Yahoo Finance 
Investor CentralWE Holdings Ltd - Why didn't Dr Toh buy shares in the placement?
13/6/2013 – WE Holdings Ltd, in its second placement so far in 2013, has issued 80 mln new shares to 14 investors for S$8.18 mln.
In an announcement on May 30, the company said the net proceeds of S$7.5 mln would be used to repay the remaining US$5.9 mln (about S$7.3 mln) of a loan due on June 17, 2013.
According to its Annual Report for 2011, WE Holdings Ltd had to repay a US$7.8 mln (about S$9.65 mln) loan this month, but the May 30 announcement reveals the company has already repaid US$1.9 mln (about S$2.3 mln) out of the proceeds from the first placement on March 12.
Prior to the second placement on May 30, WE Holdings Ltd had proposed a rights-cum-warrants issue and planned to use S$4.8 mln of the proceeds for repayment of the loan due later this month.
Now that the loan is to be fully repaid from the second placement proceeds, the company has reallocated these S$4.8 mln proceeds from the rights-cum-warrants issue for 'other purposes'.
But that's not all.
Less than a week later, on June 3, WE Holdings Ltd's Chairman, Mr Terence Tea, sold 20 mln shares to Dr Toh Soon Huat.
Dr Toh is the Executive Chairman of Novena Foundation, an investment holding company and a Non-Executive Director of SGX-listed Jubilee Industries Holdings Limited.
He is the founder of Novena Holdings Ltd which was renamed Viking Offshore and Marine Limited in 2010.
He served as the Chairman and CEO of Novena Holdings Ltd.
With the acquisition of 20 mln shares of WE Holdings Ltd, Dr Toh will own a 2.95% stake.
WE Holdings Ltd sees him as a strategic investor and expects to benefit from his business connections in Myanmar.
Investor Central. We keep your investments honest.
1. Why didn't Dr Toh participate in the placement of new shares?
WE Holdings Ltd was already placing out shares to 14 investors on May 30.
But instead of placing new shares to Dr Toh, Chairman Terence Tea announced just three days later that he is selling some of his existing shares to Dr Toh.
If Dr Toh had participated in the share placement instead, WE Holdings Ltd could have raised more funds for its ambitious Myanmar entry.
This leads us to the next question:
2. Why did Mr Tea sell some of his shares?
Mdm Ho May Lee, who bought 10 mln shares (about 1.32% stake) in the placement on May 30, is the sister-in-law of Mr Tea.
She agreed to buy the placement shares at 10.224 Singapore cents per share.
Curiously, three days on, Mr Terence Tea sold 20 mln shares to Dr Toh for an undisclosed sum.
The Chairman sells some of his shares while a sister-in-law buys new shares.
What could be the strategy?
3. At what price did Mr Tea sell 20 mln shares to Dr Toh?
The announcements on June 3 didn't mention the price for which Dr Toh bought 20 mln shares from Mr Tea.
Therefore we have no way of knowing whether Mr Tea made some good gains from the deal, or sold those shares at a steep discount to the market price.
Who knows if this was the reason why Dr Toh didn't participate in the placement on May 30?
4. Who is Mr Tey Siang Koon?
All the buyers of WE Holdings Ltd's placement shares on May 30 were introduced by TSK Capital Pte Ltd.
TSK Capital Pte Ltd is an investment holding company founded and headed by Mr Tey Siang Koon.
WE Holdings Ltd will pay S$654,336, about 8% of the placement size, as commission to TSK Capital Pte Ltd.
How did WE Holdings Ltd get to know Mr Tey? Did someone introduce him to the company?
Finally, how was the placement commission of 8%arrived at?
5. For what 'other purposes' will it invest the rights-cum-warrants issue proceeds?
WE Holdings Ltd has reallocated S$4.8 mln of proceeds from the proposed rights-cum-warrants issue for 'other purposes'.
What could be these 'other purposes'?
The company recently announced earnings for FY13:
Revenue: -28% to US$62.5 mln
Profit: (US$3.7 mln) vs (US$4 mln)
One-off gains/losses: US$1.2 mln vs Nil
Cash flow from operations: (US$2.5 mln) vs US$2.8 mln
Dividend: Nil
WE Holdings Ltd is raising between S$900,000 and S$10.1 mln by issuing one rights share and one warrant for every share held in the company.
