12 replies to this topic

[magong]

Netcares special resolution no 3

 

Netcare share price has decreased somewhat.The general market is down , but this is a bit more.

 

The only 3 things I could think of:

 

1) Capital Gains Tax

"South Africans now pay 13.3% on the gains of property sold in the UK to the South African fiscus. From next year, they will pay 28% in the UK and 13.3% in South Africa, but due to the double tax relief they will only pay capital gains tax in the UK because of the higher rate in the UK, Mr Honiball said."

 

 So--when Netcare sell its hospitals ( NTC  must sell 7 hospitals according to the competition commission in the UK----if there is CGT to be paid--it will be at a rate of 28 % However I am not sure whether the hospitals to be sold will be only the operational company  or the property company as well

http://www.bdlive.co...bad-news-for-sa

 

 

2 ")Global Credit Ratings has today affirmed the long term national scale and affirmed the short term national scale issuer ratings assigned to Netcare Limited of A_(ZA) and A1_(ZA) respectively; with the ratings retained on Rating Watch."

 

http://globalratings...ok-rating-watch

 

Not sure if this will upset the markets

 

3)"following feedback from the Company’s advisors, the Company has decided to modify Special Resolution 3 to be tabled for adoption by shareholders at the annual general meeting..........authorise the Company to provide direct or indirect financial assistance to a related or inter-related company, including the provision of financial assistance to noteholders in connection with the subscription of Notes issued or to be issued by Clindeb Investments Limited (the Issuer) pursuant to its Domestic Note Programme, and for purposes of the subscription for any other debt instruments issued or to be issued by the Issuer from time to time.”

 

http://www.sharenet....24164500&seq=40

 

compare this to the initial special resolution --which appears to be a "regular " type of phrasing:

 

"Resolved that, to the extent required by the Companies Act, the board of directors of the Company may, subject to compliance with the requirements of the Company's MOI, the Companies Act and the JSE Listings Requirements, each as presently constituted and as amended from time to time, authorise the Company to provide direct or indirect financial assistance to a related or inter-related company"

 

Is this paving the way for the bail out of Genral Healthcare Group?

I dont know , but I think no 3 is worrying the market

Edited by magong, 27 January 2014 - 08:20 PM.

[magong]

Netcares share price dropped 6 % on Friday.

 

3  important issues may be related to that:

 

1) The first deadline for the debt extension has been reached on 15th January  --apparently without any resolution  re the Propcos long term debt. Another extension till April is possible. I assume this 15 th January deadline has been decided on because that was the due date for the Competition Commissions verdict about private healthcare in the UK

Interesting the final deadline for the debt extension that has been negotiated falls on the 15 th April which is also the deadline for the final verdict of the Comp Com

It appears all the parties involved in this huge debt are waiting for the Comp Com verdict.

Why?

I assume it can only mean one thing: will Netcare /GHG be able to service the rentals if the 7 hospitals to be sold  constitute a big % of their income

The share price drop on Friday may just mean that thre will be a problem

 

2) The Comp Coms decision: BMI=GHG= Netcare UK has to sell off 7 of its hospitals in the UK , esp in the London area

 

        http://www.competiti...vate-healthcare

        http://www.theguardi...vate-healthcare

  Again out of all the BMI hospitals--which are the most profitable? Remember the Comp Com concentrated on the hospitals where there is very little market competition--so I suppose the most profitable will include the 7

Netcare will surely appeal--and this may be a long process

 

3)The Netcare directors have been selling shares , first Da Silva  sold a huge bunch last year , now Levin quite a number over the past few months

[magong]

The Netcare story is fascinating . To put the UK property debt in perspective , it is about 24 billion in ZAR terms. That equates to about a third of the whole of  Gautengs yearly  budget =R74 billion ZAR

 

If you watched the youtube clip of Bird and Fortune ., it is frightening how huge financial numbers--and risk --gets hidden from the public /investors eye in jargon and on purpose.

Ask the average financial analyst to explain what is cooking in the UK and they wont have an inkling.

I dont have either

The best Friedland could come up at the previous AGM is that it is best hidden from the public domain or something to the effect

I just wonder whether shareholders like ourselves do not have the right to know about any fine print risks at the moment

[Aragorn]

Scary reading this is. But thanks for all the inputs magong.

Been a long term holder of NTC for many years now.

