Reasons for SC Rejection of IPO Applications 2006

Applicants

Reasons for Rejection

Main Board (MB)

1.

Company 1/06/MB

  • The Applicant did not comply with the profit track record requirement under paragraph 6.13(a) of the Issues Guidelines after excluding the gain on disposal of discontinued operations from the consolidated after-tax profit of the Applicant.

  • The Applicant did not comply with Guidance Note 7B of the Issues Guidelines as its operation would not result in the transfer of any new technology to Malaysia.

  • The Applicant was operating in a highly competitive market and had to compete with the incumbent foreign company and other bigger multinational companies in the foreign market.

2.

Company 2/06/MB

  • Concerns on the sustainability of the financial performance and the growth prospects of the Applicant given that it was too dependent on limited contracts.

  • The Applicant was operating in a highly competitive industry with minimum competitive advantage.

3.

Company 31/06/MB

  • Concerns over future growth prospects of the Applicant in view that it was highly dependent on activities with limited growth prospects.

  • Uncertainty over the legal and financial implications relating to a particular construction project.

4.

Company 32/06/MB

  • Concerns over the Applicant’s capabilities to undertake large development projects successfully given that it had only previously undertaken much smaller development projects and more than half of the Applicant’s land bank was concentrated in a single location.

  • The Applicant was not in a healthy financial position given its weak cashflow position and poor financial result based on the latest available management accounts.

Second Board (SB)

5.

Company 3/06/SB

  • The Applicant was too dependent on one ultimate end-customer.

  • The Applicant was too dependent on the lower end contract manufacturing activities.

  • The Applicant was operating in a highly competitive industry with minimum competitive advantage.

6.

Company 4/06/SB

  • Concerns on the Applicant’s sales restriction in the domestic market.

  • The Applicant’s design capability was not well demonstrated and its products were not patented.

  • Concerns on the surge of sales in the latest financial years which might not be sustained.

7.

Company 5/06/SB

  • The majority of the Applicant’s products were not widely used and its sales were concentrated in a single state.

  • The Applicant was operating in a highly competitive industry with minimum competitive advantage.

  • The Applicant’s sales to related parties were substantial without sufficient mitigations.

8.

Company 6/06/SB

  • The Applicant did not comply with the requirements of paragraph 6.15 of the Issues Guidelines which requires a company seeking listing to be in a healthy financial position and should have a sufficient level of working capital at the point of listing.

  • The Applicant had poor corporate governance in relation to submission of income tax returns and payment to the employees provident funds.

  • The Applicant was too dependent on a single customer without sufficient mitigations.

9.

Company 7/06/SB

    The Applicant failed to satisfactorily address the concerns raised by the SC in relation to its high dependency on a single customer and the lower end contract manufacturing activities without sufficient mitigations, and the intense competition in the industry with minimum competitive advantage.

10.

Company 8/06/SB

  • The Applicant did not fully comply with the requirements of paragraph 6.14(a) of the Issues Guidelines as the largest contributor to its profit had only been in operation for four full financial years.

  • The Applicant had corporate governance issues, such as late issuance of audited financial statements of its subsidiaries and failure of its substantial shareholders to submit information/declarations/confirmation as stipulated under the Format and Content of Application for Initial Public Offering of the Issues Guidelines despite several reminders.

11.

Company 9/06/SB

  • Poor corporate governance displayed by the directors of the Applicant.

  • The financial results of the Applicant did not exhibit strong growth despite being established and operating in the industry for a long time.

  • The Applicant was involved in the production of less complicated components and was operating in a competitive industry.

12.

Company 33/06/SB

  • The Applicant had failed to demonstrate satisfactory corporate governance practices by having informal arrangements with third parties and did not obtain relevant approvals from the authorities.

  • Concerns over the legal and financial implications relating to Applicant’s operations located at sub-contractors’ premises which did not have appropriate approval and licences to carry out the business activities.

  • The Applicant was not in a healthy financial position given its weak working capital level.

MESDAQ Market (MM)

13.

Company 9/06/MM

  • The market acceptance of the products designed and developed by the Applicant were not yet proven as the Applicant was relatively new as compared to other existing competitors. In addition, the Applicant was operating in a highly competitive industry with minimum competitive advantage.

  • Concerns on the sustainability of the financial performance and the growth prospects of the Applicant.

  • Concerns on the Applicant’s large trade debtors position.

14.

