Central Bank hand revealed as oil hedge
boils over
|

CPC
Chief Asantha De Mel (second from
right)
flanked by representatives of the
banks involved
in the hedging (inset) Mahinda Rajapakse,
Sarath N. Silva, A.H.M. Fowzie and
Nivard Cabraal |
By Sonali Samarasinghe
Even as allegations of massive cheating
including personal benefits, all expenses
paid trips abroad and bank jobs for
relatives pummel the players in the oil
hedging scam, Sri Lanka is set to lose up to
a colossal 400 million dollars, over 15% of
the country's foreign reserves, on what
amounts to a government wagering contract
that has left financial experts aghast.
The cost of the hedge exceeds the cost of
the Norochcholai Coal Power Plant. Indeed it
is money the cash strapped government can
ill afford to lose. US$ 400mn can supply the
entire country free fuel for 45 days; fund
the war for three months; provide the entire
population a monthly subsidy of Rs. 2300 for
one year.
Erosion of Forex reserves
What is shocking, says one analyst, is that
our foreign exchange is whittled down from
US$ 3.5bn to US$ 2.5bn due to the
intervention by the Central Bank to maintain
rupee stability of which USD 1.16 billion is
committed for Iran oil payments. He warns
that if we lose USD 400 million, the US
Dollar/Rupee rate may rise from 110 to 125.
As events unfolded earlier this month
revealing no proper cabinet appraisal, CPC
board appraisal of the hedge or legal advice
had been obtained before the CPC plunged
head first into the alleged payola, angry
professionals lashed out at CPC Chairman and
Managing Director Asantha de Mel for his
part in the deal.
SC guns blaze
Last Friday the Supreme Court now emerging
as the only beacon of justice and fair play
in the country, struck again as it
intervened in the oil hedging scam,
declaring all hedging agreements signed
without cabinet and board approval and
without referral to the Attorney General,
null and void.
The Supreme Court was giving order in two
Fundamental Rights Applications FR 535/2008
filed by Attorney At Law Kamal Gunasinghe
and FR536/2008 filed by Attorney At Law G.G.
Arulpragasam last Wednesday (26)
respectively by Laugfs Chairman Wegapitiya
and by Ven. Thiniyawala Palitha Thero, UNP
MP Ravi Karunanayake and Ravi Jayawardene,
legal coordinator of Corruption Watch - a
body of professionals formed to combat
bribery and corruption.
The applications inter alia called to
suspend Asantha De Mel as chairman CPC, to
reduce the price of petroleum and petroleum
related products in keeping with global
prices, and to prevent the CPC from making
any payment to the banks on the hedging
deals until the final determination of the
case.
The apex court Friday held in both cases the
petitioners' rights were violated under the
constitution. The Petitioners were
represented by Attorney Uditha Egalahewa.
Settlement attempted
Interestingly enough before court commenced
Counsel for Minister Fowzie, Faiz Mustapha,
PC was to suggest a settlement of sorts
approaching Counsel and asking if the
Petitioner would agree to waive interim
relief as prayed for in the applications and
send the matter back to cabinet where a
formula can be derived. Gunasinghe's client
had not agreed to the proposed settlement.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice Sarath
Silva and Justices Sripavan and Ratnayake in
the former application held that the
Chairman of the CPC had acted illegally and
willfully without any cabinet approval and
also without any sanction from the board of
directors of the CPC and without consulting
the Attorney General or obtaining any other
legal opinion. Therefore all agreements were
held to be null and void.
Infamous press brief
Neither was the Chief Justice pleased about
the infamous press conference called by
Asantha De Mel on November 10 where he
stated a default of any payments to the
banks would be as good as a sovereign
default.
"Even though the CPC has to pay this
marginally higher price, the country as a
whole does benefit from the lower world
prices. CPC is committed to make the
payments as and when they fall due. There is
no question of defaulting on these payments.
A default by CPC will be as good as a
sovereign default, which could have serious
consequences to the country and its growth
prospects.," he said at a press conference
convened by Standard Chartered Bank at the
TransAsia Hotel.
The foreign bank and its foreign CEO, Clive
Haswell even sent out notices on SCB
letterheads and went so far as typing out a
statement to be read out by government
official and CPC Chairman, Asantha De Mel. A
turn of events so distasteful, in conflict
and a violation of all norms it was not to
go unnoticed by the Chief Justice.
Speech writing
CPC Chairman Asantha De Mel who was present
in court Friday and represented by Ikram
Mohamed PC admitted to court the media
briefing was summoned by the SCB using their
own letterheads.
Irritated by the tenor of the threat and his
comments that the government could not back
out of paying the banks as it would affect
the sovereign guarantee of the country, the
Chief Justice summoned before him Asantha De
Mel who was present in court. De Mel then
admitted that not only was the conference
convened by the SCB but that they had even
prepared his press statement.
The court held De Mel was no longer suitable
to hold the position of Chairman any longer
and suspended him with immediate effect.
Judiciary as Executive
But the Chief Justice did not stop there. In
what can only be termed a slight usurpation
of the Executive role, he ordered Petroleum
Minister A.H.M. Fowzie to be removed and
another more suitable appointment made by
the President.
Faiz Mustapha, PC representing Minister
Fowzie was to say that the Minister was
innocent and acted in good faith and that he
had got legal advice to do so. The Chief
Justice immediately pounced on this
statement asking 'Who is the lawyer who gave
this legal advice. Name the person so he can
be dis-enrolled.'
Fowzie removed
However no names were forthcoming even as
the Chief Justice was critical of the
conduct of Fowzie, pointing out that Asantha
De Mel was an appointee of Fowzie's and that
the Minister knowing that his actions were
illegal and wrongful still defended him in
parliament.
The Minister being a responsible officer
justified the conduct of De Mel and that
cannot be condoned, the Chief Justice said.
Therefore he declared, it was the wish of
the Supreme Court in terms of Article 44 of
the Constitution for the President to take
over the Ministry and appoint a suitable
minister.
Reduction of prices
Dealing with FR Application 536/2008 where
he again held the rights of the petitioners
had been violated the Chief Justice made
order with regard to the reduction of oil
prices. He observed that the various taxes
attached are to cover up the losses of
hedging and this loss should not be the
burden of the public.
