The case against jailed German banker Gerhard
Gribkowsky rumbles on. Last month Gribkowsky was arrested on
suspicion of receiving a $50m bribe for allegedly undervaluing
shares in SLEC, F1's commercial rightsholder, when they were sold to
the sport's current majority owner CVC in 2006.
Gribkowsky was SLEC's chairman and he
represented German bank BayernLB which owned a 47.2% stake in the
company. As Bayern's representative Gribkowsky had a duty to get the
best deal for the bank. The German prosecutors claim he did not do
that and added that "the stake had been sold without being properly
evaluated." For weeks Pitpass'
business editor Chris Sylt has been saying that this is nonsense
and, at last, other renowned outlets are catching on.
According to the German press , an
article in weekly magazine Der Spiegel reports that other
potential buyers of Bayern's shares offered much less than CVC. In
any auction the market value of a product is determined by what
buyers are prepared to pay. So if the other potential buyers, such
as Hong Kong conglomerate Hutchison Whampoa and private equity firm
Clearbrook Capital, were not prepared to
pay Bayern as much as CVC then it is extremely hard to say that the
sale undervalued Bayern's shares.
As an indication, the reports state that
Hutchison offered $1bn for SLEC with Clearbrook offering $1.5bn. In
contrast, as Pitpass has
shown with absolute certainty, CVC paid $1.7bn so this in
itself speaks volumes. Indeed, even if an accountant were to come
forward with a valuation of Bayern's shares from 2006 showing that
they were worth more than it received from CVC, this would be
irrelevant if no one was prepared to pay it.
Spiegel has a circulation of over one
million and reportedly employs 80 fact checkers so it is a very
credible source. But it doesn't stop there. The German newspaper
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reports that sources in Bayern
say its F1 stake was sold "clearly above its book value." If both
this and the Spiegel report are true there is pretty much no
way that Bayern's SLEC shares could have been undervalued.
These conclusions tally perfectly with Pitpass' report
that the stake isn't likely to have been undervalued since Bayern
received a valuation yield of ?328m in 2006 and its results stated
that the sale of the F1 shares "decisively contributed to the
positive result." It also tallies with Pitpass'report
that Bayern got a better rate for its stake than at least one of the
other banks which sold SLEC shares to CVC so it clearly cannot have
been undervalued.
It puts an interesting light on last week's
revelation that CVC has instigated an investigation into the
circumstances surrounding the acquisition of the SLEC shares. As
Pitpass has pointed
out, given that F1 is a client of the two firms handling the
investigation it was clearly not demanded by an external party. On
this basis alone it may be unlikely that the firms will reach a
different conclusion than the one which CVC and F1 itself has
already reached - that the $50m was not paid for the shares to be
undervalued. If that happens then F1 will most certainly not face
the "turmoil" which Sky News speculated could ensue from the
investigation.
Likewise, outlets which have suggested
Ecclestone paid the money for undervaluing the shares could be left
scrambling if the news from Spiegel and Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung is proven to be true in court when Gribkowsky
goes to trial. This outcome, combined with the investigation proving
that no money was paid for undervaluing the shares, could be
devastating for some media outlets.
They could be faced with having to prove why
they dragged Ecclestone into their reports at all since, more than
anything, there would be no evidence that the scandal should have
turned the spotlight on him. Indeed, as one newspaper recently
reminded its readers, Ecclestone has said "if the German newspapers
write that I had something to do with the payments, which is
absolute nonsense, I will take them to court."