Dubai: The Emirati Goldfinger

Fancy expensive car proving honesty and sincerity.

Dubai is known as an important gold trading center.  Apparently the story of Damas is just one of many.

This is another.

An Emirati identified solely as AA, was taking gold from an Iranian woman, FH,  promising her he was selling to Russians at a "higher price".  Presumably because the Russians in the UAE are not sharp traders.  In one example, she gave him gold worth DH850,000 and he gave her a check for DH500,000.  

One could make a small fortune in such exchanges - though starting with a large fortune would be a prerequisite.

In any case the woman was sure this chap was on the "up and up". 

FH said that each time the accused, who addressed her as 'mother' visited her he used a different car. And, therefore, she believed whatever he said and never suspected him.

As Ken over at Wall St WTF can testify, justice has both a long arm and is swift in the Emirate of Dubai.  Interpol arrested the chap in Thailand and he's been arraigned in Dubai.

The accused has denied the accusation and the Dubai Misdemeanor Court has adjourned the case until August 9.

A couple of further notes.

Despite the similarity of names (AA), like a certain prominent Kuwaiti-Saudi businessman, I continue to deny any wrongdoing.  Mother, why won't you believe me?

And for Ken at Wall St WTF:

1. You've expressed some concern at your blog as to the  vigor (or lack thereof) in the legal pursuit of the Flying Abdullah Brothers.  Perhaps the judicial venue for this case  - the Misdemeanor Court - is an indication of the seriousness with which such crimes are viewed in the Emirate?
2. Also as one who has worked with the DIFX/DFSA, perhaps you can  advise whether Iranians are working there in senior management.  That potentially could explain a lot of things.  He called me "mother" when he signed his Enforceable Undertaking.

Damas: A Gem of Loss AED1.9 Billion for Fiscal 2010

You may have seen the news articles on the loss.  Here in the Gulf News.  Or Khaleej Times.  As usual, if you're looking for more content, you'll find it at The National.

Hopefully, this post will expand the discussion.

For this excursion, here are Damas' Press Release and its Audited Annual Report for 2010 (inexplicably missing the audit report).  Presumably a technical issue because ASDA'A - Burson Marsteller was involved in distributing this. I've sent NasdaqDubai an email to note the oversight.  If you live in the Emirate, you might give them a call. 

The first thing that becomes obvious is that the new board and management are  "taking an accounting bath" - writing down everything they possibly can.  This associates the loss with the previous board and management.  And then when there are recoveries in these same items in the future, they (the new "team") will look like "blooming business geniuses". 

The second thing is that the number of areas where writedowns or provisions have taken place give an idea of the extent of the corporate rot.  There seems scarcely an asset category  or company activity that was not touched.  In cases like this one has to be quite a charitable soul to ascribe the lowest possible level of intelligence and competence to those involved.  Otherwise one would be forced to conclude that they were complicit in the Abdullah Brothers' crimes.  That would, of course, include Damas' Accounting and Finance Department, its internal auditors, its Board Audit Committee and its then external auditors. 

Let's step through the charges.

First "impairments" of AED 790.6 million.   Note 11.

1. AED457 million against the AED767 million due from the Abdullah Brothers (Note 26).  A provision of 59.6%.  This is composed of the AED606 million  in unauthorized withdrawals plus AED150 million in a lost deposit - lost as a bank seized it for a gold loan to the Abdullah Brothers.  Less AED3.3 million in Board fees for fiscal 2010 - we'll file that  under "insult added to injury".  Seems Damas has a soft spot for the Abdullahs and still believes it needs to compensate them for the wise and highly beneficial services they provided to the Company during fiscal 2010.  We can be sure of one thing.  The Company will recover at least AED150 million from the Abdullahs by offsetting the AED150 million subordinated loan the Abdullahs made to the Company.
2. AED106.1 million against real estate due to a downturn in the market values.
3. AED54.7 million for investments in persistent loss making jointly controlled entities which are impacted by a change in the role of the Abdullah Brothers.  Since the losses were incurred while they were running the Company, is the assumption that now that they are not, the situation will change for the worse?
4. AED28.4 million for certain associates due to uncertainty of future cash profits.
5. AED84.4 million for long term loans and receivables from related parties.  Apparently wisely made by Damas with no fixed repayment tenors, no interest applicable and no collateral.  
6. AED14.1 million for available for sale investments.
7. AED16.0 million for intangible assets.
8. AED29.8 for receivables.

Now to Provisions - AED572 million.  Note 12.

