Regulatory Settlements in 2015

Regulatory Settlement with Chan Chee Beng
On 15 December 2015, Chan Chee Beng entered into a settlement with the SC in the sum of RM1,944,438.78 when he agreed without admission or denial of liability, to settle a claim that the SC was proposing to institute against him for communicating inside information contrary to section 89E(3) of the Securities Industry Act 1983 (“SIA”) to his late wife Yeoh Phaik Choo who then traded in the call warrants of Maxis Communications Berhad (“Maxis”) between 23 April 2007 and 27 April 2007. The information is related to the notification from Usaha Tegas Sdn Bhd (UTSB), a substantial shareholder of Maxis that UTSB and its affiliates intended to launch a voluntary general offer through a special purpose vehicle for all the ordinary shares of Maxis, as set out in an announcement made by Maxis to Bursa Malaysia on 30 April 2007. Following this announcement, Maxis further announced on 3 May 2007 the details of the conditional take-over offer including the offer price of RM15.60 for each offer share. The settlement was reached following a letter of demand sent by the SC pursuant to its civil enforcement powers under the securities laws, where the sum Chan was required to disgorge was equivalent to 1.5 times the difference between the price at which Yeoh acquired the call warrants and the price at which the call warrants would have been likely to have been acquired at the time of the acquisition, if the information had been generally available. The monies recovered will be applied in accordance with section 90A(7) of the SIA. Chan at the material time was an executive director of UTSB as well as a non-executive director of Maxis.

Regulatory Settlement with Chan Chee Beng

On 15 December 2015, Chan Chee Beng entered into a settlement with the SC in the sum of RM1,944,438.78 when he agreed without admission or denial of liability, to settle a claim that the SC was proposing to institute against him for communicating inside information contrary to section 89E(3) of the Securities Industry Act 1983 (“SIA”) to his late wife Yeoh Phaik Choo who then traded in the call warrants of Maxis Communications Berhad (“Maxis”) between 23 April 2007 and 27 April 2007. The information is related to the notification from Usaha Tegas Sdn Bhd (UTSB), a substantial shareholder of Maxis that UTSB and its affiliates intended to launch a voluntary general offer through a special purpose vehicle for all the ordinary shares of Maxis, as set out in an announcement made by Maxis to Bursa Malaysia on 30 April 2007. Following this announcement, Maxis further announced on 3 May 2007 the details of the conditional take-over offer including the offer price of RM15.60 for each offer share. The settlement was reached following a letter of demand sent by the SC pursuant to its civil enforcement powers under the securities laws, where the sum Chan was required to disgorge was equivalent to 1.5 times the difference between the price at which Yeoh acquired the call warrants and the price at which the call warrants would have been likely to have been acquired at the time of the acquisition, if the information had been generally available. The monies recovered will be applied in accordance with section 90A(7) of the SIA. Chan at the material time was an executive director of UTSB as well as a non-executive director of Maxis.

Regulatory Settlement with Pang Soo Ling
On 23 March 2015, Pang Soo Ling entered into a settlement with the SC in the sum of RM71224.50 when she agreed without admission or denial of liability, to settle a claim that the SC was proposing to institute against her for insider trading in the shares of Putrajaya Perdana Berhad between 12 July 2007 to 8 August 2007, contrary to section 89E(2) of the Securities Industry Act 1983 (SIA). The inside information related to the disposal of shares in Putrajaya Perdana Berhad (PPB) held by Eastern & Oriental Berhad (“E&O”) and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, namely Dynamic Degree Sdn Bhd and Matrix Promenade Sdn Bhd to Swan Symphony Sdn Bhd at RM2.90 per PPB share, as set out in the announcement made by E&O to Bursa Malaysia on 8 August 2007. It was also stated in the announcement that SSSB was required to fulfil its obligations under the Securities Commission Act 1993 and the Malaysian Code on Take-Overs and Mergers 1998 by extending a general offer for all securities in PPB which SSSB and any parties acting in concert did not already own on the date of the completion of the sale and purchase of PPB shares. The settlement was reached following a letter of demand sent by the SC pursuant to its civil enforcement powers under the securities laws, where the sum Pang was required to disgorge was equivalent to three times the difference between the price at which the shares were acquired and the price at which the shares would have been likely to have been acquired at the time of the acquisition, if the information had been generally available. The monies recovered will be applied in accordance with section 90A(7) of the SIA.

