Showing posts with label Shaykh Mansour Bin Zayed. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Shaykh Mansour Bin Zayed. Show all posts

Wednesday 3 August 2016

1MDB Scandal: "The UAE Connection"

This post deals with the second “phase” of the alleged misappropriation of funds from 1MDB and is based primarily on the US Department of Justice (DOJ) complaint against Red Granite, producers of The Wolf of Wall Street.    (the “Red Granite Complaint” or “Complaint”).   Paragraph not page numbers are used to cite the Complaint.  Where other sources are used, I’ve included links to websites, when possible.
Before I begin one very important note.
The US DoJ has filed complaints.  Certain parties mentioned in the complaints have been accused but have not been convicted of any crime, nor have they had a chance to neither respond to the charges made against them, nor have their responses and the original complaints tested by the judicial process.  At this stage all that can be said is that allegations have been made.  Please bear that in mind as you read this post. 
As before the focus is on connections to the GCC, though AA will be unable to resist excursions off his natural turf should the information be compelling.
In this post, I’ll look at the involvement of IPIC and Aabar, specifically that of two individuals who were officials of those companies at the time of the alleged misappropriation: 
· H.E. Khadem Abdulla Al-QUBAISI, Managing Director of IPIC (until 2015) and Chairman of Aabar (until 2013)  
· Mr. Mohamed Ahmed Badawy Al-HUSSEINY, CEO of Aabar until 2015.
I’d note that both these individuals’ names appear in the Complaint unlike the officers of PetroSaudi International (discussed in an earlier post) who were not explicitly named.
The Aabar Phase – Overview (Paras #9-10 and Paras #112-120)
During 2012, 1MDB raised US$3.5 billion in notes (laymanspeak “bonds”) arranged and underwritten by Goldman Sachs to fund the purchase of energy assets in Malaysia.  There were two issues each for US$1.75 billion.  IPIC guaranteed the issues either “directly or indirectly” as per the Complaint.  (Para 114).  1MDB also provided guarantees because the issuers of the Notes were newly created subsidiaries of 1MDB with no track records of their own.
The Complaint alleges that US$1.367 billion of the proceeds (39 percent of face value and 43 percent of estimated net proceeds) were diverted to a Swiss bank for the account of Aabar Investments PSJ in the British Virgin Islands (Aabar – BVI or BVI).  Despite the similarity to IPIC subsidiaries Aabar Investments and Aabar Investments PSJ, the BVI company was not owned by IPIC or Aabar. 
Funds were later allegedly transferred from the BVI account to an account controlled by TAN Kim Loong, described by the Complaint as an associate of Mr. LOW and further transferred presumably to disguise their origin and then used to acquire assets and transfers were made for the personal benefit of officials at 1MDB, IPIC, and Aabar.
The Aabar Phase Selected Details (Paras #121-227)
May 2012 US$1.75 Billion 5.99% Notes Issue Maturing 2022 (CUSIP XS0784926270)
Paras #122-127:  In order to fund its purchase of power generation assets from Tanjong Power, 1MDB decided to raise70 percent in Malaysian Ringgit (MR) from local banks and engaged Goldman Sachs (GS) to arrange and underwrite the Notes to fund the remainder.  After GS’s fees and transaction expenses, the net proceeds of the US$1.75 billion issue were estimated to be US$1,553,800,000.  Approximately, US$810 million of the proceeds were to be used for the purchase.   The remainder (US$744 million) was to be used for “general corporate purposes, which may include future acquisitions” as per the offering circular.  
AA side comment:  That is, almost half the proceeds were for unspecified “general corporate purposes”.  That pattern continued with the subsequent deals.  A natural question is why 1MDB continued to issue more Notes while accumulating an apparently ever increasing cash hoard.  There is a natural dilemma bankers face in structuring transactions.  The bigger the deal, the bigger the fees and, thus, the larger the personal bonuses.  On the other hand the banker has a duty to both the issuer and investors to ensure that amounts raised are appropriate.
Para #130 – Goldman earned US$192.5 million--11 percent of the Notes face amount--in fees (US$17.5 million) and commissions (US$175million). 
