PETALING JAYA: Bursa Malaysia says the proposed appointment of BDO Binder as special auditor for Golden Plus Holdings Bhd (GPlus) is clear and fair.
A Bursa official said the special audit of GPlus was necessary to determine if the Listing Requirements had been breached.
The official said the scope of work to be undertaken and the objective for the appointment was “clearly outlined” in its letter to GPlus.
“We want to review the group’s accounts and records to disclose the reasons for the delay in the submission of financial statements,” she told StarBiz, when asked to comment on GPlus’ contention that the scope of BDO’s work would be vague.
The official added that the special auditor would determine how GPlus had conducted its financial and business affairs to form an opinion on whether there had been any breaches of the listing rules.
Bursa had, in its letter to GPlus, stated that BDO’s scope of work would include reviewing the company’s existing organisation structure and the management of the operations of the GPlus group by the provisional liquidator, she said.
GPlus had opposed Bursa’s request to appoint BDO and had gone to court for directions in the appointment. The court is expected to hear the case on Nov 28.
In September, GPlus chairman Datuk Abdul Halim Abdul Rauf said the company would incur audit cost of RM700,000 to RM1mil if the special audit was conducted.
GPlus legal counsel Datuk Krishna Kumar had recently said the scope and duration of the special auditor’s work was vaguely stated by Bursa.
In response to the latest developments, a partner with BDO told StarBiz that GPlus could have disputed over the term “vague”.
“We believe what GPlus meant by ‘vague’ with the scope of work outlined by us could probably be the last line in the outline, which states ‘such other matter as may be directed by Bursa Malaysia’,” he said.
However, he said, such a term was only included in the job scope in case Bursa had further work on some other areas.
The indicative fees of RM280,000 for the special audit was for three months but might take longer, depending on the availability and accessibility of records and data, he added.
“Of course, we won’t increase the fees if it (the process) takes longer than the estimated timeframe of three months for the findings.
“But if in any case the costs incurred go up so much higher during the process than pre-set, we would have to negotiate with the company again before increasing the fees,” he said.