Lenders Selling Saad Group Loans

Remedial Lending Class

Asa Fitch at The National reports on some loan sales by Saad lenders.

This makes perfect sense. 

It's highly unlikely that Saad or AHAB, for that matter, are suddenly going to settle their debts.  It's likely that there will be considerable more time before a deal is struck.  And then repayment is likely to be painfully slow over a long period.

It makes perfect sense for lenders with modest sized tickets to exit now.  End the uncertainty.  Devote resources to other more productive efforts than negotiating a rescheduling and then tracking the performance of a weak credit.

The sad thing is that bankers have ADD so that any lessons learned are remembered for only a short period making the cost of tuition not effective.

Saudi Zain: Indications of Turnaround - Though It's Not There Yet

In reviewing the 1H10 results of Gulf Finance House, Global Investment House, and Shuaa, I've commented that the only signs of a turnaround that I could detect were comments in the accompanying press releases where such a happy event was more a case of wishing than doing.

So what does a real turnaround look like?

As I've said before, the major sign is in the Company's ability to generate revenue.

Let's look at Saudi Zain for indications of a turnaround.  Note, that doesn't mean there has been a turnaround.  There hasn't.  SZ is still bleeding rather profusely - roughly SAR1.3 billion loss for 1H10 versus SAR1.6 billion for 1H09.

As the first step the usual link to the 2Q10  financial reports:  Arabic version here and English version here.

But there are some positive signs:

1. 1H10 Revenues of SAR2.545 billion a 98% increase over 1H09's SAR1.283 billion.
2. 2Q10 Revenues of SAR1.450 billion 106% more than 2Q09's SAR0.702 billion.
3. 1H10 Gross Operating Income of SAR992.374 million a 256% improvement over 1H09's SAR278.573 million.
4. 2Q10 Gross Operating Income of SAR608 million - 358% over 2Q09's SAR133 million.
5. Gross Operating Margin at 39% (1H10) and at 42% (2Q10) versus 22% (1H09) and 19% (2Q09).

This was accompanied by a reduction in expenses of 45% in 1H10 and 56% for 2Q10 versus the comparable periods the year earlier.

Is SZ out of the proverbial woods yet?  No, it's not. 

1. Financing expenses (read interest) are up significantly.  1H10 SAR545 million (2009: SAR261 million) and 2Q10 SAR317 million (2009: SAR 150 million).  Roughly doubled.
2. It has a matter of emphasis from its auditor (PwC) on the going concern assumption.  (Note #1).  Important because of the impact on lender, supplier, and shareholder sentiment.
3. It still has a very significant debt burden, including SAR2.2 billion provided by BNP in June 2010 with maturity December 2010.  A reason why the rights issue is of key importance.  Plus an SAR9.75 billion Murabaha facility due (bullet payment) August 2011.

Key questions are its ability:

1. To continue to grow revenues while maintaining a reasonable gross operating margin.
2. To maintain expense discipline.
3. To restructure its liabilities by a significant increase in capital which, if successful, should reduce financing costs by reducing the quantum of debt as well as hopefully the interest margin on the remaining post reorg debt.

Those questions can't be answered now.  But there are some positive signs - certainly better than at the companies cited above.

Board of Saudi Zain Proposes Capital Reorganization for Shareholder Vote

Saudi Zain announced on the Tadawwul (Saudi Stock Exchange) today 21 August a plan for a capital reorganisation to be put to a vote at an extraordinary general meeting of shareholders for their ratification subject to the Company obtaining the prior approval of the Saudi Capital Markets Authority, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry and any other concerned body for the plan.

The reorg will take place in two steps:

1. In the first capital will be decreased.  While it's not stated, this is clearly to eliminated accumulated losses.
2. In the second a partial restoration of capital.

Here are the details. 