AA Side Comment:  Much has been made of the fees GS made on the three bonds it arranged for 1MDB.  The percentage appears “rich” but Goldman was underwriting the issues.  If it could not place the bonds, then it would wind up owning them itself.  It is also a fact that “debutante” (first time) issuers pay more in interest and fees than more “seasoned” issuers. Besides being a debutante, 1MDB presented a set of issues that increased the riskiness of the deal.  While it is owned by the Malaysian state, 1MDB is not full faith and credit.  As well, 1MDB had a very aggressive (risky) capital structure –one that would delight the heart of the stereotypical Kuwaiti “investor”:  maximum use of OPM --heavy on debt and low on equity.  1MDB’s fiscal year is 31 March so let’s use 2012 financials as a starting point. Then, before the Note issue, equity was already a scant twelve percent of total assets.  Not much structural balance sheet protection for lenders or bond investors.  By 31 March 2013, it was five percent.  Any banker or investor with a modicum of intelligence could have factored in this issue and seen that 1MDB’s already weak credit profile would be weaker after the issue. The riskier the issue, the higher the bankers’ fees. 
Paras #129 and #146 – Within one day of closing of the issue (21 May 2012), 1MDB transferred approximately US$577 million to the Swiss account of Aabar Investments PJS – BVI. Note that Tanjong was paid US$650 million (Para #144).
Para #134 – 1MDB granted Aabar Investments PJS – BVI a ten year option to acquire up to 49 percent of these assets for a maximum of MR1,225,000,000.  Note that the compensation for the IPIC guarantee is going to an alleged unrelated party not to an IPIC or Aabar entity.
October 2012 US$1.75 Billion 5.75% Notes Issue Maturing 2022 (CUSIP XS0829573913)
Paras #137-139  This issue also for US$1.75 billion was arranged and underwritten by Goldman, guaranteed by 1MDB with “indirect” guarantee provided by IPIC.  The Notes were to fund the purchase of energy assets from Genting.  Net proceeds after expenses and Goldman’s fees were estimated at US$1,636,260,000 of which US$692,357,340 was for purchase of the Genting assets. As before the rest was for “general working capital purposes”.   Roughly fifty-eight percent of the issue.   This just reinforces the issue above about 1MDB’s real need for such large issues. 
AA Side Comment:  Assuming a rough US$4 million for expenses, as was the case with the first issue, Goldman’s fee was roughly US$110 million, six percent of the face amount of the Notes, and 57 percent of the fee on the first issue.  This validates the comments about debutante issues above. The lower fee may also be due to the support IPIC provided for the issue.  For more on that see below.
Para #141 – 1MDB guaranteed the Notes but IPIC did not.  IPIC “nevertheless agreed to privately secure the bonds on a bilateral basis with Goldman. No reference to IPIC’s indirect guarantee was included in the offering circular.”
AA Side Comment:   If IPIC originally provided credit support to the issue, it would seem that Goldman would have to disclose this to potential investors as a material fact.  However, if the support were in connection with the underwriting, then GS would not have had to disclose this information.  In an offering circular for the 1MDB guaranteed US$3 billion note 2013 issue by 1MDB Global Investments, the second US$1.75 billion is described as guaranteed only by 1MDB.  . 
This is all very strange “privately” securing the bonds “on a bilateral basis with Goldman” sounds as though IPIC is providing support for the underwriting.  This might have been structured as a “put” option.   If GS couldn’t place the Notes, it could exercise the option and “force” IPIC to buy the bonds immediately.  Perhaps, it was structured as a credit default swap, with GS being able to claim after default.  In any case, it doesn’t sound like IPIC’s undertaking extends to holders other than GS.
Para #141 – As compensation for procuring IPIC “indirect guarantee”, Aabar BVI was granted an option to acquire up to 49 percent of the Genting assets for up to ten years.  As the Complaint alleges, BVI is not an IPIC/Aabar entity and thus the compensation owed them was misappropriated.
Para #152 – One day after the second issue closed, 1MDB transferred US$790 million to Aabar BVI’s Swiss account, bringing the total transferred to US$1.367 billion.   Per Para #116, 1MDB recorded these transfers as “deposits” at Aabar Investments PJS in its financial statements. 
Disposition of Funds at Aabar – BVI
As outlined above, the Complaint alleges that US$1.367 billion was transferred to Aabar BVI’s Swiss account.  What happened to the funds?  I’m not going to recite details of the intermediary transfers, though I will make a general comment on the mechanics.
