TO : FERRIER HODGSON CREDITOR’S MEETING ON 3 OCT 2013 The Creditor’s Meeting of 3 Oct 2013 will be a waste of FE funds if FH hopes to obtain the FE Creditor’s sanction to distribute the FE stock your way, without listening to the views of the COI. I had earlier explained to FH that the FE stock comes under the SALE of GOODS Act & should be excluded from the POD. They should rightfully be distributed from the POF (yellow form). My proposal of Nov 2012 on Distribution of FE Stock refers. Under FH proposal, FE Creditors who have already got their stock will get additional stock. The amount owing to FE creditors should be recognized under POD & included among the other non-FE unsecured creditors, if FH wishes to distribute the residue in the FE a/c fairly. The COI had earlier informed FH that we were in the process of removing FH as liquidator of FE Brands and your Mr Andrew Heng verbally assured our COI Allen Lee that FH would not contest our Court Action. Now FH has deceived the COI again by claiming we do not have the FE Creditor’s majority support to remove FH & are contesting our Court Action. I can safely predict that the majority of FE Creditors will vote AGAINST your proposal (except maybe the 4 mysterious FE Creditors who are opposing our Court Action to remove FH). FH could have deferred the 3 Oct CM pending our Court Hearing to seek FH removal. The whole purpose of holding the 3 Oct 2013 CM is thus FH usual way of bulldozing their way through again, without considering it as a waste of FE Brands depleting funds (and charging 70 cents per sheet again for Photostat). I will oppose any approval of the costs should FH bill FE Brands for the CM costs. However, holding the 3 Oct CM will only be justified if FH agrees to allow the FE Creditors attending the CM to also vote on the following issues: 1) To remove FH & appoint a more reasonable & friendlier liquidator 2) Distribute the FE stock according to POF (yellow form) 3) Agree on the correct formula for POD 4) FE Creditor’s POD to be included with non-FE unsecured creditors 5) FE Creditor’s consensus whether to utilize the remaining FE funds to pursue punitive action to obtain evidence to charge the culprits under section 409 of the Penal Code (CBT) 6) If (5) above is YES, whether to appoint an investigative auditor, a good criminal lawyer & a good Private Investigator to trace the culprits & their money trail 7) Whether the FE Creditors endorse the way 3 COI are misusing their majority to isolate 2 other COI When FH was appointed by a Court Order in June 2012, Ivy Hong & I were willing to give FH a chance to show how professionally & judiciously FH discharge their duties. Despite 3 other COI immediately wishing to remove FH. To date FH is still unable to let us know the correct formula for verifying POD & has become hostile to the COI. FH’s lawyer has botched our contest of the WWF & GTC bills. FH also refused to allow the COI to appoint a better lawyer to appeal the GTC verdict. I would appreciate if FH display their professionalism & impartiality by allowing me to address the CM on the above issues & magnanimously allow the above motions to be presented to the FE Creditors for their voting & consensus at the 3 Oct CM. Bernard Simon Foo Committee of Inspection FE Brands 29 Sept 2013
Posted on: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 15:52:57 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015