This is a really sweeping generalisation. Any textbook will say one thing looks a certain way or another. IMO this does not address the circumstances here.
As has been said by others, this director remains a director of the Singapore subsidiary.
The Singapore subsidiary is doing very well IMO. And 60% owned by Ci1.
So why is there a need for a transition, this director is still well and truly involved via the subsidiary?
This is a really sweeping generalisation. Any textbook will say...
Add CI1 (ASX) to my watchlist
 (20min delay)
|
|||||
|
Last
11.0¢ |
Change
0.000(0.00%) |
Mkt cap ! $9.685M | |||
| Open | High | Low | Value | Volume |
| 0.0¢ | 0.0¢ | 0.0¢ | $0 | 0 |
| CI1 (ASX) Chart |
Day chart unavailable