The new board of directors of 2GO Group, Inc. has approved the instatement of two new alternate officers following the recent resignation of the integrated transport solutions provider’s directors and officers.
The board approved on February 13 the election of Atty. Phil Ivan Chan and Atty. Gino Paulo Uy, both as alternate corporate information officers (CIOs).
The latest appointments follow the election of new board members on February 6 after seven old members resigned due to “severance of relationship with the group.”
The present board now includes 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 CIO and Atty. Mia M. Ormita as assistant corporate secretary.
They replaced Atty. Amado R. Santiago III, Atty. Manuel Eduardo C. Carlos, Jeremias E. Cruzabra, Li Wen, Patrick Ip, Nelson Yap, and Mark Williams.
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.
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. The 2GO’s parent company is NHMC, which is a subsidiary of KGLINM.
Last September, Udenna, the parent firm and majority stockholder of Phoenix Petroleum Philippines, said an issue on ownership 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 acquired shares in 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 adamr at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
