Friday, April 28, 2017

Felda deal with Martua Sitorus brings back memories of Martua's involvement in the secretive Kestrel group of companies

by Ganesh Sahathevan


The Star reported this morning:

A MAJOR reshuffle is on the cards for the Federal Land Development Authority (Felda) and its plantation arm, Felda Global Ventures Holdings Bhd (FGV), that could see the emergence of a new shareholder in the latter.
Felda is said to be seeking the return of the land that is currently leased out to and managed by FGV because it feels that it can extract higher returns.
At the same time, FGV is also likely to see a new shareholder emerging.
According to sources, the party is said to be an investment vehicle led by Wilmar International Ltd co-founder Martua Sitorus.
“The strategic partner may either simply acquire the shares or inject plantation assets into FGV or both.

All this brings back for this writer memories of Martua's history with the Kestel group of companies, which were meant to remain in the shadows.Here is a summary.
File Note 
ACCORDING TO A SEARCH made on 11 March 1999 at the Registrar of 
Companies, Hong Kong, the Annual Return of Kestrel Capital (HK) Pte Ltd
("Kestrel") made up to 12 January 1995, showed the issued share capital 
to be 30,000,000 ordinary shares of HK$1.00 each.  Among its prominent 
shareholders were the following:

  Kestrel Capital Investments Ltd (British Vigin Islands) 9,000,000 
  Kestrel Capital Partners (M) Sdn Bhd (Klang)            1,500,000
  Berjaya Group (Cayman) Ltd (British West Indies)        1,500,000 
  K.I.P. Inc (Republic of Liberia)                        6,000,000 
  Lim Cheok Peng (Malaysian)                              1,500,000
  Tony Tan Chong Keat (Singaporean)                       1,500,000

In its lineup of Directors were the following high profile
well-connected individuals: 

  Mokhzani Mahathir -- also Director/Shareholder of Kestrel Capital
    Partners (M) Sdn Bhd;
  Lim Eng Hock -- also Director/Shareholder of Kestrel Capital Partners 
    (M) Sdn Bhd;
  Lim Cheok Peng -- also Managing Director of Parkway Healthcare Ltd;;
  Wee Ee Chao -- also Director/Major shareholder of K.I.P. Inc and Kay
    Hian Holdings Ltd. 

     Between mid-1995 and 1996, Berjaya (Caymen) Ltd., a wholly-owned 
subsidiary of Berjaya Group Bhd (BGB) and another subsidiary, Berjaya
Equities (Caymen) Ltd, began building up a 7.2 per cent stake in Parkway 
Holdings Ltd (listed on the Singapore Stock Exchange, SES).  Tony Tan is 
the Managing Director of Parkway Holdings Ltd (PHL).  Meanwhile, PHL's
private hospital arm, Parkway Healthcare Ltd, owns among others, Mount 
Elizabeth Hospital in Singapore.  On the other hand, Wee Ee Chao's
family controls UOB, one of the largest banks in Singapore, and which
has substantial banking interests in Malaysia, hence providing the
financial connexion.  Wee's own company, Kay Hian Holdings Ltd, is
listed on the SES, and has a wholly-owned stockbroking subsidiary, Kay 
Hian Securities Pte Ltd, and where Lim Eng Hock was a remisier.

     At or about the same time, BGB gained control of Hospital Pantai 
Berhad (HPB), which is listed on the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange (KLSE).
By late 1995, BGB's stake in HPB stood at about 79 per cent.  During the
material time, HPB's share price had meanwhile shot up from the 
RM3.00-RM4.00 range to between RM15.00-RM18.00.  BGB then used HPB to
acquire a further 12.8 per cent stake in PHL, and by mid-1996, BGB
controlled 20 per cent of PHL, through HPB and BGB's Cayman Island
subisidiaries.  BGB's subsidiaries then sold their stakes in PHL and
HPB.

     By November 1996, BGB had reduced its stake in HPB to 30 per cent, 
while another of Mokhzani Mahathir's listed companies, Tongkah Holdings 
Bhd (THB) announced it had acquired 21 per cent of HPB.  Kestrel's
Director, Lim Eng Hock, was responsible for placing out BGB's shares in
HPB to investors in Singapore and Indonesia.  It is likely that he 
brokered the earlier deals between BGB, PHL, HPB and THB.

