BayernLB, the Bavarian state bank, has asked Formula One boss Bernie Ecclestone to pay back $40 million in alleged payments made by Gerhard Gribkowsky, its former chief risk officer, who is now in jail. It is also asking Mr E to pay $350 million which it believes was knocked off the price in the deal negotiated by Gribkowsky. The bank decided to act after gaining access to prosecution files from the Gribkowsky trial. This is believed to be the first step in recovering the money.
Is not thought likely that Bernie will write a suitable cheque.
A cheque written with disappearing ink, on self-immolating paper, perhaps….
“Is not thought likely that Bernie will write a suitable cheque.”
Haha!
So, do you think he will pay any money back or is he just so confident that nothing will come of this investigation? If there was a real danger of prosecution, wouldn’t writing a cheque to make it all go away be the sensible thing to do? Maybe he could use his legendary negotiating skills to get them to lower their initial offer.
What Wilfred ^ said. Nail on the head
Alternatively, paying out might be seen as an admission that The Bernard himself is/was in the wrong.
Bernie, you need to talk to Vijay. Pronto.
He’s up to speed with writing unsuitable cheques.
Reportedly, BayernLB are after 400 million dollars.
A killer of a closing sentence. Bravo Joe.
Hang on, so BayernLB shopped their golden boy for dodgy dealing, then he’s convicted, quite possibly because they stitched him up to distract from their own incestuous and widely rumoured habits with money and politicians on their board, so Grib’s convicted and therefore this is definitely dirty money . .
and now, logically, Bayern want the money their boy took illegally, because obviously they are entitled to a crook’s illicit gains?
forgive my somewhat dazzled eyes, but is this for real?
A bank who claimed they had a rogue director, claim they are owed the bribe money he is convicted of extorting, from a third party they are not connected with . . save for being involved in the same financing . .
. . or did the money come from them originally, and now it has served its purpose, to provide a scape goat for their awful management, and to give them a excuse to complain Bernie got such a great deal from their man, who conveniently bribed Bernie . .
hang on again .
is this not pass the parcel?
How much would you accept to go down for say 4 years jail time, how much would a board who wrecked a massive balance sheet offer you?
or do we have all the sophistication of a brazen trickster asking for his Friday night special gun back, after he got someone else’s prints on it?
Call me crackers, but that just brought this full circle. The evidence trail just looped. So, who told Grib to demand that bribe? I may not be able to make what I say sound like sense, because there’s none of that coming from the news itself, but there’s just too much question now who was in charge of what.
I could find no question at all, in the trial docs, as to whether a guy like Grib could have ever acted solo, in the alleged conspiracy to undervalue the shares. He pleaded before that came to trial.
Or is Bayern just so desperate, they want every penny they can lay their hands on? Better not let them have any more “innocent” excuses.
Dear me, maybe when the dust settles on what was bugging me lately, I can describe how someone pulling the wool over a few eyes, strung a few parties along to try to buy time, thinking I’d not take a loss, twice a loss because I have to make someone else whole, but that’d be fun because the sheer machinations and psychological tricks employed to keep what I just saw up in the air for a few extra months are almost psycho fraud 101. During the final phase, there was such a twisting of fact, that heads spun enough there was a allegation of blackmail directed at our contingent, we were accused of blackmail in fact to blackmail us! Well, taking a loss neatly scuppered that projected conjecture. Yeah, really it was that perverse. I dare imagine if we had been talking more than a fraction of what Grib was involved with, how much other pressure could have warped our minds. You can easily loose a grip on reality, when there is highly complicated history and relentless pressure.
I can’t get my mind around the idea they want what is illicit gains paid to them. Or the idea Bayern put this all into play. Of course, you may argue they are simply being German and Thorough claiming all their claimed money, howsoever it might be counted.
Also, why are they asking Bernie, did not the money flow to Grib, and then was seized? Did Bernie get it returned?
Also, why do they have access to prosecution files, and those are not public?
Yet again, AFAIK, Grib pleaded to blackmail or extortion, not to rigging the F1 stake sale, and I right?
Oh, time for me to call it quits. But this is nutty and truly twisted of Bayern.
But one last thing, Grib was a risk expert. So they would of course say that meant he could hid things. But equally, maybe he saw deals he did not like, and internally blew the whistle? No, not a alternate theory by any stretch, but these little facts of position or skill or presumed knowledge are just the things I found being presented in contortion in the most adamant ways lately in my unfortunate deal. I shall one day, likely not here, write up my experience, because for me I have never had laid out blow by blow a scheme like I just caught the sharp end of. One common thread was the deliberate reversing of language and description surrounding any actor or party that the person doing all this wished to be painted as a no gooder, almost every second word was a brazen distortion of fact. Things we could contradict with the guy’s own letters he was reversing. Well, whatever, I thought I had seen it all, but “Now give us the bribe money” I just read as “Hey, that’s ours, we did the job, we deserve to get paid”. Almost as if they are claiming credit for the stitch up. I wish I could summarise my recent experience, because after that I believe anything is possible . .
What you’re saying makes perfect sense, to me, at least. The more they have, the greedier they are, and are most definitely not beyond demanding their share of Grib’s illicit gains.
Hold on there John. The bank isn’t asking Bernie to repay the Gribkowsky bribe money, they are asking for the return of a $41.4m payment Gribkowsky made to Bernie from the bank.
From the Telegraph article:
In addition to the $44m payment to Mr Gribkowsky from Mr Ecclestone, it was also found that Mr Gribkowsky paid Mr Ecclestone an extra kickback worth $41.4m from the accounts of BayernLB.
