Hello.

My name is Edward Skading, from Selangor, Malaysia. I am writing for your viewpoint and support towards a good cause campaign to protect and uphold our consumer rights.

I am being sued by an arrogant corporate company (F&N Dairies (M) Sdn Bhd) because I exposed a horrible discovery concerning one of their products on my weblog. It is all about my shocking finding of an abnormal substance (mould) in a “Tea Pot” brand, sweeten condensed milk tin-can. You can read the full story (all the correspondence letters) and view photos of the contaminated milk and the disgusting hazardous conditions of F&N Dairies’ plant at my weblog http://consumersrighteousness.blogspot.com/.

As a consumer, I am sickened by the fact that we are not provided utmost protection from this sort of situations and whatever consumer rights we have now are defenceless. I also feel that my human rights had been deprived when I am being forced to silence and on top of all, I feel cheated when the company executive responded to my grievances that they are not liable for damaged products in the marketplace.

I am only requesting that the company be truthful, reliable and accountable for their mistakes, moreover produce cleaner and safer food. I believe, it is the responsibility of our whole society to protect the rights and benefits of consumers, and all concerned parties should together strive to do the work of standing up for consumer rights, improving the consumption environment, and pushing for faster, better economic and social development.

I sincerely hope you will cover my story on your weblog and tell it to the world. I would greatly value and appreciate your kind support.

If you wish to contact me, please send an email to eddskading@hotmail.com.

Thank you.

Yours truly,

Edward Skading

Thanks for the explanation on the pre-emption rights thingy. We shall leave it as it is then. I have no further comments to add on the issue. It was nice having this conversation with you.

All the best in your endeavour. Cheers!

june posted the above info at Che Det but it just got drowned in all the ‘noises’ made there but it was a significant piece of information to me. I can understand the way things are at Che Det.

One of the often asked question is ‘why proton did not have open bidding for the sale?’

Because Castiglioni have pre-emptive rights clause in the shareholders agreement with Proton. That means you have to offer those shares back to him first. Castiglioni started by offering 57.75% to Proton then Gevi and now he has offered Harley 95%. I suppose the shaholders agreement with Harley also have pre-emptive clause. Maybe Proton can try again to acquire 100% of MVA by 2010 when Najib takes over. Tengku Mahaleel, don’t throw away Castiglioni contact number yet.

That is not counting the failed deal when he first offered 20% of MVA to Piaggio in 2001 that then got MVA into administrative control.

Wudan,

In conclusion,the proceeds from the sales would have been negated by the working capital outflows. Most of the folks at Chedet will never understand this because they do not see the working capital requirements. They will, however, willingly believe there were US800 million from a bankrupt company. They see the assets and great brand names and forget about the liabilities.

GEVI will assume these liabilities:
(a) Restructured Frozen Debts amounting to EUR106.94 million,
and
(b) Working Capital requirements amounting to EUR32.50 million

The Proposed Disposal is not expected to have any effect on the earnings, net assets, share capital nor shareholdings of PROTON.

Inter alia, the salient terms of the agreement are:

(a) The Purchaser is to open an escrow account with Banca Carige S.p.A, Genova, Italy for the sum of EUR500,000.00 to secure:
(i) the timely opening and funding of the Second Escrow Account; and
(ii) subject to the fulfillment of the Conditions Precedents and to the performance of the actions set out in the agreement, the occurrence of Repayment on the Closing Date.

Should the actions mentioned above are not timely complied with by the Purchaser, Proton Capital Sdn Bhd shall be entitled to withdraw the money from the First Escrow Account and terminate the Agreement.

(b) On or before 18 January 2006, the Purchaser is to open a Second Escrow Account with Banca Carige S.p.A. for the sum of EUR15.0 million to secure the obligation of the purchaser to subscribe and pay the capital increase in MVA.
The agreement is subject to conditions precedents to be obtained not later than 15 February 2006.

Inter alia:

(a) adoption by the shareholders at an extraordinary general meeting of MVA with the unanimous vote of all shareholders’ of a resolution allowing the Purchaser to purchase the said shares from Proton Capital Sdn Bhd and further subscribe for the capital increase in MVA. And subsequent thereat, to approve the amendment to the articles of association of MVA;

(b) waiver in writing by other shareholders of MVA of their pre-emptive rights in connection with the transfer of shares from Proton Capital Sdn Bhd to the Purchaser;

(c) termination of the shareholders’ agreement executed on 26 November 2004;

(d) termination of the shareholders agreement executed on 25 November 2004;

(e) termination of the service agreement executed on 26 November 2004;

(f) Husqvarna AB to release Proton Capital Sdn Bhd from all obligations as contained in the Husqvarna Augusta Agreement executed on 29 October 2004;

