Singapore - The parent company of embattled China Aviation Oil Singapore Corp. (CAO) has rejected claims by former chief executive Chen Jiulin it failed to help the firm cut half a billion dollars in trading losses.

Beijing-based China Aviation Oil Holding Co. (CAOHC) said in a statement received here late Monday the remarks by Chen in an interview with the official Xinhua News Agency last week were "inaccurate, incomplete and misleading." The parent company added it would not make further comment as the case was under investigation but would issue a statement at the appropriate time. Chen was quoted by Xinhua as saying CAOHC knew about Singapore-listed CAO's financial woes from gambling in derivatives as early as October 3. "If the parent had agreed to clear all positions at that time, the actual loss would have been less than 100 million dollars but senior officials of the parent company were all on vacation," Chen said. CAO, which supplies almost all of China's jet fuel imports, has said it owes 530 million dollars to 98 creditors. It has filed for protection with the Singapore High Court and in January offered to pay 220 million dollars to creditors under a restructuring scheme. Chen said in the Xinhua interview that CAO sent an urgent note to the parent company on October 9 but it was not until October 16 that state-owned CAOHC held a meeting to discuss the issue. When the problem was made public in late November, "many foreign and domestic companies contacted CAO and they were willing to help solve the derivatives trading problem," Chen claimed. One of them was global oil giant BP which suggested two plans to contain the loss within 200 million dollars and held discussions with the Singapore company. Chen said CAOHC officials could not be contacted about BP's suggestion. The trading fisaco has been described as the biggest financial scandal in Singapore since rogue trader Nick Leeson bankrupted Britain's Barings Bank in 1995 after losing over one billion dollars on bond derivatives. PIN//AFP
News ID 45836

Your Comment

You are replying to: .
0 + 0 =