Of course not audit, they only perform independent review of all those issues raised by KPMG, and need to report directly to SC, this will not be easy.

After they have their findings (may be same serious, may be less serious, but I don’t expect totally clean), then only the incoming new auditor can make conclusion, even though new auditor (yet to find one) may start their works earlier.

This is really not a time to speculate, it is still in front of door, you don’t know what is in the door.

If one day they can appoint a Big 4, and Big 4 willing to accept appointment, that may be a good time, because Big 4 will only accept appointment after careful consideration that they are able to complete the works and handled all such risky issues. Those issues are serious in eyes of auditors, not trivial at all.

Yes, Big 4 will be reluctant to accept, unless they able to make assessment that they can handle the risk. That’s why I said if Big 4 accepts appointment will be a better sign. EY Advisory acts only as if Gleneagle Hospital to conduct a full body check, it can come out result and say the patient has cacancer….sohose who rushed in are really brave…

IB, thx. There are a few major issues around this counter, not that we can explain as outsider, we can only rely on formal report from SC, Bursa, or independent reports. None of the comments from company management can clear the sky, unfortunately, even if datuks acting in true fact that they sincerely believe they are innocent, only the third parties can clear the doubts now.

It depends on the magnitude of the financial impact to the company.

If the figure is too huge and need to impair, it may trigger a few criteria under PN17, like qualified opinion by the auditor, going concern issue, banks may demand repayment of the borrowings because the debt servicing ratio drop below the agreed ratio and if can’t pay, will default on the loan payments, then also if the shareholder funds may dip below 25% of the paid up capital. Under PN17, they will need to regulate their business plan and need Bursa approval. Won’t delist immediately. If they can’t get themselves out from PN17, then will be delisted. Due to the on-going covid, Bursa have relax the classification of PN17 and also giving more time to those affected.

However, the biggest challenge pose will be someone may need to go to jail (assume there is really fraud and manipulation), so the key management may not be there to run the show and business operations may suffer.

I would recommend to google and find out more on this “Cockroach Theory”. I remember seeing someone giving a very detailed explanation on the PN17 in the forum and they mentioned about this Cockroach Theory and the effect on the share price and the suggestion to deal with it.

@Kenapa. Agreed. I’m also speaking from “all valid” point of view. Even if partial, it is also a daunting task to re-instill the investors confidence. But personally, I feel the company still can be saved, just whether their current advisors/strategists can play it out well. But definitely not the current chairman.

Now EY said only accept the appointment subject to cooperation from KPMG, that they can work independently, etc. question is whether KPMG can share their working paper?

Under normal circumstances, yes they may share or even let EY review their papers. But now SB is suing KPMG, so KPMG’s working paper is subject to legal proceedings, I doubt that they still can or willing to share, unless directive from SC/Bursa to them to share, and SB may need to withdraw their case to make way.