[magong]

Netcare/GHG

a few thoughts/ questions

1) This £175m: I presume is to service the interest over the next 6-12 months

 

http://www.thesunday...icle1329532.ece

 

   KKKR bought their portion of the debt at a huge discount

Obviously they see some sort of solution to this debt crisis - or are they just desperate?

 

2)If the imminent default/bankrupcy of the propco materialize : what will the postion of the opco  equipment in the hospitals be? According to a previous aricle it will regarded  be part of the propco , then will also go under the hammer.That will mean that immensely expensive high tech equipment will have to be replaced or bought back by the Netcare /GHG opco hospitals. Will they get it at a nominal price? Replacement value? Have to buy new equipment( if the old equipment goes on a fire sale)?

 

Another quote from one of the articles:

"This is necessary because the 36 private hospitals have such a specific operational use, that the value is directly linked to the financial health of the GHG operating company. That is, the sale value of the properties would be lower to non-specialist investors who do not require such bespoke fit out."

 

Then there is a clause that has been mentioned in an article a year ago  which makes a rent default a catastrophe for the OPC of NetcareGHG:

"Distressed debt investors say there is also a clause that allows the propco to take over the operating arm at book value should a rental payment be missed."

http://www.ft.com/in...144feabdc0.html

 

This article also mentions a rights issue by Netcare---which Netcare said will not happen

 

 

In short it means that if GHG/Netcare becomes less profitable becuase of all the factors in the UK healthcare scenario , the propery may even be worth less

 

These are quite important questions to be asked at the Netcare AGM.

The opco (GHG Netcares hospital arm) is ringfenced from the propco.But is it immune to events:

   1)rising rentals(supposed to be fixed--but can a deal be struck with the opco/creditors where the rental is increased to save the propco)

   2) the equipment issue as mentioned

   3) what happens if a rental due is missed?

 

All in all I suppose money talks , all will depend on what the biggest role players can get or lose in any agreement. The complexity is such that I cant see it resolved by January

 

 

 

 

 

 

TWO vulture funds are preparing to pump £175m into Britain’s biggest hospital chain as it grapples with more than £1bn of loans

[magong]

Netcare/GHG UK story revisited

 

Well the whole Netcare/GHG UK story is crystal clear to me now. I cant help it if you dont understand it. But i will help you a little with a very instructional little video which can be used in all these scenarios. Please watch it before going through the details of the article

 

 

http://www.costar.co...-restructuring/

 

"The Propco loans were backed by 36 hospital properties and equipment operated by hospital group BMI."

 

The interesting bit here is that in case of default on the propco loans  , the equipment in the hospitals will be jeopardised as well. This is huge money for a hospital: second hand high tech equipment is worth nothing compared to the replacement value. So--if their is a default , the equipment will be lost and need to be replaced. However , I assume , in such a scenario the equipment will be bought back by the opco at fair value as it is in the interest of everybody that the Opco(Netcare hospital divsion) continues  functioning to pay the rent  to the propco. Still , it will be a huge expense and I wonder how Netcare will finance it should this happen.

 

I initially thought that the rent charged to Netcare/GHG opco may be increased. However I am not a financial fundi , but I assume the increase in interest on the huge debt will be secured by loans/ "financial instruments" and the rent payable by the opco will remain isq. May be wrong

 

 

:"Crucially, under the proposed terms, during this five-year loan extension there can be no property disposals which would be considered value-decretive to junior lenders.

Junior lenders have offered this fresh capital, arguably, to avoid a situation where the senior lenders are prepared to accelerate the loan, crystallising the interest rate swap breakage costs, and follow an accelerated divestiture programme of the 35 UK hospitals.

The senior lenders, potentially, could be motivated to do so, although there are valuation and even political considerations to reflect on.

Capita has ordered a new valuation of the 35-strong hospital portfolio, which is due by 15 November.

The realisable value of the hospitals could be markedly different dependent upon the circumstances of the disposal. Even if the new valuation comes back higher than the existing £1.45bn desktop valuation dated to September 2012, an enforced piecemeal sale of the assets could deliver lower sales prices and, therefore, a sub-optimal capital recovery for junior lenders."

 

The competition commission ( a silent roleplayer in the whole saga--but certainly prominenet in all the agendas) into healthcare in the UK has recommended the selling of some of GHG UK operations. I assume it will be only the opco part , leaving the propco as is.

 

"As ever with CMBS restructuring proposals, the outcome is never certain and this is arguably an even more complex, multi-party negotiation than Deutsche Annington’s GRAND CMBS restructuring talks."