AA Side Comment: Not completely relevant to this post, but interesting.  The names of all the intermediaries allegedly used for the subsequent funds transfers make them sound like investment firms or funds.  (Paras 173-176) Two of them were actual investment funds according to the Complaint.  The Complaint notes that Aabar moved money into these two funds through CITCO.  That’s a tantalizing comment.  It suggests the possibility that these transfers did not pass through normal commercial banking payment channels, that is, Aabar moved funds to its account at CITCO and then instructed CITCO to credit accounts on its books. This would make detection harder.  In any case the use of “investment firms/funds” to move money provides an apparent justification for the transfers: investment firms (not individuals) making investments.  If true, a neat way to disguise the transactions and deflect any AML (anti-money laundering) queries.     
Para #181 and 182– US$473 million in four transfers between 29 May and 30 October 2012 to Bank Privee Edmond de Rothschild Luxembourg for the account of VASCO Investment Services SA, described as “affiliated with AL-QUBAISI” who is the “beneficial owner”.
Para #186  to 189 -US$55 million in four transfers between 29 May and 3 December 2012 to BHF Bank Frankfurt for Rayan Inc.  AL-HUSSEINY is identified as the “beneficial owner”. 
Paras #190-192 - US$11.6 million in two transfers 18 December 2012 and 22 January 2013 to Bank of America Texas for MB Consulting for “Services Rendered” of which AL-HUSSEINY is identified as “beneficial owner and sole signatory.”
Paras #194-196 - US$30 million to AMBank Malaysia for the account of Malaysian Official 1.  As per my post about PetroSaudi International, MO1 would appear to be the current Prime Minister of Malaysia.
Paras #197-198 – US$5 million to Falcon Bank Zurich for account of 1MBD Officer 3 identified as 1MDB’s General Counsel and Strategic Director in Para #27. 
Paras #202 – US$238 million to Red Granite Capital.  A portion of these funds are alleged to have been used to produce The Wolf of Wall Street, acquire assets, and fund a gambling vacation in Las Vegas.
AA Side Comment:  I can’t resist.  According to the Complaint, Paras #222-225 Red Granite transferred US$41 million to Alson Chance (AC) in June 2012.  On 10 July 2012 AC transferred US$11 million to the Venetian Casino in Las Vegas for deposit to LOW’s account.   On 15 July 2012, five days later, an apparently very unlucky LOW withdrew US$1.1 million from the Casino (US$0.5 million for the remainder of the deposit and US$0.65 million for chips.  Of course, gambling is not the only thing that one can spend money on in Las Vegas.  And Mr. LOW was hosting several people, including a former 1MDB officer and a famous movie star. On the other hand, chips are “bearer instruments”.   If I want to pay you, I can give you some chips.  When you cash them in, they are “winnings” and there is no obvious connection to the provider.  
The UAE Connection
Let’s look at some of the allegations made against AL-QUBAISI and AL-HUSSEINY as well as some other UAE connections.   Please note that AA’s comments are not assertions of wrong doing by the individuals named, but rather comments on what the allegations would mean, if they are indeed true. 
Para #115 - H.E. Khadem Abdulla ALQUBAISI and Mohamed Ahmed Badawy AL HUSSEINY were directors of Aabar Investments PSJ-British Virgin Islands, the company allegedly used as the first link the misappropriation of the US$1.367 billion.  They were at the same time officials of IPIC and/or Aabar, entities that were also defrauded in the scheme.  If the allegations are true, then they also participated in weakening 1MDB which could lead to calls under the guarantee.   See Para #162 for 1MDB’s claim that the BVI is indeed owned by Aabar/IPIC. 
Para #125 – When a Goldman MD met with Shaykh Mansour Bin Zayed, the Chairman of IPIC, to discuss the first bond issue, LOW was present, though “not involved in the deal” as “far as” the Goldman MD “was aware”. 
It’s interesting to speculate on how LOW became involved in the meeting.  Introduced by ALQUBAISI?  Direct relationship? 
What are the chances the LOW just popped by when Goldman’s MD came for a no doubt pre-arranged meeting to talk about the transaction?  Another “remarkable coincidence”?  That being said, Sh. Mansour is no doubt a very busy individual with many demands on his time.  Perhaps, he is double booking appointments as way of meeting all those who need to talk with him. 
