In a disclosure to the Philippine Stock Exchange, the integrated transport services provider said its board on February 6 accepted the resignation of corporate secretary Atty. Amado R. Santiago III, assistant corporate secretary Atty. Manuel Eduardo C. Carlos, corporate information officer Jeremias E. Cruzabra, and directors Li Wen, Patrick Ip, Nelson Yap, and Mark Williams.
2GO said the resignation, which took effect on February 6, was due to “severance of relationship with the group.”
The remaining members of the board are chairman and independent director Francis C. Chua; director, president, and chief executive officer Sulficio Tagud, Jr; and independent directors Raul Rabe and Monico Jacob.
Replacing the resigned members are newly elected directors Atty. Elmer B. Serrano, Atty. Jose Amor M. Amorado, Atty. Joseph C. Tan, and Dennis A. Uy.
Also newly appointed are Atty. Elmer B. Serrano as corporate secretary and corporate information officer and Atty. Mia M. Ormita as assistant corporate secretary.
The change in board membership comes after Uy’s Udenna Corporation filed a lawsuit against Negros Holdings Management Corp. (NHMC) and KGLI-NM Holdings Inc. (KGLINM) for blocking his firm’s entry into 2GO.
2GO’s parent company is NHMC, which is a subsidiary of KGLINM.
Recently, 2GO’s Chua said he was appealing to 2GO’s foreign owners to “be responsible” and to honor their obligation in order to put an end to the issue of ownership.
Udenna, the parent firm and majority stockholder of Phoenix Petroleum Philippines, last September said this issue came about after it obtained 21% of the shares of Netherlands-based KGL Investment B.V., which owns about 60% of KGLINM.
2GO then responded that it was not aware of the transaction made between Udenna and KGL.
In October, 2GO further said it would not recognize Udenna’s claim of having acquired the shares of KGL until it could show documents attesting to this.
That same month, Udenna filed a complaint at the Manila Regional Trial Court seeking to be recognized as a shareholder of KGLINM based on a shareholders’ agreement between Udenna and NHMC. Defendants NHMC and KGLINM sought the dismissal of the case, proposing arbitration to resolve the dispute, as specified in the arbitration clause in their agreement.
Udenna countered that NHMC and KGLINM could not insist on arbitration while they were contesting Udenna’s privity to the agreement.
The Manila RTC has referred the case for arbitration.
Udenna is a diversified holding company with business interests in the distribution and retailing of petroleum products, commercial shipping, ship management, logistics, financial services, environmental services, and property development.
Image courtesy of Sura Nualpradid at FreeDigitalPhotos.net