The court ordered the Secretary Treasury
therefore to temporarily take over the post
of chairman CPC and to report back to court
on December 15 with an account of what
direct taxes are involved giving credit for
that amount and ascertaining by what amount
the price could be reduced. The court also
observed the presence of UNP MP Ravi
Karunanayake and directed him to help in
arriving at a reasonable price for fuel in
the context of the taxes imposed.
Timely judgment
While the Judgment comes at a time the
public are crushed under massive petrol
prices such judgments could have
international repercussions for the
government with a message that no deal
signed with the government is safe from
judicial intervention of the most drastic
kind. Such judicial interference could
result in an erosion of confidence in the
investment and business market on the one
hand but some analysts say it could also
strengthen confidence in the system as
contracts are tightly regulated and the
possibility of graft rooted out.
Burden rolls away
But for Mahinda Rajapakse despite his bleats
in cabinet last week that he will honour the
agreements, a stark change from his
protestations of two weeks ago, the judgment
can come at no better time. Cash strapped
and facing a depleted foreign exchange
reserve Rajapakse will perhaps be secretly
smiling.
Nivard master hedger
Be that as it may even as Asantha De Mel
packs up his family photograph in a
cardboard box and heads back home more
details are emerging making it clear that
the mastermind behind the disastrous hedging
deals was neither De Mel nor the cabinet of
ministers but rather Sri Lanka's wonder-boy
and Governor of the Central Bank, Ajith
Nivard Cabraal. Analysts say the hedge was
akin to the CPC betting on a card pack where
all the cards in their favour are removed
from the pack.
De Mel is certainly not the only culprit in
the deal as cabinet documents reveal, Sri
Lanka's Central Bank, already in the eye of
an economic storm and desperately seeking
more foreign commercial loans, had a
distinct hand in recommending the particular
hedge to Cabinet.
Cabinet Memo
A Cabinet Memorandum was tabled early last
year on January 13, 2007 by Petroleum
Resources Minister A.H.M.Fowzie when crude
oil traded at some USD 55 a barrel. The
Paper was titled 'Introduction Of Oil
Hedging For Maintaining Stability In A
Volatile Global Oil Market.'
Approval was granted by cabinet on January
24 to the proposals in the final memorandum
after consideration of the memorandum and
the observations made by the Minister of
Finance. What is important is that approval
was granted as stated in the cabinet
document, "to the proposals in the final
paragraph of the memorandum to be
implemented without delay as suggested by
the Central Bank of Sri Lanka." (See
elsewhere for copy of cabinet approval)
In fact the Cabinet Memorandum was
introduced four days after Central Bank
Governor Nivard Cabraal by 'urgent' letter
dated January 10, 2007 pushed the CPC to go
for a hedging deal and that letter is
damning.
This is what Cabraal wrote:
Dear Mr. De Mel
I refer to the telephone conversation I had
with you yesterday, 9th January 2007.
As you are aware, the Central Bank of Sri
Lanka was instrumental in promoting hedging
as a means of purchasing petroleum and made
a presentation to His Excellency the
President and the Cabinet of Ministers on
6th September 2006. The Central Bank has
also made available to the Ceylon Petroleum
Corporation (CPC) certain technical details
and options for hedging. However, we note
that the CPC has so far not been able to
enter into any form of hedging or other
acceptable financing arrangement to ensure
that Sri Lanka's petroleum bill will be at
manageable levels in 2007.
As you may agree, petroleum prices have now
reduced to about US $55 per barrel, this
may appear to be the opportune time to enter
into suitable arrangements to hedge at least
a part of our country's total requirements.
Hence, in the interest of the national
economy, I would urge you to take the
necessary steps to ensure that expenditure
on fuel prices will not cause undesirable
effects on the macro-economy in 2007.
Yours sincerely,
Ajith Nivaard Cabraal
Indeed in Fowzie's Cabinet Memo last week
dated November 17, 2008 he refers to the
cabinet meeting of January 24, 2008
directing the CPC to engage in oil hedging
'keeping in line with observation of the
Central Bank.'
The cabinet therefore agreed to a zero cost
collar instrument rather than a premium
based hedge. UNP MP Ravi Karunanayake
explains that this instrument incurs no cost
to the country but the risks of a sharply
falling price of crude had not been assessed
correctly.
The issue is that while the CPC had received
US$ 24.5 million from the banks on the
hedging instruments on the upside - when the
crude oil prices went up - it has so far
paid out over US$ 38.5 million. The CPC will
likely pay out up to over US$ 300 million to
August 31, 2009 when the last of the several
hedging contracts mainly with SCB and
Citibank, but also with Commercial Bank,
Deutsche Bank and People's Bank eventually
terminate.
Chicanery
Under the zero collar hedge while there was
a cap or restriction on the upside where the
banks paid the difference up to 100,000
barrels, on the downside there was no cap
but the CPC had to buy double the number of
barrels, that is 200,000 barrels. Therefore
even though the hedge according to De Mel
was for one third of the country's oil
requirements the way the Standard Chartered
Bank had structured the hedge the CPC must
buy double the quantity if prices go down.
UNP MP Dayasiri Jayasekera calls it absurd
and lays the blame squarely at the feet of
cabinet and the CB. 'Why didn't they ask to
see a formula?' he queries.
Even though the Central Bank has commenced
an investigation into the deals, sources say
it's more of a red herring and does not
absolve the regulator from liability as the
contents of the Cabinet Memo squarely puts
both the Central Bank of Sri Lanka and
President Mahinda Rajapakse as Minister of
Finance and Planning in the line of fire as
movers and shakers in what could turn out to
be the financial debacle of the decade.
Drastic drop
With almost a US$100 drop in oil prices from
five months ago and prices poised to fall a
further 15 percent at least despite oil
producing countries deciding to reduce
production to stem the sharp downward slide,
it is now obvious that the Central Bank,
Cabinet, Finance Ministry and the CPC lacked
competence and dispensed with due process
and due diligence as it waived aside legal
and expert advise on the matter in its haste
to sign on the dotted line.
Ironically it is now the banks that are
laughing all the way to their vaults. The
CPC hedging contracts were assigned with the
Standard Chartered Bank, Citibank,
Commercial Bank, and on a smaller scale with
Deutsche Bank and the People's Bank of Sri
Lanka.
