Wazua
»
Investor
»
Stocks
»
Potential merger NIC + CBA
Rank: Elder Joined: 9/23/2009 Posts: 8,083 Location: Enk are Nyirobi
|
kediveKed wrote:sparkly wrote:heri wrote:kmucheke wrote:Security for 2.7B NCBA loan to Buzeki in danger.Quote:Buzeki Enterprises, a transport firm linked with businessman-cum-politician Zedekiah Bundotich Kiprop, owes the country’s third largest bank by assets, NCBA some Sh2.7billion, adding to the debt pile that has left creditors fighting for the Mombasa-based company’s trucks and trailers.
The High Court last year allowed Landmark to auction the vehicles to recover Sh118 million after Buzeki defaulted on a debt repayment agreement signed in November 2018.
NCBA, however, appealed the High Court decision saying it had a stake in the financing of Buzeki’s 53 trucks and trailers hence their sale by Landmark would dilute the security of the loan owed by the haulage firm.
“If the properties are sold, and the bank succeeds in its appeal, the appeal may be rendered nugatory as the bank will have already lost the securities for the amount loaned to Buzeki,”
The court said the 53 trucks and trailers shall remain under attachment but shall not be sold.
They also directed NCBA to deposit Sh60 million in an interest-earning account within 30 days, failing which Landmark will be free to sell the trucks and trailers. The economy is in doldrums but this bank might be having its own special problems always coming up in the news when potentially bad loans are mentioned 1. My understanding of what happened here is that Buzeki took Landmark's money with a promise to sell land to them. They didn't sell the land because it was charged to some bank. Landmark asked for a refund. Buzeki failed to pay. Landmark went to court and obtained an order for refund. Again Buzeki failed to pay as per the order. Landmark therefore attached 53 trucks for auction. 2. Upon Landmark's attachment of the trucks, NCBA moved to court to stop the auction. Their basis was that they had lent 2.7B to Buzeki which money was used to buy the attached trucks. In other words NCBA said they have a greater right to the trucks than Landmark. A case of this nature is called an Interpleader Suit. 3. My views: a) These kind of suits are normal for banks. Core business of banks is to take deposits, lend and secure sufficient collateral for the monies lent. This suit is just another day in business for NCBA. b) Is Buzeki in distress? Possibly because cargo is now hauled to Nairobi by SGR hence lack of business. c) Chances of success by NCBA in this suit are slim unless they show that the trucks were specifically charged to them or they have a priority charge over Buzeki's floating assets. d) Is this fatal for NCBA? Unlikely if due diligence was followed to ensure sufficiency of collateral when lending out the loans and the bank followed CBK prudential guidelines. There is no mention of Buzeki having defaulted on NCBA loans. Default is however possible due to the disruption of cargo haulage from Mombasa and the ongoing Covid19 situation. e) I want to believe that NCBA's collateral is sufficient. There is a good chance that the land to be sold was in fact charged to NCBA. What's not clear to me is how Buzeki would have accessed the 'deposit' for the land transaction. In most (if not all) transactions of this value, the deposit is held by the advocate of the seller [Buzeki] as stakeholders pending the delivery of completion documents upon which the deposit together with the balance of the purchase price is released to the seller (Bukezi or the bank to which he had charged the property). An advocate would ordinarily issue a professional undertaking not to release the money before the completion documents are availed or some other event. Something does not add up. Deposit is usually paid to the seller upon signing the contract of sale. The standard deposit is usually 10% but in this case a deposit of 30% was paid. Life is short. Live passionately.
|
|
|
Rank: New-farer Joined: 3/28/2016 Posts: 37 Location: nairobi
|
sparkly wrote:kediveKed wrote:sparkly wrote:heri wrote:kmucheke wrote:Security for 2.7B NCBA loan to Buzeki in danger.Quote:Buzeki Enterprises, a transport firm linked with businessman-cum-politician Zedekiah Bundotich Kiprop, owes the country’s third largest bank by assets, NCBA some Sh2.7billion, adding to the debt pile that has left creditors fighting for the Mombasa-based company’s trucks and trailers.
The High Court last year allowed Landmark to auction the vehicles to recover Sh118 million after Buzeki defaulted on a debt repayment agreement signed in November 2018.
NCBA, however, appealed the High Court decision saying it had a stake in the financing of Buzeki’s 53 trucks and trailers hence their sale by Landmark would dilute the security of the loan owed by the haulage firm.