(g) delivery to MVA of a letter to be executed by several banks (as identified in the Agreement) whereby the Banks declare that they fully agree with the exercise of the voting rights by Claudio Castiglioni for adoption of the resolution and the waiver by Claudio Castiglioni of the pre-emptive rights mentioned above;

(h) execution by Proton Capital Sdn Bhd and each of the shareholders of MVA and the Banks of an agreement whereby they settle and waive their eventual claims vis-a-vis Proton Capital Sdn Bhd and they declare to the maximum possible extent not to have any claim at any title vis-a-vis Proton Capital Sdn Bhd any other entity of Proton Group and the directors and statutory auditors of MVA appointed by Proton Capital Sdn Bhd and they waive their rights to sue them, for any title whatsoever; and

(i) obtaining of antitrust authorization from competent Italian authorities.
—————————————————— –

I must credit june of sembang-kopitiam.blogspot.com for this June did a search on google and found this article on InterNet Bankruptcy Library

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article4319192.ece

Your expose has greatly enhanced my understanding of this issue. Unfortunately people especially those on Chedet.com still has their heads stuck in the sand.

I assume the people there are still confused, thinking that Agusta the helicopter maker is the same as Agusta the motorcycle maker, or Husqvarna the offroad bike maker is related to Husqvarna the chainsaw maker (my uncle used to own a Husqvarna chain saw for his rubber plantation).

Also, he linked an article to The Times Online to justify his position. Unfortunately he didn’t elaborate on a particular line in said article, and I quote,”…Harley shares fell 2.4 per cent to $32.88. A year ago they were changing hands at more than $62.”

This line came right after a description of MV Agusta’s recent history, so I don’t know if the purchase of MV Agusta itself was the cause of HD’s share price tumbling down.

The current issue of CycleNews has an interview with HD’s CEO on the purchase of MV Agusta here:

http://www.cyclenews.com/testride/latestissue.html

(the related article is page 8 of this online e-magazine, link may be dead as it is a trial issue).

Why don’t you send a few of these related articles to various blogs and see if people will stop and think instead of blindly believing anything.

MFZ,

Johann

Alan Cathcart wrote in Motorcycle Sport & Leisure magazine in early 2008

…. According to Italy’s leading financial paper II Sole 24 Ore, MV Agusta’s 2007 balance sheet showed a EUR 34.47 million net loss on a turnover of EUR 141.3 million – a situation which the sale of its Husqvarna dirtbike subsidiary for a reported EUR 92 million, was supposed to have helped redress. However, Gevi is understood to have pocketed the entire sales proceeds of this sale, a move which it may be presumed greatly dismayed MV Agusta president Claudio Castiglioni, whose family continues to own 37.25% of the company’s equity, alongside legendary designer Massimo Tamburini’s 2% and the 3 % balance still held by Swedish conglomerate Eletrolux, former owners of Husqvarna motorcycles. Castiglioni is understood to have believed that, in return for negotiating the sale of Husqvarna with BMW, a substantial proportion of the net proceeds would be reinvested in MV, to fund the development of several new models as part of the Company’s 2008-2013 business plan. These include the next generation replacement for MV’s 10 years old F4 model line-up and a new three cyclinder line-up which Massimo Tamburini has already design, and a range of Cagiva single to be manufactured in India by Kinetic. But with the cash to pay suppliers running out, MVA has again stopped production of its F4 1000 sportsbike range, while Castiglioni seeks to hatch the latest in his line of rescue plans for the marque ”.

Let’s asked a hypothetical question. What would have Proton done face with this situation by 2007? Continue bleeding hard EURO or do a “GEVI”?

Wudan,

I suppose we will never get to know know how Claudio and Gevi had actually intended to share the spoils. It could be possible that Claudio was not too careful in the terms of agreement with Gevi or the split of Husqvarna to Gevi and the rest to Claudio may have been preplanned. Whatever the case, there is only one fool – PROTON.

After singking EUR 70 million and assuming the liabilities for the Restructured Frozen Debts amounting to EUR 106.94 million and further working capital requirements, by end of 2005, MVA still require more working capital funding.

At this point, the decision is actually quite simple. Sell MVA or continue funding it until MVA returns to profitability. We know the decision and Proton’s loss, like you put it, is at least RM504 million.

For the benefit of your readers, Gevi did not buy 57.75% of MVA for one EUR. It cost them EUR 139.44 million (106.94 + 32.50) plus one Euro.

With this information, if Proton did not sell MVA, then it may have to pump in EUR 32.50 million for 2006 operations. Start paying the Rectructured Frozen Debts. While they are doing that, the EURO have appreciated to 5.13