Prudential

[cyclone]

Proposed Demerger of M&G plc form Prudential plc

Prudential plc (“Prudential”) announced its intention on 14 March 2018 to demerge M&GPrudential, resulting in two separately-listed companies.

On completion of the proposed demerger, shareholders will hold interests in both Prudential and M&GPrudential, which will trade on the main market of the London Stock Exchange as M&G plc (“M&G”).

Prudential today announces that the circular in relation to the proposed demerger and the prospectus in relation to the proposed admission of M&G’s ordinary shares have each been submitted to the Financial Conduct Authority (the “FCA”) by Prudential and M&G respectively. A further announcement will be made once the Circular and the Prospectus have been approved for publication by the FCA, which is expected later today. Information on the proposed timetable for the demerger and about both businesses will be included in that announcement and those documents. 

More details in https://links.sgx.com/FileOpen/EAnnounce...eID=579450

[weijian]

An interesting case study where a whistleblower suffers the consequences of getting his agency representation terminated and the existing law does not allow his redress to succeed. But I suppose this is purely a case of "Look What I have done for you" versus "Look What I have avoided for you". Our reward system largely incentivises those that produce tangible results and so the former will generally prevail over the latter.

THE PRICE OF SPEAKING UP: THE PRUDENTIAL SINGAPORE WHISTLEBLOWER CASE

In October 2020, Mr See began to notice life insurance advertisements that looked wrong to him, presented in ways he believed did not comply with the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s (MAS) advertising guidelines. He initially investigated these posts under the guise of a client named “Sherman” before following the company’s Code of Ethics by speaking up internally. On 12 October 2020, he wrote to Prudential Singapore’s compliance team, pointing out the posts and asking for action. Five days later, worried nothing was happening and that the advertisements remained visible to the public, he escalated the issue to Prudential Singapore’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO), who then referred the matter to the Chief Risk Officer for investigation. By early January 2021, Mr See felt that nothing seemed to have changed, and non‑compliant content still surfaced online.

In May 2021, Mr See lodged 13 complaints with MAS, using the pseudonym “Patrick Goh”. He initially used MAS’s anonymous process under which complaints are not forwarded to the financial institution, but when he felt the problem persisted, he began consenting to MAS sending the complaints on, still behind a pseudonym.

On 7 March 2022, Prudential served a notice under clause 13© of Mr See’s Agency Agreement, giving him 14 days’ notice of termination. The letter did not need to say why. Under Singaporean contract law, either party could terminate on notice, without reasons. Mr See believed that he had been terminated because he had gone beyond his company’s internal channels and taken his concerns to MAS.

The system encourages people like him to speak up in the public interest, and MAS’s conduct guidelines stress the importance of culture and accountability. Yet when a whistleblower does exactly that, but then eventually is terminated, the legal and regulatory architecture offers him little in the way of specific protection

https://bschool.nus.edu.sg/cip/wp-conten...r-2026.pdf