1. AED434 million for Inventories (Note 22 (ii)).  Seems Damas gave gold from its inventory to certain "consignment vendors, ventures, debtors, associates, and jointly controlled entities without any margin and to certain parties against cash margin."  Some AED618.2 million (of which AED613.5 was gold) against which it had AED183.8 million in collateral.  It has fully provisioned the remaining amount AED434.4 million.  Once Damas "lent" gold or other inventory, then those assets should have been separated from the rest of inventory.  Especially since the amount is significant - 30% of total inventory.
2. AED121.1 million for doubtful receivables - in very rough numbers 37% of gross receivables.  There's one proven business way to increase sales and that's to sell on very easy terms.  Selling to people who can't or won't pay back works every time.  We are told that this provision is motivated by the change in the role of the Abdullah Brothers in the Company. It seems that the Abdullah Brothers originally approved the extension of these receivables. Which is perhaps why they weren't collected.  Now that they are no longer in control we are to conclude that the receivables won't be collected and must be written off? Frankly, I'm not following the logic here.
3. AED16.6 million for "slow moving inventories".  Since a jeweller's inventory turns really slowly these have to be some "real gems", no doubt.

Third, an AED79,6 million loss on settlement of bank liabilities (Note 13). 

1. AED73.3 million:  Damas couldn't meet margin calls against gold loans.  Wonder where the gold went? Borrowed by an Executive Director?  So the Company had to give Inventory with a cost of AED140.1 million for which the bank gave them AED66.8 million.  That led to an AED73.3 million loss.  Damas is buying back the inventory in a phased manner at the purchase price originally paid to the bank.  
2. AED6.2 million loss on a jewellery for debt exchange.

Provision for Dubai Ventures Loan AED311.5 million (Note 21).

1. You'll recall this transaction was part of the fraud perpetrated by the Abdullah Brothers at the time of the IPO.   They gave Damas funds to Dubai Ventures - part of the Dubai Group - to buy a portfolio of Damas shares to meet the minimum "free float" requirements.  This portfolio became a loan in Fiscal 2008.  And now "poof" it's provisioned.  Though management asserts it will do everything to collect the loan.  Since DV is holding highly valuable Damas shares, I guess it will be a matter of a few trades on DFM/NasdaqDubai.

 Other matters.

1. There are AED94.7 million in losses on Discontinued Operations.  A glance at Notes 15, 38 and 39 discloses a rabbit's warren of companies.  It's unclear to me how any lender could keep either an eye or control on his money once it enters a "black box" like this. That's not to say that there was any malfeasance at Damas on this score.  Just that this is a "tricky" situation for an unsecured lender.
2. Damas' Press Release refers to AED1.9 billion in one off expenses and provisions.  I think that's overstated.  Damas appears to be considering net interest expense of AED132 million as a one off expense as well as some of the losses on subsidiaries.
3. Damas is showing AED775.2 as Cash and Banks classified as a Current Asset.  Some AED392 million of this amount is pledged as security for loans (Note 29).  It seems a real stretch to consider these Current Assets.
4. Rescheduling:  There's a bit of cognitive dissonance between the Annual Report MD&A and the Press Release.  Presumably, the Press Release is the later document so we'll use that information on the structure.  The Press Release states there will be three tranches: Tranche 1 an amortising debt.  Tranche 2 a working capital facility probably "revolving" (not reducing).  Tranche 3 a term loan (presumably with no or a very pushed out amortisation schedule).   Note 2 to the Financials discloses that the proposed tenor is 6 years.   And that recovery from the Abdullah Brothers is not required to repay the debt.

Finally, as always with announcement like this, we at Suq Al Mal are on the look out for contributions to distressed debtors' rhetorical spin.  I'm happy to report that Damas has advanced this art significantly.  Here are some of their contributions:

1. A "difficult, if not unfortunate year".  (Chairman's Statement).  AA:  Unfortunate indeed.
2. "Unfortunate in that the problems which the Group now confronts are of its own making, through the failings of the then Board of Directors and, in particular, the actions of the Executive Directors, the Abdullah Brothers". (Chairman's Statement).  AA:  We can probably explain this statement by two facts.  It's true.  And there's a new team with no reputation at stake.
3. Operating performance "reconfirms the value proposition of the Group's core business"  (Chairman's Statement).  And from the MD&A:  "The robustness of the underlying business model was tested under actual stress conditions ..."   AA:  Much better than a "proven business model".
4. "The Group’s difficulties and the continued involvement with the Abdullah Brothers have raised a number of concerns, publicly. While recognising these concerns and putting in place the appropriate governance structure to mitigate against any potential issues, the continued involvement of the Abdullah Brothers is of strategic importance.  Fundamental in this regard is their knowledge of the  industry, in the areas of product design, quality, but more importantly their involvement in the  recovery of accounts receivables and the inventory given on consignment. In their role as Advisors,  the Group will be able to secure a knowledge transfer and an expedited, if not enhanced, recovery of  its receivables and consignments."  AA:  One certainly hopes so.  Wonder what the compensation is?  And if it's cash or reduction in their payable?