     BGB eventually sold down its stake in HPB, and which now appears to
be controlled by Mokhzani's THB.  Nevertheless, BGB's foray into HPB 
proved to have been a very profitable one, given the rise in HPB's share
price during the relevant period.  Similarly, this would have also
profited those who purchased shares in HPB and PHL in early 1995, prior 
to the deals involving these companies.  The involvement of Mokhzani,
Tony Tan and Lim Cheok Peng, and Berjaya Group (Cayman) Ltd, which
originally bought the shares in PHL, together with Lim Eng Hock, who
brokered these deals in Kestrel, prior to the finalisation of such 
deals, suggests that Kesrel was used by them as a vehicle to deal in PHL
and HPB shares on the basis of information known only to themselves at 
the material time.
 

LCIA IPIC-1MDB consent award further complicated by revelation that IPIC is directly involved in a sham transaction,not disclosed to holders of its debt securities

by Ganesh Sahathevan



According to senior financial and legal executives, the main hurdle was fund units amounting to US$2.43 billion (S$3.4 billion) held by two 1MDB subsidiaries, Brazen Sky and 1MDB Global Investments, that were guaranteed by IPIC subsidiary Aabar Investments PJS. Aabar had disputed the guarantee.
To overcome the hurdle, 1MDB agreed to waive its right to claim from Aabar the US$2.43 billion guarantee. In return, Abu Dhabi arranged for an undisclosed entity domiciled in the Seychelles to buy the units from 1MDB at the guaranteed value, to be settled by deferred payments from this month to October 2022, said a senior financial executive familiar with the matter.

The transaction highlighted above implies that IPIC is  involved in a round robin transaction where it is in effect paying itself. Worse, the transaction will be booked at the guaranteed value , even after the guarantee is waived. This is clearly a sham transaction.
This new Straits Times revelation adds to the issues of illegality that taint the IPIC-1MDB settlement (see story below),and in fact shows IPIC itself to be directly involved in a new transaction in which the implication of money laundering is hard to avoid.
In addition , given IPIC's   reporting obligations to the London Stock Exchange and its own bondholders pursuant to its GMTN debt programme, the ST story shows IPIC to be guilty of concealing material information from the market.
The London Court Of International Arbitration (LCIA) is being asked to hand down a consent award that will encompass this and all the other transactions currently under investigation by the US Department Of Justice and the FBI, who  the Malaysian Government has made no secret they expect will be defeated by the LCIA consent award.
The likelihood that the consent award will be denied to illegality gets ever more likely.
END 


Thursday, April 27, 2017

Illegality may prevent London Arbitration Court from making a consent award in the IPIC-1MDB matter-Settlement may be denied


by Ganesh Sahathevan



Settlement weakens DOJ's case



IPIC informed the LSE on Monday:


International Petroleum Investment Company PJSC (IPIC), Aabar Investments PJS (Aabar), the Minister of Finance (Incorporated) Malaysia (MoF Inc.) and 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) are pleased to announce that an agreement has been reached between all parties that provides for a settlement in respect to the arbitration proceedings at the London Court of International Arbitration (the Settlement). The agreement is conditional on the Arbitration Tribunal making a consent award by 31 May 2017.


Meanwhile, a  senior figure in the Malaysian Government and ruling UMNO ,Puad Zarkashi, has said publicly that the settlement is intended to defeat a criminal investigation by the US Department of Justice ,and other national enforcement agencies into 1 MDB, the Malaysian Government and Najib Razak , the Prime Minister and Finance Minister: 

"This arbitration settlement has weakened the US DOJ civil suit and claims that 1MDB's funds were stolen," said Umno supreme council member Mohd Puad Zakarshi in a statement today.Mohd Puad is also the director-general of the Information Ministry's Special Affairs Division (Jasa).

While the rules governing arbitration courts are complex, it is hard to see that the London Court Of International  Arbitration  would want  to be a party to a  consent award where at least one party has made public that the award will be used as a means to defeat a a criminal investigation.To make matters worse, this is a matter that has been very widely publicized. worldwide and it would be impossible for anyone, including the arbitrators in this matter, to deny knowledge of what is intended.