“If the properties are sold, and the bank succeeds in its appeal, the appeal may be rendered nugatory as the bank will have already lost the securities for the amount loaned to Buzeki,”
The court said the 53 trucks and trailers shall remain under attachment but shall not be sold.
They also directed NCBA to deposit Sh60 million in an interest-earning account within 30 days, failing which Landmark will be free to sell the trucks and trailers. The economy is in doldrums but this bank might be having its own special problems always coming up in the news when potentially bad loans are mentioned 1. My understanding of what happened here is that Buzeki took Landmark's money with a promise to sell land to them. They didn't sell the land because it was charged to some bank. Landmark asked for a refund. Buzeki failed to pay. Landmark went to court and obtained an order for refund. Again Buzeki failed to pay as per the order. Landmark therefore attached 53 trucks for auction. 2. Upon Landmark's attachment of the trucks, NCBA moved to court to stop the auction. Their basis was that they had lent 2.7B to Buzeki which money was used to buy the attached trucks. In other words NCBA said they have a greater right to the trucks than Landmark. A case of this nature is called an Interpleader Suit. 3. My views: a) These kind of suits are normal for banks. Core business of banks is to take deposits, lend and secure sufficient collateral for the monies lent. This suit is just another day in business for NCBA. b) Is Buzeki in distress? Possibly because cargo is now hauled to Nairobi by SGR hence lack of business. c) Chances of success by NCBA in this suit are slim unless they show that the trucks were specifically charged to them or they have a priority charge over Buzeki's floating assets. d) Is this fatal for NCBA? Unlikely if due diligence was followed to ensure sufficiency of collateral when lending out the loans and the bank followed CBK prudential guidelines. There is no mention of Buzeki having defaulted on NCBA loans. Default is however possible due to the disruption of cargo haulage from Mombasa and the ongoing Covid19 situation. e) I want to believe that NCBA's collateral is sufficient. There is a good chance that the land to be sold was in fact charged to NCBA. What's not clear to me is how Buzeki would have accessed the 'deposit' for the land transaction. In most (if not all) transactions of this value, the deposit is held by the advocate of the seller [Buzeki] as stakeholders pending the delivery of completion documents upon which the deposit together with the balance of the purchase price is released to the seller (Bukezi or the bank to which he had charged the property). An advocate would ordinarily issue a professional undertaking not to release the money before the completion documents are availed or some other event. Something does not add up. Deposit is usually paid to the seller upon signing the contract of sale. The standard deposit is usually 10% but in this case a deposit of 30% was paid. I respectfully disagree. Now these kinds of deals, the deposit is paid to the sellor's advocate which is held as stakeholders. The Sellor's advocate cannot release the deposit or the balance of the purchase price unless the seller has complied with all its obligation most importantly which is the delivery of completion documents (where by its an exchange of money and documents that vest ownership i.e a transfer title deed etc). The LSK conditions of Sale which are incorporated into most sale agreements with a few exceptions provide that the purchase price (which consists of the deposit and the balance of the purchase price) can only be released upon the registration of the transfer in favour of the buyer. These rules were made to protect buyers from situations where the buyer pays a deposit and later the seller changes his mind to the detriment of the purchaser. Therefore, you will see why something is not making sense in this transaction.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 9/23/2009 Posts: 8,083 Location: Enk are Nyirobi
|
kediveKed wrote:sparkly wrote:kediveKed wrote:sparkly wrote:heri wrote:kmucheke wrote:Security for 2.7B NCBA loan to Buzeki in danger.Quote:Buzeki Enterprises, a transport firm linked with businessman-cum-politician Zedekiah Bundotich Kiprop, owes the country’s third largest bank by assets, NCBA some Sh2.7billion, adding to the debt pile that has left creditors fighting for the Mombasa-based company’s trucks and trailers.
The High Court last year allowed Landmark to auction the vehicles to recover Sh118 million after Buzeki defaulted on a debt repayment agreement signed in November 2018.
NCBA, however, appealed the High Court decision saying it had a stake in the financing of Buzeki’s 53 trucks and trailers hence their sale by Landmark would dilute the security of the loan owed by the haulage firm.
“If the properties are sold, and the bank succeeds in its appeal, the appeal may be rendered nugatory as the bank will have already lost the securities for the amount loaned to Buzeki,”
The court said the 53 trucks and trailers shall remain under attachment but shall not be sold.