Further, the company expects to receive between S$2 mln and S$20 mln from the exercise of warrants in future.
The rights issue is renounceable, which means that shareholders do not have to take up their share of the new stock.
It is also not underwritten, which means no one will step in to buy those stocks existing shareholders don't want.
6. When will WE Holdings be on a sustainable footing?
As recently as last month, things looked pretty dire for WE Holdings Ltd.
First, it had to repay the US$7.8 mln restructured loan (refer page 67 of Annual Report 2011) due June 17.
But it only had cash reserves of US$6.4 mln as at March 31, 2013.
Of this, WE Holdings Ltd's free cash reserve was just US$3.2 mln, with the remainder held by banks to cover overdraft facilities.
WE Holdings was running out of options.
A large part of the US$6.4 mln in cash came from a US$5 mln share placement on March 12.
So, before the May 30 placement, WE Holdings Ltd didn't have enough cash to repay the loan.
It could not borrow more money because its net-debt-to-equity ratio was already as high as 142% on March 31, 2013.
Moreover, almost all of its assets were pledged to existing lenders.
Perhaps WE Holdings could have traded its way out of trouble, but it burnt US$2.5 mln cash on operations during the financial year ended March 31, 2013.
In short, WE Holdings Ltd had no choice but to raise fresh funds to pay for the US$7.8 mln loan.
Perhaps that's also the reason for selling the electronics distribution business altogether, and getting in on the Myanmar story.
7. How did it arrive at sales price of electronic distribution business?
WE Holdings Ltd has decided to sell its electronics distribution business, to focus on its budding resources business in Myanmar.
It announced on May 16, 2013, that it would sell its electronics distribution business to Serial System Ltd for US$2.06 mln.
The sum was based on 3.3% of WE Holdings Ltd's revenue from the electronics business in the financial year ended March 31, 2013.
Also, Serial System Ltd might choose to buy WE Holdings Ltd's inventory of electronic goods worth US$4.8 mln on March 31, 2013.
8. How can it afford a US$20 mln investment in a Myanmar cement plant?
On March 4, 2013, WE Holdings Ltd announced a JV with His Excellency Nay Win Tun, a parliamentarian and the Chairman of Ruby Dragon Group of Companies in Myanmar.
Subsequently, on May 18, 2013, WE Holdings Ltd announced buying a 20% stake in Dragon Cement Co., Ltd from H.E. Nay Win Tun for US$20 mln.
We can't figure it out.
On the one hand, it was indebted beyond the value of its assets and doesn't have enough cash on the books to repay a US$7.8 mln loan.
On the other, it could afford a US$20 mln investment.
By our calculation, WE Holdings Ltd could afford the acquisition only if the rights issue was fully subscribed, the warrants are fully exercised, and Serial System buys the electronics business and inventory.
The rights cum warrants issue promises to raise S$20.35 mln, but once they deduct the fees for the investment bankers they will be left with only S$10.1 mln, and only if all the rights and warrants are exercised.
The issue manager is PrimePartners Corporate Finance Pte Ltd.
We approached PrimePartners for comment, but at the time of publication have not received a reply.
9. How will WE Holding's purchase of a 20% stake increase the production capacity of the plant?
In the accompanying press release, WE Holdings Ltd said "With the Proposed Acquisition, the plant's production capacity is targeted to double from 400 to 800 tonnes a day".
This could only happen if the US$20 mln was paid to the company, and the funds used to expand its capacity.
But that's not the case.
In a later announcement with details of the term sheet we learn that the funds will go to the Vendor, Mr Nay.
So, if no fresh funds are injected into Dragon Cement, how can it double its production capacity?
10. What was the basis of arriving at US$20 mln consideration for the 20% stake in Dragon Cement Co., Ltd?
Was an independent valuation carried out?
What is the revenue and profit number of Dragon Cement?
WE Holdings Ltd also has an option to purchase another 20% stake within three months from the completion of initial purchase.
Dragon Cement Co., Ltd is 91%-owned by H.E. Nay Win Tun while the remaining 9% is owned by an 'independent third party'.
11. Who is the 'independent third party'?
And what role will they play in the company?
12. How much more can it recover from US$34.95 mln bad debt?
On February 26, 2013, WE Holdings Ltd announced that it has received US$1.2 mln from the Taiwan Courts in relation to a US$34.95 mln claim against a major but undisclosed customer in Taiwan who defaulted in 2008.