Regulatory Settlement with Pang Soo Ling

On 23 March 2015, Pang Soo Ling entered into a settlement with the SC in the sum of RM71224.50 when she agreed without admission or denial of liability, to settle a claim that the SC was proposing to institute against her for insider trading in the shares of Putrajaya Perdana Berhad between 12 July 2007 to 8 August 2007, contrary to section 89E(2) of the Securities Industry Act 1983 (SIA). The inside information related to the disposal of shares in Putrajaya Perdana Berhad (PPB) held by Eastern & Oriental Berhad (“E&O”) and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, namely Dynamic Degree Sdn Bhd and Matrix Promenade Sdn Bhd to Swan Symphony Sdn Bhd at RM2.90 per PPB share, as set out in the announcement made by E&O to Bursa Malaysia on 8 August 2007. It was also stated in the announcement that SSSB was required to fulfil its obligations under the Securities Commission Act 1993 and the Malaysian Code on Take-Overs and Mergers 1998 by extending a general offer for all securities in PPB which SSSB and any parties acting in concert did not already own on the date of the completion of the sale and purchase of PPB shares. The settlement was reached following a letter of demand sent by the SC pursuant to its civil enforcement powers under the securities laws, where the sum Pang was required to disgorge was equivalent to three times the difference between the price at which the shares were acquired and the price at which the shares would have been likely to have been acquired at the time of the acquisition, if the information had been generally available. The monies recovered will be applied in accordance with section 90A(7) of the SIA.

Regulatory Settlement with Sip Way Keong
On 23 March 2015, Sip Way Keong entered into a settlement with the SC in the sum of RM71224.50 when he agreed without admission or denial of liability, to settle a claim that the SC was proposing to institute against him for communicating inside information, contrary to Section 89E(3) of the Securities Industry Act (“SIA”), to his wife, Pang Soo Ling, who then traded in the shares of Putrajaya Perdana Berhad between 12 July 2007 to 8 August 2007. The information related to the disposal of shares in Putrajaya Perdana Berhad (PPB) held by Eastern & Oriental Berhad (“E&O”) and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, namely Dynamic Degree Sdn Bhd and Matrix Promenade Sdn Bhd to Swan Symphony Sdn Bhd at RM2.90 per PPB share, as set out in the announcement made by E&O to Bursa Malaysia on 8 August 2007. It was also stated in the announcement that SSSB was required to fulfil its obligations under the Securities Commission Act 1993 and the Malaysian Code on Take-Overs and Mergers 1998 by extending a general offer for all securities in PPB which SSSB and any parties acting in concert did not already own on the date of the completion of the sale and purchase of PPB shares. The settlement was reached following a letter of demand sent by the SC pursuant to its civil enforcement powers under the securities laws, where the sum Sip was required to disgorge was equivalent to three times the difference between the price at which Pang acquired the shares and the price at which the shares would have been likely to have been acquired at the time of the acquisition, if the information had been generally available. The monies recovered will be applied in accordance with section 90A(7) of the SIA. Sip was at the material time the Director of Corporate Finance of AmInvestment Bank Berhad.

Regulatory Settlement with Sip Way Keong

On 23 March 2015, Sip Way Keong entered into a settlement with the SC in the sum of RM71224.50 when he agreed without admission or denial of liability, to settle a claim that the SC was proposing to institute against him for communicating inside information, contrary to Section 89E(3) of the Securities Industry Act (“SIA”), to his wife, Pang Soo Ling, who then traded in the shares of Putrajaya Perdana Berhad between 12 July 2007 to 8 August 2007. The information related to the disposal of shares in Putrajaya Perdana Berhad (PPB) held by Eastern & Oriental Berhad (“E&O”) and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, namely Dynamic Degree Sdn Bhd and Matrix Promenade Sdn Bhd to Swan Symphony Sdn Bhd at RM2.90 per PPB share, as set out in the announcement made by E&O to Bursa Malaysia on 8 August 2007. It was also stated in the announcement that SSSB was required to fulfil its obligations under the Securities Commission Act 1993 and the Malaysian Code on Take-Overs and Mergers 1998 by extending a general offer for all securities in PPB which SSSB and any parties acting in concert did not already own on the date of the completion of the sale and purchase of PPB shares. The settlement was reached following a letter of demand sent by the SC pursuant to its civil enforcement powers under the securities laws, where the sum Sip was required to disgorge was equivalent to three times the difference between the price at which Pang acquired the shares and the price at which the shares would have been likely to have been acquired at the time of the acquisition, if the information had been generally available. The monies recovered will be applied in accordance with section 90A(7) of the SIA. Sip was at the material time the Director of Corporate Finance of AmInvestment Bank Berhad.