Clever dick
For President Rajapakse however CPC Chairman
Asantha De Mel remains a 'clever guy.' By
what yardstick Rajapakse makes this judgment
call is not immediately clear but
nonetheless it is the Chief Executive's
opinion aired liberally at the cabinet
meeting two weeks ago, despite the CPC
grappling with an economic crisis worsened
by CPC tomfoolery under De Mel's
chairmanship.
The CPC now not only owes huge amounts in
foreign exchange to the banks it is also
facing an internal crisis. It had an
outstanding Iranian credit line bill of US$
433 million as at October 31. (See box)
Despite mounting public and political
pressure it is unable due to the hedging
contracts to lower local fuel prices even
though a barrel of crude sunk to US$ 46 last
Friday.
According to Former CPC Chairman Daham
Wimalasena the CPC currently has financial
commitments amounting to over USD 2.18
billion. Wimalasena scoffs at hedging saying
he would have gone for more long term
solutions rather than a short term fix like
hedging which in any event should not be a
risk undertaken by a government corporation.
There has to be a plan, he says. "We need to
increase our refining capacity. We are now
importing most of our requirement in
finished form." Wimalasena calls it a
speculative venture at best.
Meanwhile the two member CPC team that
clinched these deals comprising CPC Chairman
Asantha De Mel and Deputy Manager Finance
Lalith Karunaratne claim to be experts on
hedging having according to De Mel quoted in
several media reports traveled globally
studying the subject.
They however failed to read the expert
global reports on energy and deduce
correctly market fluctuation. Neither did
they bother to assess the massive risk
involved in the deals. Experts say there are
different varieties of hedges with the CPC
opting for the riskier zero collar option
when it should have if at all gone with the
premium based hedge. But this again is a
matter of opinion with many in the industry
sharply divided on the issue.
Nonetheless even as the war budget for 2009
exceeds Rs. 177 billion with no end in sight
the armed forces and the police and STF owe
the CPC as at September 30 a massive sum of
Rs. 8.66 billion while Mihin Lanka alone
owes Rs. 665 million. Moneys owed to the CPC
by government departments including the
Ceylon Electricity Board tally well over Rs.
64 billion.
It is in this backdrop that the country has
to now look at the hedging deal. It is
obvious that Fowzie as the line minister and
Asantha De Mel as the institutional head are
culpable to a large degree for the fiasco
together with the CB which pushed the deal.
However UNP MP Ravi Karunanayake points out
that the government cannot abdicate itself
from responsibility. From start to finish
the government was involved in this,
Karunanayake says. "On the one hand they are
pretending to give subsidies for political
gain but on the other hand it is the public
who have to make massive payouts. The
government is trying to pin the blame on
Asantha De Mel. But what about the cabinet
of ministers themselves and the Central
Bank?"
"It was in fact the CB that had recommended
the deal be implemented without delay,"
Karunanayake points out.
Amidst allegations of wrongdoing CPC
Chairman De Mel summoned before a
Parliamentary Committee on Public
Enterprises meeting last Tuesday (25) had
not been his usual arrogant self.
Sources say government ministers in COPE
like Education Minister Susil Premajayanth
attempted to lasso De Mel and absolve
themselves from blame as cabinet ministers
who approved the zero collar option.
The COPE meeting last Tuesday proved to be
interesting with many revelations being made
by both the CPC Chairman, its directorial
board, and the additional secretary to the
Ministry of Petroleum resources who were all
present.
Be that as it may the Governor of the
Central Bank, Nivard Cabraal made a
presentation on 'maintaining stability in a
volatile global oil market' sometime in
2006. Following this presentation the
cabinet of ministers decided it was a
subject that needed further studying and a
seven member committee including officials
from the CB, Treasury, Petroleum Ministry
and Ministry of Power and Energy were
appointed. They submitted their report on
hedging on November 16, 2006 to the then
Treasury Secretary P.B. Jayasundera. The
report recommended to use zero cost collar
as the hedging instrument with the upper
bound based on market developments.
The additional secretary of the Petroleum
Ministry present last Tuesday admitted to a
committee of parliament that this high level
committee was briefed on the subject of
hedges by none other than the banks
themselves. This is a clear case of conflict
of interest.
Following the committee report, Fowzie was
to table the cabinet paper which was blindly
approved by cabinet with not so much as a
squeak or call for the CPC to come up with a
mechanism or formula that could be reviewed.
This rubber stamping only goes to show Sri
Lanka is today governed by a bunch of
nincompoops.
What is even more shocking according to what
transpired at a committee meeting of
parliamentarians last week is that when
Chairman Asantha De Mel referred the matter
to his board, sources say the CPC directors
admitted they too blindly wrote away their
birthright by handing over all powers to go
ahead with the hedge to both Asantha De Mel
and Deputy Manager Finance Lalith
Karunaratne.
Upon being asked by parliament why the duo
did not get approval for the hedging
contracts from the Attorney General, De Mel
had replied that the deals had to be done
quickly and there was no time to refer the
AG. However he said the CPC had referred the
contracts for a legal opinion to a private
law firm, Nithya Partners.
Absurd as this sounds CPC had in fact paid
legal fees to a private legal firm for a
legal opinion while it bypassed the AG's
Department due to expediency.
Private law firm used
However Senior Partner of Nithya Partners
Aritha Wikramanayake told this newspaper his
firm had only been given the master document
for its perusal, that is the International
Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) and
had neither seen nor was shown the hedging
document.
Be that as it may UNP MP Dayasiri
Jayasekera was heard to tell De Mel, "Asantha
you were a good cricketer but this isn't a
ball game and what you did is not cricket."
Meanwhile bigger fishes were swimming away.
Parliamentary sources said Central Bank
Governor Nivard Cabraal had ducked a meeting
with COPE last Wednesday scheduled for 2 pm.
Cabraal had called at 10.45 am canceling the
meeting stating he was held up at the
Presidential Office.
COPE
A parliamentary source said COPE now under a
new Chairman, John Seneviratne operates on
an ad hoc basis with government officials
calling up the Chairman at any time to
cancel inquiry dates indiscriminately - a
procedure called into question by many of
the opposition members including UNP MP
Dayasiri Jayasekera.
Meanwhile renegotiations with the banks were
in progress with the government wanting
fresh terms backdated to November 1,
stating, they will pay at US$75 per barrel
as opposed to the US $ 100. With oil selling
at less than US$50 per barrel, the
government will still take a hit of about
US$25 per barrel.
