Talk:Apax Partners/Archives/2015

WIND HELLAS
This is a complex legal dispute, one that has yet to reach a conclusion in the courts. I think it could do with a better, shorter treatment than the current text.

My understanding of the dispute is taken mostly from this 2015 New York Times article and The Economist coverage:

TPG and Apax are former owners of shares in Tim Hellas, the Greek telecoms company the two firms bought in 2005. Apax refinanced Hellas in December 2006, putting $1.4bn of debt onto its balance sheet and taking a $1bn out of it, before selling the company to Weather Investments in 2007. In regards to the Weather sale, the bondholders were entitled to be repaid at a premium - but they declined.

Weather owned Hellas for a further three years before the bonds defaulted, in 2009. Depending on what you believe, Hellas failed due to the global financial crisis, or due to Apax and TPG’s mis-management. That issue is now under legal/regulatory proceedings in two jurisdictions. In those, some of the sophisticated investors who financed the $1.4bn debt - and lost their money - are claiming that Apax and TPG acted unlawfully, principally by taking too much money out of the company. TPG and APAX argue they were not even the owners of Hellas when it went under, and that the bondholders went into the re-fi with their eyes open. That seems to be the nub of it, but I'm not a lawyer.

It is worth pointing out that a sub-group of these bondholders bought into Hellas after it went down: it's their business model, sort of. As The Economist put it [my emphasis]: "Some of the creditors are distressed-debt outfits that bought after Hellas hit trouble. They are a determined bunch. One, who bought in “purely to agitate”, says he “will never give up”.” That does not explain all of the edits surrounding Hellas on the Apax page, but it is worth knowing, especially if anyone else agrees with me that some of the Hellas edits are bordering on WP:TEND.

Crucially, some of the bondholders are claiming that the disputed transactions amount to fraud. That’s where things get particularly conflated in this article. The US court case is being heard in the Federal Bankruptcy Court in New York, under the US bankruptcy code relating to cross-border insolvencies; meanwhile the Luxembourg authorities are investigating whether any of their commercial and tax laws were broken. But at this stage, neither investigation is a criminal investigation; no individual has been judged a criminal in a court of law. That’s the issue I have with the language here, as it refers to “embezzlement” and “fraud”. Those are criminal-law terms, exclusively, and they’re being used here as though a trial verdict has been delivered. There aren’t even any criminal charges in play - it’s all civil law? (Someone put me straight if I’m wrong on that)

It's true that one of the bondholders used the language of criminal law in their procedural deposition, and the pre-trial judge repeated that language and agreed there were grounds for a further hearing, but that doesn’t mean the actual trial (when it takes place) will hold that there really was a criminal breach, nor even a civil breach. Therefore I suggest removing these criminal-law terms, pending outcome of the case, as right now they are direct accusations of a verdict of criminal guilt. I don’t mean to suggest that these accusations weren't made in WP:AGF and WP:NPOV, but that’s not how they read (to me anyway) and, certainly, those accusations have no basis in any official verdict.

I also note that the same accusations re-appear verbatim on the TPG Capital page. Is this not WP:CONTENTFORKING?

Ernst and Young
This seems a simpler matter than the one above, as it is clearly conflating the criticism of EY with criticism of Apax. This text is intended to live in the Apax Criticisms section, yet it contains no criticism of Apax, only Ernst and Young - so it reads like it's been included in order to pile criticism on to Apax. If the criticism of Ernst and Young belongs on any page, it's on EY's page, not here. Nowhere in any of the details of the Wind Hellas case has there been any suggestion that Apax conducted itself improperly as regards EY, regardless of what EY did. WP:TEND

British United Shoe Machinery
This really does need a bit of balance, so I've added some. My reading of the dispute is that Apax bought into (and tried to turn around) BUSM, an ailing company whose previous management had underfunded the works pension fund and allowed a substantial deficit to develop. In time, BUSM under Apax went bust. Just before it did, Apax transferred certain assets and pension liabilities into a new company, so that remnants of BUSM could continue trading - but under the new arrangements, post-retirement pensioners got their pension at the expense of some of the then-current employees.

