CSE finds Familytex assets sold off to Bangladesh Spinners and Knitters

Infographics: TBS

The physical existence of Familytex (BD) Limited, a once-prominent name on the country's stock exchanges, has effectively come to an end following the sale of its entire factory and assets to a private entity.

A recent investigation by a specialised team from the Chittagong Stock Exchange (CSE) has uncovered that the company's factory premises and corporate head office are completely shut down, with the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority (Bepza) already transferring ownership of the facility to Bangladesh Spinners and Knitters (Pvt) Limited, according to a disclosure filed today (19 May).

This revelation confirms the fears of thousands of general investors, who now hold shares in a company that exists only on paper and possesses no physical assets to back its valuation, said a CSE officer.

According to findings by the CSE team, the production and operations of Familytex have been suspended for a prolonged period, leading to a total financial collapse. 

Official documents obtained from Bepza reveal that the authority moved to sell all assets of the company located within the Chattogram Export Processing Zone through a competitive public tender process. 

This drastic measure was taken because Familytex failed to meet its lease obligations, statutory liabilities, and rental payments over several years. While the factory was originally leased for 30 years with an expiry date set for July 2034, Bepza terminated the agreement early to recover its dues. 

A CSE official noted that with the physical infrastructure gone, the company is now a hollow shell, rendering the shares held by the public virtually worthless.

This final liquidation follows a series of failed attempts by various authorities to recover funds from the textile manufacturer. In June 2025, Bepza initially announced an auction for the factory building, machinery, and equipment. 

Similarly, Al-Arafah Islami Bank has been struggling to recover a defaulted loan of Tk48.86 crore from the company. The bank had previously announced its own auction to sell mortgaged assets, including three plots of land and a flat in Chattogram owned by the company's Managing Director, Mohammed Morshed. 

However, those efforts also failed to yield results, and the recovery process remains stalled in the money loan court.

Familytex's journey

Familytex's journey on the capital market began with significant fanfare in 2013 when it raised Tk34 crore through an initial public offering to repay high-interest loans. 

In its debut year, the company attracted investors by declaring a 100% stock dividend. However, the optimism was short-lived as the firm began reporting consistent losses starting from the 2016-17 fiscal year. 

The company's transparency also evaporated over time; while it published financial statements up to December 2020, it has failed to provide any corporate disclosures or financial results to the regulator or shareholders for the past five years.

The most damaging aspect of the Familytex saga involves the conduct of its sponsors and directors. Investigation records suggest a systematic "exit strategy" by the founding members, who allegedly fled the country after offloading their holdings. 

While the managing director initially sold two crore shares through proper declarations, the board later reportedly dumped 11 crore shares on the market without any regulatory disclosure when the price was approximately Tk15 each. 

Other key figures, including a Korean sponsor and the company's chairman, Roksana Morshed, also collectively sold millions of shares before the company's operational collapse, according to the Dhaka Stock Exchange's findings.

Consequently, the sponsors' stake has dwindled to a mere 4.02%, while the general public is left holding 77.57% of a defunct entity.

The regulatory response to this crisis has been largely ineffective. In 2021, the Bangladesh Securities and Exchange Commission (BSEC) attempted to intervene by recasting the company's board with five independent directors intended to safeguard the interests of general shareholders. 

However, these directors were never able to assume control of the company's affairs as the fleeing sponsors provided no cooperation. Facing a management vacuum and a lack of access to company records, the independent directors eventually resigned, leaving the shareholders without any representation.