Western bank backs off funding of Yukos auction bid

At least one Western bank participating in a consortium that was planning on financing up to $13 billion of Russian gas giant Gazprom‘s bid for the Yukos unit Yuganskneftegaz (“Yugansk”) has decided to postpone its participation in the consortium as a result of the temporary restraining order that Yukos obtained Thursday evening in its chapter 11 case filed on Tuesday evening in Houston. Here are the earlier posts on the Yukos bankruptcy case and the TRO.
Meanwhile, Russian authorities are preparing to proceed with the auction and to ignore the U.S. Bankruptcy Court order. Gazprom, which is predominantly owned by the Russian government, was expected to buy the Yugansk unit at the auction scheduled for Sunday. However, the TRO may chill enough members of the consortium of Western banks that are financing the bid that Gazprom could be effectively prevented from bidding unless it finds alternative financing. And $13 billion in acquisition financing is not easy to find on a weekend.
Nevertheless, Gazprom announced on Friday it is going bid in the auction anyway and has placed a $1.8 billion deposit with the Russian government as a condition to its participation. Three other Russian companies have also registered to participate in the auction.
My bet is that the auction proceeds and that the Russian government steps in to assist Russian financial institutions to provide funding for the successful bidder, if necessary. However, the Yukos bankruptcy case has already succeeded in the sense that it has reminded the Western capital markets that investment in Russian companies remains a high risk proposition. Unless or until the Russian government embraces the reforms necessary to provide Western capital markets with confidence that business transactions will be handled in accordance with the rule of law, Russia’s post-communist economic development will continue to be constrained by the lack of investment from the West.

Western bank backs off funding of Yukos auction bid

At least one Western bank participating in a consortium that was planning on financing up to $13 billion of Russian gas giant Gazprom‘s bid for the Yukos unit Yuganskneftegaz (“Yugansk”) have decided to postpone their participation in the consortium as a result of the temporary restraining order that Yukos obtained Thursday evening in its chapter 11 case filed on Tuesday evening in Houston. Here are the earlier posts on the Yukos bankruptcy case and the TRO.
Meanwhile, Russian authorities are preparing to proceed with the auction and to ignore the U.S. Bankruptcy Court order. Gazprom, which is predominantly owned by the Russian government, was expected to buy the Yugansk unit at the auction scheduled for Sunday. However, the TRO may chill enough members of the consortium of Western banks that are financing the bid that Gazprom could be effectively prevented from bidding unless it finds alternative financing. And $13 billion in acquisition financing is not easy to find on a weekend.
Nevertheless, Gazprom announced on Friday it is going bid in the auction anyway and has placed a $1.8 billion deposit with the Russian government as a condition to its participation. Three other Russian companies have also registered to participate in the auction.
My bet is that the auction proceeds and that the Russian government steps in to assist Russian financial institutions to provide funding for the successful bidder, if necessary. However, the Yukos bankruptcy case has already succeeded in the sense that it has reminded the Western capital markets that investment in Russian companies remains a high risk proposition. Unless or until the Russian government embraces the reforms necessary to provide Western capital markets with confidence that business transactions will be handled in accordance with the rule of law, Russia’s post-communist economic development will continue to be constrained by the lack of investment from the West.

This year’s Super Bowl City

As noted in this earlier post, the city of Jacksonville has a tough act to follow in hosting the 2005 Super Bowl. With only a fraction of the facilities that Houston used in hosting the 2004 Super Bowl, Jacksonville officials are scrambling to accomodate the NFL’s gargantuan requirements for putting on the biggest spectacle in U.S. professional sports.
However, despite the perk of hosting the Super Bowl, Professor Sauer observes that Jacksonville is not even a sure bet to keep its NFL team. Because of declining ticket sales, Jacksonville’s ownership is artifically reducing the number of seats in the team’s stadium. Professor Sauer notes:

In an open system of leagues, teams from smaller burgs occasionally get good, generate enthusiasm, and go on a run. In the US system of league monopolies, a town essentially gets a short term lease on a team, then it gets auctioned off to the next town starved for the sport.

Read the entire post.

UAL wins key concession

The Air Line Pilots Association agreed yesterday not to oppose United Airlines parent UAL Corp.’s effort to terminate the group’s generous defined-benefit pension plan in return for UAL’s agreement to issue to the union $550 million in convertible notes that the active pilots could sell in the capital markets to raise money to cover a portion of the pension shortfall.
The agreement is a key development in UAL’s effort to meet conditions of its exit financing so that it can emerge from its now seemingly unending chapter 11 case. Here are earlier posts on UAL’s bankruptcy case.
UAL is seeking to foist its four pension plans on to Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. the quasi-governmental agency that insures pension plans. Such a move would save UAL $4 billion in pension contributions through 2008 and is a condition to UAL’s exit financing for emerging from its chapter 11 case. Although the PBGC opposes UAL’s plan to terminate the pension plans, if UAL can persuade the bankruptcy court that it cannot emerge from bankruptcy with that financial burden, then the PBGC would likely be forced to take over the plans.
Inasmuch as lucrative defined-benefit pensions are a highly important component of compensation in legacy airlines’ labor contracts, the fact that ALPA agreed to a deal over its pension with UAL indicates that the union understands that UAL really is on the brink of liquidation.
And that, folks, is the most important lesson that the parties-in-interest in the UAL case must understand if United Airlines is ever going to emerge from chapter 11.

Was there really any doubt about who would win?

Following on this earlier post regarding Dallas-based Southwest Airlines’ effort to expand its operations at Chicago’s Midway Airport, Southwest won the auction of bankrupt airline ATA’s Holding Corp.’s Midway assets yesterday.