Company 10/06/MM

  • Concerns on the Applicant’s ability to secure greater market penetration/acceptance and successfully generate long-term repeat purchases from customers.

  • Concerns on the Applicant’s ability to compete, increase and sustain revenue growth in view that the existing customers comprised only small-size customers.

15.

Company 11/06/MM

  • Concerns on the Applicant’s ability to compete effectively to increase and sustain revenue growth in the multi-level marketing industry in view that the customers for its main product were mainly small and new companies.

  • Concerns on the Applicant’s ability to further penetration/secure acceptance for its product globally to overcome the limited number of customers in the domestic market.

16.

Company 12/06/MM

  • The Applicant did not qualify as a technology-based company given that the principal activity was provisions of engineering and maintenance services utilising commercially available technology.

17.

Company 13/06/MM

  • The Applicant failed to exhibit the characteristics of a high growth company based on its overall growth in revenue and profitability.

  • The trading products could not be deemed substantially complementary to the Applicant’s manufacturing products.

  • Low barriers to entry.

18.

Company 14/06/MM

  • The historical R&D capabilities and the investment of the Applicant were relatively limited/low, which was an indication of low technological barriers to entry into the industry.

  • Concerns on the sustainability of the financial performance and the growth prospects of the Applicant.

19.

Company 15/06/MM

  • Concerns on the prospects of business due to competition, non-complementary business lines and inability of parent company to sustain listing if the Applicant was listed.

20.

Company 16/06/MM

  • The Applicant’s future growth was dependent on products which had yet to be commercialised.

  • The Applicant’s high dependency on a few major suppliers and customers without sufficient mitigations.

  • Low barriers to entry.

21.

Company 17/06/MM

  • The Applicant’s business activity was highly competitive whereby competition came from property developer companies which had their own in-house team/subsidiaries undertaking the same business activity as the Applicant.

  • Concerns on the Applicant’s ability to compete, increase and sustain revenue growth in the long term in view that in the past, significant revenue contributions were derived from related parties.

22.

Company 18/06/MM

  • The Applicant did not qualify as a technology-based company because it was a user of technology instead of developer and innovator of technology given that most of the components of the end products were acquired from third parties.

23.

Company 19/06/MM

  • The Applicant did not qualify as a technology-based company given that the technology developed by the Applicant was only a support tool for the non-technology core activities of the Applicant.

24.

Company 20/06/MM

  • The Applicant did not qualify as a technology-based company given that the Applicant was principally only a multimedia content developer and dependent on third party software tools.

25.

Company 21/06/MM

  • The Applicant did not qualify as a technology-based company given that the software developed was only a support tool for internal functions.

26.

Company 22/06/MM

  • The Applicant did not qualify as a technology-based company given that there was no technology development/innovation.

27.

Company 23/06/MM

  • The Applicant did not qualify as a technology-based company given that there was only minimal contribution to consolidated revenue from its technology-based activities.

28.

Company 24/06/MM

  • Concerns on the prospects of the Applicant’s future revenue and profit growth given the mixed profit record over historical years and not showing a strong growth trend.

  • The high dependency on domestic industry and the long-term growth prospects of the domestic industry was uncertain.

29.

Company 25/06/MM

  • Concerns on whether the Applicant’s integrated solution for the intelligent office operations and management was commercially viable.

  • Concerns on whether the Applicant was able to sustain its current level of revenue in the event that it was unable to maintain its major customer.

30.

Company 26/06/MM

  • Concerns on the future prospects of the Applicant due to uncertainty on the Applicants ability to increase and sustain revenue growth as the Applicant’s market was limited to local councils with limited penetration of other local and overseas markets.

  • The Applicant’s high dependency on strategic partners for sales to customers.

31.

Company 27/06/MM

  • The Applicant’s failure to satisfactorily address the issues raised by the SC in relation to intense competition within the industry and the Applicant’s ability to sustain its revenue growth in view that significant revenue contributions were from related parties.

32.

Company 28/06/MM

  • Concerns on the Applicant’s capabilities to grow in view of its concentration on a restricted market.

  • Concerns on the Applicant’s ability to sustain the historical gross and after-tax profit margins.

  • The Applicant’s R&D capabilities were uncertain.

33.

Company 29/06/MM

  • The Applicant’s core business was more towards trading activity rather than technology-based activity.

  • Concerns on the sustainability of the financial performance and the growth prospects of the Applicant in view that it was in a weak bargaining position with its suppliers/service providers.