Paras #131 and 141- 1MDB issued options as compensation for IPIC’s guarantees, but these were granted to the BVI which is not related to either IPIC or Aabar, according to the complaint.   The options granted the BVI the right to buy up to 49% of the two power projects financed with the bonds over a ten-year period.  For the Tanjong option, AL HUSSEINY allegedly signed on behalf of the BVI.  Thus, IPIC/Aabar was also a victim of “misappropriation”.   See also Para #162.
Paras #181-192- As outlined above, ALQUBAISI allegedly received US$473 million and ALHUSSEINY US$66.6 million.
AA Side Comment:  Geez we all want a bit when we retire, but US$473 million? Surely a lot more than 10,000 Swiss Francs a month.  Seems like a rather “princely” sum for a mere “excellency”.   As noted before on this blog, AL QUBAISI acted as an intermediary for Shaykh Mansour Bin Zayed on the Barclays capital raising.  If the 1MDB allegations are true, perhaps, he (QUBAISI, not Sh. Mansour) decided it was time to “wet only his beak”.  Rather a bold and highly risky move by an individual whose continued livelihood in the UAE depends on remaining in Sh. Mansour’s good graces. Sh. Mansour is personally committed to IPIC and the tarnishing of its name in a scandal is no doubt unwelcome as well as what would appear to be betrayal by a very trusted business partner.      

Saturday 18 June 2016

Second Look: Barclays 2008 Capital Raising – The Curious Case of the Warrants


Shaykh Mansour Cheers His English FC On
As I restart the blog after my lesser ghaiba, besides posting on new items, I’ll be taking a selective stroll through the past, disinterring old posts for a fresh look. 
Two “bits” of recent news motivate this post.
  1. The GBP 1 billion court case by Amanda Staveley against Barclays that alleges illegal side payments to Qatari investors related to the offering disadvantaged her as she was a potential investor and not merely an adviser. 
  2. IPIC’s involvement in the 1MBD saga reminded me of their role in the Barclays 2008 transaction.  

Attached below is a file with an account of key milestones in HH Shaykh Mansour Bin Zayed Al Nahayan’s (Sh. Mansour) investment in Barclays.   

Because Barclays is listed on the NYSE, it is subject to SEC filing requirements.  Barclays resulting 6K, Schedule 13-G, and Schedule 13-GA filings provide an excellent source of information on the MCNs and the Warrants.  The RCIs as debt instruments were not reported in the filings.  Note that Barclays relies on filings/information provided by investors in the instruments—information it is not in a position to independently verify.    I’ve provided sourcing in the file to save you the trouble of trawling through Barclays voluminous filings to find the UAE related parties’ filings.  However, key “bits” of information (terms and conditions of the disposition of the MCNs, RCIs, and Warrants) are missing so the conclusions drawn are educated guesses and guesstimates in some places.  I’ve used my judgement to make some estimates, but note the conclusions are not definitive. 

Below is a summary of key points.   You’ll find my usually fussy details in the attached file.
I’d like to highlight Point #10 which outlines the three step series of transactions that moved the Warrants from IPIC finally to a company controlled by Sh. Mansour.  There is no explanation in public information (none was required) on the prices, if any, associated with these transactions nor on their rationale.  AA is still scratching his head to come up with a compelling economic or business reason for this circuitous path.  Maybe some of you out there have your own theories.  If so, please post comments.
  1. In late 2008 Barclays announced a GBP 5.8 billion “hard” capital raising with the potential for an additional GBP 1.2 billion if all the associated Warrants were exercised. 
  2. The offering comprised:   
    • GBP 3 billion in 14% perpetual Reserve Capital Instruments (RCIs) 
    • GBP 2.8 billion in Mandatorily Convertible Notes (MCNs) 
    • Associated with the RCIs, 1,516,875,236 Warrants entitling the holders to convert each Warrant to one Barclay’s common share at 197.775 Pence per share.   The Warrants were sold for a total consideration of GBP1.52.  (That’s not a typo).  In September Barclays had used Warrants to place 226 million shares at 336 Pence each and in June approximately 1.5 billion shares to various institutional investors, including the Qatari investors in the October 2008 capital raising.  
  3. Two GCC “investors”, (a) Qatar Holdings and an associated company “representing the personal interests of the Chairman of Qatar Holdings” and (2) HH Shaykh Mansour Bin Zayed Al Nahayan subscribed respectively for GBP 2 billion and GBP 3.5 billion, later reduced respectively to GBP1.75 billion and GBP3.25 billion. 