Capital Reduction 

1. Reduce paid in capital from SAR14,000,000,000 to SAR7,328,843,885.  This covers the accumulated losses of SAR6,671,561,150 as of 2Q10.  2Q10 financials:  Arabic version here and English version here.
2. There will be a reverse split with shareholders getting 1 share for approximately each 2.096 shares they currently own.  As a result, 667,156,115 shares will be canceled.
3. Not stated, but the balance represented by these shares SAR6,671,561,150 will be transferred to Accumulated Losses zeroing it out.

Capital Increase

1. Increase capital by SAR4,383,487,180 to to SAR11,711,926,030.
2. 438,348,718 new shares are to be issued.  There is no discussion of the offer price.  SZ's nominal (par) value is SAR10 per share.  If the shares are offered for a higher price (at a premium) then SZ will raise more than the SAR4.4 billion.  My guess is that there will be a strong incentive to issue the shares at par given the Company's financial condition and a desire to obtain as close to 100% take-up as possible.
3. In addition to the normal pro-rata allocation among shareholders, founding shareholders will be able to convert all or part of the debt they've extended the Company.  That amounts to SAR2,914,000,000.  Of that amount Zain Kuwait holds SAR1,859,397,000 (63.8%).  Zain Kuwait holds 25% of SZ's stock and 50% of the Founding Shareholders' portion.  The Saudi General Organisation for Retirement and the Public hold the remainder.
4. Kuwait Zain's response to the new share offer will give a clear indication of Zain's ability and willingness to continue as a shareholder.  There is perhaps an indication of their attitude in that the SAR2.2 billion 6 month supplier credit SZ obtained in June 2010 was guaranteed by one of the Founding Shareholders, presumably Zain Kuwait.

In a bit I'll post on Saudi Zain and the indications of a turnaround.

AlGosaibi v Maan AlSanea - More on The "Fix"

They say there is no surer proof of someone's intelligence than the fact that he or she agrees with you. (See point #3 below).

Echoing a theme raised here earlier, AlQabas has an update on the AlGosaibi and Saad debt restructurings:

1. AHAB has reportedly offered to settle with its creditors at 15 cents on the dollar, an offer that creditors are reported to have rejected as they did the earlier 9 cents offer -- absolutely.
2. Saad has offered to settle a large (but unspecified) portion of its debt to its creditors but noted that freezes on its assets in the USA and Europe resulting from AHAB lawsuits against it frustrated that desire.
3. The Saudi Government is currently undertaking intensive efforts to achieve an accommodation (or reconciliation) between the two groups so that reschedulings can move forward.

As you'll notice, Saad's offer is as well a strong tactical move to develop support for The Fix.

While the article doesn't contain proof of its assertions, nonetheless it clearly demonstrates remarkable insight -- at least using the principle stated in the first paragraph. 

The question remains will AlGosaibi itself get "fixed" in the process?

AlFarabi Investment Company Planning to Enter Under Financial Stability Law

Yesterday Al Watan published an article stating that Al Farabi had received agreement in principle from the Central Bank of Kuwait to enter under the protection of the Financial Stability Law.

Today AlWatan published an article in which AlFarabi's GM confirms the news.  But denies being the source of the leak as the Company's intention is to wait until the upcoming shareholders' general meeting.

AF is primarily Kuwaiti owned by financial institutions KFH and  Industrial Bank of Kuwait and corporate groups.  From Kuwait:  Al Mousherji, Al Sayer, Hasibat Groups of Kuwait and the Olayan Group of Saudi Arabia.   It states it conducts its business according to the Shari'ah.

It is a private equity, direct investment firm which is probably best known for winning the privatization of the lube oil blending plant from KNPC.  The lube oil venture is separately capitalized from AF.

AlGosaibi v Maan AlSanea - Al Gosaibi to Get "Fixed"?

There are several meanings to the word "fix":

1. To repair something that is broken:  He "fixed" the pipe.
2. To arrange for a desired outcome:   He "fixed" the race.
3. To spay or neuter an animal:  Tom's cat was "fixed".

In previous posts on this topic we've dealt with the one or more of the first two meanings.

Now let's look at the third.

As seems likely now, the main action in the resolution of the dispute between AHAB and Mr. AlSanea over allegations  of misconduct as well as the resolution of the creditors' repayment is going to take place in the Kingdom.