They also directed NCBA to deposit Sh60 million in an interest-earning account within 30 days, failing which Landmark will be free to sell the trucks and trailers. The economy is in doldrums but this bank might be having its own special problems always coming up in the news when potentially bad loans are mentioned 1. My understanding of what happened here is that Buzeki took Landmark's money with a promise to sell land to them. They didn't sell the land because it was charged to some bank. Landmark asked for a refund. Buzeki failed to pay. Landmark went to court and obtained an order for refund. Again Buzeki failed to pay as per the order. Landmark therefore attached 53 trucks for auction. 2. Upon Landmark's attachment of the trucks, NCBA moved to court to stop the auction. Their basis was that they had lent 2.7B to Buzeki which money was used to buy the attached trucks. In other words NCBA said they have a greater right to the trucks than Landmark. A case of this nature is called an Interpleader Suit. 3. My views: a) These kind of suits are normal for banks. Core business of banks is to take deposits, lend and secure sufficient collateral for the monies lent. This suit is just another day in business for NCBA. b) Is Buzeki in distress? Possibly because cargo is now hauled to Nairobi by SGR hence lack of business. c) Chances of success by NCBA in this suit are slim unless they show that the trucks were specifically charged to them or they have a priority charge over Buzeki's floating assets. d) Is this fatal for NCBA? Unlikely if due diligence was followed to ensure sufficiency of collateral when lending out the loans and the bank followed CBK prudential guidelines. There is no mention of Buzeki having defaulted on NCBA loans. Default is however possible due to the disruption of cargo haulage from Mombasa and the ongoing Covid19 situation. e) I want to believe that NCBA's collateral is sufficient. There is a good chance that the land to be sold was in fact charged to NCBA. What's not clear to me is how Buzeki would have accessed the 'deposit' for the land transaction. In most (if not all) transactions of this value, the deposit is held by the advocate of the seller [Buzeki] as stakeholders pending the delivery of completion documents upon which the deposit together with the balance of the purchase price is released to the seller (Bukezi or the bank to which he had charged the property). An advocate would ordinarily issue a professional undertaking not to release the money before the completion documents are availed or some other event. Something does not add up. Deposit is usually paid to the seller upon signing the contract of sale. The standard deposit is usually 10% but in this case a deposit of 30% was paid. I respectfully disagree. Now these kinds of deals, the deposit is paid to the sellor's advocate which is held as stakeholders. The Sellor's advocate cannot release the deposit or the balance of the purchase price unless the seller has complied with all its obligation most importantly which is the delivery of completion documents (where by its an exchange of money and documents that vest ownership i.e a transfer title deed etc). The LSK conditions of Sale which are incorporated into most sale agreements with a few exceptions provide that the purchase price (which consists of the deposit and the balance of the purchase price) can only be released upon the registration of the transfer in favour of the buyer. These rules were made to protect buyers from situations where the buyer pays a deposit and later the seller changes his mind to the detriment of the purchaser. Therefore, you will see why something is not making sense in this transaction. What you say is correct. However, land transactions in Kenya usually take longer than the expected 90 days. It is not uncommon for the deposit to be released to the vendor, with consent of the purchaser. For big amounts like this one, I agree that the parties should have been more diligent. Life is short. Live passionately.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 4/1/2009 Posts: 1,885
|
sparkly wrote:kediveKed wrote:sparkly wrote:kediveKed wrote:sparkly wrote:heri wrote:kmucheke wrote:Security for 2.7B NCBA loan to Buzeki in danger.Quote:Buzeki Enterprises, a transport firm linked with businessman-cum-politician Zedekiah Bundotich Kiprop, owes the country’s third largest bank by assets, NCBA some Sh2.7billion, adding to the debt pile that has left creditors fighting for the Mombasa-based company’s trucks and trailers.
The High Court last year allowed Landmark to auction the vehicles to recover Sh118 million after Buzeki defaulted on a debt repayment agreement signed in November 2018.
NCBA, however, appealed the High Court decision saying it had a stake in the financing of Buzeki’s 53 trucks and trailers hence their sale by Landmark would dilute the security of the loan owed by the haulage firm.
“If the properties are sold, and the bank succeeds in its appeal, the appeal may be rendered nugatory as the bank will have already lost the securities for the amount loaned to Buzeki,”
The court said the 53 trucks and trailers shall remain under attachment but shall not be sold.