Belt Buckles: The New Paradigm of Patriotism

For many years now, we Americans have been able to measure one another's patriotism by the presence or absence of an American flag pin on a lapel.  And the bigger a pin, the more patriotic.  

But perhaps we'd become complacent and so lost sight of the original intent of the Founders.

One man, David H Brooks, has shown that we can not only renew our patriotism but take it to a higher level:  the US$100,000 American flag themed belt buckle shown in the above picture.

Even though this idea was his, David didn't shrink from giving average citizens - at least those who pay taxes - the opportunity to join in making his vision a reality by defraying the cost along with $6 million in other expenditures.

As the NY Times reports:

DHB, which specialized in making body armor used by the military in Iraq and Afghanistan, paid for more than $6 million in personal expenses on behalf of Mr. Brooks, covering items as expensive as luxury cars and as prosaic as party invitations, Ms. Schlegel testified.

Also included were university textbooks for his daughter, pornographic videos for his son, plastic surgery for his wife, a burial plot for his mother, prostitutes for his employees, and, for him, a $100,000 American-flag belt buckle encrusted with rubies, sapphires and diamonds.

The expense-account abuse, the prosecution has said, represented a pittance compared with the $190 million that Mr. Brooks and another top employee are accused of making through a stock fraud scheme in which he falsified information about his company’s performance — including significantly overstating the inventory of bulletproof vests — to inflate the price of the stock before selling his shares in 2004.

Patriotism and family values!

Mr. Brooks appears to be using the Abdullah Brothers' defense.  And I suspect this may all turn out to be a tempest in a teapot.  A failure - if one were to be so uncharitable to use the term "failure" - to properly document some transactions. 

I'm also guessing - but don't know for sure - that the buckle is from Damas' Bur Dubai store.

AlGosaibi v Maan AlSanea - Fortis Bank v Abu Dhabi Islamic Bank In Re Awal Bank

Asa Fitch over at The National has an interesting article on Fortis Bank's suit against ADIB for some US$40 million for ADIB's failure to honor its confirmation of an Awal Bank LC which was the basis for Fortis adding its own confirmation.  

The underlying transaction appears to one of those fairly common "Islamic" transactions - a loan disguised as a commodity purchase transaction carefully to  meet "Shari'ah compliant" banking "principles".  Yes, those quotations marks mean exactly what you think they do.

ADIB is asserting fraud in the inception by Mr. AlSanea as its defense against payment to Fortis.

Where have I heard that legal defense before?

And this is as good place as any to note that Mr. AlSanea denies any wrongdoing.

In any case, I'll post a bit more on this in a day or two once I regain my composure.  I can't stop laughing.

I thought the letters of credit that Ahli Bank Kuwait issued for TIBC were a howl.   ADIB's "letter of credit" is beyond that.  

As an extra bonus for your patience, I'll also post on BNPP Bahrain's suit against ADIB for some US$44.9 million involving letters of credit issued by TIBC that BNPP confirmed against ADIB's irrevocable undertaking.  

UAE Credit Cards Among World's Costliest

As reported in The National:

A survey of more than 170 cards offered by 40 banks operating in the UAE shows the average annual interest rate is 33.9 per cent, more than double the average rate in the US and almost twice the average rate available in the UK.

Two percent over the average rate last year.  Apparently, First Gulf Bank, Mashreqbank, and DubaiFirst offer platinum cards with APRs of 40%.  Wonder what they offer their less preferred customers?

But I guess somebody's got to pay for the Dubai World provisions not to mention AlGosaibi, Saad and perhaps Dubai Holdings.

بسم الله الرحمان الرحيم

 صدق الله العظيم

WallSt WTF "Appreciation" of Damas Saga

Ken over at WallSt. WTF has an "appreciation" of the Damas saga.  Well worth a read if you haven't seen it.

AlGosaibi v Maan AlSanea – AlGosaibi’s Strategy with Creditors

In light of my recent post speculating that AlGosaibi was being pressured to accept Grant Thornton's "peace proposal" for a commercial settlement, this is probably an opportune time to take a close look at AlGosaibi's legal strategy. From a document concerned with the recent lawsuit by Trowers and Hamlins that I've seen, it's possible to reconstruct that strategy in more detail and to use AlGosaibi's "voice" in doing so.  Or at least it voice as channeled by US counsel.