END




Other references:

1MDB -IPIC settlement: 1MDB insists that IPIC will be paid out of "units" guaranteed by IPIC itself:-IPIC now implicated in money laundering



In July 2016 IPIC denied ever guaranteeing "fund units" which are central to its settlement with 1MDB:Units worthless without the guarantee







Thursday, April 27, 2017

Illegality may prevent London Arbitration Court from making a consent award in the IPIC-1MDB matter-Settlement may be denied

by Ganesh Sahathevan




Settlement weakens DOJ's case



IPIC informed the LSE on Monday:


International Petroleum Investment Company PJSC (IPIC), Aabar Investments PJS (Aabar), the Minister of Finance (Incorporated) Malaysia (MoF Inc.) and 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) are pleased to announce that an agreement has been reached between all parties that provides for a settlement in respect to the arbitration proceedings at the London Court of International Arbitration (the Settlement). The agreement is conditional on the Arbitration Tribunal making a consent award by 31 May 2017.


Meanwhile, a  senior figure in the Malaysian Government and ruling UMNO ,Puad Zarkashi, has said publicly that the settlement is intended to defeat a criminal investigation by the US Department of Justice ,and other national enforcement agencies into 1 MDB, the Malaysian Government and Najib Razak , the Prime Minister and Finance Minister: 

"This arbitration settlement has weakened the US DOJ civil suit and claims that 1MDB's funds were stolen," said Umno supreme council member Mohd Puad Zakarshi in a statement today.Mohd Puad is also the director-general of the Information Ministry's Special Affairs Division (Jasa).

While the rules governing arbitration courts are complex, it is hard to see that the London Court Of International  Arbitration  would want  to be a party to a  consent award where at least one party has made public that the award will be used as a means to defeat a a criminal investigation.To make matters worse, this is a matter that has been very widely publicized. worldwide and it would be impossible for anyone, including the arbitrators in this matter, to deny knowledge of what is intended.

END




Other references:

1MDB -IPIC settlement: 1MDB insists that IPIC will be paid out of "units" guaranteed by IPIC itself:-IPIC now implicated in money laundering







Monday, April 24, 2017

1MDB -IPIC settlement: 1MDB insists that IPIC will be paid out of "units" guaranteed by IPIC itself:-IPIC now implicated in money laundering

by Ganesh Sahathevan 

Image result for ipic abu dhabi
As reported by The Star:

1MDB said on Monday that as per the settlement, 1MDB will, amongst others, make certain payments to IPIC and will assume responsibility for all future interest and principal payments for two bonds issued by 1MDB Group companies due in 2022.

“These obligations will be met by 1MDB, primarily via monetisation of 1MDB-owned investment fund units. 

“1MDB is pleased to confirm that a first tranche monetisation of approximately US$50mil has been received, in cash.

“This arbitration settlement and monetisation of investment fund units represents the resolution of a significant challenge, and is a major part of the 1MDB rationalisation plan, which is now at its final stages of conclusion,” it said.



However:

According to the PAC Hansard, 1MDB's auditor Deloitte had testified: "We were satisfied on the guarantee given (backing the investment units), and Aabar is a subsidiary of IPIC, and IPIC credit rating is double ‘A’. We checked on that.”

"I think the guarantee is very important because it forms a basis of the valuation," said one auditor who testified.

And:



Aabar, the IPIC subsidiary, also helped 1MDB during a disputed audit. According to the Malaysia auditor general’s draft report, 1MDB fired KPMG LLP as its auditor in late 2013 after the firm declined to sign off on 1MDB’s accounts unless it received more details about $2.32 billion the fund said was invested in a Cayman Islands account(aka the units)
Aabar stepped in and guaranteed the Cayman Islands funds, an official for Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Ltd., which took over as 1MDB’s auditor, told a closed-door meeting of the parliamentary committee probing 1MDB, according to a transcript of the proceedings reviewed by the Journal. This guarantee was never made public. Deloitte later signed off on the fund’s accounts. KPMG and Deloitte declined to comment.
IPIC later denied ever having any such guarantee,  rendering the units worthless.Nevertheless, it is these same "units" that 1MDB claims have been "monetized" and are the source of funds for its first  and second tranche of payments of IPIC.
This matter has been made public since at least last Friday,and IPIC has not refuted any of the claims made by 1MDB,and in media quoting sources close to the the settlement negotiations.IPIC does however admit to receiving funds from 1MDB, which 1MDB says are from IPIC guaranteed "units".IPIC cannot now claim not to be part of the ongoing 1MDB money laundering.
The evidence against IPIC includes the 1MDB financial statements audited and signed-off by Delloites.