In legal action outside of the Kingdom, AHAB (or its counsel) have:

1. Made rather serious allegations against Mr. Al Sanea (Allegations he continues to vigorously deny) which are not only personally damaging to him but as well to the reputation of the Kingdom.  And a bit socially discordant for folks who like to settle their disputes among themselves - quietly, by mutual consent out of the lime light.
2. Expressed a preference for NY and other foreign non Saudi jurisdictions which might be seen as spreading doubts about their ability to secure justice in the Kingdom.  And, if a family like AlGosaibi can't get justice, who then can?  This has involved some comments about the Special Saudi Commission.  As well, there have been other comments usually in response to forum non conveniens pleadings - which could be interpreted  to evidence the belief that the Saudi Courts are inferior to those of say New York.  And again very publicly made.

Will there now be a strong sentiment on the part of the authorities to send a clear message to Saudis that the patient quiet strategy that Mr. Al Sanea practiced is preferable to the more noisy one of the AlGosaibi's?  Or will all be forgiven in the reconciliation proceedings to take place in Saudi?  After all, the family is an old and important one.

In case you're wondering, AHAB's logo is in two separate "pieces" on its website.  Perhaps a symbol of things to come?

AlGosaibi v Maan AlSanea - The Financial Times "The Fix is In"

Here at Suq Al Mal some of the most vigorous exercise we get is from patting ourselves on the back. 

Before I head to the showers after this strenuous work-out, I'd just note that those who read Suq Al Mal read the main theme from today's Financial Times article starting back in June.  And most recently here.

From the FT:

The two decisions put a halt to the key cases at the heart of the scandal, and are a blow for Ahab, which has mounted an aggressive campaign against Mr Sanea, accusing him of a “massive fraud” that it claims could be as much as $10bn

Saudi officials have been tight-lipped about the dispute, and a high-level committee was set up to resolve the issue away from public glare. But it has reportedly been annoyed by the attention Ahab and its allegations have heaped on the conservative kingdom. 

And as always we close by noting that Mr. AlSanea continues to vigorously deny involvement in any fraud or other misconduct.

AlGosaibi v Maan AlSanea - The "Fix" is In? Caymans Island Case "On Hold" Pending Determination of Saudi Panel

Asa Fitch over at The National reports that the Caymans Island Court has suspended its proceedings pending determination by the special Saudi commission set up earlier to investigate allegations of fraud against Mr. AlSanea.

I had posited a bit earlier that for a variety of reasons various jurisdictions would prefer that this  messy dispute  "go away" - especially given the nature of the claims and counterclaims raised by the two protagonists.

The Caymans Court ruling seems to be another step in that direction.  A similar movement by the New York Supreme Court would, I think, confirm that this is what is happening.  If you've been following that case, you will have noticed that on several occasions the judge has mused (signaled?) whether Saudi is after all the proper forum.

Letting the Saudis make a determination as to who is guilty, if anyone, relieves foreign courts of the burden of decision making.  It also allows these jurisdictions to avoid antagonizing the Saudi Government, which no doubt would prefer that any dirty laundry involving its nationals be washed in private. 

And, if by chance, their proceedings result instead in a compromise solution - or "fix" - a pooling of assets to settle claims with a dropping of allegations of misconduct so much the better. 

The ruling is labeled a setback for the AlGosaibis, who as I noted are probably the party whose acceptance of the Grant Thornton "settlement plan" is key to moving forward.  Indeed it is a setback.  As such then it is a powerful incentive to "make a deal".

However, pressure remains on Mr. AlSanea.  The stay on his US$9.2 billion of assets has been reaffirmed.  And the Caymans Court has said that if the Saudi proceedings prove inadequate, it will reopen its own.  So if AHAB suddenly makes a generous offer of peace, no doubt plenty of incentive for him to reply positively.

And this is the usual appropriate place to note that Mr. AlSanea continues to deny involvement in any wrongdoing.