    • Not that long ago, a younger AA was told by a grey-bearded veteran that one of the benefits of working in the Middle East is the opportunity to bring one’s personal life into business to create a better “work-life balance”.   AA has no doubt that this “enlightened” approach is not limited to the MENA region.  
  4. Sh. Mansour’s final allocation was GBP 2 billion of the MCNs, and GBP 1.25 billion of the RCIS.  The purchase of the RCIs entitled Sh. Mansour to Warrants to buy roughly 758.4 million shares.  The cost of the Warrants was 76 Pence. 
  5. Barclays subsequently announced that Sh. Mansour would fund his investment through “an Abu Dhabi government investment vehicle”.  Enter IPIC of which Sh. Mansour was then and is now still Chairman.  
  6. IPIC took the investments on its balance sheet, later recognizing an approximate US$2.2 billion profit in 2009 when it converted the MCNs to Barclays shares, then sold the shares, and placed the RCIs.  During 2009 it also sold the Warrants (more on that below).
  7. Based on an analysis of IPIC’s 2008 and 2009 financials, it seems that the Warrants were  sold for a nominal price, perhaps the 76 Pence purchase price. 
  8. IPIC does not appear to have benefited from the Warrants; instead these were sold/transferred in a series of three transactions ultimately to an investment company controlled by Sh. Mansour as per SEC filings.  Also Barclays paid Sh. Mansour a GBP 110 million fee on the transaction.  GBP 30 million of this was subsequently paid to Ms. Staveley for her services.  Based on the same analysis of IPIC’s financials, Sh. Mansour appears to have retained the fee.  It does not appear in IPIC’s earnings.  Nor does it appear to have been netted against the cost of the MCNs and RCIs. 
  9. While IPIC earned quite a nice return for a roughly seven month use of its balance sheet, it was exposed to the potential decline in the price of the MCNs or RCIs unless IPIC received a guarantee against such losses from Sh. Mansour or another party.  The existence or non-existence of such a guarantee is not on the public record. 
  10. Warrants Transactions:
  • 1 June 2009 IPIC grants KAQ Holdings an Option to acquire Kadin, an IPIC subsidiary which holds the Barclays investments.  As per SEC filing, KAQH is owned 100% by HE Khadem Al Qubaisi, a member of IPIC’s Board and a familiar name in the 1MBD saga.  SEC filings do not require that the price or reason for a transaction be disclosed. 
    • Since both Sh. Mansour and KAQ were members of the Board this does not appear to have been a transaction designed to avoid an appearance of conflict of interest, e.g., selling to the Chairman of IPIC.  It’s not clear to what were the good economic or business reasons for this transaction. 
  • 1 September 2009, KAQH announces it has bought PCP 3 the Kadin subsidiary which holds the Warrants.  The earlier Option having been amended to allow this.  
    • Note there is an apparent discrepancy between IPIC’s announcement in its 2008 financials that subsequent to 31 December 2008, IPIC had sold “all” its investments in Barclays.   If the Warrants were carried at cost or near cost by IPIC (e.g., 76 Pence), an explanation might that the carrying amount of the Warrants was “immaterial” and need not be detailed. 
  • 12 February 2010, KAQH which also reports changing its name to Future Capital Management Ltd. announces that it has “transferred” (note the SEC filing does not use the term “sale” or “sold”)  PCP 3 to Nexus Capital Investing Ltd.  The reason for this transaction or the name change has AA scratching even harder.  Lucky I have a hard head!   NCIL is declared as 100% owned by Abdul Aziz Al Ketbi. 
    • Old GCC hands will recognize the Al Ketbi name.  Fatima bint Mubarak al Ketbi is mother of key sons of the Sh. Zayed, guiding founder of the UAE.   
  • 17 February 2010, NCIL exercises Warrants for 626.8 million shares. 
  • 7 July 2010, NCIL announces it has “transferred” (again note the use of the term “transfer” as opposed to “sale”) 100% of NCIL (owner of PCP 3 the holder of the 626.8 million shares and remaining Warrants) to Abu Dhabi International United Investments LLC which is declared as 100% owned by Sh. Mansour.   
  • 11 October 2010 NCIL exercises the remaining Warrants.   At this point the estimated unrealized profit on the exercise is some GBP 511 million or about $803 million.  