They also directed NCBA to deposit Sh60 million in an interest-earning account within 30 days, failing which Landmark will be free to sell the trucks and trailers. The economy is in doldrums but this bank might be having its own special problems always coming up in the news when potentially bad loans are mentioned 1. My understanding of what happened here is that Buzeki took Landmark's money with a promise to sell land to them. They didn't sell the land because it was charged to some bank. Landmark asked for a refund. Buzeki failed to pay. Landmark went to court and obtained an order for refund. Again Buzeki failed to pay as per the order. Landmark therefore attached 53 trucks for auction. 2. Upon Landmark's attachment of the trucks, NCBA moved to court to stop the auction. Their basis was that they had lent 2.7B to Buzeki which money was used to buy the attached trucks. In other words NCBA said they have a greater right to the trucks than Landmark. A case of this nature is called an Interpleader Suit. 3. My views: a) These kind of suits are normal for banks. Core business of banks is to take deposits, lend and secure sufficient collateral for the monies lent. This suit is just another day in business for NCBA. b) Is Buzeki in distress? Possibly because cargo is now hauled to Nairobi by SGR hence lack of business. c) Chances of success by NCBA in this suit are slim unless they show that the trucks were specifically charged to them or they have a priority charge over Buzeki's floating assets. d) Is this fatal for NCBA? Unlikely if due diligence was followed to ensure sufficiency of collateral when lending out the loans and the bank followed CBK prudential guidelines. There is no mention of Buzeki having defaulted on NCBA loans. Default is however possible due to the disruption of cargo haulage from Mombasa and the ongoing Covid19 situation. e) I want to believe that NCBA's collateral is sufficient. There is a good chance that the land to be sold was in fact charged to NCBA. What's not clear to me is how Buzeki would have accessed the 'deposit' for the land transaction. In most (if not all) transactions of this value, the deposit is held by the advocate of the seller [Buzeki] as stakeholders pending the delivery of completion documents upon which the deposit together with the balance of the purchase price is released to the seller (Bukezi or the bank to which he had charged the property). An advocate would ordinarily issue a professional undertaking not to release the money before the completion documents are availed or some other event. Something does not add up. Deposit is usually paid to the seller upon signing the contract of sale. The standard deposit is usually 10% but in this case a deposit of 30% was paid. I respectfully disagree. Now these kinds of deals, the deposit is paid to the sellor's advocate which is held as stakeholders. The Sellor's advocate cannot release the deposit or the balance of the purchase price unless the seller has complied with all its obligation most importantly which is the delivery of completion documents (where by its an exchange of money and documents that vest ownership i.e a transfer title deed etc). The LSK conditions of Sale which are incorporated into most sale agreements with a few exceptions provide that the purchase price (which consists of the deposit and the balance of the purchase price) can only be released upon the registration of the transfer in favour of the buyer. These rules were made to protect buyers from situations where the buyer pays a deposit and later the seller changes his mind to the detriment of the purchaser. Therefore, you will see why something is not making sense in this transaction. What you say is correct. However, land transactions in Kenya usually take longer than the expected 90 days. It is not uncommon for the deposit to be released to the vendor, with consent of the purchaser. For big amounts like this one, I agree that the parties should have been more diligent. land transactions usually don't take longer than 90 days (assuming the parties have all the documents and money) unless you have an incompetent lawyer.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 9/23/2009 Posts: 8,083 Location: Enk are Nyirobi
|
mkenyan wrote:sparkly wrote:kediveKed wrote:sparkly wrote:kediveKed wrote:sparkly wrote:heri wrote:kmucheke wrote:Security for 2.7B NCBA loan to Buzeki in danger.Quote:Buzeki Enterprises, a transport firm linked with businessman-cum-politician Zedekiah Bundotich Kiprop, owes the country’s third largest bank by assets, NCBA some Sh2.7billion, adding to the debt pile that has left creditors fighting for the Mombasa-based company’s trucks and trailers.
The High Court last year allowed Landmark to auction the vehicles to recover Sh118 million after Buzeki defaulted on a debt repayment agreement signed in November 2018.
NCBA, however, appealed the High Court decision saying it had a stake in the financing of Buzeki’s 53 trucks and trailers hence their sale by Landmark would dilute the security of the loan owed by the haulage firm.
“If the properties are sold, and the bank succeeds in its appeal, the appeal may be rendered nugatory as the bank will have already lost the securities for the amount loaned to Buzeki,”
The court said the 53 trucks and trailers shall remain under attachment but shall not be sold.