At a press conference on November 10,
Asantha De Mel vowed to restructure the
hedging arrangements with all banks that
have entered into hedging arrangements to
mitigate losses arising from lower crude oil
prices.
Hedging 30 percent
"We are hedging 30 per cent out of the total
oil imported and have negotiated with banks
to mitigate losses every three to four
months and have not defaulted any bills to
these banks," he said, adding that Sri
Lanka's total oil bill is around US$ 3
billion and the drop in international market
prices would definitely be an opportunity
for everybody, which has made arrangements
to settle all bills on time.
He said due to the volatile nature of market
prices, CPC has hedged around 35 per cent of
its exposure. The balance is open to the
market at the current lower prices. As a
result, for current imports, our average
price is only marginally higher than the
market price.
At this infamous press conference De Mel was
almost speaking on behalf of the banks as he
reassured the media that the risks have been
fully explained by all the banks. 'Downside
risks are also given in a table, where based
on different scenarios, possible payments
from CPC to the banks are highlighted.'
No mis-selling
"As a result there is no question of mis-selling
of these products by banks," de Mel was
reported as saying in the state media.
"Since starting our hedging programme, the
different banks have explained to CPC the
various downside risks associated with each
product and we entered into these deals with
full knowledge of these risks," he said as
reported in the state media.
Asantha supports his banking buddies
Little wonder De Mel felt obliged to support
the international bankers. CEO Standard
Chartered Bank, Clive Haswell and his wife
Alison are close family friends. De Mel's
daughter Stephanie landed a job as an intern
at the bank at about the time these products
were being sold.
The question is was this job nicked at about
the same time negotiations were underway on
the hedging deal. The job, sources say is in
the bank's Global Markets area and Forex
room, a highly restricted space where it is
said the petrol hedge was developed.
There are allegations that Chairman De Mel
and another official from the CPC travelled
to Singapore and Dubai several times in
first and business class comfort and that
the tickets were not only purchased by the
banks, the CEOs of the banks joined them
during these visits abroad. The former of
these facts De Mel had confirmed to the
Parliamentary Committee as well.
Funnily enough De Mel recently claimed
during a press conference that he traveled
globally to learn about hedging.
As this copy went to press The Sunday Leader
had already attempted numerous times to
contact both Asantha De Mel and Nivard
Cabraal but they were unavailable for
comment or response. Later De Mel told this
newspaper he did not wish to comment on any
matter.
But if government officials acted as
employees of the bank for alleged personal
benefit then the big wigs of the banks were
squeezing out deals in order to rake in the
big bucks themselves in terms of bonuses and
extras.
Just as we saw AIG senior management use
bail out funds to treat themselves to luxury
spa treatments in the US, personal bonuses
and incentives have driven traders to take
great risk and even place clients in harms
way.
Unjust enrichment
Meanwhile some employees of the said banks
on conditions of anonymity said that the
losses from these contracts started to build
up in July 2008 but the banks failed to
inform the CPC and or allegedly colluded
with the CPC resulting in the CPC not
exiting in a timely fashion and the banks
raking in extensive and unconscionable
profits.
The bottom line is this. The CPC is exposed
to a loss of USD 400 million with the last
of the hedging contracts ending only on
August 31, 2009. Meanwhile the banks are
pressurising the government to ante up under
the deals even as cabinet resists and
fundamental rights applications have been
filed in the public interest calling on the
Supreme Court to prevent the government from
paying the banks until the final
determination of the case.
The government is faced with a catch 22
situation as it grapples with endorsing the
huge foreign exchange payments - some 15% of
the country's reserves by the CPC to the
foreign banks or face international
repercussions.
SCB and Citibank had hedged these
instruments with the New York Mercantile
Exchange (NYMEX) which is a usual practice.
The banks will claim to be making only a
small profit on the instrument as it had
re-hedged the instrument with a third
party. Therefore any default by the
government will be perceived as default of
sovereign debt - a claim some analyst say is
poppy cock. There is enough evidence to
prove the deals were mis-sold, they say. The
government must stand firm.
But now in the face of Friday's judgment at
least for the moment the government has
space to breathe.
|
Unjust enrichment: How the banks made
unconscionable
gains to the detriment of the public
(1) The hedge was one sided in favour of
the bank. There was no floor price for
CPC to protect the down side risk but it
contained a cap on the upside to protect
the banks' risks.
(2) Any benefits derived by the CPC
would be paid for only two months
whereas the CPC had to pay benefits for
a period of 12 months.
(3) CPC has to pay for double the
quantity hedged on the downside whereas
the bank pays only for the hedged
amount.
(4) No clauses in contract to limit the
risks on downside movements of oil
prices and no floor levels established
in the contract to protect CPC in case
of sharp fall in prices.
(5) This structure was a zero cost
collar option. But some experts opine
the banks should have paid an upfront
premium to CPC for entering into such
transactions.
What is a hedge?
Involves taking an offsetting position
in aderivative in order to balance any
gains and losses to the underlying
asset. Hedging attempts to eliminatethe
volatility associated with the price of
an asset by taking offsetting positions
contrary to what the investor currently
has. The main purpose ofspeculation, on
the other hand,is to profitfrom betting
on the directionin whichan assetwill
bemoving.
Hedgers reduce their risk by taking an
opposite position in the market to what
they are trying to hedge. The ideal
situation in hedging would beto cause
one effect tocancel outanother. For
example, assume thata company
specialises in producing jewellery andit
hasamajor contract due insix months,
forwhich gold is one of the
company'smain inputs. The companyis
worried about thevolatility of the gold
market and believes that gold prices may
increase substantially in the near
future. In order to protectitself from
this uncertainty,the companycould buy a
six-monthfutures contract in gold. This
way, if goldexperiences a 10% price
increase, thefutures contractwill lock
in a price that will offset this gain.
As you can see, although hedgers are
protected from any losses, they are also
restricted from any gains. Depending ona
company's policies and the type of
business it runs,it may choose to hedge
against certain business operations to
reduce fluctuations inits profit and
protectitself fromanydownside risk.
To avoid the volatility of import prices
of oil, CPC decided in 2007 to hedge a
part of its oil imports against high and
volatile prices. Like an insurance
policy, hedging is used to protect
against unexpected negative events. This
does not prevent the negative event from
occurring, but if it does happen and if
it is properly hedged, the impact of the
event is reduced.