Before we do that, a caveat.

What I'm about to present is AlGosaibi's side of the story. As you'd expect AlGosaibi's account is highly favorable to themselves as are statements made by their counsel – who they have hired to represent them.

Nothing surprising here.  This is the (adversarial) nature of the US legal system.  Long ago, AA was called for jury duty in a personal injury case. After the jury had been selected, the judge took us aside. He said that while each counsel had claimed that his sole purpose and desire was to obtain justice, this was not the case.  Each counsel was working for its client's interests, not for justice. And that, recognizing this fact, we should be duly skeptical of any statements made. Such is also the case here. It applies to all parties to the case: AlGosaibi, AlSanea, T&H, TIBC, Awal Bank and their respective management and officers as well as the counsel they have hired to represent them.

Now to AlGosaibi's strategy and rationale.

First, AlGosaibi's central thesis is that TIBC was "throughout its active life a criminal instrumentality operated apparently for the principal purpose of defrauding our client and third parties, incurring massive fraudulent debt in our clients' name and siphoning the proceeds to Maan AlSanea and his Saad Group of companies". In this regard they assert that TIBC was formed without AHAB's knowledge or authorization and that the pledge of shares which is listed as the source of equity for TIBC is not "legitimate." And that they do not "accept any debt owed to TIBC or the validity of any claims whatsoever asserted by TIBC" against AHAB. As part of this thesis, it's important to recall that AHAB also claim that the Money Exchange (through which the proceeds of alleged fraudulent commercial loans were passed) was also under the control of Mr. AlSanea and his confederates.  This thesis - that AlGosaibi itself was the victim of fraud along with the creditors - would also the basis for a less than 100% payback of the loans as I've noted before.  At least by AlGosaibi.

This is also the appropriate place to note that Mr. AlSanea and various other parties accused directly and indirectly by AHAB vigorously deny any wrongdoing.

Second, as a consequence of this (alleged) fraud, the proper response of T&H (and any creditor) is to join with AlGosaibi in pursuing the culprits and not the innocent victim - AlGosaibi.

Why?

"Litigating intercompany positions (e.g., TIBC and AHAB) will take years, if not decades and that such litigation only depletes resources that will be needed to effect a workable commercial settlement". Co-operation on the other hand "avoids wasteful and ineffectual expenditures and offers a potential for TIBC and its creditors to benefit from AHAB's recoveries and its potential commercial resolutions of claims with third parties." 

AHAB's counsel notes that even though AHAB rejects any TIBC claims against itself, it nonetheless has proposed that TIBC's creditors be included alongside its own in any settlement by a "substantive consolidation of all the creditor positions and the creation of a single fund". And that AHAB is creating a "fighting fund" of some US$150 million to use to pursue legal cases against Mr. AlSanea – which would relieve a burden on TIBC's creditors who no doubt would be reluctant to provide substantial funding for such an effort.

As well, it comments that commencement of legal action by T&H against AHAB could jeopardize its good will. And that a further danger to TIBC creditors is that any such legal action will require the presentation of original documents, which AHAB counsel asserts could be difficult to produce. And if produced, AHAB and its counsel are confident that the signatures thereon could be successfully challenged as forgeries.

Counsel also notes that it intends to raise these points with counsel for TIBC creditors, Clifford Chance Dubai.

The fact that T&H launched its suit roughly three weeks after this correspondence was sent indicates that it was not persuaded.

There are a couple of other points in the document - worthy of note and comment:

1. AHAB asserts that Saudi British Bank has refused to turn over to AHAB certain records pertaining to AHAB - which it asserts Mr;. AlSanea has removed from the Company and taken under his personal control and which include those relating to  the underlying pledge of shares which serve as the basis for the equity in TIBC. This is particularly perplexing. Why would SBB not provide duplicates of records to its client of record?  Or in other words, what would be the basis why SBB would refuse to turn over to its client duplicates of certain records pertaining to that client's business with it?
2. That AHAB counsel had proposed an information exchange protocol (apparently in March) under which AHAB and T&H would share information but with the stipulation that neither party would use the information so obtained in legal action against the other. It's perfectly understandable that T&H would not accept this. As the Central Bank appointed Administrator, it has a fiduciary duty to pursue claims against all debtors registered in TIBC's books. And certainly wouldn't want to expose itself to a TIBC creditor later suing it for failure to pursue one of the debtors because it unilaterally decided not to. The better path is to raise the claim.  Then let a Court determine whether the debtor has a defense against payment. This was, I am told, the tactic used in the liquidation of Petra Bank Jordan في الوقت المدثور . 