END 

Reference

In July 2016 IPIC denied ever guaranteeing "fund units" which are central to its settlement with 1MDB:Units worthless without the guarantee

Saturday, April 22, 2017

IPIC-1MDB settlement predicated on "fund units" that were valued by unknown firm: Delloites ,Singapore MAS ,and NRA in firing line

by Ganesh Sahathevan 

Given the renewed insistence that 1MDB's "Cayman fund units" are actually worth something (billions, 1MDB says)  . the following which was reported by this writer on a related blog is reproduced.
Clearly, Singapore MAS and 1MDB's auditor Delloites (who have since resigned) have much to answer for, as will IPIC once this deal is officially declared to the London Stock Exchange.
END 





by Ganesh Sahathevan

The material is presented as is, apart from the comment above which concerns the Monetary Authority Of Singapore and its apparent discomfort in having to deal with the entire 1 MDB matter.



Singapore's NRA Capital emerges as valuer of 

1MDB's Cayman investments

Anita GabrielThe Business TimesFriday, Apr 15, 2016
Singapore - Singapore's boutique finance house NRA Capital was roped in to value 1Malaysia Development Berhad's US$2.318 billion (S$3.15 billion) controversial Cayman Islands investment by fund manager Bridge Capital Partners.
This was disclosed in the Hansard transcripts on the hearings of Malaysia's Public Accounts Committee with Deloitte, the auditor which signed off the March 2013 and 2014 accounts of the troubled state-backed firm 1MDB.
NRA Capital is under the Netresearch group of companies founded by Kevin Scully, a well-known veteran market strategist in Singapore.
When contacted by The Business Times, Mr Scully said "valuing listed and unlisted companies and assets is what NRA Capital does in the ordinary course of the business."
During the three-hour PAC proceedings which largely delved into the factors that led to Deloitte's true and fair view of 1MDB's accounts, Deloitte disclosed that it had met with NRA Capital to understand its "methodology and competence" in valuing the Cayman-Islands registered Bridge Absolute Return Fund in which 1MDB had invested.
The fund was managed by little-known - up until the scandal blew up, that is - Hong Kong firm Bridge Capital which in turn hired NRA Capital as valuer of the investments; Bridge Capital subsequently changed its name to Avestra of Australia.
Ng Yee Hong, Deloitte Malaysia's partner, said at a hearing with PAC in June last year: "We met with the fund manager... and we obtained evaluation statement from the fund administrator. We further met with the valuer that has given input to the fund administrator, who in turn came up with the valuation statement.
"This company is called NRA Capital."
Mr Ng was responding to questions by the members of the bi-partisan parliamentary committee on whether Deloitte - 1MDB's third auditor since the firm's inception in 2009 - was "satisfied" with its investments in Cayman Islands funds, which took place in 2012.
1MDB's Cayman investments was slammed by critics for its choice of Bridge Partners, a modest outfit for a state-backed entity, as fund manager and the investment, among others, have since morphed into a full-scale financial scandal for Malaysia.
Moreover, the investments in Cayman Islands-registered funds followed complex transactions of Islamic notes issuance and asset flipping which began with a US$1 billion cash investment by 1MDB in a joint-venture with PetroSaudi International that eventually flopped.
The much-awaited PAC report which was released last week highlighted that key aspects of this investment were pushed ahead by 1MDB's top management without the board's approval and that funds were paid to firms whose ownership could not be verified.
The Cayman Islands investments was one of two "level three assets" - assets that are deemed illiquid - worth over RM13 billion (S$4.53 billion) held by 1MDB as stated in the 2014 accounts.
The second portion, according to Mr Ng in the transcripts, have been invested in funds managed by DBS Bank Ltd Hong Kong, Amicorp Fund Services, Orangefield Fund Services and Manulife Trust Ltd.
The custodian bank for all these investments is Swiss bank BSI, whose private banker at its Singapore branch was also the relationship manager to Jho Low and several 1MDB entities. The banker, Yak Yew Chee, has had his bank accounts frozen amid a probe by the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Commercial Affairs Department into the 1MDB money trail. Mr Yak left the bank in February.
Deloitte was appointed after KPMG, which had signed off 1MDB's accounts for 2010, 2011 and 2012, was "removed".
According to the Hansard transcripts on PAC's session with KPMG Malaysia partners, 1MDB's management was "unhappy over delays on the 2013 audit" as KPMG had requested further details on the Cayman Islands investments to ascertain its underlying value.