 

Any case it looks like some sort of a solution is in the offing , bar another downturn in the financial markets.

Heaven helps if one domino slips....

 

 

 

[magong]

Netcares GHG/UK debt .....had my dates wrong , 15/10 was the date

Sens yesterday on JSE and this update. So the issue remains complex , their may be some kind of update at the time of the results.

"Further feedback, as appropriate, will be provided following the release of the Company’s
audited results for the year ended 30 September 2013."

http://www.sharenet.co.za/v3/sens_display.php?tdate=20131015173000&seq=48

The question remains: if the interest rate is increased on the propco loan , how does Netcare /GHG envisage that the increased interest  (which will likely then translate into increased rental for the properties leased to the  OPCO/GHG/Netcare hospital division ) be serviced ? There will likely be no option for the opco , Netcare/GHG but to pay a higher rental for the properties. Can they afford it?

 

 

"October 15, 2013

 

A three-month loan extension has been agreed for one of the most complex European CMBS work outs seen, to enable continued negotiation of a longer term restructuring of General Healthcare Group’s £1.54bn Theatre Hospitals CMBS.

The debt’s maturity has been pushed back to 15 January 2014 with the option to roll that to April, said the deal’s master servicer, Capita.

Outline term sheets have also been exchanged for a longer term, five-year extension of the debt which involves a new subordinated loan that will be used to pay senior creditors. Lenders are likely to be part of the existing structure – those in junior positions as well as new players.

The restructuring proposal is also likely to involve an increase in the interest payable on the whole senior loan, and the allocation of surplus cash flow towards repayment of it.

Capita’s Jim O’Leary explained: “Now we have injected another three months to hopefully get the deal done, and outline term sheets have been exchanged, we need to continue dialogue with all stakeholders in an attempt to reach agreement for a longer term restructuring”.

The likely aim is to simplify the capital structure, negotiating a rise in margins and firm amortisation check points, and avoid a potential sell down of some of the underlying 35 UK private hospitals, most recently valued at £1.45bn.

The deal is particularly complex because the CMBS contains 35 loans across two securitisations (Theatre Hospitals No.1 and No.2) with two groups of senior notes totalling £615m. In addition, unsecuritized senior lenders hold £279m and around 20 junior lenders hold £643m, which has contributed to the challenge of negotiating a consensual plan. There is also a long-dated interest rate swap.

An attempt last month by one of the senior noteholders – Barclays – to block itself from voting over the restructuring to avoid clashing with the interests of Ambac, a group it took out hedging contracts with, also complicated proceedings."

 

http://realestatepub...-restructuring/

 

[magong]

Netcare/GHG in UK

 

Well ,I suppose it is D-Day today-1/10/2013--for the debt restructuring . Perhaps there was a last minute solution to the problem--we will see.

Basically the propco properties will be returned to the lenders now.

The big question going forward--as mentioned in the article --will be whether Netcare /GHG (the opco arm of GHG) will be able to service its maintenance , rental and interest in a depressed healthcare environment  , esp in view of the competition commissions findings ( that they must sell some of their biggest operations --probably at a discount)

Again it has non recourse to the South African operations. Netcare has said that it wont resort to share issue to bail Netcare/GHG in UK out. Still , with the looming competition commission investigation into private healthcare in South Africa , there may be a few dark clouds on the horizon. The SA comp com will probably take some cues from the UK compcom model

 

"That would be a heavy blow for an already struggling company, and is likely to provoke legal challenges. Even before the commission’s threat to enforce selloffs, BMI’s finances have been stretched close to the limit. Unable to cope with financial liabilities of more than £2bn, the property arm will soon be surrendered. Ownership of most of the BMI hospital buildings will next month therefore effectively transfer to lenders, led by Barclays and Rabobank as well as a group of bondholders, who will act as landlord to the rump operating company, which will continue to trade as BMI Healthcare.

BMI insists this will have no impact on the financial health of the ongoing business. However, the latest accounts show the remaining operations are also under financial strain. Last year, BMI generated a top line operating profit of about £195m, but had to meet £150m in rent and £14m in interest bills. In addition, it spent £40m on keeping the hospitals in good functioning order.