WE Holdings Ltd says "This is expected to be the first pay out and the company will provide updates as and when there are further receipts of the residual monies to be recovered from the claim".
This sounds as though the company is not sure of any further recovery from the claim.
13. Who would receive the further payouts?
Will WE Holdings Ltd get the money?
Or Serial System Ltd, seeing that it is buying the electronics distribution business, which launched the claim against the Taiwanese customer?
14. What is the basis for US$0.6 mln revaluation gain in FY2012-13?
WE Holdings Ltd recorded a US$2.6 mln gain on revaluation of its office buildings in financial year ended March 31, 2012 (refer page 54 of Annual Report for 2011).
The buildings were revalued by Knight Frank in March 2012.
A year later, WE Holdings Ltd recorded another US$0.6 mln gain on revaluation of buildings in the financial year ended March 31, 2013.
Only this time, it did not mention on what basis it arrived at this gain.
Who was the valuer?
Interestingly, WE Holdings Ltd averted a negative equity position on March 31, 2012 by extending its financial year by 3 months and recording a US$2.6 mln gain on revaluation of office buildings.
Similarly, without the US$0.6 mln gain on revaluation this year, WE Holdings Ltd would have witnessed a negative equity position just before the private placement on March 12, 2013.
15. Why did the CEO and the Deputy Chairman dump shares within three years of the reverse takeover, and just before the loan repayment deadline?
Sim Mong Keang Kenny is the Managing Director and CEO of WE Holdings Ltd.
He was appointed on June 2, 2010.
Mr Sim assumed his designation because he is a co-founder and was the CEO of Plexus Group which acquired WE Holdings Ltd (then known as WesTech Electronics Limited) in a Reverse Takeover in 2010.
As on June 4, 2010, Kenny Sim owned 57.92% of WE Holdings Ltd (then known as WesTech Electronics Limited).
Since then, Mr Sim has sold down his shares through various off-market transactions, such as married deals.
Three years later, as at May 21, 2013, he owned less than 0.01% of WE Holdings Ltd.
At the same time as Mr Kenny Sim came on board, Mr Chng Weng Wah Eddie was appointed as non-executive Deputy Chairman of WE Holdings Ltd.
Mr Chng had bought shares in Plexus Components Pte Ltd immediately before the Reverse Takeover of WE Holdings Ltd.
Mr Chng began with a stake of 19.34% in WE Holdings Ltd on June 4, 2010.
Gradually, he raised the stake to 29% on July 17, 2012.
But then, he began dumping his shares via off-market transactions in less than nine months.
By March 12, 2013, the day he resigned as non-executive Director and Deputy Chairman, he had sold almost all his shares.
Therefore, both the controlling shareholders of WE Holdings Ltd quit before the loan repayment deadline of June 2013.
But more interestingly, they managed to sell more than 50% of WE Holdings Ltd without triggering a mandatory general offer.
We are not alleging any wrongdoing, but in 2001, Mr Chng was found guilty of violating mandatory general offer rule for shares in Serial System Ltd.
As a result, Mr Chng was disqualified from being a Director of any company listed on the SGX-ST for two years until May 22, 2003.
WE Holdings is now selling its electronics business to Serial System Ltd.
In November 2001, the Commercial Affairs Department also issued a warning letter to Mr Chng in relation to an alleged contravention under Section 83, 165 and 166 of the Companies Act.
However, no further action was taken.
The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore also raised additional assessments in respect of car benefits provided to Mr Chng by Serial System Ltd from the period of 1996 to 2001.
As a result, Mr Chng had to pay additional taxes.
16. Will Mr Terence Tea quit as Executive Chairman if CAD or a private investigator finds irregularities at SCT Technologies?
The relationship between Mr Chng, Mr Tea and Mr Sim go back some years.
Mr Chng was a substantial shareholder of SGX-listed Advance SCT Ltd at the time Mr Tea took the company public in 2004.
The relationship continued to March 2013, when Mr Chng and Mr Sim sold some of their shares in WE Holdings Ltd to Mr Tea.
Mr Tea also participated in the placement issue of WE Holdings Ltd, and is now estimated to own 11.72% of it.