Updating the Yukos case — Judge Clark issues TRO

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Letitia Z. Clark issued a temporary restraining order late Thursday enjoining the Russian government’s auction in Moscow on Sunday of the main production subsidiary of Russia’s OAO Yukos. Here are the earlier posts on the Yukos chapter 11 case.
Although no one involved in the case really expects the Russian government to comply with a United States court order, the real purpose behind Yukos seeking the order in the first place is to chill participation by Western financial insitutions in financing an acquisition of the Yukos unit at the auction.
Russian natural-gas company Gazprom is expected to bid on the Yukos unit named Yuganskneftegaz (“Yugansk”) and Deutsche Bank AG is leading a consortium of Western banks in financing Gazprom’s bid for Yugansk. The Russian government owns 40% of Gazprom, which has extensive dealings with Western oil and gas firms. Consequently, the prospect of being held in contempt of the TRO is a serious consideration for the banks and Gazprom, both of which are quite likely to be found to be subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts.
Although a major issue in the Yukos chapter 11 case is whether a U.S. Bankruptcy Court can exercise jurisdiction over a Moscow-based business with tenuous American ties, Judge Clark concluded that she had jurisdiction in issuing the TRO. The fact that U.S. investors own 15% of Yukos’ shares was an important factor in her decision, which stated in part:

“Participants in international commerce, in Russia, in the United States and elsewhere, need to have an expectation that when they invest in foreign enterprises they may do so without fear that their investments may be the subject of confiscatory action by agencies of the foreign government.”

Judge Clark went on to find in her order that the events in Russia that led to the notice of the auction are “inconsistent with the regular application of Russian law within Russia” and that harm to Yukos from the sale would be “irreparable.” In comparison, she noted that delaying the sale did not cause any material harm to the Russian government’s ability to collect its tax claim.
Consequently, Yukos looks to have won the first round of this fight to take its case against the Russian government to the investing public. And make no mistake about it, this is really a high stakes public relations battle in which Yukos is attempting to embarrass the Kremlin in the international business community. Although the principles of sovereign immunity almost certainly protect the Russian government from any damage claims, the basis for damage claims against Western banks and Gazprom is far better. Many precedents exist for Western companies grabbing assets of Russian firms in the West to satisfy judgments issued by Western courts.
That is the essential point that Alan Riley, an expert on European law, makes in this Wall Street Journal ($) op-ed:

Mr. Putin now may well find that in lands with independent courts and respect for the rule of law, the title of Gazprom to Yukos’s assets will come under serious legal attack. Yukos has a very strong property rights argument in most Western jurisdictions to persuade the courts that Gazprom has no title to its assets and then seek compensation in the form of seizing Gazprom tankers, bank accounts and subsidiaries. If Yukos can prevail in the Western courts, Gazprom’s revenues are likely to fall sharply as a result. Oil and gas arriving in the West will be seized and Gazprom, for fear of further seizures, will be unwilling to ship more oil and gas abroad. Given Gazprom’s size, such a disruption will have a knock-on effect on the flow of oil and gas to the EU, and a serious negative impact on the Russian economy. If Yukos prevails in the courts of the West, Mr. Putin, however bitter he may find it, may realize that he has to settle if he wants to protect Gazprom and keep the oil flowing.

So, bankers — lend at your peril and stay tuned.

Noble Energy makes big acquisition

Houston-based independent exploration and production company, Noble Energy Inc., has agreed to acquire Denver-based Patina Oil & Gas Corp. for $2.76 billion in cash and stock. The deal, which is scheduled to be completed by April, is expected to raise Noble’s reserves and production by more than 50%.
Noble will pay approximately $1.1 billion in cash and 27 million of its shares, and assume some of Patina’s debt. Based on Noble’s closing share price of yesterday, the deal values Patina at about $37.89 a share, which is about a 20% premium over its closing price of yesterday.
Noble is acquiring Patina to add to its inventory of development opportunities. Patina’s assets are located primarily in the Rocky Mountain and mid-continent regions of the U.S., which are regions in which Noble already has substantial operations.
Noble’s Charles D. Davidson will remain chairman, president and chief executive of the merged company. Thomas J. Edelman, Patina’s chairman and CEO, will take a seat on Noble’s board along with one other director from Patina’s board. Mr. Edelman will also serve in a special advisory capacity to facilitate the integration of the two companies.

The truth about Tiger’s swing change

This Jaime Diaz Golf Digest article is the flat out best analysis of Tiger Woods’ recent swing change that I have read and a must read for any student of the golf swing.

UMass Law Dean tees off on Harvard over plagiarism

Lawrence R. Velvel, the dean of the University of Massachusetts Law School, lays the wood to Harvard over its handling of the recent plagiarism of Harvard professors Laurence Tribe and Charles Ogletree. The entire piece is hard-hitting academic criticism at its best, and here is a snippet to arouse your interest in reading the rest:

The continued silence of [Harvard] President Summers and Dean Kagan gives wings to what until recently has been only a slight suspicion. It promotes the idea that they are simply saying nothing — are lying low — in the hope that the story will simply disappear with time. They are, after all, old Washington hands. They cannot help but be familiar with the two-day-wonder nature of the media. They cannot fail to know, that is, that generally speaking the press jumps on a story for one or two days and then forgets about it as reporters and anchormen turn to and jump on other stories. They know that the febrile minds of the press, minds based not on principle but on sensationalism and the new new thing, are usually unable to stick with something for longer than 48 hours.
So our flagship university, like the rest of American society, which it purports to lead by example, appears to be condoning dishonesty instead of punishing it in clear, public and no uncertain terms. Bravo President Summers. Bravo Dean Kagan. Your failure to act accords with the dishonesty that is rampant in society today. And the actions of a flagship should accord with those of the society it leads, shouldn?t they?

Care to respond, Harvard?