Thus, hedging is not aimed at generating
profits, but mainly protecting from
losses that could arise from adverse
price fluctuations.
Zero cost collar
Another type of hedge, the importer sets
the maximum price, the high collar. In
response, the bank sets the floor price,
the low collar. If the market price is
above the high collar price, the bank
will pay the difference between the high
collar price and the market price to the
importer. If the market price is below
the low collar price, the importer will
pay the difference between the low
collar price and the market price to the
bank. In this case no premium is
involved.
Despite a Treasury committee headed by
an international hedging expert, Canada
based Upali Arunajith recommending the
crude oil cap, CPC disregarded this
expert advice and went for a very one
sided and risky variant of zero cost
collar which has led to the current
situation, say sources. CPC decided to
work with local branches of foreign
banks without the required oil hedging
expertise instead of specialist global
oil hedging firms recommended by the
Treasury committee.
Asantha lost for words
Contacted by The Sunday Leader to ask
about specifics, suspended CPC Chairman
Asantha De Mel stated he will not make
any comment to this newspaper.
Hedging instruments
As an example take the contract with
Deutsche Bank effective for one year
commencing July 2008. According to this
instrument the CPC could benefit if oil
prices increased over US $ 112.50 per
barrel. So the maximum benefit the CPC
could receive on this document was
limited to US$ 2.5 million. But if oil
prices fell below US$ 102.5 then CPC had
to pad the difference between the
average market price and the floor level
of US$ 102./50 without any limit on the
maximum amount to be paid. So for the
month of October the CPC would have to
pay US$ 4.5 million and if oil prices
remain the same the CPC will have to pay
on this single contract a total of US$
40.5 million. The total losses on all
the contracts signed would therefore
amount to about US$ 490 million
according to the FR Application filed by
Wegapitiya. |
By Ranjith Jayasundera
The recent cabinet decision to secure an
aircraft for Mihin Lanka on a wet lease and
give the airline another Rs 1.1 billion
behind the back of parliament has raised
fresh questions about the government's
priorities and its competence to steer the
country through the economic crisis.
In passing the cabinet paper, not a hum was
heard on what the airline - fraught with US$
3 million in debt with a loss of over US$
1.5 million from its only year of operations
- was thinking in paying US$ 1 million per
month for three months to take an aircraft
on lease for three months.
Should something go wrong, as is to be
expected from both Mihin Lanka and any
multi-million dollar venture graced by the
Rajapakse Midas touch, Mihin stands a risk
of doubling its existing debt.
The rushed November 11 Cabinet Paper
No.2008/50 presented by Minister Chamal
Rajapakse and endorsed the same day, is
littered with mistakes and misleading
statements. The first, ironically, is that
throughout the paper, Mihin Lanka is
referred to as Mihin Lanka 'Private'
Limited, a reminder that the airline's roots
as a personal flight of fancy by a
Presidential coterie is still fresh in the
memory of even the cabinet of ministers and
those drafting the cabinet papers.
Actual owner
The Cabinet Paper also claims that the
aircraft to be leased is both owned and
operated by French-Dutch based Transavia
Airlines. While the aircraft may be operated
by this airline, records we have inspected -
that are also in the possession of the
Aviation Ministry - show that the brand new
Boeing 737-800 is actually owned by two
leasing companies, NBB Mallard Company
Limited as well as Babcock and Brown
Aviation Finance Limited.
The aircraft was initially ordered from
Boeing by US based Delta Airlines, who in
November 2006 sold the as-then uncompleted
aircraft to these finance companies, who
have in turn given the aircraft on lease to
Transavia Airlines. These facts were
confirmed when the aircraft was delivered to
Transavia by a press statement by Babcock
and Brown released on May 14.
It stated that Transavia "took delivery of
one new Boeing B737-800 with a lease term of
six years" and identified the aircraft by
its serial number MSN 29650, which is also
present in the Cabinet Paper. This very same
press release also highlighted a lie in the
report by the Technical Evaluation Committee
(TEC) recommending the purchase of the
aircraft.
In comparing the chosen aircraft to a
different Boeing 737-800 proposed by another
bidder, the TEC report highlighted the fact
that the Transavia aircraft was fitted with
a CFM56-7B26 engine and that the other
aircraft was fitted with a CFM56-7B24
engine.
Factual flaws
The 7B26 on the Transavia offer, the TEC
report said, "is more advantageous in the
context of fuel consumption." There are two
factual flaws to be highlighted here. The
press release referred to earlier states
clearly that MSN 29650 upon delivery for
Transavia was "powered by CFM56-7B24
engines."
Further, available technical specifications
for the engines and Boeing aircraft show
that the CFM56-7B26 engine is for Boeing
737-900 aircraft and not those such as the
737-800 that were under consideration by the
TEC.
An official from the CFM56 consortium
pointed us to US government documents that
showed that the fuel consumption of the two
engine varieties was indistinguishable.
There is also further cause for suspicion in
the way the deal has reached the government.
As with any commercial transaction involving
a Chinthana pet project, there is a middle
man involved, in this case, a UK-registered
company named Global Plane Search Limited
and an obscure Czech charter airline named
Travel Service a.s.
Global Plane Search (GPS) is a company
founded in 2004 as an aircraft listing
website, with just two shareholders and an
issued share capital of 200 sterling pounds
- around Rs. 40,000. In the company's four
year history it has never declared revenue
of over 29,000 pounds (Rs. 6 million).
Meagre figures
The 2007 financial statement filed by GPS
with the UK's Registrar of Companies shows a
profit after taxation for the company of
just GBP 4,238 or under Rs. 1 million. The
same financial statement showed that the
company's fixed assets were of GBP 433
(about Rs. 85,000) in value.
Yet this is the company that is leasing a
US$ 56 million aircraft to the Sri Lankan
government at a cost of almost US$ 1 million
per month. A visit to their web site (www.globalplanesearch.com)
indicates that most of its revenue would
accrue from the advertisements placed on the
site around the multitude of aircraft
listings. The website does not even keep
commissions on aircraft sales that result
through its listings, instead allowing
potential buyers to contact sellers
directly.