What needs to be said here is that the matter was referred to the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority and the Pensions Ombudsman, and neither of them pursued it further, although here was much controversy at the time about whether the two bodies had sufficient remit to investigate Apax (they seemed to have passed it back and forth between them and never really got behind the pensioners). Much of the criticism at the time (and there was a torrent of it) was aimed at these Regulators. You could say it was a case of Apax’s guilt being not proven, but first you’d have to insist they were guilty when the official investigating bodies thought otherwise. Also, the current text somehow characterises the BUSM pensioners as being left penniless to this day, when in fact the political fall-out from the BUSM saga (and others like it) led to the creation of a compensation scheme for pensioners who lose out when companies go bust.

PCM Uitgivers
There is not one English language citation to support any of this. I Googled the phrase “PCM Uitgivers Apax” and found no English language mention of this controversy in the first 20 pages of looking. Would anyone like to translate the Dutch text?

Criticism section
Given all of the above, has this section not become a bit of a troll magnet? I propose to integrate the content into the rest of the article, but including the edits suggested here.
 *  WP:CSECTION 

Response to new user Kohoutekit

 * Kohoutekit Firstly thanks for your views. Can I assume that you are fully aware of Paid-contribution disclosure rules?  I note that your first edit has removed a considerable amount of criticism.  If you are personally involved & feel the criticism is unfair please contact Biographies of living persons/Help.
 * My expertise is on BUSM, a company which had won several Queen's Awards for Enterprise’s and produced 60% of the world’s shoe making equipment.  I note your comment on what you refer to as your “reading of the dispute” but it is completely and utterly wrong.  Under UK rules the pensions ombudsman and OPRA cannot investigate a shareholder so Apax was outside their jurisdiction.  As the previous version said Ros Altmann described Apax’s behaviour "one of the worst cases ..I have seen ..the actions of the former owners - Apax have been immoral"  She was sent a huge amount of information about the case and is one of Britain’s leading pensions expert –and now the UK Minister for pensions. I value her comments on UK pensions much more than your reading of the dispute. I’ve reverted your edit until you have a chance to consider.  Hope that helps you understand & feel free to reply.  Regards JRPG (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Kohoutekit I should have added that the BUSM matter was discussed in Parliament after Apax's numerous libel threats silenced some UK newspapers as did fear of retaliation against whistle-blowers. UK libel laws are draconian and Cohen was a Labour party donor so HMG didn't want to upset him. Hopefully they won't be able to exploit people the way they did. JRPG (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Response to user JRPG
I don't claim to know the truth of any of the events in the current article.

Rather, I dispute the way these events have been written up – to me they’re clearly inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. I have not “removed” the criticisms (except where unsubstantiated in the citations) – it’s more that I’ve put a different slant on them. I don’t want to descend into some edit war; equally you have overturned all of the edits I’ve made, rather than just those for BUSM, so I guess we need to hammer it out, find common ground and then perhaps work on a revised version together?

So, do we agree:

1) That having a section titled "Criticisms and Predatory practices" is always open to question, under Wikipedia's own rules. This was my thinking in both deleting it and moving its contents to the rest of the article (I also changed those contents, but let's look at that as a separate matter). I don't count Jimmy Wales' views as being any more important than anyone else's on here, but FYI he has referred to Criticism sections as "troll magnets". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism

On this I thinkJW is right - IMO the criticisms should be within the rest of the article, not in their own section.

As a possible way forward, how about we delete the criticism section but retain some or all of its contents? Do we have common ground there.

2) The highest authorities in the land knew what Apax did at BUSM but did not bring any case against them. This is a key fact - why suppress it?

Apax operated under a regulatory framework that was later found to be wanting, but that does not make law-breakers of Apax, nor does it make Apax self-evidently "immoral", "in need of flogging" nor "greedy, selfish, capitalists who live on the backs of others", nor predatory. These barbs are being conflated here. I think other editors would let you have some of those barbs, but maybe not all of them: it just reads a bit too slanted. The need to point out Apax were not found to have broken the law surely rises in line with the heavy language used above - and surely that applies regardless of Altman's qualifications?