According to Reuters, he still owned a 3.81% stake in Advance SCT Ltd as on April 8, 2013.
On March 12, 2013, Mr Tea was appointed as Executive Chairman of WE Holdings Ltd.
He was also appointed as a member of nominating committee of the company.
Interestingly, SGX raised queries over appointment.
In reply to the queries, WE Holdings Ltd, on March 14, 2013, said that the nominating committee conducted due diligence before appointing Mr Tea as the Executive Chairman of the company.
As a part of due diligence, the nominating committee wrote a letter to the Commercial Affairs Department to seek confirmation on Mr Tea's involvement in any past or on-going investigation.
WE Holdings Ltd didn't confirm whether CAD replied to its letter.
Instead, the company relied on a statutory declaration filed by Mr Tea in relation to his involvement in an investigation involving alleged irregularities in the financials of SCT Technologies Pte Ltd by CAD.
Mr Tea declared that he was not subject to the investigation in the matter of SCT Technologies Pte Ltd and the investigation had been completed.
The nominating committee says it would reconsider Mr Tea's appointment if he was found to be subject to any CAD investigation or should the nominating committee receive any negative report on Mr Tea from a private investigator it had hired.
But will it?
At the time of Mr Tea's appointment, the nominating committee of WE Holdings Ltd was made up of Former Singapore Ambassador to Vietnam, Mr Toh Hock Ghim, Mr Kenny Sim, Mr Eddy Chng, Mr Wong Chee Meng Lawrence, Mr Tan Wee Peng Kelvin and Mr Ng Boo Gan.
Since then, Ambassador Toh, Mr Eddy Chng and Mr Ng Boo Gan resigned on March 12, 2013, the day Mr Tea was appointed as a member.
And now that he is the single largest shareholder of WE Holdings Ltd, one wonders who Mr Tea will appoint to fill the other two vacancies of the nominating committee.
17. Was Mr Tea serving as a director of Advance SCT Ltd at the time that the company sold SCT Technologies to a private company he was related to?
Mr Tea resigned from Advance SCT Ltd on February 13, 2009 to pursue other business interests.
Later that year, on June 24, Advance SCT signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with SingYaSin Holdings Pte Ltd to sell SCT Technologies Pte Ltd and other subsidiaries to SingYaSin.
According to that announcement, SingYaSin was incorporated in Singapore by a group of reputable businessmen in the electrical and electronic industry.
However, we couldn't find reference in Advance SCT's announcement whether it's Directors had an interest in the disposal of the subsidiaries.
Three months later, on September 29, 2009, Advance SCT's wholly-owned subsidiary, SCT Technologies Pte Ltd, agreed to issue new shares to SingYaSin Holdings Pte Ltd forS$200,000, giving SingYaSin Holdings Pte Ltd a 90% stake in it while Advance SCT Ltd would retain the remaining 10% stake.
In its September 29 announcement, Advance SCT Ltd said that none of its directors or substantial shareholders had any interest, direct or indirect, in the subscription.
The subscription was completed on October 14, 2009.
Advance SCT Ltd didn't name the owners or management of SingYaSin Holdings Pte Ltd.
But a February 4, 2013 announcement by WE Holdings Ltd did.
According to ACRA filings, the shareholders of SingYaSin Holdings Pte Ltd are Bobby Lim Chye Huat (10%), Ng Cheng Chuan (30%) and Chew Ban Eng Stephen (60%), the latter being principal consultant at Summit Planners Pte Ltd since December 2000.
The similarly-named SingYaSin SMC Technologies Pte Ltd is headed and wholly-owned by Mr Tea.
Mr Tea has served as a Director of Summit Planners Growth Fund Ltd in past 5 years, and he is presently serving as a Director at Summit Planner Asset Management Pte Ltd.
Terence Tea is also linked to the remaining shareholders, according to Handshakes.
18. Why did Mr Sim get paid bonuses, even as WE Holdings Ltd was posting losses?
2010 was a tough year for WE Holdings, but a good one for Managing Director and CEO Mr Kenny Sim.
WE Holdings Ltd acquired Plexus Components Pte Ltd at very high valuations.
According to page 74 of Annual Report for 2010, WE Holdings Ltd acquired US$1 mln worth of net assets of Plexus Components Pte Ltd, but paid US$6.9 mln.