Stay tuned.  In a day or so, I'll post AlGosaibi's reaction to T&H's apparent rejection of its proposal for co-operation by looking at AHAB's 15 June submission to the NY Bankruptcy Court.

AlGosaibi v Maan AlSanea - Grant Thornton to Broker "Peace" Deal? Authorities Supporing?

Frank Kane over at The National reports that Grant Thornton is trying to broker a settlement between AHAB and Mr. AlSanea.  Under what is described as the proposed deal, the parties would cease litigation against one another and pool assets to repay outstanding debt.  The stated goal is to maximize creditor recovery.  First, by eliminating the costs of litigation which no doubt would be considerable.  Second, and perhaps, more importantly, shortening the time frame until ultimate payment. 

Acceptance of the proposed plan would also achieve at least four other highly convenient goals:

1. It probably closes the book on allegations of financial crimes - which would no doubt be a comfort to any party who may have committed a crime.   In this regard, it should be noted that not a single party to the dispute has admitted to any wrongdoing.  And all aver they are as pure as newly fallen snow.  Perhaps, the proverbial pristine white snows of Saudi Arabia. 
2. It could relieve jurisdictions of the need to engage in complicated, messy and uncertain criminal prosecutions.
3. It will reduce (but not eliminate) the current intense scrutiny and reputation bashing of regulators and their countries - an unwelcome event fed largely by continuing press reports of the feud.
4. It would settle the dispute between two very important Saudi parties via a compromise .  Peace among the tribes rather than a victory for one side over the other.  Well consonant with Saudi tradition.

As the Cayman Islands' Court appointed liquidator for Mr. Al Sanea's Cayman companies,  GT's sense of fiduciary duty is clearly the motive for devising the settlement plan.   

As outlined above the plan would benefit other parties.  And they might well be expected to promote its acceptance.

Since the beginning of the crisis, Mr. AlSanea has suffered  heavy personal opprobrium in the press despite his repeated denial of any wrongdoing.  He and his firms have borne the brunt of legal actions filed.  And thus he may be well incentivized to deal.  

AHAB has until recently had a kinder fate.  And may therefore need a bit of prodding.   As well, they are perhaps the key to acceptance given the nature and vehemence of their accusations against Mr. AlSanea.  If they will sign the deal, then it may be easier for Mr. AlSanea to agree-  particularly if as expected the deal will involve a removal of accusations.

That's why I wonder about the recent spate of litigation directed against AHAB.  

Could it be that certain authorities are attempting to put pressure on AHAB with the view of securing its acceptance?

You'll recall that in announcing its US$720 million lawsuit against TIBC on 16 June Trowers and Hamlins said it took the action "following referral of the claim by the Council of Ministers." Clearly a reference to the Saudi CoM.  No doubt, any proposed legal actions were vetted as well by Trowers and Hamlins with its employer, the Central Bank of Bahrain.   In both cases an official "green light" to proceed.

Then again this all may be coincidence, though I don't think so.  The affair has dragged on to long.  Each day it persists is highly inconvenient for important parties who no doubt feel that it's time to close the book and move on.

Bahrain Court Rules in Favor of Central Bank of Bahrain's Decision to Place Awal Bank in Administration

The CBB issued a press release noting that a Bahrain Court had issued a ruling supporting its decision to place Awal Bank in "administration".  The former Chairman (Mr. Al Sanea) had raised a court case challenging the CBB's action.

It's not clear from the press release or news items (which seem to be a mere transcription of the press release) whether this is the Court of First Instance (which I suspect) or a higher level.  If it is the Court of First Instance, Mr. AlSanea would of course have the right to an appeal. As well, if it is the Appeals Court.  Like American baseball, the Bahraini system gives each litigant three goes at bat - with the Cassation Court (Supreme Court) being the final one.  

I'm guessing that Mr. AlSanea may take another swing in the courts.  And here it's appropriate to remark that Mr. AlSanea still continues to deny any wrongdoing in the conduct of his business affairs.

The importance of the ruling to CBB is evident from the inclusion of quotes from three senior executives.  Their common focus on the CBB's actions to maintain the strength and reputation of the Bahrain banking sector no doubt reflects some concern over the market's perceptions of both. 

