By Mak Yuen Teen
On April 15, ICP announced the resignation of 63-year old Stephen James Burt, its director of Travelodge Hotels (Asia) Pte Ltd who was responsible for the group’s hotel management business. The effective date of cessation was the day of the announcement. The reason given was “to pursue personal interests”. RHT Capital, the continuing sponsor, included the standard boilerplate statement that based on its enquiries, it is satisfied that there are no other material reasons for Mr Burt’s cessation.
Did the sponsor ask the following questions in arriving at its determination?:
a. Was Mr Burt required to serve any notice under his employment contract, and if so, why did he not serve out his notice to enable ICP to find a replacement?
b. Had Mr Burt already tendered his resignation earlier, and if so, when did he do so and why did ICP not announce it at that time?
Just over a month earlier, at an EGM held on March 14, Datapulse Technology had sought and obtained shareholder approval for an IPT mandate for interested person transaction in respect of hospitality-related transactions, including hotel management services, with ICP Group (should ICP group be appointed to provide such services to Datapulse). At the same EGM, Datapulse had sought and obtained shareholder approval for the purchase of Hotel Aropa in Seoul.
If Mr Burt had already tendered his resignation or expressed his intention to resign, that information would have been material information to Datapulse shareholders who were asked to approve the IPT mandate relating to ICP Group. More questions would likely have been asked about the possible appointment of ICP. After all, Mr Burt is responsible for ICP’s hotel management business. ICP has a short and loss-making track record and it has now lost its key management in this business.
SGX should query ICP about the resignation of Mr Burt and look into whether the continuing sponsor has adequately discharged its responsibilities.