This article was first published on April 15, 2016.
Get The Business Times for more stories.
- See more at: http://business.asiaone.com/news/singapores-nra-capital-emerges-valuer-1mdbs-cayman-investments#sthash.ScTbNrEr.dpuf

See also 

In July 2016 IPIC denied ever guaranteeing "fund units" which are central to its settlement with 1MDB:Units worthless without the guarantee

Comment 

Singapore's Straits Times reported this morning that Malaysia and Abu Dhabi had "reached a settlement on a dispute involving billions of dollars in debt obligations of scandal-scarred 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) that is at the centre of an international money-laundering probe."


The paper also reported:
A central piece of the proposed settlement calls for Malaysia to repay Abu Dhabi US$1.2 billion (S$1.7 billion) before the end of this year. The amount represents a loan and accumulated interest charges on a bailout financial package 1MDB received from Abu Dhabi’s International Petroleum Investment Company, or Ipic, in July 2015. 
The bulk of the payment on the outstanding loan amount will come from the sale of so-called “fund units” from Brazen Sky Ltd, a financial unit owned by 1MDB, to an undisclosed buyer, according to the financial executives. 

The above is clearly inconsistent with this report by Bloomberg:
ABU DHABI • A sovereign fund in Abu Dhabi embroiled in a debt dispute with 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) has said it did not guarantee any of the Malaysian state company's holdings in a Cayman fund, stirring up more questions on investments that amounted to billions of dollars.
International Petroleum Investment Co (Ipic) is also investigating companies set up outside its group structure and in other jurisdictions that used variations of the name of its Aabar Investments PJS unit, it said in an exchange filing on Thursday. It had earlier denied ownership of a company known as Aabar BVI, to which 1MDB said it sent US$3.5 billion (S$4.7 billion).
Ipic did not say if the other entities using Aabar's name were also related to 1MDB.
1MDB is at the centre of probes at home and abroad, including in Switzerland, the United States and Singapore as the authorities seek to determine if some of the billions of dollars it raised were siphoned off. While it has denied wrongdoing, a report by a Malaysian parliamentary committee in April identified at least US$4.2 billion of questionable transactions, including those involving Abu Dhabi companies.
Investigators are faced with a complex web of transactions, some of which involve companies with similar names.
1MDB has "intimated the existence of guarantees" of about US$940 million provided by Aabar for units in a Cayman-registered fund owned by 1MDB unit Brazen Sky, and guarantees from Aabar BVI of investments held with various third-party fund managers of about US$1.5 billion, Ipic said in a statement on Thursday. 
In September 2012, 1MDB sold its shares in a venture for US$2.32 billion and received units in a Cayman-registered fund managed by Bridge Partners, a Hong Kong- based fund manager.
1MDB said the units were owned by Brazen Sky, and held through Swiss bank BSI's unit in Singapore as custodian. Transcripts of a parliamentary committee probe of 1MDB show lawmakers were told by its auditor of an investment guarantee by Aabar.
"Both Ipic and Aabar confirm there is no record of any such guarantees being provided by Aabar," Ipic said. "Neither Ipic nor Aabar has received any payments, assets or fund units from Brazen Sky."
1MDB declined to comment on the Ipic statement. It has said it negotiated "various legal agreements" with the previous heads of Ipic and Aabar, and called it a "surprising claim" that neither Gulf company knew of its dealings with Aabar .
Ipic entered into an agreement with 1MDB in 2015 to provide the Malaysian fund with US$1 billion to settle liabilities in exchange for a transfer of assets, and assume interest obligations on US$3.5 billion of debt. The tussle between the two spilled over to repayments on bonds issued by 1MDB, which led to a default in April.
BLOOMBERG
A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Straits Times on July 02, 2016, with the headline 'Ipic denies guaranteeing 1MDB's Cayman investments'. Print Edition | Subscribe

IPIC's "no predicate offence" agreement with 1MDB predicated on "fund units" Australia's ASIC could not find, in an investment fund since liquidated

by Ganesh Sahathevan


Image result for ipic abu dhabi

As previously reported:

Singapore's Straits Times reported this morning that Malaysia and Abu Dhabi had "reached a settlement on a dispute involving billions of dollars in debt obligations of scandal-scarred 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) that is at the centre of an international money-laundering probe."