  • Subsequent to this date, NCIL engaged in hedging transactions with institutional counterparty or counterparties finally ending its ownership of the shares 20 June 2013 as per SEC filing.  The actual profit realized by Sh. Mansour is not a matter of public record.
Apparently BlogSpot does not allow the uploading of documents and so instead of AA's elegantly conceived and executed table, you will have to work with text post available at the link.

Barclays Capital Raising 2008 Timeline

Technical Note:  For some reason the footnotes in the text don't go to the respective URLS.  So you have to go down into the Endnotes Section and click on them there.
31 October 2008
Barclays announces a GBP 5.8 billion “hard” capital raising with a potential additional GBP 1.2 billion if associated Warrants are exercised.  
Qatar Holdings and  a company representing the personal interests of HE Shaikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jabr Al Thani, Chairman of Qatar Holding initially subscribe for GBP 2 billion  and HH Sh. Mansour Bin Zayed al Nahayan (Sh. Mansour) for GBP3.5 billion.[i] 
The generous deal terms suggest that Barclays is seeking to avoid participation in a UK Government rescue scheme that could impose constraints, including on executive salaries.
Sh. Mansour (UAE) Share Only
GBP 2 billion of Mandatory Convertible Notes (MCNs)[ii]
GBP1.5 billion in Reserve Capital Instruments (RCIs)[iii] Later reduced to GBP 1.25 billion.
The RCIs are accompanied by warrants (Warrants) for the purchase of 758,437,618 common shares of Barclays at 197.775 pence each[iv].    The Warrants are a “true” bargain.  They cost GBP76 pence roughly equal to $1.20.
Barclays initially identifies UAE investor as Sh. Mansour. [v]
25 November 2008 Barclays announces that Sh. Mansour will fund his investment through “an Abu Dhabi government investment vehicle which will become the indirect shareholder of the Warrants, the MCNs and the RCIs.”[vi]
This entity later identified as International Petroleum Investment Company (IPIC) Abu Dhabi (100% owned by Abu Dhabi Government) in Barclays' filings with UK and US regulators.[vii] Sh. Mansour is Chairman of IPIC.
IPIC uses special purpose companies to hold the individual investments.
PCP Gulf Invest 1 Ltd. for the MCNs. [viii]
PCP Gulf Invest 2 Ltd for the RCIs.[ix]
PCP Gulf Invest 3 Ltd for the Warrants. [x]
PCP companies are directly owned by Kadin Holdings Inc. which in turn is owned by IPIC.[xi]
This structure allows Kadin to sell off individual investment types.  
Barclays paid GBP110 million (approximately $174.9 million) in fees to Sh. Mansour on the deal.[xii]  He later pays GBP 30 million to a foreign intermediary per Euromoney.[xiii]  
The fee does not appear as income in IPIC’s 2008 or 2009 financial statements. [xiv][xv]  It does not appear to have been netted against the cost of the MCNs and RCIs. 
Thus, it appears that Sh. Mansour retained the remaining GBP 80 million.
18 November 2008
Qatar Holding and UAE agree to each sell GBP 250 million of RCIs back to Barclays.   No Warrants returned. [xvi] 
Reduction in UAE share of RCIs to GBP 1.250 billion.
The returned GBP 500 million in RCIs were placed by Barclays with institutional shareholders.[xvii] 
These investors had complained about being excluded from acquiring the richly priced 14% coupon RCIs. 
1 June 2009
As per SEC filing, KAQ Holdings (KAQH) announces 8 June 2009 that on 1 June 2009 it acquired the option to acquire 100% of Kadin Holdings Ltd any time after 5 June 2009.[xviii]  As per the same SEC filing, KAQH described as 100% owned by HE Khadem Al Qubaisi (KAQ).[xix] 
Sale price and reason for KAQH’s involvement are not disclosed.
The sale doesn’t appear to be an attempt to avoid appearance of conflict of interest because both KAQ and Sh. Mansour are members of IPIC’s Board.
5 June 2009
As per SEC filing, 8 June 2009 IPIC/Kadin announces that it has sold shares on 5 June arising from conversion of MCNs but that it still holds the Warrants.[xx]   
The MCN’s are exchangeable into 1,304,835,721 shares.  IPIC converts MCNs to common shares and sells.
