Genting Singapore says it has decided to disregard a resolution passed at an Extraordinary General Meeting early last year following recent fallout over the amount of remuneration paid to Chairman Lim Kok Thay in 2020.
The decision was revealed on Thursday following the conclusion of its latest Annual General Meeting, with Genting Singapore pointing to Resolution 3 of last year’s EGM, held on 4 February 2020. The Resolution had been to “increase the limit of the size of the PSS Share Awards to the Chairman.”
Genting Singapore revealed in its 2020 Annual Report late last month that Lim’s total remuneration for the year had almost doubled to between SG$21.25 million and SG$21.50 million (US$15.8 million and US$16.0 million), despite the company seeing its net profit fall 90% year-on-year to SG$69.2 million (US$51.4 million) due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
That prompted a “please explain” from the Singapore Exchange, with Genting Singapore replying that just over 80% of Lim’s 2020 remuneration was in fact an accounting accrual of a portion of a potential SG$35 million bonus to be paid under a “Chairman’s Japan Project Incentive Award” should Genting Singapore win an integrated resort license in Japan.
The company also said that that 750,000 performance shares granted to Lim in 2020 had lapsed this year “due to the poor business performance in FY2020”, as had 125,000 share awards granted to each of three other directors.
In announcing the results of this week’s AGM overnight, Genting Singapore said it will continue to accrue for Lim’s Japan incentive award but would disregard last year’s resolution to “increase the limit of the size of the PSS Share Awards to the Chairman” following further feedback from the Singapore Exchange that Lim and his son, Lim Keong Hui, should have abstained from voting due to their interest in Genting Overseas Holdings Limited (GOHL) – the Genting Berhad subsidiary that holds a 53% stake in Genting Singapore.
With GOHL’s support, the resolution was passed with a vote of 84.74%.
“In conducting the EGM, the Company had been of the view that while the Executive Chairman himself was required to and did abstain from voting on Resolution 3 with respect to his direct interest in the Company, GOHL … was not required to abstain from voting,” Genting Singapore said overnight.
“In this regard, the Company takes note of feedback given by the SGX that GOHL should have been required to abstain from voting on Resolution 3. Further, the Company acknowledges that, had GOHL abstained from voting, Resolution 3 would not have been approved. As such, the Company will not regard Resolution 3 as having been approved and will not rely on Resolution 3.”