AlGosaibi v Maan AlSanea - English Court Rules Saad to Pay ADCB US$33.1 Million

Asa Fitch over at The National reports that an English Court has ruled in favor of ADCB ordering Saad Trading Contracting and Financial Services to pay ADCB US$33.1 million for a defaulted foreign exchange swap.  The default was triggered by a decline (withdrawal) of STFCS' rating last year June.

Saad does have the right of appeal.

And of course obtaining a court decision in one's favor and obtaining the cash are two different things. 

AlGosaibi v Maan AlSanea - BNPP versus Abu Dhabi Islamic Bank in re TIBC L/Cs

In discussing the Fortis lawsuit against ADIB, I mentioned that ADIB was also a defendant in a lawsuit brought by BNP Paribas' "Full Commercial" Branch in the Kingdom of Bahrain.

The relevant documents can be found at the NY Supreme Court Website http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcivil/FCASMain  under Case # 603365/2009.   Or more precisely one document as all that is posted so far is the complaint by BNPP - missing what I'll bet ares some very interesting attachments.  Unclear why this is.  Especially since the submission in question dates from November 2009.

Here are the facts from the material posted on the NY Supreme Court's website:

1. In March 2009, ADIB issued six irrevocable reimbursement undertakings ("IRU's") in favor of BNPP to induce it to confirm 6 "commercial" letters of credit issued by The International Banking Corporation in favor of Dawnay Day and Co for the Account of AlGosaibi Trading Company.
2. BNPP confirmed TIBC's letters of credit and then upon presentation of the documents accepted the documents and the time drafts presented.  
3. On an unspecified date, BNPP claimed reimbursement of some US$44,875,000 from ADIB.  Presumably, the maturity date of the accepted time drafts.
4. ADIB refused to pay.
5. In September 2009 (after acceptance of the drafts by BNPP) ADIB obtained a judgment in Bahrain Court enjoining ADIB from making any payment.  
6. BNPP is seeking to have the Court issue a temporary restraining order preventing ADIB from moving assets (presumably balances in its correspondent accounts in NY) from the USA.
7. Its claim is for the principal of the payment (US$44,875,000) plus interest, attorney's fees and costs.

Now to some comments.

1. It's not clear to me why there isn't more precision in documents sent to the Court with exact dates when events took place, additional details of the individual transactions -  currency, goods, tenor, etc.  Perhaps time was of the essence and BNPP's lawyers wanted to file quickly to block the potential movement of assets outside of the USA. 
2. Dawnay Day was a very large "financial firm" with a commodities trading wing which ran into some "financial difficulties" as a result, I believe, of the global financial crisis (small "g" as always).  It was also an active participant in structured "Islamic" trade transactions as described in my post about Fortis.  It had at least one subsidiary Condor Trading which it uses so that the "purchaser" and "seller" of the goods are not the same party.  
3. It appears (but the documentary record here is very slim so this is an educated guess) to be a mirror of the Fortis transaction.  The TIBC L/Cs are one half of the "Islamic" structure:  the purchase on deferred terms.  For TIBC/AlGosaibi to actually get the funds a spot sale on a cash basis is required.  That could have been with Condor with TIBC Bank acting as the "arranger" of the transaction.   That is probably the most likely scenario and the one that I think happened - but again note this is an educated (or uneducated) guess.
4. Since discovery in other legal cases has resulted in the publication of  some details of at least the US - domiciled US dollar accounts of Awal Bank and TIBC, clever boots might be looking through that material for incoming credits around the time of the negotiation/acceptance (but not the payment date) of the first leg letters of credit. That is in the Fortis case the Awal Bank LC confirmed by Fortis under ADIB's IRU.  And in the BNPP case, the letters of credit issued by TIBC and confirmed by BNPP against ADIB's IRUs.  If these are indeed disguised clean money on money loans, the second leg (the spot sale) should have occurred around the same time.  The amounts would not necessarily be the same as interest on the loan might be built into the price on the first leg (the deferred payment).
5. But one key additional bit of information.  If we look at the Fortis Case (NY Supreme Court Reference 601948/2009 Exhibit #2 Document #34 Amended Declaration of Qays Zubi, we note two things.  First, TIBC LC's seem to have been denominated in Euros not US.  Second, a restraining order has only been obtained for four L/Cs not six as mentioned in BNPP's complaint.  The total of the L/C's mentioned in the Qays Zubi Declaration are some Euros 18,243,975.  Clearly, that does not equal US$44,875,000.  Two L/Cs are "missing".  Does that give Fortis a legal "wedge"?
6. We also learn that the payment dates on the TIBC L/Cs were between 22 June and 24 June.  You'll also notice that the certified translation has an error in that it shows the last LC as due March 23,2009.  The Arabic clearly states (in "Western" numbers not Arabic!!!) 23 June. 
7. The central point of BNPP's claim (like that of Fortis) is that under a documentary (aka commercial) letter of credit the bank's obligation to pay is independent of the commercial contract.  Its obligation is set by the terms of the letter of credit.  Compliance with the documentary requirements of the letter of credit establishes the obligation.  
8. To overcome the rather substantial amount of case law and precedents in favor of BNPP's legal position, I believe ADIB has to prove two things. (a)  Fraud in the inception.    (b) Involvement of BNPP in that fraud.  That is a a tough row to hoe as the saying goes.  

