Applying blanket standard narrows pool of director candidates: Keppel DC Reit manager
We refer to the BT article 'Keppel DC Reit lead independent director Kenny Kwan fails to get re-elected at AGM', published on Apr 18, 2025.
Kenny Kwan received 49.93 per cent of the votes, just 0.07 per cent short of the 50 per cent majority required for his re-endorsement. We understand that an important reason for this outcome is the recommendation by a proxy adviser made prior to the annual general meeting relating to Kwan's re-endorsement, based on their classification of Kwan as a non-independent director. This stems from Keppel DC Reit's disclosure that A&O Shearman, the law firm where Kwan is a partner, is one of the law firms providing legal services to Keppel.
The board holds the view that Kwan can be regarded as an independent director because he does not hold a substantial partnership interest in A&O Shearman; A&O Shearman has not been engaged by Keppel DC Reit or the manager to provide any legal services since Kwan joined as a partner; and Kwan is not employed by Keppel or any of its entities.
In addition, Kwan's relationship with Keppel has been fully disclosed in Keppel DC Reit's annual report, in line with best practices for corporate governance and transparency.
Keppel DC Reit adheres to the framework set out in the Code of Corporate Governance as well as the Securities and Futures (Licensing and Conduct of Business) Regulations when evaluating independence. The rationale and consideration of the board for determining Kwan's independence is set forth in detail in the annual report.
While Keppel DC Reit respects the outcome of the vote, we believe it is important to evaluate independence in context, especially within the framework of Singapore's regulatory guidelines.
BT in your inbox
Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.
Sign Up
Sign Up
In a market where major law firms naturally serve large companies, such as Keppel, applying a blanket standard could significantly narrow the pool of qualified candidates. Such an approach may unintentionally limit board diversity and expertise, particularly among professionals with highly relevant skill sets.
Kwan brought to the board of Keppel DC Reit two decades of legal and capital markets experience, with deep expertise in real estate investment structures, cross-border transactions and regulatory compliance.
His expertise was extremely valuable to Keppel DC Reit in navigating complex transactions, enhancing compliance and strengthening investor protection. Kwan's insights contributed greatly to board deliberations, and to ensuring that management decisions are both commercially sound and legally robust. We also wish to highlight that Kwan's election resolutions in 2019 and 2022 were passed even though the underlying circumstances were materially unchanged.
On behalf of the board and management of Keppel DC Reit, I would like to extend our appreciation to Kwan for his strategic guidance and invaluable contributions to Keppel DC Reit as lead independent director and chairman of the nominating and remuneration committee. The board and management remain committed to upholding high standards of corporate governance and transparency, as well as delivering strong returns to unitholders.
Christina Tan, chairman of Keppel DC Reit Management, manager of Keppel DC Reit
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Times
2 days ago
- Business Times
Four candidates assessed for Fu Yu's board, with no findings against suitability
[SINGAPORE] Four proposed directors for Fu Yu Corporation have been assessed by an independent party, with no findings made against their suitability for the role, said the company on Friday (Jun 20) evening. Fu Yu currently only has one director – chief executive David Seow – after all three of its independent directors resigned on Jun 15. The company has since appointed Asian Corporate Advisors (ACA) to assess four candidates proposed as independent directors: Gilbert L Rodrigues, Ralf Pilarczyk, Yang Zhenrong and Haytham Al Essa. In its bourse filing, Fu Yu said that 'nothing has come to (ACA's) attention that the proposed new independent directors may not be deemed suitable', and that its board 'sees no reason to disagree'. 'To the best of the current board's knowledge, the proposed new (directors) are not involved in matters relating to FYSCS,' the company added, in reference to its unit Fu Yu Supply Chain Solutions, which has been under investigation. The update comes ahead of Fu Yu's annual general meeting (AGM) on Jun 27. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up In an earlier filing on Friday, the company addressed questions from the Securities Investors Association (Singapore), or Sias, as well as shareholders. Fu Yu said that its 'day-to-day operations and decision-making processes remain unaffected' by the resignation of all its previous independent directors – Royston Tan, Christopher Huang and Daniel Poh. It also addressed queries on its ongoing investigations into FYSCS – relating to Fu Yu's acquisition of the unit, purported misuse of the FYSCS' resources and a pre-paid commission. 