They also directed NCBA to deposit Sh60 million in an interest-earning account within 30 days, failing which Landmark will be free to sell the trucks and trailers. The economy is in doldrums but this bank might be having its own special problems always coming up in the news when potentially bad loans are mentioned 1. My understanding of what happened here is that Buzeki took Landmark's money with a promise to sell land to them. They didn't sell the land because it was charged to some bank. Landmark asked for a refund. Buzeki failed to pay. Landmark went to court and obtained an order for refund. Again Buzeki failed to pay as per the order. Landmark therefore attached 53 trucks for auction. 2. Upon Landmark's attachment of the trucks, NCBA moved to court to stop the auction. Their basis was that they had lent 2.7B to Buzeki which money was used to buy the attached trucks. In other words NCBA said they have a greater right to the trucks than Landmark. A case of this nature is called an Interpleader Suit. 3. My views: a) These kind of suits are normal for banks. Core business of banks is to take deposits, lend and secure sufficient collateral for the monies lent. This suit is just another day in business for NCBA. b) Is Buzeki in distress? Possibly because cargo is now hauled to Nairobi by SGR hence lack of business. c) Chances of success by NCBA in this suit are slim unless they show that the trucks were specifically charged to them or they have a priority charge over Buzeki's floating assets. d) Is this fatal for NCBA? Unlikely if due diligence was followed to ensure sufficiency of collateral when lending out the loans and the bank followed CBK prudential guidelines. There is no mention of Buzeki having defaulted on NCBA loans. Default is however possible due to the disruption of cargo haulage from Mombasa and the ongoing Covid19 situation. e) I want to believe that NCBA's collateral is sufficient. There is a good chance that the land to be sold was in fact charged to NCBA. What's not clear to me is how Buzeki would have accessed the 'deposit' for the land transaction. In most (if not all) transactions of this value, the deposit is held by the advocate of the seller [Buzeki] as stakeholders pending the delivery of completion documents upon which the deposit together with the balance of the purchase price is released to the seller (Bukezi or the bank to which he had charged the property). An advocate would ordinarily issue a professional undertaking not to release the money before the completion documents are availed or some other event. Something does not add up. Deposit is usually paid to the seller upon signing the contract of sale. The standard deposit is usually 10% but in this case a deposit of 30% was paid. I respectfully disagree. Now these kinds of deals, the deposit is paid to the sellor's advocate which is held as stakeholders. The Sellor's advocate cannot release the deposit or the balance of the purchase price unless the seller has complied with all its obligation most importantly which is the delivery of completion documents (where by its an exchange of money and documents that vest ownership i.e a transfer title deed etc). The LSK conditions of Sale which are incorporated into most sale agreements with a few exceptions provide that the purchase price (which consists of the deposit and the balance of the purchase price) can only be released upon the registration of the transfer in favour of the buyer. These rules were made to protect buyers from situations where the buyer pays a deposit and later the seller changes his mind to the detriment of the purchaser. Therefore, you will see why something is not making sense in this transaction. What you say is correct. However, land transactions in Kenya usually take longer than the expected 90 days. It is not uncommon for the deposit to be released to the vendor, with consent of the purchaser. For big amounts like this one, I agree that the parties should have been more diligent. land transactions usually don't take longer than 90 days (assuming the parties have all the documents and money) unless you have an incompetent lawyer. You have no idea. Life is short. Live passionately.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 12/4/2009 Posts: 10,804 Location: NAIROBI
|
Restructured loans as at June 30--ksh.58 billion Wealth is built through a relatively simple equation
Wealth=Income + Investments - Lifestyle
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 12/4/2009 Posts: 10,804 Location: NAIROBI
|
https://twitter.com/Asap...tus/1306149794541432832
Chinese companies are being pressured to transfer their accounts to NCBA Wealth is built through a relatively simple equation
Wealth=Income + Investments - Lifestyle
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 8/10/2014 Posts: 992 Location: Kenya
|
Every week I see new negative sentiments about this bank consistently on social media. The main issues are on basic functionality of things and money disappearing in accounts. A year later with the same issues, management doesnt seem to care that much.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 4/22/2010 Posts: 11,522 Location: Nairobi
|
watesh wrote:Every week I see new negative sentiments about this bank consistently on social media. The main issues are on basic functionality of things and money disappearing in accounts. A year later with the same issues, management doesnt seem to care that much. Must have been that tweet from Macharia...Shida tupu. possunt quia posse videntur
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 9/23/2009 Posts: 8,083 Location: Enk are Nyirobi
|
watesh wrote:Every week I see new negative sentiments about this bank consistently on social media. The main issues are on basic functionality of things and money disappearing in accounts. A year later with the same issues, management doesnt seem to care that much. I attended the virtual agm. Management admitted that there were hiccups in the integration process which affected customer service. Life is short. Live passionately.
|
|
|
Wazua
»
Investor
»
Stocks
»
Potential merger NIC + CBA
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
|