Temasek acquired Global Crossing (Bankrupt Firm)?
-
Was looking at Temasek's portfolio, seems like they invested in a bankrupt firm Global Crossing in 2003, there were alot of tv publicity during it's chapter 11 filing.
Maybe it's a value for money acquisition, wonder how they could restructure the company when other's couldn't.
http://thewhir.com/marketwatch/glo121003.cfm
Just as I guessed, they made losses for 2004 and 2005 after acquiring the company.
They dumping all our hard earned reserves away.
http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/GLBC/91724329x0x39280/B418BD00-124B-42AA-A6D1-2124AD11F978/GCL%202005%20Annual.pdf -
DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Financial relationship between group of Singapore investors and two Global Crossing directors became more extensive in days after Global Crossing filed for bankruptcy protection; relationship of directors with Singapore investors, whose full scope has not been disclosed, is significant because investors have links to Singapore Technologies Telemedia, which has made offer to buy Global Crossing; Global Crossing delays reporting its full financial results because it says its auditor Arthur Andersen has not concluded its audit for 2001; says it expects to report significant loss for quarter, including write-downs of about $8 billion to reflect drop in value of some assets; Global Crossing's chairman Gary Winnick and another director Steven J Green became part owners of last fall in Singapore investment firm KI Ventures Ltd; KI Ventures is ultimately controlled by Singapore's Temasek Holdings, which also controls Singapore Technologies; Winnick, who has resigned from KI's board, and Green say their involvement with KI Ventures was not related to effort to buy Global Crossing; closer look indicates that Winnick and Green's involvement with Singapore investors deepened after bankruptcy protection filing on Jan 28; KI Ventures on Feb 7 said it paid $14.2 million for minority stake in American wireless company; announcement did not mention that wireless company, PrimeCo Personal Communications, is partly owned by Winnick's investment firm, Pacific Capital Group
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10717FB3F550C748EDDAB0894DA404482&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fW%2fWinnick%2c%20Gary -
Ms Ho is Executive Director & Chief Executive Officer of Temasek Holdings.
She began her career as an engineer with the Ministry of Defence. In 1987, she joined the Singapore Technologies group as Deputy Director of Engineering, and became its President and Chief Executive Officer before retiring in 2001. She later joined Temasek Holdings in May 2002.
Ms Ho graduated from the University of Singapore in 1976 with a Bachelor of Engineering (Electrical, 1st class honours). She also holds a Master of Science (Electrical) from Stanford University, USA. In 1995, Ms Ho was conferred our Distinguished Engineering Alumnus Award. She is also an Honorary Fellow of the Institution of Engineers, Singapore.
http://www.eng.nus.edu.sg/eir/alumni/distinguished_alumni/dea_hoching.html
Disheartening to hear that they left the running of Temasek Holdings (reserves + CPF), to a person with no financial finese. A person who practiced inflexible military operational doctrines in Ministry of Defence, taking over a position which requires much flexibility and versatility. -
it's time the gabrament does its job and temper the effects of "market economics" to help the people, not become the market and screw the people..
-
The best part is, she is able to "persuade" financial managers to her way of thinking. That would be tantamount to an economist teaching a electrical engineer circuit theory.
"REPUTATION: Known as a methodical decision-maker who is determined to solicit opinions from managers and win them over with logical argument"
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw02/020624b2.htm
Think all those managers like OM; maybe relatives of OM even.
Hehehe -
-
-
I thought ST Telemedia bought them a long time ago. I didn't follow up but I remember they weren't doing very well after the were bought and maybe ST sold them off.
-
Indeed, GC wasl a loss-making firm and many companies who buy telco services from GC are still questioning whether it has completely recovered from Chp 11. I hv not researched enough into GC to come to a conclusion whether they are still in the red. But I do understand that STT bought GC becos of its large undersea cables inventory. It may be a strategic reason to acquire control of the cables so that S'pore may exercise some control on the communications around the world in the future. So the senior people in STT may have considered that the price they paid for is a bargain for the strategic reason.
-
I'm waiting for OM's opinion and data.
-
funny, cause none of our finance ministers, "industry captains" or prime ministers have really made real money through business.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
when your husband has the power to put any bugger in jail, of course no matter how much of an imbecile you are you're still very convincing.
The best part is, she is able to [b]"persuade" financial managers to her way of thinking. That would be tantamount to an economist teaching a electrical engineer circuit theory.
"REPUTATION: Known as a methodical decision-maker who is determined to solicit opinions from managers and win them over with logical argument"
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw02/020624b2.htm
Think all those managers like OM; maybe relatives of OM even.
Hehehe
[/b] -
where's OM to refute all these?