'Currently, no fraud (in the legal sense) has been uncovered,' said Fu Yu, adding that there was no potential liability arising from the transactions in question, 'as well as FYSCS in general'. Asked by Sias if it would release findings by Rajah & Tann and PwC Risk Services ahead of the AGM, Fu Yu said that it would first conduct a 'full Maxwellisation process' relating to the people mentioned in the report, which could take between four to six weeks. Maxwellisation is a legal procedure in which those subject to potential criticism are given an opportunity to respond. 'The company (will) seek legal advice and will deliberate on its next steps after considering the information obtained through the Maxwellisation process, and will update shareholders thereafter,' said Fu Yu. In June last year, FYSCS also received a letter of demand for US$925,773.57 in compensation from another company, Evertree Hongkong. On Jun 5 this year, an arbitral tribunal ruled in favour of Evertree, with Fu Yu required to pay S$1.67 million. Asked about the matter, Fu Yu said that FYSCS had fulfilled its payment obligations on Jun 9 and is solvent. Fu Yu ended Friday at S$0.09, down 4.3 per cent.
CNA
2 days ago
- CNA
Horseracing-Automatic betting terminals leave Ascot bookies all a flutter
ASCOT, England :Punters at Royal Ascot this week have, for the first time, been able to place bets using self-service electronic terminals as the course looks to modernise the age-old system of rows of in-person bookmakers displaying their odds to eagle-eyed racegoers. The machines, which resemble the ordering system seen in many fast-food restaurants, take punts of up to 100 pounds ($134.96) and offer a smaller range of bets than traditional bookmakers and larger pool-systems like The Tote. The gambling industry is the most substantial revenue stream for British racecourses and funds prize money, horse welfare and racecourse costs with over 13 billion pounds bet annually on horseracing in Britain. For many racegoers, handing over a crisp tenner to a brusque bookmaker is a core part of the experience, but Ascot says its technology makes betting more accessible to a wider range of people. Early responses suggest the terminals make it easier for people who know their selections and can make decisions in their own time, said Chris Collard, director of Ascot Racecourse Betting & Gaming. On the first two days of the Royal Meeting, some 60 million pounds of bets were placed via the World Pool, an international pool system into which Ascot's new machines feed. For the track's over 200 on-course bookmakers, the self-service machines with their low maximum bet are a curiosity, though they are staying alert should they feel them becoming a threat to their business. Alan Stadler, of A&A Racing, who the Racing Post reports paid 160,000 pounds for his pitch at Ascot in 2018, cautioned that remote gambling via machines could make it harder to assess those who can't afford to make the bet. "In the Royal Enclosure, you can take 5,000 pounds back from people who can readily afford it, but maybe in the Heath Enclosure, you possibly can't," he said. "So there are lots of issues going to come up with remote gambling via machines." For now Ascot has no plans to expand the rollout and says limiting the bet to 100 pounds is for the protection of customers. "Our customer base is largely recreational and our average bet size is much lower, around 10-20 pounds," he said, adding that only a fraction of total bets would come via this service. BIGGER THREATS Barry Pinnington, a bookmaker who has been in the business for 30 years, said any offering that takes business away from the track-side is a concern. But the incursion of pool kiosks, online betting and exchanges is more of a worry than the new terminals themselves. "The bottom line is that they take money away from us the closer they are to the betting rings, where the traditional bookmakers long have stood and taken the money," he told Reuters. While Pinnington traded around 60,000 pounds on Ascot's opening day, Stadler said he took a quarter fewer bets compared to the opening day last year. This still amounted to 55,000 pounds. "Online is having a bigger and bigger effect," Stadler said. "People are betting on their phones more and more. We like to think as bookmakers we're part of the day's attraction." All bets placed through Ascot's new system will feed into a global betting pool known as the World Pool, which mingles money bet at tote operators in 25 different jurisdictions from Hong Kong, through South Africa and the United States. The World Pool turned over some $8.15 billion in 2024. Trackside bookies recognise the World Pool brings important revenue for British racecourses but caution that wider adoption, and betting via mobile phones risks losing the human face. "I've seen racecourses around the world which have gone to a tote mechanism, and they're just like graveyards and there's no appeal," said Stadler. "There has to be a balance and I'm not sure the balance is there at the moment."