AlGosaibi Offers Creditors 20% on the Dollar Plus Proceeds of Lawsuits Against Maan AlSanea

Quoting informed sources, Frank Kane at The National reports that AHAB has offered creditors a cash payment of US$1.8 billion on US$9 billion of liabilities plus up to US$4 billion hoped to result from AHAB lawsuits against Mr. AlSanea.   

As Mr. Kane notes and as I have as well before, Mr. AlSanea continues to deny AHAB's allegations against him.

The al Gosaibi family of Saudi Arabia is prepared to sell much of its 70-year-old business empire to help pay its creditors, informed sources say.

The proposed net payment is a minimum of 20% (US$1.8 billion) with a maximum of 64.4% (US$5.8 billion).

As the article points out, the net value of Mr. AlSanea's assets is not known. 

Assuming for a moment that AHAB would be successful in its lawsuits, I believe it would become another of Mr. AlSanea's unsecured creditors.   And would therefore be entitled to a proportionate share of the "estate".  As well, the resolution of the lawsuits is probably something that will require a very long time to settle.  In objecting to a potential suit against itself by Trowers and Hamlins,  AHAB is reported to have said that "litigating the intercompany positions will take years if not decades and that such litigation only depletes resources that will be needed to effect a workable commercial settlement".   One may perhaps safely presume that the same would apply to AHAB lawsuits against Mr. AlSanea.  

Putting aside the depleted resources argument, one might argue that the present value of the proposed settlement is therefore less, much less, than 64% or 20% for that matter (which will depend on sales of AHAB assets). 

NY Court Compels Release of AlGosaibi Bank Account Details

As per the Gulf Daily News,  Trowers and Hamlins won an important legal victory in US Bankruptcy Court.  The Court ruled that AHAB's New York bankers must disclose details of a key AHAB account.   One to which reportedly a large amount of funds were transferred.  As the article notes, Trowers and Hamlins have been requesting information on this account since last August.  

Trowers & Hamlins partner Abdullah Mutawi, who is leading the asset realisation strategy, said it was a significant development.

"This is the first time AHAB has been compelled to reveal details of any of its bank accounts," he said.

"It is particularly significant because AHAB has repeatedly refused to hand over important information relating to the operation of the account.

"The account is important because a substantial portion of TIBC's funds were remitted to it and the information should help reveal the ultimate destination of those funds."

As I noted in yesterday's post about First Gulf Bank's lawsuit against AHAB,  there seems to have been a change in the dynamic of this story.  The focus is now on AHAB's behavior - both in terms of responsiveness to requests from creditors as well as its role in the collapse.

I suspect this is going to get increasingly messy.  At the end few reputations may be left undamaged.

AlGosaibi v Maan AlSanea - Trowers and Hamlins Statement

One of my new and frequent commentators mused whether the fact that Trowers and Hamlins had launched a lawsuit against AHAB represented any sort of determination by T&H about the guilt or innocence of the parties involved in the case.

I had speculated that T&H was merely doing its job - going after the registered debtors of TIBC and pursuing collection of funds without making any such judgments.

That left us in a stand-off of opinions.

So, I posed a question to T&H through Hill and Knowlton.  Today I received the following response which I quote verbatim.

A Trowers and Hamlins spokesperson said: “Our investigations to date and other extrinsic evidence provided by third parties - which we are still considering - would suggest that there were irregularities in the manner in which the business of TIBC and other institutions connected with the AHAB / Saad situation was conducted.  However, investigation of fraud or other criminal activities and/or other material non-compliance by officers or other stakeholders of TIBC with the law or regulatory requirements essentially remains the remit of the public prosecutor and the CBB respectively and it is therefore not appropriate for us to comment or speculate further.”

As you'd expect a law firm to do, this statement is carefully crafted to avoid creating any unwanted legal problems for T&H.

There are several points I think are worthy of comment:

1. That at this point what T&H has seen suggests - though not conclusively - that there were "irregularities in the manner in which the business of TIBC and other institutions connected with AHAB / Saad situation was conducted".
2. That investigation of fraud, criminal activities or material non compliance with regulations is not T&H's responsibility but that of the "Relevant Authorities" in the Kingdom of Bahrain.
3. Accordingly, T&H will not comment on such matters.
   

Damas - Enforceable Undertaking Latest Developments

A rather enigmatic press release from Damas on Nasdaq Dubai this morning.