Have been hearing rumours on her imcompetency for the past few years... -
I don't think they sold it off, because the investment is still listed in the Temasek Holdings website as part of it's investment portfolio.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:I thought ST Telemedia bought them a long time ago. I didn't follow up but I remember they weren't doing very well after the were bought and maybe ST sold them off. -
So Telemedia transferred it to Temasek?Originally posted by maurizio13:I don't think they sold it off, because the investment is still listed in the Temasek Holdings website as part of it's investment portfolio.
-
Seems that there were alot of improprieties with the company's operations, there are quite a few legal actions against Global Crossings.
The alleged charges includes:
1) The complaint alleges five causes of action: (1) breach of federal tariffs; (2) breach of state tariffs; (3) unjust enrichment (in the alternative to the tariff claims); (4) fraud; and (5) civil conspiracy.
2) Following the CompanyÂ’s April 27, 2004 announcement that the Company expected to restate certain of its consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2003, eight separate class action lawsuits all purporting to be brought on behalf of Company shareholders were commenced against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the U.S. District Courts in New Jersey, New York and California...................On February 18, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action complaint against the Company and two of its past and present officers.
3) A claim was filed in the Company’s bankruptcy proceedings by the U.S. Department of Commerce (the “Commerce Department”) on October 30, 2002 asserting that an undersea cable owned by Pacific Crossing Limited (“PCL”), a former subsidiary of the Company, violates the terms of a Special Use permit issued by theNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration..................An identical claim that had been filed in the bankruptcy proceedings of PCL was settled in principle in September 2005 and was subsequently approved by the court as part of the PCL plan of reorganization confirmed in an order dated
November 10, 2005............................In August 2003, the OFT extended its investigation in respect of allegations of price fixing and information sharing on the level of fees that the subsea entities would pay landowners for permission to land submarine telecommunication cables on their land in the U.K................ In a decision dated October 19, 2004, the Court of Appeals reversed the approval of the settlement and lifted the injunction. The case has been remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.
4) In May 2001, a purported class action was commenced against three of the CompanyÂ’s subsidiaries in theU.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges that the Company had no right to install a fiber-optic cable in rights-of-way granted by the plaintiffs to certain railroads.
5) A tax authority in South America has concluded a preliminary audit of the CompanyÂ’s books and records for the years ended December 31, 2001 and 2000 and has made certain initial findings adverse to the Company including the following: failure to disclose discounts on certain goods imported into the country, failure to include the value of software installed on certain computer equipment, and clerical errors in filed import documents.
Wonder if it's a wise decision to acquire the company in the first place.
Goes to show, when your plumbing is choked, you don't look for a doctorate in economics to fix the choke. -
Temasek holds 71% through Singapore Technologies Telemedia (STT).Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:So Telemedia transferred it to Temasek? -
Whereas that is true, it must be first noted that the creditors believed they sold GC to ST and not to Temasek itself. It is one thing to sell to Temasek by de facto, it is another to sell by de jure.Originally posted by maurizio13:Temasek holds 71% through Singapore Technologies Telemedia (STT). -
maybe haben lost US$300 million yet
-
everything they lost, is collected back with increase in gst, tax, erp and etc.
her husband and FIL are people who can do nasty things. -
Nvm, I dun mind lionoisy to refute these. I just want someone to refute all these statement. (Actually, I want to use teh word "fact" but I thought that how can facts be refuted? Then I changed my mind)
-
Why were there so many failed mega investments by our Temasek as compared with our puny Oei Hong Leong who could take over many near bankrupt companies and turn them into great financial gains.Originally posted by maurizio13:Seems that there were alot of improprieties with the company's operations, there are quite a few legal actions against Global Crossings.
The alleged charges includes:
1) The complaint alleges five causes of action: (1) breach of federal tariffs; (2) breach of state tariffs; (3) unjust enrichment (in the alternative to the tariff claims); (4) fraud; and (5) civil conspiracy.
2) Following the CompanyÂ’s April 27, 2004 announcement that the Company expected to restate certain of its consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2003, eight separate class action lawsuits all purporting to be brought on behalf of Company shareholders were commenced against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the U.S. District Courts in New Jersey, New York and California...................On February 18, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action complaint against the Company and two of its past and present officers.
3) A claim was filed in the Company’s bankruptcy proceedings by the U.S. Department of Commerce (the “Commerce Department”) on October 30, 2002 asserting that an undersea cable owned by Pacific Crossing Limited (“PCL”), a former subsidiary of the Company, violates the terms of a Special Use permit issued by theNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration..................An identical claim that had been filed in the bankruptcy proceedings of PCL was settled in principle in September 2005 and was subsequently approved by the court as part of the PCL plan of reorganization confirmed in an order dated
November 10, 2005............................In August 2003, the OFT extended its investigation in respect of allegations of price fixing and information sharing on the level of fees that the subsea entities would pay landowners for permission to land submarine telecommunication cables on their land in the U.K................ In a decision dated October 19, 2004, the Court of Appeals reversed the approval of the settlement and lifted the injunction. The case has been remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.