Business Times
4 days ago
- Business Times
GE proposal: OCBC minority shareholders' perspective
I represent a group of OCBC shareholders. We refer to the article 'GEH, OCBC's proposals a victory of sorts for minorities who have held out, endured suspension' (BT, Jun 9) and were surprised by Ben Paul's suggestion that OCBC will move to meet Great Eastern (GE)'s minority shareholders' demands if the insurer remains listed. While Ben Paul has declared himself as a shareholder of both OCBC and GE, he seems to have ignored the need for the bank to protect the interests of its shareholders. We do not want OCBC to overpay for GE. Last year's offer at S$25.60 was already a 37 per cent premium over GE's last traded price of S$18.70. OCBC was also not buying a controlling stake in GE as it had already owned over 88 per cent in May 2024. The independent directors of GE, on the advice of an independent financial adviser (IFA), had advised minority shareholders to accept OCBC's offer, after all the factors have been considered. After the general offer last year, OCBC pulled in an additional 5 per cent or so of GE shares. This is a prudent move, and from our point of view, a smart one, made in the interests of the over 125,000 of OCBC shareholders. At OCBC's AGM this year, we applauded OCBC chairman Andrew Lee for what he said: 'We are not a small-time business where we can raise (the offer price) as we like. We have governance, we have process…The Board has exercised its fiduciary duty in keeping strictly to the process. That is the balance and prudence that we as directors of OCBC have practised.' BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up As OCBC shareholders, we are behind the bank's strategy to strengthen itself as an integrated financial services group to better synergise its businesses. As opposed to a pure banking play, an integrated financial services model will unlock more value for us over the long term. The idea of distributing GE shares to us should therefore not be entertained as it would be a senseless hollowing out of a good bank. OCBC's current exit offer for GE is clearly not its own wish. It was made at the request of GE, to help it get out of a limbo marked by months of trading suspension and repeated extensions granted by the bourse operator to find palatable solutions. It is a conditional exit offer which is different from last year's unconditional general offer. As a parent company of GE, OCBC is likely expected by regulators to help GE comply with the listing rules. The IFA to the deal, EY, has said the current offer is 'fair and reasonable', while some have continued to point out that the offer at S$30.15 per share is lower than the insurer's embedded value of S$38.08 per share as at end-2024. What has been consistently missing in the news reports is the simple fact that the embedded value depends to a significant extent on OCBC being a distributor of GE's products. A look through GE's financials will show that bancassurance accounted for more than a quarter of the insurer's total weighted new sales in FY2024. In fact, it is in OCBC shareholders' interests to start charging fair value for the exclusive use of the bank to sell the insurer's products. Make no mistake that if this nuclear option were taken, GE's embedded value would be far lower than that of S$38.08 per share. But this is an option that the bank has steered clear of then – and now. For the BT writer, it would probably make no consequential difference if GE's embedded value falls. Such would not be the case, however, for GE shareholders who do not also own OCBC shares. The writer should acknowledge that for him to push one narrative may benefit him but hurt other GE shareholders. Given the fundamentals of the situation, there really is no incentive for OCBC to up its offer last year. There is also little motivation for OCBC to make another general offer in the foreseeable future if the GE delisting fails on Jul 8. It goes without saying that the interests of the 125,000 OCBC shareholders have to be represented by OCBC, and we believe the bank has done so. More importantly, the 800 or so GE shareholders cannot expect OCBC to consider their interests alone. That is the responsibility of GE and its board. Jonathan Kuek
