Regis after former Federal environment minister Tanya Plibersek's rejection of the $1 billion project on Aboriginal cultural heritage protection grounds last August. The 7.5Moz mineral resources figure is an increase on the 7Moz of a year ago. Regis managing director and chief executive Jim Beyer said the latest update reflected the strength of the company's disciplined and systematic investment in exploration and mine planning. 'At Duketon, we've grown open-pit ore reserves and achieved a fifth consecutive year of underground reserve growth, a direct outcome of the team's deep geological insight and focus on converting resources into reserves,' he said. 'Our exploration programs continue to enhance the mineral resource base, and we remain confident in the ongoing potential for further growth and life extension across our portfolio. 'At Tropicana, we've seen strong reserve growth in the underground areas, further reinforcing the long-term value from that operation. 'These outcomes continue to support our long-term strategy to expand our underground portfolio while delivering ongoing reserve conversion and mine-life extension across our existing operations.'
Business Times
14-05-2025
- Business
- Business Times
Climate first…or last?
AS SUSTAINABILITY disclosures edge towards becoming mandatory in many jurisdictions rather than an optional public relations tool, a critical question arises: How do companies decide what really matters? The answer lies in a term central to every sustainability report yet often poorly understood: 'materiality assessment'. Materiality assessments are intended to help companies identify the most significant sustainability-related risks and opportunities (SROs) – those that can affect business performance or impact people and the planet. If done well, a materiality assessment should be the backbone of a sustainability strategy. Done poorly, it can mask risks, mislead stakeholders and derail corporate efforts to contribute meaningfully to the climate transition. In a forthcoming report Climate First…Or Last? Materiality Assessment of Sustainability-Related Risks and Opportunities, we studied how companies across Asia-Pacific approach this crucial task. By analysing materiality disclosures from 300 listed companies on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX), Bursa Malaysia (BM) and Singapore Exchange (SGX), we found significant differences, not only in presentation and methodology, but in what gets prioritised and what gets left behind. Why it matters now The research comes at a pivotal time. Regulators and stock exchanges in various jurisdictions, especially in Asia-Pacific, are looking into implementing the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) S1 and S2 and rolling out climate disclosure standards, set to redefine global norms. The IFRS framework is set out for reporting using an investor's perspective, looking for topics related to SROs that financially impact business performance. However, previously adopted frameworks such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) take a multi-stakeholder perspective, resulting in broader SROs. These frameworks emphasise overall impact, rather than focusing solely on financial materiality. Materiality assessments are the cornerstone of effective sustainability governance. They guide companies in identifying sustainability matters most significant to their operations and stakeholders, whether they be climate risks, human rights, governance failures or labour practices. 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 With the emergence of global standards and increasing reporting requirements from regulators, expectations are evolving fast. Companies must not only report more but also report better. Yet, the question persists: Are they prioritising the right issues or simply ticking boxes? Our study reveals that while reporting quantity has increased, reporting quality and, more importantly, relevance is still uneven. In many cases, companies disclose long lists of ESG risks without truly understanding which ones are strategic, financially material or reflective of stakeholder concerns. Key findings The report delivers a critical, evidence-based examination of how companies across Australia, Malaysia and Singapore identify and prioritise SROs. Drawing on a detailed analysis of 300 companies listed on the ASX, BM and SGX across ten sectors, the study reveals significant gaps, regional differences and common challenges in materiality assessment practices, particularly how companies define, engage stakeholders and disclose their material sustainability priorities. Bursa-listed companies stood out for their use of materiality matrices – 87 per cent presented their materiality assessment in this way, clearly showing the relative importance of SROs, compared to only 45 per cent of SGX-listed and 14 per cent of ASX-listed companies. This difference is attributed to Bursa's strong guidance through its Sustainability Reporting Guide and Materiality Toolkit. However, the presence of a matrix alone does not guarantee depth: while presentation aids stakeholder understanding, the underlying process of identifying SROs often lacked clarity and consistency. The study also highlights varying levels of stakeholder engagement across regions. ASX-listed companies engaged more robustly with a broader array of stakeholders – internal and external, including non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and civil society organisations (CSOs) – compared to their regional counterparts. In terms of the most frequently cited material topics, 'Human Capital and Labour Management' and 'Workplace Health & Safety', followed by 'Ethical and Sustainable Supply Chain', 'Climate Change and Emissions', emerged as dominant concerns for Bursa and SGX-listed companies, reflecting the labour-intensive nature of many firms in these markets. ASX-listed firms, on the other hand, frequently identified 'Community Relations', 'Climate Change & Emissions' and 'Corporate Governance', signalling a stronger emphasis on external stakeholder expectations, especially from NGOs and CSOs. This divergence highlights the contextual nature of materiality: not only is it sector-specific, but it is also heavily influenced by geography, stakeholder salience, and socio-political dynamics. A pivotal observation in the report is the difference between frequency and perceived importance. While social and environmental topics were commonly mentioned, they were rarely ranked highest in importance. Across all three markets, 'Governance' issues were prioritised most, followed by 'Economic' concerns, suggesting