3) The edits relating to Wind Hellas were restored by you (along with the unsupported accusations therein). Can I ask for your objection to the Hellas edits – hopefully we can find a middle ground there too. I assume your objection here is not ad hominem.

4) In my view, PCM doesn't need a better citation: it just needs one citation, in English. None exists (I tried to find one), so IMO it should go. I hope we can agree on the above.

Where we're probably never going to agree is whether anyone would defend Apax in good faith, or more specifically, defend free market capitalism. You might not think the latter merits defending, but I do. This is by no means my first such edit. But I also know that private equity has few friends (I'm not a big fan myself – it often combines the worst of entrepreneurship with the worst of corporatism), and I also know that the majority of Wikipedia’s contributors are inherently suspicious of big business and free markets, as are many of my friends and colleagues. That's why I edit selectively and anonymously, and I’m going to carry on doing it that way.

Do we have any common ground on 1-4 above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.149.209 (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Firstly greetings. I reverted to a version by a previous editor because I suspected that you/ Kohoutekit are directly or indirectly an Apax paid editor - in which case you can advise but ought not to have made the edit.   Please confirm that you are not paid, you can still advise if you are.   A disadvantage of not using your registered username is that you appear to be a wp:spa -a characteristic of paid editors.


 * Re 2 -see my previous comment on jurisdiction -a 1995 Pensions Act oversight. Every effort was made to get an enquiry which I believe would have shown misfeasance leading to disqualification of some directors.  Apax were Labour party donors and there was no enquiry.  There is some more detail under British United Shoe Machinery.
 * Re the criticism section, it isn’t one of the wp:5P and is very common on WP:BLP articles simply because -as in this case -it fits the article structure better. BUSM whilst one of the smallest investments revealed a great deal about the flaws in the 1995 pensions act and Apax secret methodology though I think Hellas will rival it in due course with this.


 * We’re agreed everything should be cited and my User:JRPG states I oppose personal attacks. What you describe as “egregious” quotes are attributed exactly as required by WP:ATTRIBUTEPOVto the late Ashok Kumar (British politician) and UK pensions expert and now minister Ros Altmann and hence are fully in order. As a Harvard Scholar Altmann does understand business & many MPs have had very detailed documentation of Apax behaviour towards their constituents + the utter misery they caused to decent working people.
 * I'll have a go at removing uncited stuff tomorrow(ish). Probably best if I do it & you comment. Regards JRPG (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Kohoutekit here:


 * Thanks for your recent edits - I do take on board many of your comments. No I'm not a paid advocate, but I understand why you ask. SPAs are good for anonymity and I've mentioned the reasons that I prefer to edit anonymously. I respectfully refer you back to those reasons. If we have gotten off on the wrong foot it's because I made the mistake of wading in and making edits before successfully finding anyone who cared enough to augment or dispute them.


 * For your part, you have misunderstood me on a few points (a miscommunication on my part). When I referred to “egregious edits”, I was specifically referring to the content restored by you that is *unrelated to BUSM*. I was not referring to Ashok Kumar et al as being egregious.


 * In my view, much of the non-BUSM content that you restored is impossible to defend, or at least it is indefensible this side of a trial and a verdict. Therefore, I’m hoping to find some common ground with you on these other edits.