As usual the government is at the bottom of
a long pyramid of brokers, middle men and
agents. Mihin Lanka's proposal came from
GPS, which in turn is dealing with Transavia
who operate the actual aircraft, and even
Transavia is using the aircraft on lease
from Babcock and Brown, who purchased it
from Delta Airlines. There is money being
made at every link in the chain all the way
back up to the leasing company Babcock and
Brown.
The terms of the wet lease envisage the
aircraft being used for over 300 hours per
month, roughly 10 hours per day. Even if
Mihin Lanka doesn't use up this amount of
flying time, this is the minimum amount that
has to be paid under the lease agreement.
Flight schedule
The Sunday Leader has seen the flight
schedule proposed by Mihin Lanka for the
first quarter of 2009, and it envisages 336
hours per month of flight time on the basis
that the aircraft will fly like a workhorse
on three return flights a day five days a
week, and two return flights a day on the
remaining two days of the week, every day
for those three months.
For the venture to be successful with the
most elementary napkin math, the airline
would have to earn the leasing cost of 10
flight hours per day or US$ 28,900,
bordering on Rs 3 million, from its ticket
sales and cargo revenue every day.
Repeated attempts by The Sunday Leader to
contact sitting Mihin Lanka Chairman Raja
Edirisuriya failed. He had told us earlier
however that he was not involved in the
aircraft acquisition process and would have
to make do with whatever aircraft that
process delivered.
The UNP has however warned that trying to
re-launch Mihin Lanka on a plan to fly over
300 hours a month with one aircraft is a
"clear cut prescription for disaster."
Speaking to The Sunday Leader, UNP MP Ravi
Karunanayake said there is no way the
airline will fly this many hours in a month.
"That is where the corruption is," he
charged. "Airline companies are so dead that
you can get a wet lease today for just US$
2,000 per flying hour." According to
Karunanayake, the airline will peak at 270
flying hours per month.
Huge gamble
"If there is a minimum guarantee of 300
hours, then these 30 unused hours will be
pure profit for the airline leasing the
aircraft, and the tax payer is the ultimate
loser." If the UNP MP is correct in his
assessment, the amount Mihin Lanka could
lose over the three year contract is
US$260,000 or around Rs. 30 million. From
such a perspective, the lease agreement
bears a lot of resemblance to the CPC
hedging agreement for which the Supreme
Court on Friday blocked payments.
The UNP also predicts that Mihin Lanka will
never get off the ground with this type of
business plan. "If they are starting
expecting to fly over 300 hours a month on a
single plane this is wishful thinking at
taxpayer expense. Chamal Rajapakse wanted
three months to get the airline in order. If
this is his plan, mark our words even if you
give them a year they won't turn Mihin
around," Karunanayake warned.
Due to the silence from Mihin, several
questions remain unanswered, chief among
which the question of what happened to the
hundreds of millions of rupees doled out to
Mihin Lanka by the Treasury this year, given
that the company still owes BoC over Rs 1
billion, the CPC over 640 million and
SriLankan Airlines over Rs 500 million.
The Cabinet Paper is also ambiguous on
whether the requested Rs 1.1 billion is to
be deducted from the Rs. 6 billion allotted
to Mihin Lanka in the Cabinet Paper, or
whether this is an additional handout.
Additional costs
The Rs 3 million lease price per day does
not include the landing fees for the three
airports to be visited every day as well as
the other costs associated with running an
airline. In any event, at the monthly price
being paid, the airline would be able to buy
the US$ 56 million aircraft in under five
years if it were not a wet lease but a lease
to purchase agreement.
Although the total cost of the lease for a
three month period will amount to around Rs
300 million, Minister Chamal Rajapakse's
Cabinet Paper asks for Rs 1.1 billion to
restart the airline without mentioning what
the remaining Rs. 800 million is to be
utilised for.
The airline's own woes aside, had the
cabinet tender committees done their
homework they would have seen that the
aircraft owner's parent company, Babcock and
Brown, is having financial problems of its
own under the current global crisis.
On November 20, the Sydney based Babcock and
Brown asked the Australian Stock Exchange to
halt trading of its shares until Monday,
November 24, while it endeavoured to resolve
what the company termed "a dispute with a
bank which holds a deposit of material
amount."
But on Monday, November 24, Babcock and
Brown announced that two directors were
resigning from the company's board and that
trading in its shares was to be suspended
until further notice. It was later revealed
that the massive company owes a colossal sum
of US$ 3.1 billion to a 25 member banking
syndicate.
In trouble
One member of the syndicate, German Bank
Bayerische Hypo-und Vereinsbank (HVB) is
refusing to release to Babcock a deposit of
GBP 70 million due to the outstanding debt.
The Australian newspaper's business section
on November 25 reported that Babcock and
Brown "appears to be grinding inexorably
towards administration and receivership."
It is quite possible that Mihin Lanka,
Cabinet and the Aviation Ministry are quite
oblivious to the possible effect that this
company's possible collapse could have on
Mihin's operations since the name of the
true owner of the aircraft does not appear
anywhere even once in the Cabinet Paper or
any of the tender or technical committee
reports.
With the world economy nose-diving so far as
for its effects to cascade around the world,
the question must be raised as to why our
Mihin Lanka must obtain a brand new (2008
vintage) Boeing aircraft. The difference
between this plane and slightly older craft
given in the Technical Evaluation Committee
has been found to be untrue and even if the
TEC were misled into believing a falsehood
about the engine configuration of the
aircraft, it would only have taken a little
bit of homework to uncover the true picture.
This will leave the question open in the
public mind as to whether this airline
requires a brand new aircraft for commercial
reasons or, given the airline's past
history, whether the President and his
lackeys are just in search of a new, shiny
"Air Force One" for their globetrotting.
Fresh start
The fresh start promised to Mihin Lanka's
operations by its new Chairman Raja
Edirisuriya has been put into serious
jeopardy by a series of events that
according to him are beyond his control. In
order to break even - and not burn through
another Rs 6 billion of taxpayer money - in
the coming year, the rookie airline Mihin
will have to fill up three return flights a
day without skipping a beat.
If the new Chairman is serious about getting
the airline back on track, he should look
into the discrepancies in the procurement
process for this aircraft, take an active
role in acquiring aircraft for operations in
the future and ask some serious questions
about the viability of such multi-million
transactions that will ultimately reflect on
the balance sheet of the company he is
heading.
