Latest news with #board of directors
Argaam
2 days ago
- Business
- Argaam
Nama Chemicals accumulated losses reach 47.62% of capital
Nama Chemicals Co. 's accumulated losses reached 47.62% of its SAR 235.2 million capital, based on the unaudited financial results for the period ending June 30, 2025, which were closed on July 9. In a statement to Tadawul, the company said accumulated losses amounted to SAR 111.99 million as of June 30, 2025. These losses were attributed to the delayed arrival of raw materials and limited working capital financing sources, which weighed on operational efficiency. This is in addition to the temporary production halt at the company's factories for scheduled periodic maintenance in April 2025. However, production gradually resumed these plants, Nama Chemicals said, adding that this is expected to positively impact its operational performance and financial results during the second half of this year. The company will continue to work to improve production efficiency and reduce costs through the approved corrective measures, which are poised to help uplift revenues and trim expenses to achieve its goals. Nama Chemicals also indicated that the executive management and board of directors are also working to find the best opportunities and solutions to reduce its accumulated losses and financial burdens. Procedures and instructions applicable on Tadawul-listed companies whose accumulated losses reached 20% or more of capital will apply. Nama Chemicals appointed a certified appraiser from the Saudi Authority for Accredited Valuers in the machinery and equipment branch to assess the assets of its subsidiary, Jubail Chemical Industries Co. (JANA). The appraisal concluded that the fair value of JANA's assets exceeds their book value. The company is currently reviewing the report's outputs, and based on this, it will announce any developments, it added. According to data available on Argaam, Nama Chemicals announced the scheduled shutdown of its epoxy plant and the JANA project plant as of April 14. Operations at the two plants resumed on May 8 after maintenance completion.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Tesla's rule-breaking board expressing ‘almost a contempt for lawful and accepted procedure', says governance expert
Under pressure from a group of shareholders, Tesla's board of directors said it will convene the annual general meeting on Nov. 6, nearly four months later than required under Texas state laws. The company had warned at the end of April it would fail to meet the usual deadline, but did not cite a reason for the delay. Charles Elson, founding director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance, says this attitude represents a lack of accountability toward shareholders. An admission by Tesla's directors that investors will be forced to wait until November before voting on key issues has come under sharp criticism fire from a leading U.S. expert on corporate governance. This week, the company finally lifted the secret surrounding the date of its much-delayed annual shareholder meeting. According to state laws in Texas, Tesla was obligated to hold the meeting by July 13—one year and one month after its previous meeting. 'They can't even have an annual meeting annually? That's ridiculous—it's almost expressing a contempt for lawful and accepted procedure.' Charles Elson told Fortune. 'Shareholder voting is a core principle in our system of capital formation, and if you abrogate that, then you punch a hole in the system itself.' Elson serves as a subcommittee chair on the American Bar Association's Business Law Section and is the founding director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware. In 2024, he resigned from a consulting role with the law firm Holland & Knight—which counted Tesla as a client—after a nearly 30-year relationship in order to avoid interest conflicts when filing a legal opinion on the issue of CEO Elon Musk's pay package, dubbed 'the largest in human history.' The announcement of the Nov. 6 annual general meeting came just hours after a group of institutional investors representing $1.5 trillion in assets under management expressed their 'deep concern' over the delay and called on the board to 'immediately' disclose the date. 'Tesla's ongoing silence on the AGM is cause for concern,' they wrote to Tesla's directors in an open letter published Wednesday. The company had first admitted at the end of April that it had failed to file its definitive proxy statement within the normal time frame, citing no reason. Elson said there were only very few legally defensible justifications for pushing back an annual meeting, such as the lack of audited financial statements. Delaying its meeting in order to hold a vote over a new pay package for Musk or a potential investment in his latest startup xAI—the two most commonly cited theories in the Tesla community—did not meet that threshold in his view. 'The law has to be equally and neutrally applied. There aren't special exceptions for special people,' Elson said, referring to Musk. Tesla did not respond to a request from Fortune for comment. Unless shareholders mount a legal challenge to the later date, however, there are no repercussions for the company. Nevertheless, Elson fears this attitude waters down the spirit of capitalism. If a company's owners don't feel like they have a say, it lessens the likelihood of investing in equities. 'It's the one time of the year where every shareholder has the chance to voice their concerns to management in an open forum. It's a natural part of the corporate calendar that ensures accountability—you can't deny shareholders their fundamental suffrage right,' he said. If more companies follow Tesla's example, disenfranchised investors could increasingly seek the contractual protection of a debt-based financing system. This constrains economic growth, however, since it diminishes the appetite for risk that distinguishes the United States from a sluggish Europe. Elson argued that a recent proposal by Wedbush analyst Dan Ives to erect a special board oversight committee tasked with exercising influence over the CEO showed just how toothless the current slate of directors led by chair Robyn Denholm really is. 'Shut up,' Musk responded to Ives, immediately shooting down the proposal. 'I don't think this board is capable of acting outside of Musk's interests. So the question then is what exactly does it do?' Elson asked. 'Why are these individuals being paid hundreds of millions of dollars?' This story was originally featured on Sign in to access your portfolio