 * To repeat the non-BUSM content that I object to (I've updated the citation numbers):


 * The following citations don't in any way support the point they're trying to make.....to an extent so obvious that the surely are WP:TEND
 * 27. http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=11341911&ticker=GOOG Nikesh Arora - Executive summary - This is the impressive sounding citation (it's from Bloomberg) for an eye-catching accusation of fraud, except the article only confirms that the executive in question actually worked at Wind Hellas. The article makes not one mention of any fraud.
 * 30. The judgement referred to here was not against Apax! It was against the bond issuers, Hellas Telecommunications Finance and Hellas Finance. No mention in the article of anyone doing any "condemning", either. It is this language that smacks of WP:Tend to me.
 * 34. http://www.ceelegalmatters.com/index.php/legal-analysis-white-collar-crime/item/2738-recent-developments-regarding-white-collar-crime-in-greece Recent Developments Regarding White Collar Crime in Greece - There is zero mention of Apax or Wind Hellas in the article! Which is especially bad, given the colourful accusations in the sentence: "The Greek general prosecutor opened an investigation against TPG, Apax and all main implicated parties including Nikesh Arora under art.1608/1950 of the Greek criminal code for "Crimes against the people of Greece”


 * Ernst and Young[edit]

Surely this is conflating the criticism of EY with criticism of Apax. WP:TEND This text is intended to live in the Apax Criticisms section, yet it contains no criticism of Apax, only Ernst and Young - so it reads like it's been included in order to pile criticism on to Apax. If the criticism of Ernst and Young belongs on any page, it's on EY's page, not here. Nowhere in any of the details of the Wind Hellas case has there been any suggestion that Apax conducted itself improperly as regards EY, regardless of what EY did. IF that suggestion is the reason for its inlcusion (and it might be) then shouldn't we come out and say so?


 * The following are hardly WP:NPOV WP:COI
 * 29. http://www.chadbourne.com/files/upload/Hellas_Adversary_Complaint.pdf United States Bankruptcy Court Southern District of New York. This PDF document is hosted on a website run by the Bondholder's lawyers!
 * 31. "In 2014, the Luxembourg liquidator sued TPG and Apax for 1.3 billion corresponding to the amount not recovered from the Arora embezzlement." The original article was so badly written that you’d struggle to say it came from an authoritative source. Example: It is being reportedly said that Arora is allegedly involved with many private equity fund companies, and there is reportedly a concern in some business circles that he could be held guilty of conflict of interest and potential insider trading. It is being said that the Wind Hellas scandal is just starting to surface...It is being reported that Arora is hoping for this storm to pass, and is maintaining a low profile A credible newspaper would say who is behind these statements. This newspaper doesn't. I think the Economist citation (its a massive article) is more than sufficient


 * So since the above citations are variously wrong, dead or tendentious, the copy they refer surely ought to go. The current Hellas coverage presents one side of a legal dispute as though it were established fact, post-verdict, and in such a blatant and carefree manner that neither Wikipedia not the reader can be said to benefit from it.


 * I suggest this alternative wording for Hellas (ahead of the verdict anyway)


 * "Following its sale of Wind Hellas in 2007, Apax and Hellas co-owner TPG were sued by former bondholders of the telecom company, who allege that Apax and TPG unjustifiably enriched themselves from the company and misrepresented the true state of the company’s accounts. Apax has countered that some of these bondholders only began their dispute after passing up on the chance of selling prior to the crash of 2007, and that Apax was not the legal owner of Hellas during the periods cited in some of the lawsuits. (In 2005 a New York judge awarded $56m to some of these bondholders, made against Hellas Telecommunications Finance and Hellas Finance, rather than Apax or TPG). As of December 2015, other lawsuits related to Apax and TPG’s ownership of Hellas are being heard in courts in the USA and in Luxembourg."

Any thoughts before I make these edits? I don't want to repeat my mistake of lumbering and deleting stuff that I (mistakenly) thought would be uncontested!

Any objections?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.23.121 (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Belated response 86.187.23.121. Firstly I agree there is uncited and damaging material here -which I would normally have removed myself on sight just as I've previously removed particular offensive anti-Semitic material .  I delayed because I wasn't sure of your paid-editing status and I had hoped to encourage the IPs to provide sources. I hope they don't feel intimidated -a problem we experienced even with UK journalists.  I now have permission to add another source re BUSM which will clarify the PO position and I'm attempting to get an expert Dutch editor to add material about PCM.  Re subjudice, I'm familiar with English Law and don't expect a problem with non-UK courts + carefully cited material. Regards JRPG (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)