Excise spotlight on
Gymkhana Club
|

The
Gymkhana Club |
By Ruan Pethiyagoda
The Department of Excise has become
entangled in a battle between the Gymkhana
Club and a third party running a nightclub
called Zetter on the club premises. In a
series of seemingly partial moves, the
Excise Department has moved to cancel the
extended license issued to the Gymkhana Club
for its poolside bar, and is considering the
transfer of another commercial licence to
the Zetter nightclub.
The Gymkhana Club is the parent club of the
Colombo Cricket Club (CCC), Colombo Hockey
and Football Club (CH&FC) and Queens Club.
The matter erupted when incumbent Gymkhana
Club President, Ranjan Kanagasabai met with
Excise Commissioner D.G.M.V. Hapuarachchi,
and spoke to him regarding concerns that the
Zetter nightclub operating at their new
building on Maitland Place was doing so
illegally and in violation of excise
regulations.
It is learnt that Kanagasabai's concern was
that since the management of Zetter was a
non-entity in the eyes of excise, their
allegedly illegal activities would
ultimately impact the Gymkhana Club, which
holds the license under which Zetter was
operating.
No legal authority
At the Gymkhana Club President's meeting in
early August with Excise Commissioner
Hapuarachchi it transpired that Zetter did
not have any legal authority to sell liquor
on their premises, and according to
documents The Sunday Leader has seen,
Kanagasabai requested that the Excise
Department act to terminate the illegal
operations at Zetter.
However, no such action was ever taken by
the Excise Department and Zetter continued
to operate and sell liquor, collecting
revenue to private limited companies Perera
Developments and ASPIC Entertainment, whilst
purchasing its liquor stocks privately from
supermarkets and in the name of the Gymkhana
Club license.
Excise had subsequently raided the Gymkhana
Club premises on October 2, leading
Kanagasabai to once again meet the Excise
Commissioner and ask that the club not be
held responsible for the actions of a
private party, and asking that the Zetter
nightclub be shut down instead of penalising
Gymkhana.
Notwithstanding this request, Excise slapped
a fine of Rs. 200,000 on the Gymkhana Club
for illegally selling alcohol in violation
of the terms of their license. Ironically,
it was Kanagasabai himself in his capacity
as Gymkhana President who informed Excise
about the illegal activity taking place at
Zetter, yet it was the Gymkhana Club and not
Zetter that was taken to task by Excise.
Transfer
In the meanwhile, the management of Zetter
has paid several million rupees to another
private party in order to transfer another
liquor license for use in their premises.
There are two problems with this transfer.
The first is that under existing excise
regulations, two separate licenses cannot be
issued to the same building assessment
number. Thus the current Gymkhana Club
extended license and the new proposed Zetter
license cannot co-exist.
Although money has changed hands, the Excise
Department maintains that it has not been
officially asked to facilitate a transfer of
the license (see box).
Several members of the Gymkhana Club
executive committee have told The Sunday
Leader that they suspect that moves are
afoot with the collusion of Excise to cancel
their existing license in order to
facilitate a transfer of Zetter's' new
private license.
Kanagasabai replied the Excise Department's
letter of demand on November 5, refusing to
pay the Rs 200,000 fine, and asking why
action is being taken against the club and
not the operators of Zetter. Kanagasabai
also revealed in his letter that Excise had
seized the Gymkhana Club's extended license
last August over some other offences
committed by Zetter.
His letter states that after Excise seized
the license, the Department had improperly
released it not to any officer of the
Gymkhana Club, but to a private individual,
one Buwanaka Kollonne. Gymkhana had to then
make arrangements to get their license back
from Kollonne, and not from the Excise
Department. Kanagasabai cited a letter that
he had seen on the desk of the Excise
Commissioner from Kollonne to the Department
requesting that the license be released to
him.
Asked for copy
The Gymkhana President asked Hapuarachchi
"respectfully" to forward him a copy of the
letter "along with an account of the events
that led the Department of Excise to release
the Gymkhana Club liquor license to a
private individual."
The letter also set out some facts that
Excise would be hard pressed to contradict
in justifying their actions. "The Gymkhana
Club has never requested that the Excise
Department extend the validity of the said
license to either allow for the serving or
storage of liquor on the second floor of the
building, where the Zetter nightclub
operates," he states, putting the ball
straight in the court of Excise to explain
why the club is still being allowed to
function.
Although the letter was not specific as to
the laws being broken, it made clear that
the management of Zetter was violating
Section 18 of the 2001 Excise Ordinance,
which states that "no excisable article
shall be sold, or kept or exposed for sale,
without a license."
In the letter Kanagasabai is clear that "the
Gymkhana Club accrues no revenue from the
sale of liquor at the said nightclub" and
that the premises are managed by Perera
Developments, and also that credit card
payments are collected by Aspic
Entertainment. "The club has never asked
that any of our licenses be extended to the
Zetter nightclub and has no intention of
initiating such a request."
Request to take action
Kanagasabai further asked that unless Excise
"has reason to believe that the sale of
liquor by the operators of the Zetter
nightclub is completely legitimate and in
compliance with the law" that they move to
"take any necessary action to prevent the
sale of liquor" on the premises without
prejudice to the areas legally prescribed
for Gymkhana itself to sell liquor.
When we spoke to Kanagasabai, he confirmed
that he had not received any response to the
letter thus far.
Another fear that Gymkhana committee members
have is the fact that default of VAT
payments by the operators of Zetter would
leave the club liable, and that the company
could get away Scott free. The entire
agreement with the nightclub as well as
several other angles pertaining to the new
building constructed at the Independence
Square Roundabout have come under scrutiny
since Ranjan Kanagasabai was elected
President of Gymkhana earlier this year.
In the past few months, the club has had
several of its accounts frozen by the Inland
Revenue Department for non-payment of taxes,
its electricity disconnected for non-payment
of bills and its auditors, Ernst & Young,
have, in a confidential report revealed that
documentation is unavailable to verify over
Rs 63 million in payments made by the club
during the construction of the building and
that a further Rs. 15 million worth of
payments are "unidentifiable" in any manner
at all.
Audit stopped
Ernst & Young have stopped their audit until
the club forwards the necessary
documentation to continue, and all
indications are, according to committee
members, that these documents are not
available. Also, upon inspection it was
found that several agreements are
detrimental to the club, as their rental
payments are a pittance.