IPIC’s 2008 annual report states that all Barclays investments sold after 31 December 2008.   E & Y’s audit is signed 22 June 2009 placing the sale of “all” Barclays investments prior to that date.[xxi]
No public information on who bought the Barclays shares.
IPIC engaged Credit Suisse to sell shares and place RCIs, as per Bloomberg.[xxii]
1 September 2009
As per SEC filing KAQH announces it has exercised an amended Option on 1 September 2009 that allowed it to acquire PCP 3 the owner of the Warrants.[xxiii]
There is a discrepancy between IPIC’s report it had sold “all” Barclays investments in June and KAQH’s 1 September date.    
Perhaps, PCP3 wasn’t sold till September and was held at its original cost carrying value ($1.20) and so considered de minimis?
Sale price is not disclosed.
Estimated fair value of the Warrants (341.79P less 197.775P) x 758 million-- about GBP1.1 billion based on 1 September5 share price.  [xxiv]   Using the 5 June share price of 263.27P, the fair value is some GPB 497 million. [xxv] 
 31 December 2009
IPIC recognizes $2,198,074 in profit on sale of its interests in MCNs, RCIs, and Warrants.[xxvi]
As per Note 20 to IPIC’s financials, profit is $2.2 billion equal to net proceeds of GBP 4.7 billion ($7 billion) less derived cost of GBP 3.2 billion ($4.8 billion).[xxvii]
The net proceeds of the MCNs are estimated to have been GBP3.4 billion based on Barclay’s closing share price of GBP 2.6327 on 5 June of 2009.[xxviii]   
The sales proceeds of the RCIs are estimated at GBP 1.25 billion given that the RCIs trading at near par in early June as per London Stock Exchange provided data.[xxix]
This suggests that the Warrants were sold at nominal cost.
12 February 2010
As per SEC filings, 12 February KAQH announces it transferred PCP 3 to Nexus Capital Investing Ltd. (NCIL). [xxx] [xxxi]
In the same SEC filing, NCIL declares its ownership of all the share capital of PCP 3.[xxxii]
Transfer of ownership of the Warrants from KAQH to NCIL.
KAQH’s name changed to Future Capital Management Ltd. [xxxiii]
NCIL.  According to SEC filing, Abdul Aziz Al Ketbi owns 100% of shares of NCIL.[xxxiv]  Fatima bint Mubarak al Ketbi is mother of key sons of Sh. Zayed
FCML is transferor of record of PCP 3 to Nexus.[xxxv]
Note transaction is “transfer” not “sale”.  Does this indicate no payment made?
Reason for KAQH’s name change and transfer not disclosed.
17 February 2010
As per SEC filing, PCP3 exercises Warrants to buy 626,835,443 shares of Barclays' common stock, leaving it Warrants to purchase an additional 131,602,175 shares.[xxxvi]
Shares were not sold so profit was not realized. [xxxvii]
Barclays' closing price per share 17 February 2010 was 279.25.[xxxviii]   Because cost of the Warrants appears to be zero or near zero, the estimated unrealized profit on exercise is (share price less Warrant price of 197.775) times number of shares.   GBP 511 million or $803 million.[xxxix]
7 July 2010
As per SEC filing, Al Ketbi “transfers” 100% of NCIL to Abu Dhabi International United Investments LLC.[xl]
As per the SEC filing, Sh. Mansour owns 100% of Abu Dhabi International United Investments LLC (ADIUI) which in turn owns NCIL.[xli]
Another “transfer” instead of sale. 
11 October 2010
As per SEC filing, NCIL exercises remaining Warrants acquiring 131,602, 175 shares of Barclays.[xlii]  NCIL (Sh. Mansour) now owns 758,437,618 shares. [xliii]
Barclays' closing price per share 11 October 2010 was 275.55.[xliv]  Estimated unrealized profit on exercise GBP102million or  $163 million.[xlv]  
Value of all shares held and thus Sh. Mansour’s total unrealized profit is estimated GBP590 million or $938 million.
20 June 2013
As per SEC filing, PCP 3 no longer holds any Barclays shares.[xlvi]
The reason given is the “closing and settlement of hedging transactions”.  The details of the hedging transactions are not public and so it’s not possible to determine the final profit realized by Sh. Mansour on the Warrants/Barclays shares.


[xxxii] http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/312069/000094787110000108/ss84563_sc13g.htm