Regulatory Settlement with Puan Chan Cheong
On 16 February 2015, Puan Chan Cheong (“Puan CC”) entered into a settlement with the SC in the sum of RM475,531.92 when he agreed without admission or denial of liability, to settle a claim that the SC was proposing to institute against him for insider trading in the shares of Inti Universal Holdings Berhad (“Inti”) on 18 and 19 September 2007, contrary to section 89E(2) of the Securities Industry Act 1983 (“SIA”). The inside information was in relation to a notice that was served to Inti by its controlling shareholders, Inti Supreme Holdings Sdn Bhd (“Inti Supreme”) on 18 September 2007 that Inti Supreme had received a proposal from Laureate Education, Inc. to acquire the controlling interest in Inti for an aggregate purchase consideration of RM126.6 million which translated to RM1.20 per Inti share, which was subsequently set out in an announcement made by Inti to Bursa Malaysia on 19 September 2007. The settlement was reached following a letter of demand sent by the SC pursuant to its civil enforcement powers under the securities laws, where the sum Puan CC was required to disgorge was equivalent to three times the difference between the price at which the shares were acquired and the price at which the shares would have been likely to have been acquired at the time of the acquisition, if the information had been generally available. The monies recovered will be applied in accordance with section 90A(7) of the SIA.

Regulatory Settlement with Puan Chan Cheong

On 16 February 2015, Puan Chan Cheong (“Puan CC”) entered into a settlement with the SC in the sum of RM475,531.92 when he agreed without admission or denial of liability, to settle a claim that the SC was proposing to institute against him for insider trading in the shares of Inti Universal Holdings Berhad (“Inti”) on 18 and 19 September 2007, contrary to section 89E(2) of the Securities Industry Act 1983 (“SIA”). The inside information was in relation to a notice that was served to Inti by its controlling shareholders, Inti Supreme Holdings Sdn Bhd (“Inti Supreme”) on 18 September 2007 that Inti Supreme had received a proposal from Laureate Education, Inc. to acquire the controlling interest in Inti for an aggregate purchase consideration of RM126.6 million which translated to RM1.20 per Inti share, which was subsequently set out in an announcement made by Inti to Bursa Malaysia on 19 September 2007. The settlement was reached following a letter of demand sent by the SC pursuant to its civil enforcement powers under the securities laws, where the sum Puan CC was required to disgorge was equivalent to three times the difference between the price at which the shares were acquired and the price at which the shares would have been likely to have been acquired at the time of the acquisition, if the information had been generally available. The monies recovered will be applied in accordance with section 90A(7) of the SIA.

Regulatory Settlement with Puan Chan Cheong and Loo Poh Keng
On 16 February 2015, Puan Chan Cheong and Loo Poh Keng entered into a settlement with the SC in the sum of RM302,727 when they agreed without admission or denial of liability, to settle a claim that the SC was proposing to institute against them for insider trading in the shares of Inti Universal Holdings Berhad (“Inti”) on 19 September 2007, contrary to section 89E(2) of the Securities Industry Act 1983 (“SIA”). The inside information was in relation to a notice that was served to Inti by its controlling shareholders, Inti Supreme Holdings Sdn Bhd (“Inti Supreme”) on 18 September 2007 that Inti Supreme had received a proposal from Laureate Education, Inc. to acquire the controlling interest in Inti for an aggregate purchase consideration of RM126.6 million which translated to RM1.20 per Inti share, which was subsequently set out in an announcement made by Inti to Bursa Malaysia on 19 September 2007. The settlement was reached following letters of demand sent by the SC pursuant to its civil enforcement powers under the securities laws, where the sum they were required to disgorge was equivalent to three times the difference between the price at which the shares were acquired and the price at which the shares would have been likely to have been acquired at the time of the acquisition, if the information had been generally available. The monies recovered will be applied in accordance with section 90A(7) of the SIA.

