A Parkson outlet in Beijing, China *** Local Caption *** The Parkson outlet in Beijing, China. Parkson group's China operation is an important contributor to Lion Diversified’s earnings. Parkson buys 2 stores in China’s Yunnan A Parkson outlet in Beijing 20061118 StarBiz Pg3 - Shazrin
KUALA LUMPUR: Two subsidiaries of Hong Kong-listed Parkson Retail Group Ltd (PRGL) have applied to revoke a court order that involves freezing their bank deposits or their other assets, citing suspected forgeries in documents used as evidence.
Parkson Holdings Bhd
, which is PRGL’s majority shareholder with a 54.67% stake, told Bursa Malaysia on Thursday that the two units had separately submitted an application for review of the Intermediate People’s Court of Suzhou’s judgment on preservation of properties.
PRGL’s units Changshou Parkson Retail Development Co Ltd (Parkson Development) and Parkson Investment Holdings Co Ltd -- along with four others including the landlord whose premises in Jiangsu are the site of a Parkson department store -- were recently named defendants in the dispute over a loan agreement. The suit was filed by China Construction Bank Corp’s Changshou branch (plaintiff).
PRGL’s statement to The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Ltd on Thursday (attached to Parkson Holdings’ announcement) said the plaintiff had sued Parkson Development solely on the ground that Parkson Development was the confirmatory party to the notice of charge over receivables, and that the receivables charge notice was the only evidence.
“Parkson Development has inspected the photocopy of the receivable charge notice provided by the plaintiff to the court and suspected that the seal of Parkson Development imprinted on it was a forgery since the font of the Arabic numbers appeared on the imprint of the alleged seal of Parkson Development were different from the font of the Arabic numbers engraved on the true seal of Parkson Development,” PRGL said.
“Accordingly, Parkson Development submitted that the plaintiff naming Parkson Development as one of the defendants is groundless factually and legally and the evidence provided is suspected to be a forgery.”
PRGL said the bank had sued Parkson Investment solely based on Parkson Investment being the counterparty to the tenancy agreement, with the alleged agreement being the only evidence.
“Parkson Investment does not have any legal relationship with the plaintiff and had not provided any forms of guarantee to the plaintiff in relation to the borrowings made by the plaintiff to the landlord, and naming Parkson Investment as one of the defendants is groundless factually and legally,” the company said.
Parkson Investment. having inspected the photocopy of the alleged tenancy agreement submitted by the plaintiff to the court, suspected that both the seal and the signature made on its behalf on the agreement were forgeries. “The contents of the alleged tenancy agreement were also false,” it said.
Parkson Investment entered into a tenancy agreement with Changshou Hang Lung Properties Co Ltd in December 2008. Subsequently, in July 2009, it, Parkson Development and the landlord inked a deal to transfer the tenancy under the original agreement, replacing Parkson Investment with Parkson Developmebr as the tenant.
In its announcement earlier in the week (Monday), PRGL had said that under the court’s judgment, the defendants might apply for a review of the judgment but the enforcement would not be suspended pending the review.
Parkson Holdings shares closed unchanged at 81.5 sen on Thursday, with 906,500 shares changing hands.
Limited time offer:
Just RM5 per month.