Also, WE Holdings Ltd acquired US$45.6 mln worth of bad debts of Plexus Components Pte Ltd (refer page 61 of Annual Report for 2010).
At the same time, Mr Kenny Sim, who was appointed as Managing Director and CEO of WE Holdings Ltd on June 2, 2010, took home remuneration in excess of S$250,000 in 2010, including a 21% bonus, even as WE Holdings Ltd booked a US$4 mln net loss that year.
Similarly, in 2011-12, Mr Kenny Sim was paid remuneration between S$0.75 mln to S$1 mln, including a 22% bonus and 8% fringe benefits.
That year, WE Holdings Ltd recorded a US$4 mln net loss in the 15 months ended March 31, 2012.
Mr Ng Boo Gan, an Executive Director of WE Holdings Ltd, was also paid bonuses and fringe benefits in 2010 and 2011-12.
Mr Sim and Mr Ng are co-founders of Plexus Components Pte Ltd which acquired WE Holdings Ltd in a Reverse Takeover in 2010, a deal that also leads to questions that need to be asked.
19. Who did it pay US$100,000 for acquiring a Taiwan company which it already owned?
On June 2, 2010, Plexus Components Pte Ltd successfully completed a Reverse Takeover (RTO) of WesTech Electronics Limited.
Months later, on April 28, 2011, WesTech Electronics Limited was renamed as 'WE Holdings Ltd'.
On the same day, Plexus Components Pte Ltd's Taiwan Branch was renamed as 'WE Components Co., Ltd'.
Now, here comes the tricky part:
A few weeks later, in an announcement on July 16, 2011, WE Holdings Ltd said its wholly-owned subsidiary WE Components Pte Ltd acquired the entire equity interest in WE Components Co., Ltd, in Taiwan, on July 1 for NT$2.9 mln (about US$100,000).
How?
It already owned it!
WE Components Pte Ltd (ie, Plexus Components Pte Ltd) was the parent company which was RTOed on June 2, 2010.
WE Components Pte Ltd's Taiwan Branch was also RTOed on June 2 as it was a subsidiary of WE Components Pte Ltd.
Also, WE Holdings Ltd injected NT$13.1 mln (about US$440,000) fresh capital in WE Components Co., Ltd, to finance its working capital.
Obviously, there cannot be any other WE Components Co., Ltd in Taiwan because WE Holdings Ltd had already registered the name, as its subsidiary, on April 28, 2011.
Hence our question.
20. Why was the company sold at such a discount to Net Asset Value?
Leaving aside the perplexing but important question about why WE Holdings would pay US$100,000 for a subsidiary it already owned, the deal was done at a steep discount to its actual value.
The same announcement also says the Net Tangible Asset (NTA) value of WE Components Co., Ltd was NT$14.7 mln on June 1, 2011, five times what WE Holdings actually paid.
21. How could WE Components Co Ltd be renamed and its value assessed before its stated incorporation date?
The Annual Report for 2011 just adds to the confusion.
According to page 57 of the report, WE Components Co., Ltd was incorporated only on July 1, 2011.
But if this was the case, how could WE Holdings Ltd claim on April 28 – two months earlier – that it had renamed the company?
22. Where does the cashflow statement show the receipt of the payment?
WE Holdings Ltd's cash flow statement, on page 31, didn't record any cash outflow for the acquisition of WE Components Co., Ltd.
23. Why did it sell WE Components Co., Ltd to its former COO?
Still, moving forward in the chain of events, on October 18, 2011, WE Holdings Ltd restructured ownership of WE Components Co., Ltd.
Until October 18, WE Components Co., Ltd was a wholly-owned subsidiary of WE Components Pte Ltd which further was a wholly-owned subsidiary of WE Holdings Ltd.
But on October 18, the entire ownership of WE Components Co., Ltd was transferred from WE Components Pte Ltd to WE Holdings Ltd.
This doesn't sound significant, but about six months later, on April 1, 2012, WE Holdings Ltd agreed to sell its entire stake in WE Components Co., Ltd to Ho Wei Ping, Johnson for NT$2 mln (about US$68,000).
The announcement said: "The Purchaser [Mr Ho Wei Ping, Johnson] was a former chief operating officer [COO] in charge of the China, Taiwan and Hong Kong region of WE Components. He resigned from WE Components in February 2012".