4) In May 2001, a purported class action was commenced against three of the CompanyÂ’s subsidiaries in theU.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges that the Company had no right to install a fiber-optic cable in rights-of-way granted by the plaintiffs to certain railroads.
5) A tax authority in South America has concluded a preliminary audit of the CompanyÂ’s books and records for the years ended December 31, 2001 and 2000 and has made certain initial findings adverse to the Company including the following: failure to disclose discounts on certain goods imported into the country, failure to include the value of software installed on certain computer equipment, and clerical errors in filed import documents.
Wonder if it's a wise decision to acquire the company in the first place.
Goes to show, when your plumbing is choked, you don't look for a doctorate in economics to fix the choke.
Let us analyse the strengths and weaknesses of temasek as a investors and understand whether it has what it takes to make the same kind of success as Oei Long Leong.
To many people in the outside world they already size up Temasek as white knight or sucker ready to listen to any scheme of turn around which will sit in with its own grand vision of regionalization.
Thus although there may be a lot of problems and even losses balance sheets would be presented in such a way as to entice and cajor such a potential suitor into a grand scheme of rescue with many technology entrapments.
Global Crossing has a perfect profile to fit with Temasek pride driven game plan to part with its multi-billion cash hoards belonging to the hardworking citizens due to toils with their sweat and blood for 40 years.
This is how because of ego and naivety billions of good monies have been parted from our national coffers of our hardworking citizens in exchange for bad monies in many past similar sham deals.
Souzhou investment has been such a perfect scheme from the start with its local authority able to sweet talk people with a lot of funds and looking out for seemingle attractive deals for long term investment. Temasek was the perfect suitor or white knight for such a schemer.
At that time when souzhou was being marketed no one wanted to take it with a 15 mile pole because it was no match for nearby Shanghai potong which attracted big investments due to its closer rail and port facilities.
But our leaders handling the Temasek had too much pride and because of that pride in negotiation, they lack the vision and ability to see the underlying motive of the real schemer waiting to ensnarl our rich temasek into investing in big township-like jurong good for the pride of creating a small singapor.
They lack the vision to see what went on behind the hungrier chinese mind who already had the vision of using LKY's naivety to market its own souzhou's local authority's underlying cheaper offers down the road.
So when Souzhou began its marketing to foreign companies, souzhou local authority came along to undercut the offers with its own cheaper alternative offers with greater profitability. LKY's original vision and plan for souzhou went haywire.
Shin Corp and Souzho were all cans of worms but our leaders only have limited visions and could not see what lies within the cans and went ahead with their own assessments in a daring manner without knowledge of what were in the can.
Thaksin was the victor in the whole sale of shincorp to temasek for he must have been hatching a certain scheme to get out of own sinking investment. So without revealing all the worms he got temasek interested in looking at the whole deal from outside the can but actually he had already emptied the assets transfer to family without prior tax clearance.
Now look at this Global Crossing, the various CEOs already knew the company was going under due to infringements and investments getting sour with the worms of law suits and alleged malpractices. How did the CEOs take advantage of a bad deal - get someone to talk to our naive Temasek CEO and get her to be interested in buying over the can of worms at full market realizable values - a win win situation for the seller.
Temasek stupidly accepted all the liabilities and take over the risk of having to clean up all the illegal deals and malpractices as has happened in shin corp.
If Temesek really must behave like a asset stripper or white knight to save any sinking venture and turn it around into great success, it must have not only macro view of the business. Most importantly it must have the micro view of all lies behind and below the surface and see through the scheme of the perpetrators.
Before even looking into the worth of the assets Temasek should have a total strategy what it could do to strip up or to re-inject or re-vitalise such a suiter.
How many brains can a person have who could read all the balance sheet correctly and able to strip the realizable, assets, and harness any unrealizable inner resources, hidden and unrealized potential.
Look again, without a master plan drawn up, Temasek has not been doing well and will not be doing its taxpayers any good if it continues to play the white knight to any damsel in distress.