AlGosaibi v Maan AlSanea - Legal Case Summary and Status

Citi, the Delegate on Saad's Golden Belt Sukuk 1, has posted a notice on the BSE listing the legal cases  it is aware of involving Mr. Al Sanea and his companies as well as their current status.

Besides conveying useful information, the Delegate is putting Golden Belt Certificateholders on notice that other creditors of Mr. AlSanea and his companies are pursuing legal claims.  As long as Golden Belt Certificateholders are not, they are effectively in a junior position.

Why?

As I read the Delegate's last announcement, while a sufficient number of Certificateholders (more than 25%) have voted for Dissolution of the Trust, they have not indemnified the Delegate to its satisfaction.   That is, agreed to reimburse Citi for expenses.  Until that happens, the Delegate is not obligated to take the legal steps to dissolve the Trust, claim on the Repurchase Obligation of Saad Trading and Contracting, and in the event of non payment by STC pursue STC in Court.   Thus, the Certificateholders are effectively in a subordinate position against STC - they have an uncalled guarantee.  

The Delegate is doing this to cover its legal posterior.  In the event that the Certificateholders' recovery is adversely affected by failure to take action, the Delegate will have a legal defense that it has done all it  was obligated to do to protect their rights.

The thorny issue for Certificateholders is whether they agree to repay Citi for legal expenses involved in taking such actions.  Will the net recovery after the expenses be more than if they did not take action?

And this is I suppose as good a place as any to note that Mr. AlSanea still denies any improper or illegal behavior.

AlGosaibi v Maan AlSanea - Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank Sues Saad for US$32 Million

Asa Fitch over at The National reports that ADCB has filed suit in London against Saad Trading and Contracting over a default on a currency swap of US$32 million.

There's really not much to add on top of what's in the article.

AlGosaibi v Maan AlSanea - Saudi Court Rejects AHAB Suit Against AlSanea

AlQabas reports that the Saudi Administrative Court for the Eastern Province rejected a lawsuit raised by Ahmad Hamad AlGosaibi and Brothers Company ("AHAB") against Mr. Maan Al Sanea citing lack of jurisdiction and competence to hear the case.

In the case AHAB was seeking 43 million shares of SAMBA plus earnings thereon of some SAR1 billion (US$266.6 million) which it claims are in Mr. AlSanea's possession but which it asserts belong to it.

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.  

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 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.

First Gulf Bank Sues AlGosaibi for AED58.7 Million

First Gulf Bank has launched a suit in the Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance against AlGosaibi's local company and AHAB itself.

Both parties are being quiet about the details of the case.

FGB reportedly has a US$55 million in exposure to both AlGosaibi and Saad.

From recent press announcements it appears that the legal tide has turned - and that the current focus is now on AlGosaibi.

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.

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.