Three points of note:

1. Damas International Limited ("DIL") is negotiating a Cascade Agreement with Damas Investments Limited and Damas Real Estate Limited, the Abdullah Brothers who own both companies, and their respective creditors.  "The purpose of the Cascade Agreement will be to effect an orderly realisation of the assets of the Abdullah Brothers Group. DIL and its board will at all times continue to act in accordance with their legal duties."
2. "DIL notes that its undertaking to recover amounts owing from the Abdullah Brothers at paragraph 17.37 of the DIL Enforceable Undertaking is expressed to be subject to any stand-still, restructuring, security, cascade or similar agreement with the Abdullah Brothers Group and their creditors, including DIL. DIL further notes that in the enforceable undertaking given by the Abdullah Brothers dated 21 March 2010 (the "Abdullah Brothers Enforceable Undertaking") the obligation to repay the Drawings Amount (as defined therein) to DIL at paragraph 15.11 is expressed to be on terms and conditions either already agreed or to be agreed with DIL. Further, the obligations of the Abdullah Brothers to use the net proceeds of realisation of assets to repay the Drawings Amount at paragraph 15.12.1 of the Abdullah Brothers Enforceable Undertaking is expressed to be subject to the terms of any settlement, stand-still, restructuring, security, cascade or similar agreement with creditors (including DIL)."

It sounds as though Damas is in the process of revising the original repayment schedule agreed with the Abdullah Brothers.  No doubt legally required in terms of the rights of all creditors.  What it probably means for DIL is a longer payback period.  And depending on the assets, perhaps less than 100% payout.  From what I've read it seems likely that many of the investments may be problematic to sell at original cost.

The International Banking Corporation - Trowers and Hamlins Sues AlGosaibi

Not a good week for the AlGosaibis.

Trowers and Hamlins, the Central Bank of Bahrain Administrator for TIBC, announced through its public relations firm, Hill and Knowlton, that on 16 June, it had "filed a US$720 million foreign exchange claim against Ahmad Hamad Algosaibi & Brothers (AHAB) at the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency (SAMA) Committee in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, following referral of the claim by the Council of Ministers."

There are a couple of telling points in the press release.  The first is the comment that the claim was filed "following referral of the claim by the Council of Ministers".

The second is a quote from Abdullah Mutawi, the T&H Partner handling this case:

“The claim we have launched with the SAMA’s Committee follows unsatisfactory responses from AHAB and their representatives to questions relating to the assets of TIBC that we have repeatedly asked them."  

You'll recall (and if you don't here's the link) that earlier there were complaints from some of the Kuwaiti banks that AHAB (as well as Saad) were not responding to requests for information or to hold meetings.   T&H notes in the press release that it has has "filed an application in the Courts of New York under Chapter 15 of the US Bankruptcy Code for an Order pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2004 authorising discovery.  The application seeks to obtain an Order from the Court compelling the disclosure of key financial information which the Administrator has been requesting from AHAB since August 2009 and which has not been forthcoming."  

The third is that AHAB is the "single biggest debtor owing US$3.2 billion."

In its press release T&H notes 

In addition the Administrator recently filed cases with the Negotiable Instruments Committee (NIC) in Saudi Arabia against Saad Trading (US$ 117 million), which is part of the Saad Group, as well as Abdulaziz Al Sanea (US$54 million) for defaults on loans advanced by TIBC.   Hearing dates have been set for early 2011 in relation to those cases and the administrators are currently working to expedite these hearings.

And that it will be pursuing other cases in an attempt to recover monies owed TIBC.

Finally, there is a quote from an unnamed representative of the Central Bank of Bahrain

“We are pleased that litigation has been launched less than 12 months after the CBB placed TIBC into Administration. This is a positive step forward in what is clearly a very complex case and reflects the CBB’s commitment to maintaining a well regulated and stable investment environment in Bahrain.”

Frank Kane over at The National has some additional information.

Two quotes. 

The first.

“Trowers and Hamlins’ rhetoric simply ignores [the Al Gosaibi group’s] multiple offers to enter into a co-operative information sharing agreement …”said Jim Courtovich, the spokesman for Al Gosaibi, said in a statement to The National.

The second.

In a letter to Mr Mutawi dated May 26 obtained by The National, a lawyer for Al Gosaibi said the group was advised not to hand over documents to Trowers and Hamlins because the firm was planning to use them as evidence in cases against Al Gosaibi.
“We could not responsibly advise our clients to proceed in this manner,” the letter, from Eric Lewis at the firm of Baach Robinson and Lewis, said.

In the letter, Mr Lewis also advised Trowers to join Al Gosaibi in the fight against Mr al Sanea, asserting that filing lawsuits against the group would be unproductive for creditors to TIBC.

As always, it's a good way to end a post on this topic to note that Mr. AlSanea vigorously denies the AlGosaibi allegations against him.