24. How did the NTA value of WE Components Co., Ltd fall from NT$14.7 mln in June 2011, despite a NT$13.1 mln capital infusion in July 2011?
The sale consideration of NT$2 mln was based on WE Components Co., Ltd's NTA value of NT$1.84 mln (about US$62,551) in March 2012.
As a result of the agreement for disposal, WE Holdings Ltd, in its Annual Report for 2011 (page 61), impaired US$492,000 worth of its investment in WE Components Co., Ltd as at March 31, 2012.
So, within nine months, WE Holdings Ltd lost US$500,000 on a subsidiary which was initially part of the reverse takeover, and which it appeared to buy a second time.
Further, its investment in WE Components Co., Ltd was classified, in its balance sheet on March 31, 2012, as 'asset held for sale' with a realisable value of US$68,000.
25. Where is the money Mr Ho paid?
According to the sale agreement, Mr Ho was to pay US$68,000 consideration on or before April 30, 2012.
But we couldn't find reference to this in WE Holdings Ltd's cash flow statement for FY2012.
26. Where is the disclosure of the change of address of the Taiwan subsidiary?
WE Holdings Ltd's documents raise doubts over the place of operations of WE Components Co., Ltd in Taiwan.
According to page 7 of Annual Report 2010, Plexus Components Pte Ltd's Taiwan Branch was located at 5F, No 63, Lane 76, Ruiguang Road, Neihu Dist., Taipei, Taiwan.
As we already know, Plexus Components Pte Ltd's Taiwan Branch was renamed as 'WE Components Co., Ltd' on April 28, 2011.
However, the announcement didn't mention anything about changes to its registered office in Taiwan.
27. Why was the Taiwan subsidiary referred to by its old address?
Surprisingly, WE Holdings Ltd's Annual Report for 2011 (page 7) doesn't identify Plexus Components Pte Ltd's Taiwan Branch by its new name, even as all other subsidiaries are identified with their new/changed names.
But more importantly, the address of Plexus Components Pte Ltd's Taiwan Branch (or, WE Components Co., Ltd) changed from what it was in the previous Annual Report.
Its new address is 5F. No. 298, Ruiguang Road Neihu Dist., Taipei City 114, about a kilometre from the previous address.
As expected, Plexus Components Pte Ltd's Taiwan Branch's new address is the same as WE Components Co., Ltd which, as per WE Holdings Ltd's claim, was acquired on July 1, 2011 and sold on April 1, 2012.
It should be noted that WE Holdings Ltd didn't disclose the registered address of WE Components Co., Ltd at the time of acquisition on July 1, 2011.
Rather, the registered address was disclosed at the time of disposal on April 1, 2012.
Amidst all this confusion, further questions arise:
28. Why did it buy a minority stake in Plexus Technology Ltd?
On February 22, 2011, WE Holdings Ltd acquired a 20% stake in Plexus Technology Ltd for NT$1 mln (or US$35,000).
It bought the stake from Mr Wang Chien-Yu who owned the remaining 80% stake and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, continues to do so.
Mr Wang Chien-Yu was also a legal representative of Plexus Components Pte Ltd's Taiwan Branch (later renamed WE Components Co., Ltd).
The similarly-named Plexus Technology Ltd was incorporated, with a registered and paid-up capital of NT$5 mln, in Taiwan on October 18, 2010.
But on page 60 of Annual Report for 2011, WE Holdings Ltd says Plexus Technology Taiwan Co., Ltd was incorporated in December 2010 and was dormant as on March 31, 2012.
Apart from the above contradiction, there are several other questions that need to be asked.
29. Why did former legal representative of Plexus Components Pte Ltd incorporate a company so similar to the latter's name?
30. Why did WE Holdings Ltd buy only 20% stake in Plexus Technology Ltd and not more?
31. How did Plexus Technology Ltd end up being a dormant company even though WE Holdings Ltd said its 20% stake would help it expand electronics business in Taiwan?
32. When in 2010 was Plexus Technology Ltd actually incorporated – October or December?
33. Why didn't WE Holdings Ltd sell its 20% stake in Plexus Technology Ltd if it failed to achieve the investment purpose?
We have sent these questions to the company to invite them for an on-camera interview, and/or seek their written response.
Sofar, we have not had a reply (which is why you are seeing this message).
©2013 Investor Central® - a service of Hong Bao Media