One sector analyst said lenders typically insist on a healthcare business generating operating profits of at least two-and-a-half to three times the sum required to meet rent and interest bills. Last year, BMI’s figure was about 1.2 times. As a result, it saw a net cash outflow after its £40m bill for capital expenditure. Last year, debtholders sold £65m of secured loans, issued by BMI, to the hospital group’s largest shareholder, Netcare, at the distressed price of 70p in the pound — a move seen by some as showing a lack of faith in BMI’s financial strength.

Last month, BMI struck a deal with lenders to reduce its interest bill and delay repayments. Dipping into cash reserves and selling off interests in Transform, a low-cost cosmetic surgery business, and the Care fertility clinic chain, helped cut borrowings from £233m a year ago to £145m.

Privately, however, management admit BMI still does little more than cover its rent and capital expenditure commitments, struggling in a depressed market with record low numbers of insured lives."

 

http://www.masshealt...-hospitals.html

[magong]

Netcare UK in the cauldron The Guardian says. There are 2 big issues that impact on them:

           1) astronomical property debt that defies restructuring(deadline October)---which will lead to the PROPCO properties being defaulted to the  creditors

           2) timing of the UK competition commission report into private healthcare--published 2 weeks ago---which recommend various measures that may well impinge on the OPCO division of GHGs profits

 

An interesting issue may be the rental that the PROPCO is charging the OPCO. The propco is structured in such a way that all 50 odd GHG/Netcare UKs hospitals are seperately registered in a tax haven in the islands off shore. Now this would have been a nice conduit for the PROPCO of GHG/NetcareUK to charge greater than market value rental to the OPCO and thus syphon taxable profits to the tax haven via the PROPCO . If so , this excessive rental may put an additional sqeeuze on the OPCO

 

http://www.theguardi...-sell-hospitals

 

"

Competition regulators are privately discussing forcing BMI to sell 10 of its 64 hospitals to unwind its competitive dominance, the Guardian has learned. Among the sites it may be forced to surrender are Alexandra hospital in south Manchester and the Priory hospital in Birmingham – two of BMI's biggest operations.

Meanwhile, without additional capital from its backers, led by South African firm Netcare, Apax Partners and London & Regional, the business behind BMI – which next month is expected to jettison its debt-laden property arm – could be brought down by the Competition Commission's intervention. Since the failure of nursing home group Southern Cross two years ago, health and social care regulators have been growing increasingly concerned about the impact on vital services of aggressively financed private providers loaded with unsustainable rent or debt commitments."

 

[magong]

Netcare UK in the cauldron The Guardian says. There are 2 big issues that impact on them:

           1) astronomical property debt that defies restructuring(deadline October)---which will lead to the PROPCO properties being defaulted to the  creditors

           2) timing of the UK competition commission report into private healthcare--published 2 weeks ago---which recommend various measures that may well impinge on the OPCO division of GHGs profits

 

An interesting issue may be the rental that the PROPCO is charging the OPCO. The propco is structured in such a way that all 50 odd GHG/Netcare UKs hospitals are seperately registered in a tax haven in the islands off shore. Now this would have been a nice conduit for the PROPCO of GHG/NetcareUK to charge greater than market value rental to the OPCO and thus syphon taxable profits to the tax haven via the PROPCO . If so , this excessive rental may put an additional sqeeuze on the OPCO

 

http://www.theguardi...-sell-hospitals

 

"

Competition regulators are privately discussing forcing BMI to sell 10 of its 64 hospitals to unwind its competitive dominance, the Guardian has learned. Among the sites it may be forced to surrender are Alexandra hospital in south Manchester and the Priory hospital in Birmingham – two of BMI's biggest operations.

Meanwhile, without additional capital from its backers, led by South African firm Netcare, Apax Partners and London & Regional, the business behind BMI – which next month is expected to jettison its debt-laden property arm – could be brought down by the Competition Commission's intervention. Since the failure of nursing home group Southern Cross two years ago, health and social care regulators have been growing increasingly concerned about the impact on vital services of aggressively financed private providers loaded with unsustainable rent or debt commitments."

 

[magong]

The NetcareUK propco story getting more bizarre by the day

 

Barclays Bank’s attempt to block itself from voting in the imminent restructuring vote for General Healthcare Group’s (GHG) vastly-complex £1.5bn debt stack has failed after a High Court written judgement rejected the bank’s “a hundred per cent u-turn”.

In the words of Justice Peter Smith: “The set up and structure of the various transactions seems to a simple-minded property lawyer to be Byzantine in the extreme.”

 

http://www.costar.co...ourt-judgement/

[magong]

Well it looks like the previous story is coming to a head a bit sooner than 3 months.

