SE Fruits IPO Goes Silent: Money Stuck, Calls Unanswered

October 13, 2026 (MLN): Fourteen days after the public subscription closed for SE Fruits and Vegetable Limited’s (SEFL) PKR 1.2 billion IPO, investors who want to know what has happened to their money are getting no answers.

A few retail applicants told Mettis Global they have heard nothing since applying, and that attempts to reach the lead manager directly went unanswered.

The investors’ money is still blocked. There has been no allotment, no refund and no explanation. The prospectus does answer one question, though, who pays if the delay continues. The answer is not the investors.

The penalty goes to PSX

Section 13.8 of the prospectus (p.182) requires shares to be allotted, issued and credited within five working days of the close of subscription, which was October 6. If the company misses that deadline, it shall pay nominal, non-substantial penalty to PSX. Investors receive none of it.

Investors are compensated only in narrow cases. Under Section 68(2) of the Companies Act, cited in Section 13.6 of the prospectus, directors owe a 2% monthly surcharge if a required refund is paid late. They are excused if they prove the delay “was not on their own account and was not due to any misconduct or negligence on their part.”

Separately, if PSX does not grant permission to list within 21 days of subscription closing, all money must be refunded “forthwith” (pp.12–13). That deadline is October 20. PSX can extend it to 42 days, until November 10, but only by giving notice within the first 21 days. Until one of these triggers is reached, nothing in the prospectus compensates investors for the wait.

Compare that with what the intermediaries earn. The prospectus budgets an advisory fee of 1.99% for the lead managers, about PKR 23.9 million at the floor price, plus 1% underwriting commission on the retail tranche (pp.158–159).

Who prepared the prospectus, and what they promised

The prospectus is the company’s document, signed by its directors. Under the Public Offering Regulations, it is prepared and filed through the Consultant to the Issue. For SEFL, those were Topline Securities and Growth Securities.

Both firms signed an identical undertaking to PSX’s chief executive (pp.101–102):

“We hereby state on solemn affirmation that all material information … has been disclosed in the prospectus and that whatever is stated in the Prospectus and in the supporting documents is true and correct to the best of our knowledge and belief that nothing has been concealed.

We have examined the business model and audited financial statements of the Issuer and based on the same, material information including risks that would enable the investors to make an informed decision has been disclosed in the prospectus.”

The Investment Brief that Topline circulated to investors takes a different tone. Its disclaimer states that the information “has been obtained from the Company” and “reviewed and agreed upon by the Company,” that “no representation or warranty is made by Topline Securities Limited,” and that Topline “disclaims any and all liability based on such information or omissions thereof.”

The same brief sold the deal hard. It called FY26 “a record year, achieved with zero debt.” It said “demand already exists,” citing buyer indications of 12.7 times what the company exported. It described the floor price as “a compelling entry point.” In a footnote, it said the demand figure consisted of “non binding letters of intent and demand inquiries.”

The questions were asked before the money was

The concerns were raised in public before approval. When the draft prospectus was put out for comment from August 5 to 12, a CFA Charter holder filed twelve questions. They included the gap between FY26 profit of PKR 303.82 million and operating cash flow of PKR 3.74 million, the PKR 281.7 million sale to the predecessor partnership, Shaheen Enterprises, and whether a single company audit opinion was being presented as a three-year clean record.

The CTIs answered every point. They said 61.2% of the June-end receivables had been recovered by July 31, that the sale to Shaheen Enterprises was a “transitional arrangement” that would not recur, and they revised the audit-opinion wording. Each response letter closed with the same line: “Looking forward to your investment in the IPO of SE Fruit & Vegetable Limited.”

What Mettis flagged before the IPO

On September 19, before book building opened, Mettis Global set out the same pressure points after putting them to SEFL’s CFO.

We reported that operating cash flow had fallen to about 1.2% of net income in FY26, from 81.5% in FY24, and that receivables had jumped from PKR 212.6 million to PKR 995.9 million. We noted that five of the ten largest FY26 customers had no recorded sales in the prior two years, and that one of them was Shaheen Enterprises itself, at 13.2% of revenue.

Supplier concentration had risen from 26.5% to 72.8% in a year. Mango and potato were sourced entirely through middlemen, despite the company being described as “vertically integrated.” Cash balances in the projections also failed to reconcile between footnote and the statements, by PKR 94.8 million in FY27 and PKR 150.8 million in FY31.

The CFO told Mettis that more than 97% of receivables had been collected by September 18. We reported that figure as company-reported and not independently verified. Our conclusion was that the investment case rested on execution, and that investors were “being asked to bridge a real gap.”

What investors need now

The company, the lead managers, PSX and SECP have not answered three questions:

• When will investors receive either shares or their money?
• Has PSX extended the listing-permission deadline beyond October 20?
• Will the 2% surcharge apply if refunds become due and are delayed?

The firms that vouched in writing for every word of the prospectus can now vouch for one more thing: what happens to investors’ money, and when.

Copyright Mettis Link News