What benefit is in this deal for RBC ?
If anyone thinks that RBC, as lead lender, was ethical, moral and acting with integrity, while making a profit, knowing full well that shareholders would get "screwed", - WAKE UP.
If you don't know about RBC involvement as lead lender with Allen-Vanguard, read the press releases on this website (not sure if they have taken it down yet?) [url]http://www.allenvanguard.com/Index.aspx[/url]
To find that RBC is the lead lender in the syndicate;
[url]http://www.integratir.com/newsrelease.asp?news=2131021069&ticker=T.VRS<=EN[/url] ...secured credit facilities underwritten by RBC Capital Markets ("RBC"), consisting of a three-year $200 million term loan facility ("Term Loan")
RBC touts their integrity, ethics and morals in ALL deals - yet they certainly had no problem participating in this backroom, private, "exclusive", 6 month prolonged deal with a US investor.
Maybe this deal made by some "rogue" RBC employees, was not held to corporate standards (?) - this deal certainly has a lot of questionable activity.
I would think that any bank trying to maintain a high ethical standard would have a problem being party to a deal seeing thousands of individual retail investors getting "screwed" - but apparently RBC doesn't have that concern.
Maybe our market cap is part of their profit ?
Maybe "screwing" shareholders was their idea ?
I would hope that the CEO of the Royal Bank has a good look at what transpired, and force corrective actions. RBC could have made this a non-issue simply by seeing our market cap paid - instead they compromised their integrity - for a cost of less than 11 million dollars !!!
VRS CFO writes-down the value of assets to the value of RBC debt, well excuse me if I beg to differ. How can VRS (valued at 100 million, buy Med-Eng for 650 million, add HMS for 50 million - but now the CFO's "magic pencil" say it is ALL worth just 200 million - and shareholders are to accept this as factual ?
Gee, wouldn't it be nice to have an independant 3rd party review ?
May 7th 2008 RBC had an extensive look at the VRS books and loaned 200 million - it seems RBC thought the assets were worth substantially more ? [url]http://www.integratir.com/newsrelease.asp?news=2131021069&ticker=T.VRS<=EN[/url]
RBC held SECURED financing - they had no reason to take the first and only offer presented. The VRS over-aggressive write down of assets did not affect them, bankruptcy would not affect them, "secured" means they get paid.
Why would they co-conspire to see shareholders get nothing ?
What benefit is in this deal for RBC ?
If you want to think this RBC deal is ethical, moral and acting with integrity - I don't agree. |