These agreements were signed under the
presidency of incumbent committee member and
former cricketer Shammi Silva, a situation
which has lead to severe divisions within
the current committee with many members of
the committee being against investigations
into the club's past dealings.
The rental agreement with Zetter was more
complicated. Perera Development, the company
that runs Zetter nightclub was supposed to
make a loan of over Rs 10 million to the
club at 16% interest, in exchange for which
the company was to be granted a lease to the
Zetter premises for a fee of Rs 30 per
square foot each month. The club's financial
statements show that very little money has
been received by Gymkhana.
Even more remarkably, despite the fact that
Perera Development has not fully given the
initially promised loan, some committee
members allege that they continue to charge
16% interest in monthly installments to the
club, in return for a financial facility
that was never received.
Gained nothing
Thus in exchange for providing these rock
bottom lease prices in the heart of Colombo
7, the Gymkhana Club itself has gained next
to naught.
When all of these issues were raised at an
emergency meeting of the club's past
chairmen on Monday, November 3, a clear
division arose between those present. The
club's incumbent Secretary, Shiran Anthony
and Immediate Past Chairman Shammi Silva
took Kanagasabai head on at every turn.
The minutes of the meeting indicate that
Silva chastised Kanagasabai for complaining
to Excise about the illegal activities of
Zetter.
Silva together with Secretary Shiran Anthony
accused Kanagasabai of causing the problems
with Excise by complaining about the illegal
use of their license by Zetter. He said that
he had met the Excise Commissioner, who had
told him that the club was fined purely on
the basis of Kanagasabai's supposed
admission of guilt in committing an offence.
These statements were just the beginning of
what was to become an evening of perverted
distortions of the truth relating to the
problems faced by the Gymkhana Club.
Interestingly enough, instead of making a
'request' to Kanagasabai for assistance in
stopping Zetter's illegal sale of alcohol,
the Excise Department has decided to target
Gymkhana, without even a hint of
investigation into the persons actually
committing the crime of illegally storing
and selling liquor.
Question of VAT
When Kanagasabai brought up the fact that
Zetter is not paying VAT on their liquor
sales, and that these VAT bills may
eventually be landed on Gymkhana for
millions of rupees, Secretary Shiran Anthony
responded that Zetter is also not claiming
input VAT on their purchases, proposing that
the club could do so to save some money.
Anthony glossed over the fact that it is
illegal to claim input VAT without actually
paying the output VAT and that such a scam
would just raise more alarm bells at Inland
Revenue and bring the entire situation
crashing down even harder on the head of the
already financially beleaguered club.
On the same topic of VAT, when Kanagasabai
highlighted that the club's accounts had
been frozen out of owing Rs 11.4 million to
the Inland Revenue Department, Shammi Silva
again lashed out at the Chairman saying that
the cheques had bounced since he had refused
to sign several agreements that would have
brought the needed money into the club
accounts.
Kanagasabai did not have at hand the
necessary documentation to show that out of
the six dishonoured cheques given to the
Excise Department, three of them were dated
before he assumed the presidency of Gymkhana
on July 30, 2008.
Dishonoured cheques
Thus the rejection of the cheques and the
lack of money in the accounts cannot be
pinned on Kanagasabai but the accuser, then
Chairman Shammi Silva. The document we saw
from the Inland Revenue Department gives the
dishonoured cheque dates as June 30, July
15, July 30 and three other cheques after
Kanagasabai took over.
By the time he assumed office however, the
club had already issued Rs 1.476 million in
dud cheques to the Inland Revenue
Department.
When Kanagasabai tried to defend his
integrity by pointing out that when the
electricity to the club was disconnected on
August 1, he personally gave Rs 800,000 to
the club out of pocket to get the line
reconnected, Silva again took him on blaming
him for the disconnection in the first
place.
He said that the electricity was
disconnected to the club as part of the
fallout from Kanagasabai 'carrying tales' to
Excise about the crimes committed by Zetter.
Electricity was disconnected on August 1,
many days before Kanagasabai met the Excise
Commissioner Hapuarachchi.
There is thus simply no way that the excise
meeting could have affected the
disconnection of electricity to the club.
Mathata Thitha
The internal politics of the Gymkhana Club
and its finances aside, the most sordid part
of this saga is that even under the Mahinda
Chinthana's Mathata Thitha policy, the
transfer of a commercial liquor license is
underway to a privately run nightclub not
even 100 metres away from St. Bridget's
College.
The owners of some of Colombo's fledgling
boutique hotels such as Tintagel, Casa
Colombo and the Park Street Hotel, who have
been unable to get liquor licenses for their
properties despite even approaching the
President directly, will likely have some
inspiring things to say if the Excise
Department were to allow a nightclub to run
within jumping distance of a girl's school.
|
Zetter operation illegal - Excise
Excise Commissioner D.G.M.V.
Hapuarachchi told The Sunday Leader that
his department has never issued a
license for the sale of liquor within
the premises of Zetter. Asked whether
the sale of liquor within these premises
would be illegal, he replied "yes."
Hapuarachchi also explained that the
reason that Gymkhana was being fined is
that they are the party holding the
license that is being exploited for the
running of Zetter. "This was all done by
the previous management of Gymkhana," he
said asserting that the club as an
entity must be held responsible.
He also said that no written request has
been received for the official transfer
of the other private license to the
premises of Zetter, and that he can only
consider questions emanating from the
transfer when such a written request is
received. "There has only been talk so
far," the Excise Commissioner said.
Meanwhile The Sunday Leader learns that
the financial transaction between the
two parties for the transfer of the
license is complete and over Rs. 2
million has changed hands through the
deal.
Ask Shammi - Zetter Management
The former administrator of Zetter,
Buwanaka Kollonne said that he is no
longer involved in the operations of the
nightclub, and that thus he cannot
answer questions pertaining to the
legality of its sale of liquor.
He asked that we speak to the club's
Former President, Shammi Silva, also
stating that Silva is now the owner of
the Zetter nightclub.
Shammi Silva, however, when contacted,
denied that he was involved with Zetter
and declined to answer any further
questions citing legal concerns.
The club suffers - Kanagasabai
Incumbent Gymkhana Club Chairman, Ranjan
Kanagasabai refused to comment on the
details of the issues with Excise and
the missing money alleged by the
auditors. "At the end of the day it is
the club that loses out when all these
things are happening," he concluded. |