Hashem al-Dabal Released After Repayment of AED130 Million

Business Maktoob reports that Hashem al-Dabal, former Chairman of Dubai Properties, has been released after repayment of AED130 million he allegedly embezzled in his former position.

AlGosaibi v Maan AlSanea - Bahrain Court Rules Documents Not Forged AlGosaibi to Appeal

A bit of a bombshell from Frank Kane at The National today.

The Bahrain Chamber for Dispute Resolution ruled "at the end of last month there was no evidence to show the signatures were not genuine."

The AlGosaibi's intend to appeal.  And is usual with the Bahraini Court system, it will be up to the Cassation Court (Bahrain's highest Court) to render the final judgment.

Damas Engages Abdullah Brothers as Senior Advisors

Here's an interesting bit of news from Business 24/7.

"At a time when Damas is going through a period of transition and pursuing a renewed strategy for its sustainable growth, the involvement of the Abdullah brothers in an advisory capacity provides us [with] significant depth of knowledge and insight," a spokesperson for Damas International Limited (DIL) said.

Presumably they've been engaged to give advice on marketing and design and not on corporate governance or financial matters.

Fugitive Banker Gives His Side of Story re TIBC

Frank Kane over at The National conducted an interview with Glen Stewart which was in the June 8 issue of The National.

To set the stage, as I understand it, there are two contentions central to the TIBC/Awal/AlGosaibi/Saad Group saga:

1. That there was massive fraud at the these entities which was the direct cause of their apparent collapse.
2. That Mr. AlSanea was improperly exercising control over TIBC and certain AlGosaibi units (the entity mentioned most was AlGosaibi's Money Exchange).  As noted in the article, a charge that Mr. AlSanea strongly disputes.

In his interview Mr. Stewart addresses the second.  He flatly contradicts the AlGosaibi's assertion that Mr. AlSanea was not authorized to exercise control over TIBC and the Money Exchange

What he does not appear to address in this interview is the first allegation.

I would also be very interested in Mr. Stewart's thoughts on the Ernst and Young report.  As per that report, it seems the CEO of TIBC had very limited authority.  Mr. Stewart deferred to Mr. AlSanea on decision making on just about every matter.  Beyond that there was the curious case of payment approvals.  E&Y stated that Mr. AlSanea used Mr. Stewart's password to release payments.  As I noted at the time I commented on the E&Y Report, it is very unusual for a CEO to be involved in  the operational aspects of releasing payments.  And giving another person one's password is generally considered a violation of segregation of duties and dual control.  

It would be highly useful to know how Mr. Stewart:

1. Saw his role as Chief Executive Officer at TIBC  and how that might compare and contrast to CEO's at other banks.  What precisely were the duties of TIBC's CEO and what were those of  Mr. AlSanea?  Is it good form for a CEO to give his password to a third party?  What does it mean when a person in the position of CEO apparently has no power to make any material decision? 
2. Understood  the requirements of Central Bank of Bahrain regulations regarding corporate governance. And, what if any, disclosures regarding Mr. AlSanea's role were made to the Central Bank.

Perhaps, Mr. Kane will have the opportunity to do another interview with Mr. Stewart.

One thing is abundantly clear from this interview and that is the emotional pain and suffering of Mr. Stewart.  Adding to that distress, we learn in this article that he felt abandoned by his own country in the midst of the "arbitrary actions and retaliations of the Bahraini legal system".   

Al Boom Holdings

Here's an account from The National of the trial of the head of the Al Boom Holdings.

An Emirati property magnate spent almost Dh960 million of his investors’ money on parties, boats and luxury cars, a special fraud tribunal heard yesterday.

Abid al Boom, the chief executive of Al Boom Holdings, and his six co-defendants cheated some 3,700 investors out of their savings.

Only one per cent of the embezzled money was recovered, the prosecutor, Younis al Baloushi, told the tribunal.

As reported in the article, Mr. Al Boom's counsel did not offer a defense.

Saudi Arabia Capital Markets Authority Levies SAR7.3 Million Penalty Against Saudi Telecom Ex Director

The Saudi CMA announced today that a final judgment had been made in the case of Mr. Saleh Bin Mohammed Bin Saleh AlHajaaj.  He had been accused of insider trading in shares of Saudi Telecom on 19 and 20 December 2004.

The judgment consists of the following:

1. Payment to the CMA of the SAR7,249,365 representing the profits on his trading those two days from information he obtained as a member of the Board.
2. Payment of SAR100,000 in fines.
3. A three year ban from working for any company traded on the Saudi Stock Exchange (Tadawwul).