 

The UK CompCom delivered its findings today:

                       Pvt Hospitals will have to sell off some of their hospitals etc.essentially anti competitive behaviour will stop. The sell-off will affect the OPCO division of BMI/GHG/Netcare ---to what extend the share price will tell us.I expect lengthy appeals however. The same picture will unfold in SA over the next year with the SA CompCom investigation into healthcare---only the collution here by private hospitals the will be much more substantial. wonder how many whistleblowers there are lurking.

 

 

"the report is critical of providers such as HCA International and BMI Healthcare, stating that: “HCA charges significantly higher prices to insurers than other operators, even allowing for higher costs in London. Of the other hospital operators, BMI has consistently charged the highest price to insurers in recent years… BMI, HCA and Spire have, during the period under review, been earning returns substantially and persistently in excess of the cost of capital. Ramsay did so for some of the period.”

Stephen Collier, chief executive of BMI Healthcare, said in a statement: “We reject absolutely any assertion that BMI Healthcare and its hospitals exercise market power or that we make excess profits at the expense of patients.”

The report does not name the 20 hospitals recommended for divestment, with a further announcement expected this Friday, but the report cites BMI Healthcare, Spire Healthcare and HCA International as operators that benefit from dominance in certain markets.

The report states that divestment of these assets should be to both new entrants and existing players, and it is expected rival groups such as Ramsay Healthcare, Nuffield Health, Circle Health and Care UK will look to carve up the hospitals between them.

It is possible that an overseas buyer could look to acquire all 20 of the assets, however the hospitals are unlikely to provide the scale and infrastructure required for a major overseas investor.

Other remedies suggested included measures to prevent incumbents in areas with just one or two hospitals from expanding and deterring entry by partnering with NHS hospitals to operate Private Patient Units.

The CC also recommends preventing hospital operators from offering to consultants any arrangements, in cash or kind, which create incentives for consultants to refer patients to or treat them at its hospitals.

The report also considers measures to prevent tying and bundling—where a hospital operator seeks to use its position in local areas as leverage in its negotiations with insurers—by stopping hospital operators responding to a loss of business or reduction in price in one area by raising charges in another.

CC chairman and chairman of the Private Healthcare Inquiry Group, Roger Witcomb said: “The lack of competition in the healthcare market at a local level means that most private patients are paying more than they should either for private medical insurance or for self-funded treatment. The lack of available and comparable information, often less than is available to NHS patients, also makes informed choices—which could help drive competition—for these patients difficult.”he report is critical of providers such as HCA International and BMI Healthcare, stating that: “HCA charges significantly higher prices to insurers than other operators, even allowing for higher costs in London. Of the other hospital operators, BMI has consistently charged the highest price to insurers in recent years… BMI, HCA and Spire have, during the period under review, been earning returns substantially and persistently in excess of the cost of capital. Ramsay did so for some of the period.”

Stephen Collier, chief executive of BMI Healthcare, said in a statement: “We reject absolutely any assertion that BMI Healthcare and its hospitals exercise market power or that we make excess profits at the expense of patients.”

The report does not name the 20 hospitals recommended for divestment, with a further announcement expected this Friday, but the report cites BMI Healthcare, Spire Healthcare and HCA International as operators that benefit from dominance in certain markets.

The report states that divestment of these assets should be to both new entrants and existing players, and it is expected rival groups such as Ramsay Healthcare, Nuffield Health, Circle Health and Care UK will look to carve up the hospitals between them.

It is possible that an overseas buyer could look to acquire all 20 of the assets, however the hospitals are unlikely to provide the scale and infrastructure required for a major overseas investor.

Other remedies suggested included measures to prevent incumbents in areas with just one or two hospitals from expanding and deterring entry by partnering with NHS hospitals to operate Private Patient Units.

The CC also recommends preventing hospital operators from offering to consultants any arrangements, in cash or kind, which create incentives for consultants to refer patients to or treat them at its hospitals.

The report also considers measures to prevent tying and bundling—where a hospital operator seeks to use its position in local areas as leverage in its negotiations with insurers—by stopping hospital operators responding to a loss of business or reduction in price in one area by raising charges in another.