Oh, I know, it’s just my warped brain, because I just had my grey matter fried by people asserting claims to what they sold to long ago, and ending up in loops as a result.
People have done sillier things than I imagined above. Bribery and blackmail seem to have a logic of their own.
CVC paid BayenLB more than the other two interested parties were prepaid to pay, Hutchison Whampoa and Clearbrook Capital.
While Kurt Faltlhauser, head of BayernLB’s administrative board said: “The price we were offered by CVC was surprisingly high and it came as a great relief.”
… Banks always looking for their next trillion £ bonus schemes.
Well, if they can explain this affair in any way that makes sense after a few readings, I’ll put my hapeth towards their next trillion.
What would coerce Bernie into getting so close to copping a rap for bribery?
Great big nasty bank breathing down his neck?
Who might have a credit default swap desk (the kind run by a risk manager, see how that might apportion some accusation of guilt) that could sink the prices on his newly sold bonds, maybe triggering covenants, who knows what guarantees were made to launch those notes?
Oh, why not, let’s throw in that the lovely shiner he sported was not a random act of thuggery . .
It’s Formula Hmmmm, after all . .
I’d give some credence to Bernie being pushed into something. For his renowned track record of navigating the grey areas, treading the fine lines, generally pushing everything just barely within the bounds of legal, why would he get so close to a actual criminal charge? I mean one that normally would get prosecuted following a admission.
With so much riding in trusts he genuinely set up to look after his kids (whatever you think of their antics), no man wants to risk that, but because that exists, and this all interlinked, who can exert the most influence? One guy, or a whole bank? You don;t press a button on trades like that. It’s a bit two edged, OTC derivatives. One hand, you can proverbially stuff the contracts in the drawer and hide them, on the other they usually get passed through quite a few hands . . .
What are Bayern doing seeking this money back? If some directors were complicit, did others just treat it as a receivable to collect on, and then there’s no choice? Wild wild imagination: say someone made the call to claim this to show up someone else? You know, a signal, a clue!
On the other, so easy to bash banks, these days, as a scapegoat.
I don’t think I should give up my day job for writing crime thrillers, yet….
Even so, I guess one can always try … And given there’s a lot of evidence available from the Gribowsky trial, Its certain that if they would not try to get money they would look very stupid / not acting in the best interest of their owners themselves.
Eingehungsbetrug. Whatever number HW & Clearbrook submitted is irrelevant.
Apparently Bernie has said that he will just let them sue for it and see who wins.
I think that we have reached the point which CVC wished to avoid, with the legality of their purchase now being directly questioned due to Bernie’s financial “manoeuvrings”. The whole mess will resolve into very expensive legal technicalities and probably drag on for years. If I were the German Bank I would be looking for consequential damages as well as the $400M I would be looking for a share of the profits enabled due to the low purchase price, maybe most of them.
At the same time in Paris, Bernie has increased his direct influence on the rule writing process from zero to a 33.3% share. (Obviously his share plus a few FIA leanings, will outvote the teams 33.3%, one could say the reverse, but in wielding influence no one can beat Bernie)
I am with the Bernard on this one. I don’t think the bank has a leg to stand on because the deal was signed off by one of its employees. The fault is with Gribkowsky and not with Bernie. The bank should accept that they put the wrong man in the job and swallow the loss.
Will the bank even go so far as disclosure, given how not very far the Grib trial went? I’ll joke about the whole whodunnit angles, but it’s very tenuous to claim that a senior staffer does not represent the company, particularly after the fact. Maybe they can wiggle a bit. But it takes a awful lot to prove a deal was invalid at that level. If it was done by a low level trader, or your proverbial imposter secretary, they could argue you just don’t expect that sort of person to be able to bind the company. That’s not the case, however. Maybe now they’ve got their man, they will see fit to bring out more in argument. The last of Grib’s defence was aimed at getting a lot more documents accepted as evidence. That’s the bit that confounded me. Anyhow, likely another go slow wait forever, get swept under the carpet trial.
Joe you’re forgetting why BE was implicated in the first place perhaps – poor old Bernie, threatened by a bank official?
It’s a long way from sport isn’t it? What a pity the acting administrators of F1, the sport we love, continue to drag down its image.
Joe, if I may ask what do you make of the stories in today’s papers (Telegraph or Times if I recall Radio 2 this morning) that they (CVC I am presuming) are headhunting for a new Bernie? I can’t see it personally I think they will have to wheel him out kicking and screaming/in a box* (delete as applicable)!
In my humble opinion, the next Bernie is already on the board. The fastest ways to add value to any F1 investment is to make it attractive to more sponsors and to make it more transparent in corporate terms. Who sits on the board and knows all about global corporate marketing? Hmmmm… Don’t suppose anyone would turn down the job if offered.
BAYERN LB surly they cant think bernard is that much of a moron, probably he will say ”SLING YOUR HOOK the deal was a deal and get the money from Gribkowski” remember he was found guilty of the bribe…..
The alleged “kickback” The Bernard (great tag Joe!) gave to Gribby had nothing to do with the sale price, and no one can prove otherwise. See Karen’s earlier comment above.
The only recourse the bank has is against Gribby for the kickback as possible lost bank income. And that is only open to speculation. Can the bank prove that CVC would have paid an additional $40 mil if Bernie hadn’t paid Gribby? Hardly.
I would also have quoted your closing line if not beaten to the punch by other comments. Well played!
All Bernie needs is a pen and a check…
Or a cheque, even.