The paper also reported:
A central piece of the proposed settlement calls for Malaysia to repay Abu Dhabi US$1.2 billion (S$1.7 billion) before the end of this year. The amount represents a loan and accumulated interest charges on a bailout financial package 1MDB received from Abu Dhabi’s International Petroleum Investment Company, or Ipic, in July 2015. 
The bulk of the payment on the outstanding loan amount will come from the sale of so-called “fund units” from Brazen Sky Ltd, a financial unit owned by 1MDB, to an undisclosed buyer, according to the financial executives. 


y no longer can be.
However, even if the units actually existed, the investment company to which the funds were supposed to have been placed with in the first place (ie the unit fund) no longer exists.Therefore, even if the units did actually exist, they no longer can be. In addition the fund manager too seems to have been liquidated.

Evidence for all this was provided in an earlier article on this blog, the Australian investment regulator, ASCI, found no evidence of the "units". 






5



by Ganesh Sahathevan

Australian regulators have found no evidence that 1 MDB's US$ 2 billion " Cayman units" exist.

Investigators at the Australian Securities & Investment Commission (ASIC) ,which is in the process of liquidating the manager of the funds those  "units" are supposed to represent,   have only found amounts in the ten of millions under management, and nothing near the sum 1 MDB is supposed to have invested. 

That the Australian Securities & Investment Commission (ASIC) has obtained orders to liquidate Avestra, the company that is at least on paper the manager of 1 MDB's funds, has been previously reported on this blog.

It has also been reported that an affidavit in support of ASIC's liquidation and other actions against Avestra had  been sighted and the  that Bridge Global Absolute Return Fund, the fund under which 1 MDB's US$ 2 billion is supposed to be held,  is not listed among funds under Avestra's management.


ASIC has however uncovered a scheme which involved the swapping of fund units in an apparent attempt to hide the underlying assets, if not the funds themselves.













In the matter of 1 MDB the existence of any underlying assets is doubtful, as is the existence of the fund itself, at least at the relevant time.These issues have been described in the posting below.
END








UPDATE 
The following has been extracted from the 1 MDB website and has been posted under their heading  Facts in relation to blog posting entitled “More Investments by 1MDB” by Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad :

  • In September 2012, 1MDB sold its shares in PetroSaudi Oil Services Limited for USD2.318 billion and received fund units in a Cayman registered fund. The Cayman registered fund is managed by Bridge Partners, a Hong Kong-based fund manager. These fund units were owned by 1MDB via its 100% subsidiary, Brazen Sky, and held through BSI Bank Singapore as custodian.


As has been reported ,the Cayman fund was only registered and licensed on 15 November 2013. 


by Ganesh Sahathevan

The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority's records show that the fund in which 1 MDB invested some USD 2 billion did not exist ,or was not registered , on the date the transaction is reported to have taken place.

1 MDB is reported to have invested USD 2,2 billion in Bridge Global Absolute Return Fund SPC segregated portfolio units in August 2012.

However, the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority's list of mutual funds shows that the only fund named " Bridge Global Absolute Return Fund SPC" was issued its license on 15 November 2013, more than a year AFTER 1 MDB is reported to have made its investment.
WIthout that license, Bridge Global Absolute Return Fund SPC would not have been able to accept funds for investment as an entity subject to the laws of the Caymans and it is doubtful if it would have otherwise existed. Even if it was in existence before that date, 1 MDB could not have dealt with it given its lack of standing. 

A convenient timeline of events is provided by The Star:

In 2012, the Islamic debt papers were redeemed and 1MDB ended up with a 49% stake in PetroSaudi Oil Services Ltd (PSOSL). The value of the 49% stake was US$2.2bil (RM6.8bil).

1MDB eventually sold the 49% stake to Bridge Partners Interna­tional Investment Ltd in August the same year, and received promissory notes amounting to US$2.32bil (RM7.18bil) from Bridge Partners.

In the same month, 1MDB through its subsidiary Brazen Sky Ltd invested the promissory notes into Bridge Global Absolute Return Fund SPC and Bridge Partners Investment Management Company (Cayman) Ltd.

1MDB redeemed part of the money amounting to US$1.22bil (RM4.03bil).

As previously reported on this blog, the purported manager of those funds, Avestra of Australia, is being liquidated by the regulator ,the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) for breaches of the law. Howwer, ASIC has found no evidence of the existence of the Bridge Global Absolute Return Fund SPC or any of its segregated portfolios. The name does however appear in a number of Australian  Stock Exchange disclosures ,as reported here previously
It should be noted that the Cayman records show Bridge Global Absolute Return Fund SPC  to be "Registered" but not a "Master Fund". Given that Bridge Global is said to manage a number of segregated portfolios, one would expect the latter, but this is not the case.
END