Ann: Form 603 - Notice of Initial Substantial Hol, page-4

re: Ann: Form 603 - Notice of Initial Substan... Well he has been a substantial holder at KIK and the below article from a whole back shows he has an interesting relationship with standard bank. Not sure if is same one though? Hope this isn't a risky one for him ;-)
A Thai businessman is suing Standard Chartered Bank for US$2 million (S$2.5 million) here, claiming he was misled into investing in a high-risk product when he had sought the opposite.

Bangkok-based Chatchai Yenbamroong, 53, last October bought a product known as VXX that would go up in value when the American stock market, based on the Standard & Poor's 500 Index, went down.

His lawyer, Mr Niru Pillai of Global Law Alliance, sent a letter of demand seeking to return the product and a refund.

In response, Stanchart, through its lawyers from Allen & Gledhill, denied liability last month which triggered the filing of the High Court suit.

Mr Chatchai, in the court documents filed, alleged that the bank's representatives recommended the VXX as a suitable low-risk hedge for his existing investments in equities and oil.

But he claimed he had sought a product that gave reasonable returns, was principal-protected and sufficiently flexible so as not to tie down his funds.

He is executive director of Thai firm Northern Gulf Oil, which has onshore and offshore concessions in the Gulf of Thailand.

Mr Chatchai first commenced his links with Stanchart's Bangkok branch in 2007 when he had to post a corporate bank guarantee of US$600,000 with the Thai Ministry of Energy in relation to an oil-concession award for his firm.

He later opened a personal account with the bank in Singapore. He claimed he was asked to sign blank bank account opening forms in 2009, without being provided the terms and conditions.

An investor profile was also sought from him, he said.

Within a space of five days in October last year, he claimed he was induced by an officer to invest US$2 million in VXX but, by January this year, the price of the product had declined.

A transcript of a conversation in October with the same executive referred to the VIX, a separate product, which was based on a volatility index and distinct from the VXX, when he was asked if he wanted to put in another US$1 million.

He claimed the transcript showed the bank's officers misunderstood and confused the two products as the VXX was a complex one and different from VIX.

Mr Chatchai alleged he was misled as the bank's officers did not understand the VXX investment and could not convey what it entailed to invest in the product.

He pointed to the Financial Advisers Act which imposes a duty on bank officers not to recommend products to customers who are likely to rely on the recommendations unless there were reasonable grounds for doing so.

He claimed he was one of about 10 foreign customers at whom the product was targeted, and questioned if this was done because the Act does not apply to overseas investors.

Also at issue in the case is whether the standards imposed on bankers under the Private Banking in Singapore Code of Conduct were adhered to.