CC chairman and chairman of the Private Healthcare Inquiry Group, Roger Witcomb said: “The lack of competition in the healthcare market at a local level means that most private patients are paying more than they should either for private medical insurance or for self-funded treatment. The lack of available and comparable information, often less than is available to NHS patients, also makes informed choices—which could help drive competition—for these patients difficult.”he report is critical of providers such as HCA International and BMI Healthcare, stating that: “HCA charges significantly higher prices to insurers than other operators, even allowing for higher costs in London. Of the other hospital operators, BMI has consistently charged the highest price to insurers in recent years… BMI, HCA and Spire have, during the period under review, been earning returns substantially and persistently in excess of the cost of capital. Ramsay did so for some of the period.”

Stephen Collier, chief executive of BMI Healthcare, said in a statement: “We reject absolutely any assertion that BMI Healthcare and its hospitals exercise market power or that we make excess profits at the expense of patients.”

The report does not name the 20 hospitals recommended for divestment, with a further announcement expected this Friday, but the report cites BMI Healthcare, Spire Healthcare and HCA International as operators that benefit from dominance in certain markets.

The report states that divestment of these assets should be to both new entrants and existing players, and it is expected rival groups such as Ramsay Healthcare, Nuffield Health, Circle Health and Care UK will look to carve up the hospitals between them.

It is possible that an overseas buyer could look to acquire all 20 of the assets, however the hospitals are unlikely to provide the scale and infrastructure required for a major overseas investor.

Other remedies suggested included measures to prevent incumbents in areas with just one or two hospitals from expanding and deterring entry by partnering with NHS hospitals to operate Private Patient Units.

The CC also recommends preventing hospital operators from offering to consultants any arrangements, in cash or kind, which create incentives for consultants to refer patients to or treat them at its hospitals.

The report also considers measures to prevent tying and bundling—where a hospital operator seeks to use its position in local areas as leverage in its negotiations with insurers—by stopping hospital operators responding to a loss of business or reduction in price in one area by raising charges in another.

CC chairman and chairman of the Private Healthcare Inquiry Group, Roger Witcomb said: “The lack of competition in the healthcare market at a local level means that most private patients are paying more than they should either for private medical insurance or for self-funded treatment. The lack of available and comparable information, often less than is available to NHS patients, also makes informed choices—which could help drive competition—for these patients difficult.”

http://www.healthinv...CookieSupport=1

 

Secondly the PROPCO division of GHG/BMI/Netcare is still in the process of securing refinancing. At least one of the senior lenders ,Barclays , is not enthusiastic about the proposed refinancing and wants a measured sale of some of the PROPCO properties(the private hospital properties/buildings) The propco problems are supposedly non-recource to the opco operations. However it may also  be that Barclays is worried about the ability of the opco of the UK Netcare/GHG/BMI to service the rentals in view of the findings of the CompCom

'General Healthcare Lenders Can Vote on Debt Deal, Judge Rules

By Jeremy Hodges - Aug 23, 2013 4:17 PM GMT+0200

Barclays Plc (BARC) can vote on a proposed restructuring of about 660 million pounds ($1 billion) of securitized debt linked to General Healthcare Group Ltd., a London judge ruled.

Barclays is among a group of senior lenders to General Healthcare who had sought guidance on their voting rights, Judge Peter Smith said in his ruling today. Loans underlying two special purpose vehicles are due to be repaid in October, and if a restructuring isn’t arranged “there is likely to be a security shortfall,” a Citigroup Inc. unit acting as trustee to the debt said in documents from a court hearing August 14.

Junior lenders to General Healthcare, whose largest shareholder is South Africa-based Netcare Ltd. (NTC) and runs 65 private hospitals in the U.K., are seeking to extend the date of repayment for about 1.5 billion pounds of debt maturing in October.

Barclays holds 231 million pounds of Class A notes issued by Theatre (Hospitals) No. 1 Plc, and 57 million pounds in Class B notes sold by Theatre (Hospitals) No. 2 Plc, according to the judgment. Rabobank International has 154 million pounds in Class A Notes of the Theatre 2 bonds, which are subject to a swap agreement with Barclays.

Citicorp Trustee Company Ltd. can’t proceed with a restructuring without approval from Barclays and Rabobank, it said in legal documents."

 

http://www.bloomberg...udge-rules.html

 

I find all this  very fascinating and complex , perhaps Shevell was very clever when he cashed in and jumped the boat

Another story is that Mediclin wants to sell off chunks of its priate hospitals to the specialists working in them--after they recently registered each of them in a seperate company. The profits have been made , the compcom is coming , lets decrease our exposure  , I think , is the background

We will see