All Temasek is capable of is to be attracted to all the durai scheme and say that durai has done a good job deserving his peanut salaries without seeing his underhand cans of worms. -
can't disagree with you at all, for that reason why scholars are valued in the gahmen coffers n r paid to the moon to make mistakes at the people's expense but when the very people make mistakes, they r suggested they do so by choice, no free handouts, no welfare.... gst hike, credit cards 'for the poor', etc to pay for the people's future... beautiful gardens planned for the next 10-15 years...Originally posted by robertteh:Why were there so many failed mega investments by our Temasek as compared with our puny Oei Hong Leong who could take over many near bankrupt companies and turn them into great financial gains.
Let us analyse the strengths and weaknesses of temasek as a investors and understand whether it has what it takes to make the same kind of success as Oei Long Leong.
To many people in the outside world they already size up Temasek as white knight or sucker ready to listen to any scheme of turn around which will sit in with its own grand vision of regionalization.
Thus although there may be a lot of problems and even losses balance sheets would be presented in such a way as to entice and cajor such a potential suitor into a grand scheme of rescue with many technology entrapments.
Global Crossing has a perfect profile to fit with Temasek pride driven game plan to part with its multi-billion cash hoards belonging to the hardworking citizens due to toils with their sweat and blood for 40 years.
This is how because of ego and naivety billions of good monies have been parted from our national coffers of our hardworking citizens in exchange for bad monies in many past similar sham deals.
Souzhou investment has been such a perfect scheme from the start with its local authority able to sweet talk people with a lot of funds and looking out for seemingle attractive deals for long term investment. Temasek was the perfect suitor or white knight for such a schemer.
At that time when souzhou was being marketed no one wanted to take it with a 15 mile pole because it was no match for nearby Shanghai potong which attracted big investments due to its closer rail and port facilities.
But our leaders handling the Temasek had too much pride and because of that pride in negotiation, they lack the vision and ability to see the underlying motive of the real schemer waiting to ensnarl our rich temasek into investing in big township-like jurong good for the pride of creating a small singapor.
They lack the vision to see what went on behind the hungrier chinese mind who already had the vision of using LKY's naivety to market its own souzhou's local authority's underlying cheaper offers down the road.
So when Souzhou began its marketing to foreign companies, souzhou local authority came along to undercut the offers with its own cheaper alternative offers with greater profitability. LKY's original vision and plan for souzhou went haywire.
Shin Corp and Souzho were all cans of worms but our leaders only have limited visions and could not see what lies within the cans and went ahead with their own assessments in a daring manner without knowledge of what were in the can.
Thaksin was the victor in the whole sale of shincorp to temasek for he must have been hatching a certain scheme to get out of own sinking investment. So without revealing all the worms he got temasek interested in looking at the whole deal from outside the can but actually he had already emptied the assets transfer to family without prior tax clearance.
Now look at this Global Crossing, the various CEOs already knew the company was going under due to infringements and investments getting sour with the worms of law suits and alleged malpractices. How did the CEOs take advantage of a bad deal - get someone to talk to our naive Temasek CEO and get her to be interested in buying over the can of worms at full market realizable values - a win win situation for the seller.
Temasek stupidly accepted all the liabilities and take over the risk of having to clean up all the illegal deals and malpractices as has happened in shin corp.
If Temesek really must behave like a asset stripper or white knight to save any sinking venture and turn it around into great success, it must have not only macro view of the business. Most importantly it must have the micro view of all lies behind and below the surface and see through the scheme of the perpetrators.
Before even looking into the worth of the assets Temasek should have a total strategy what it could do to strip up or to re-inject or re-vitalise such a suiter.
How many brains can a person have who could read all the balance sheet correctly and able to strip the realizable, assets, and harness any unrealizable inner resources, hidden and unrealized potential.
Look again, without a master plan drawn up, Temasek has not been doing well and will not be doing its taxpayers any good if it continues to play the white knight to any damsel in distress.
All Temasek is capable of is to be attracted to all the durai scheme and say that durai has done a good job deserving his peanut salaries without seeing his underhand cans of worms.
-
The GC acquisition by STT is supposed to be a much better acquisition than others in the past.
For Temasek itself, I believe the biggest failure to date was the Micropolis acquisition, I think about US$600M, almost 10 yrs back. It was questioned in Parliament then as the amount was very significant but I can't remember what the response was. Can't remember whether the Finance Minister was Richard Hu then. Is there any site that is tracking the success and failures of the investments made by Temasek or the GIC? -
Think it was written off as "tuition fees".Originally posted by livspore2006:The GC acquisition by STT is supposed to be a much better acquisition than others in the past.
For Temasek itself, I believe the biggest failure to date was the Micropolis acquisition, I think about US$600M, almost 10 yrs back. It was questioned in Parliament then as the amount was very significant but I can't remember what the response was. Can't remember whether the Finance Minister was Richard Hu then. Is there any site that is tracking the success and failures of the investments made by Temasek or the GIC?