that companies may still be aligning materiality assessments more with what is easier to disclose and manage rather than with broader stakeholder or environmental imperatives. Prioritising 'Governance' and 'Economic' issues is often perceived as a signal of ethical, financially responsible business conduct. However, this pattern can inadvertently obscure longer-term sustainability challenges – such as climate change, biodiversity loss and systemic social risks – by reinforcing a narrow view of materiality rooted in short-term manageability rather than broader impact. The analysis reveals a consistent pattern wherein environmental issues are frequently deprioritised in corporate materiality assessments. This trend appears not to stem from a perceived lack of relevance, but rather from the inherent complexity, long-term nature and difficulties associated with setting measurable targets for such issues. In contrast, organisations tend to prioritise short-term, easily quantifiable topics – such as governance, compliance, and occupational health and safety – potentially due to their perceived manageability and alignment with existing reporting structures. However, with the adoption of ISSB reporting and a 'climate first' approach, the relative importance of environmental-related SROs may increase. Under the ISSB S2 approach, companies assess climate impact through an 'outside-in' perspective, focusing on how climate-related risks and opportunities affect the organisation's financial position and performance. Structural bias The report's analysis highlights a structural bias within the materiality assessment process: topics that are complex, systemic or characterised by delayed feedback loops are less likely to be deemed material despite their recognised significance. As the report notes, 'the difficulty of setting targets can suppress the perceived materiality of certain issues', suggesting that procedural limitations and internal capabilities may distort the prioritisation of SROs. The observed under-representation of climate-related and broader environmental issues in materiality matrices may reflect a strategic blind spot that has broader implications for policy coherence and organisational risk exposure. In particular, as jurisdictions intensify their commitments to net-zero transitions and integrate climate risk into regulatory and disclosure regimes, organisations that fail to adequately account for environmental materiality may not only weaken the efficacy of national policy responses but also expose themselves to escalating reputational, regulatory and financial liabilities. This finding emphasises the need for a more critical evaluation of how materiality is determined and how long-term systemic risks are incorporated, or overlooked, in sustainability governance processes. Another key insight is the performative dimension of materiality assessments. Companies facing controversy, such as Malaysian glove manufacturers sanctioned over labour rights violations, tended to elevate related issues like human capital and social compliance in their disclosures. Conversely, firms without such exposure leaned towards environmental or governance topics, potentially to differentiate themselves. This suggests that materiality assessments are sometimes used as tools of strategic signalling, rather than purely as reflections of stakeholder concerns or operational impact. Materiality assessments are typically not conducted on an annual basis; instead, most companies undertake a comprehensive review every three to four years, with interim updates carried out in response to significant events or strategic shifts. These events may include changes in business operations, market entry or exit, mergers and acquisitions, or evolving regulatory requirements. In examining the transition to ISSB-aligned disclosures, the report expresses concern that financial materiality may crowd out broader impact materiality. SGX, for instance, has adopted a phased 'climate-first' approach, prioritising IFRS S2 disclosures on climate risk while maintaining GRI-based disclosures for other sustainability-related matters. While this dual approach preserves balance in the short term, the full and sole adoption of ISSB standards may limit disclosures to only financially material topics, excluding important stakeholder concerns with high societal impact. A key insight highlights the blind spots in materiality assessments – issues companies often overlook due to short-term thinking, limited stakeholder input or rigid use of standardised frameworks. While frameworks like SASB help structure sustainability disclosures, they may miss critical country-specific risks. For instance, SASB's exclusion of labour and human rights topics in the 'Medical Equipment & Supplies' sector failed to capture the realities faced by Malaysian glove manufacturers, many of whom were penalised for labour violations. Broader concerns around migrant labour exploitation led to Malaysia's downgrade to Tier Three in the US Trafficking in Persons report in 2021. This case highlights the need for companies to go beyond frameworks and consider localised risks in their materiality assessments. The US tariff announcement adds new volatility to an already fragile global economy, posing serious risks to sustainable business. While the full impact remains uncertain, likely consequences include disruptions to clean energy supply chains, job losses in vulnerable exporting countries, and reduced attention to labour rights. Even if temporary, such measures weaken global cooperation and challenge the credibility of ESG commitments. For companies, this highlights the need for materiality assessments to account for geopolitical risks and to adapt swiftly to systemic shocks that affect long-term sustainability goals. The final message The report delivers a message: materiality assessments, if poorly conducted, can become box-ticking exercises, reinforcing existing biases rather than uncovering real risks and opportunities. Boards have a critical role in ensuring that assessments are strategic, stakeholder-informed and forward-looking. The report calls for greater board engagement, ongoing stakeholder dialogue, integration of short, medium and long-term horizons, as well as a more contextual, dynamic approach to materiality. Mak Yuen Teen is a Professor (Practice) of Accounting at NUS Business School who specialises in corporate governance, and teaches courses in corporate governance and sustainability. Tina Thomas is ESG lead in a Singapore-based consulting firm with more than 15 years of global experience in the energy sector.
