Amid ongoing turmoil at Malita Investments, a growing number of concerned shareholders are voicing urgent questions about the company’s future, governance and financial management.

These investors, some of whom are small shareholders and pensioners who prefer to remain anonymous, are seeking transparency after the company navigated a risky shift from its original role as a government property-holding entity into a developer of affordable and social housing.

This unease first emerged from opposition members of Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC), who called for an independent investigation into Malita. The Malta Association of Small Shareholders (MASS) has since joined these calls, expressing similar concerns about the company’s management and the government’s involvement.

Below are the key questions raised by shareholders – questions that, despite their importance, have so far gone unanswered by both Malita and Government representatives.

Changing business objectives: From low risk to high risk

Malita Investments was established in 2011 to finance and oversee the Valletta City Gate project – including the Parliament building and the open-air theatre – leasing these landmarks back to the Government as an alternative to direct Government funding of the €80 million cost.

Additionally, it became responsible for managing stable assets such as Malta International Airport and Valletta Cruise Port with predictable rent income backed by government lease agreements lasting 65 years. This made it a relatively low-risk investment.

However, over recent years, Malita’s mandate has shifted dramatically. It is now tasked with developing affordable and social housing, a sector fraught with new financial risks and uncertainties.

• Did Malita’s objectives officially change after it was listed on the stock exchange?
• Why was the company’s focus shifted to housing development, a business far riskier than property management?
• If Malita is working on social housing as a government mandate, why is a commercially-operated company with private shareholders expected to bear the full financial burden?

Governance and Government involvement

Many shareholders are also troubled by the alleged Government interference in Malita’s operations, especially as the company is expected to act as a commercial entity. 

These questions gain added weight following allegations by former Malita Chairperson Marlene Mizzi, who accused the Minister for Social and Affordable Accommodation of interfering in the company’s work and engaging with contractors.

• Were shareholders misled about the risks involved when the Government changed Malita’s business model?
• If Government officials have issued instructions or influenced the company’s decisions, why has the Government refused to provide financial support in return?
• What prompted the transfer of Malita from the Ministry of Finance to the Ministry for Housing, and how has this impacted its strategic direction?

Financial viability and loan concerns

Malita secured a significant €22 million loan in 2024 from the European Investment Bank (EIB), but shareholders remain concerned about its ability to secure additional financing and maintain liquidity.

Additionally, according to a report by MaltaToday, “it raised €29.9 million from private financing through a share issue,… obtained a €7 million loan from the Council of Europe Development Bank and was in discussion with a financial institution for a €4 million loan to bridge the rest of the gap.”

• After obtaining the EIB loan, did Malita successfully secure the other loans it claimed were necessary?
• If not, does this suggest that commercial banks have serious doubts about the company’s bankability?
• The June 2025 interim accounts mention potential “going concern” risks if Government support is not forthcoming. Where might such assistance realistically come from?

The surprise announcement in October 2024 that Malita would not be issuing an interim dividend, the first missed payout since 2012, has deepened investor anxiety, especially since a seven per cent annual dividend had been promised during a rights issue.

Malita had stated it is “not expecting a government bailout,” emphasising that any solutions must comply with state aid regulations and the company’s obligations as a listed entity. Yet, discussions with stakeholders including the Housing Authority are ongoing, with no clear resolution in sight.

Governance stability and contractor claims

Investor confidence is further shaken by the high turnover of Malita’s board directors and executives in recent years, including the recent replacement of the executive chairman.

• Is such high turnover typical for a well-run, publicly-listed company?
• Have the claims of contractors demanding over €600,000 in unpaid bills been independently verified by project auditors?
• What is the background of these contractors, and do they hold other government contracts?

Impact on small investors and moral obligations

For many pensioners and small investors, Malita was long seen as a reliable income-generating vehicle backed by Government support. This perception was a key reason they invested.

• Given the Government holds an estimated 82 per cent stake, what moral obligation does it have to support Malita and protect minority shareholders?
• Why were dividend promises not honoured, and what assurances can be given to investors now facing significant uncertainty?

A call for transparency and accountability

Despite repeated attempts by groups like MASS to engage with Malita’s management, shareholders report little to no response. The current leadership now faces the difficult task of restoring trust and steering the company through these troubled waters.

As questions multiply and shareholder unease grows, many believe an independent investigation is overdue to clarify Malita’s position and future.

Until then, these questions remain unanswered, a source of growing frustration for the investors who stand to lose the most.