Regulatory Settlement with Puan Chan Cheong and Loo Poh Keng

On 16 February 2015, Puan Chan Cheong and Loo Poh Keng entered into a settlement with the SC in the sum of RM302,727 when they agreed without admission or denial of liability, to settle a claim that the SC was proposing to institute against them for insider trading in the shares of Inti Universal Holdings Berhad (“Inti”) on 19 September 2007, contrary to section 89E(2) of the Securities Industry Act 1983 (“SIA”). The inside information was in relation to a notice that was served to Inti by its controlling shareholders, Inti Supreme Holdings Sdn Bhd (“Inti Supreme”) on 18 September 2007 that Inti Supreme had received a proposal from Laureate Education, Inc. to acquire the controlling interest in Inti for an aggregate purchase consideration of RM126.6 million which translated to RM1.20 per Inti share, which was subsequently set out in an announcement made by Inti to Bursa Malaysia on 19 September 2007. The settlement was reached following letters of demand sent by the SC pursuant to its civil enforcement powers under the securities laws, where the sum they were required to disgorge was equivalent to three times the difference between the price at which the shares were acquired and the price at which the shares would have been likely to have been acquired at the time of the acquisition, if the information had been generally available. The monies recovered will be applied in accordance with section 90A(7) of the SIA.

Regulatory Settlement with Puan Kam Fook
On 16 February 2015, Puan Kam Fook (“Puan KF”) entered into a settlement with the SC in the sum of RM218,520 when he agreed without admission or denial of liability, to settle a claim that the SC was proposing to institute against him for insider trading in the shares of Inti Universal Holdings Berhad (“Inti”) on 17 and 19 September 2007, contrary to section 89E(2) of the Securities Industry Act 1983 (SIA). The inside information was in relation to a notice that was served to Inti by its controlling shareholders, Inti Supreme Holdings Sdn Bhd (“Inti Supreme”) on 18 September 2007 that Inti Supreme had received a proposal from Laureate Education, Inc. to acquire the controlling interest in Inti for an aggregate purchase consideration of RM126.6 million which translated to RM1.20 per Inti share, which was subsequently set out in an announcement made by Inti to Bursa Malaysia on 19 September 2007. The settlement above was reached following a letter of demand sent by the SC pursuant to its civil enforcement powers under the securities laws, where the sum Puan KF was required to disgorge was equivalent to three times the difference between the price at which the shares were acquired and the price at which the shares would have been likely to have been acquired at the time of the acquisition, if the information had been generally available. The monies recovered will be applied in accordance with section 90A(7) of the SIA. .

Regulatory Settlement with Puan Kam Fook

On 16 February 2015, Puan Kam Fook (“Puan KF”) entered into a settlement with the SC in the sum of RM218,520 when he agreed without admission or denial of liability, to settle a claim that the SC was proposing to institute against him for insider trading in the shares of Inti Universal Holdings Berhad (“Inti”) on 17 and 19 September 2007, contrary to section 89E(2) of the Securities Industry Act 1983 (SIA). The inside information was in relation to a notice that was served to Inti by its controlling shareholders, Inti Supreme Holdings Sdn Bhd (“Inti Supreme”) on 18 September 2007 that Inti Supreme had received a proposal from Laureate Education, Inc. to acquire the controlling interest in Inti for an aggregate purchase consideration of RM126.6 million which translated to RM1.20 per Inti share, which was subsequently set out in an announcement made by Inti to Bursa Malaysia on 19 September 2007. The settlement above was reached following a letter of demand sent by the SC pursuant to its civil enforcement powers under the securities laws, where the sum Puan KF was required to disgorge was equivalent to three times the difference between the price at which the shares were acquired and the price at which the shares would have been likely to have been acquired at the time of the acquisition, if the information had been generally available. The monies recovered will be applied in accordance with section 90A(7) of the SIA. .