Well, I guess one has to say 'congratulations' to Bain & Co, for today at least. Because with what appears to have been a fiasco could equally change tomorrow or with a possible future court challenge.
I am particularly struck at the total lack of professionalism and the apparent "she'll be right, mate" way in which the sale of Virgin has been undertaken. I am not sure whether this lack of professionalism is attributable to the administrator or the multiple bidders or a combination of both ?
First, it strikes me as odd that the administrator would push it's own vision so heavily of what a 'sold' Virgin should look like. Surely, the job of the administrator is to assess the assets and liabilities of the group, present a business history and financial 'as is' summary and finally present / suggest multiple options to the potential bidders? Equally surely, isn't it up to the buyer / successful bidder which particular business model they adopt?
Originally, the public and the Creditor committee were fed the scenario of up to 20 potential bidders for the carcass. Wonderful. But why was that narrowed to only two (2) selected bidders, when at least 4 were capable of serious bids? Was there too much 'playing to the public' and not enough bid attention?
There are also a lot of questions to be asked in respect of the Cyrus 'withdrawal'. When dealing with major tenders such as Virgin's, it is usual that the administrator set particular processes, channels and timelines for submission of bids, submission of additional or supplementary information and a solid timeline of announcement of winning bid.
It is also odd that a rejected tenderer who was not selected as one of the final two was under the illusion that it could lodge an unsolicited bid ? Ditto, for the bondholders and their also unselected, lastminute alternate bid?
Finally, if you announce that the winning bid will be announced on 30 June, why announce it early? Some absolute lack of following processes and commercial etiquette, imho. This will be an interesting story to follow.
We now know that Bain is the 'successful' bidder, but very little about their bid - which seems to have changed dramatically from opening to closing.
Agreed. There are complaints in other forum on ET that many QF loyalists are unflattering about the VA fortune and future but the fact is there were a lot of hype even before the administration, as well as during the bidding process and I was also surprised it became a 2-horse race when it seemed that there may be as much as 4 potential serious bidders.
Not sure about how true the Cyrus allegations about the Deloitte's unprofessional conduct but it sure is a great excuse for Cyrus to back out if they ever needed one (although I did think they were serious)
Now there is speculation about bondholders' potential offer?
As if VA needed another uncertainty toward the wait for 2 months to August meeting to ratify the sale agreement!
1. About Deloitte pushing their own vision for Virgin, I thought they made it clear they were open to all options and we saw the two similar plans for Virgin by both Cyrus and Bain. I didn't see any overstepping of boundaries from administrators.
2. A lot of bidding occurs in this way. There are tons of non-binding offers but when it comes to it, there will always only be a few left. Then, some would inevitably drop out of the race after their competitiveness is assessed.
3. The withdrawal of Cyrus Capital because of a 'lack of communication and interest' seems like a pretty excuse to conveniently exit out of the bidding process. I believe something happened with the majority bond holder Singapore Airlines that made Cyrus exit out. With only Bain left, there's no point in waiting so why not push forward the timeline? Regarding the merits of Bain, I personally, just looking as an outsider, I would've bet for Bain because they were the ones that have more capital so at least there's a higher chance of large capital injection into the business.
4. Bondholders can make their own bid and present it to the creditors without undergoing the process set by Deloitte that's just how it is.
Singapore Airlines had nothing to do with the Cyrus bid.
SIA's parent Temasek on the other hand was reported in the Singapore MSM (Main Stream Media) about rumoured discussions with VA's Bondholders for an "11th hour bid" for VA which never eventuated (as per the long-running "SQ to taek ovah VA" jokes over the years).
kimshep
kimshep
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 11 Oct 2014
Total posts 412
Well, I guess one has to say 'congratulations' to Bain & Co, for today at least. Because with what appears to have been a fiasco could equally change tomorrow or with a possible future court challenge.
I am particularly struck at the total lack of professionalism and the apparent "she'll be right, mate" way in which the sale of Virgin has been undertaken. I am not sure whether this lack of professionalism is attributable to the administrator or the multiple bidders or a combination of both ?
First, it strikes me as odd that the administrator would push it's own vision so heavily of what a 'sold' Virgin should look like. Surely, the job of the administrator is to assess the assets and liabilities of the group, present a business history and financial 'as is' summary and finally present / suggest multiple options to the potential bidders? Equally surely, isn't it up to the buyer / successful bidder which particular business model they adopt?
Originally, the public and the Creditor committee were fed the scenario of up to 20 potential bidders for the carcass. Wonderful. But why was that narrowed to only two (2) selected bidders, when at least 4 were capable of serious bids? Was there too much 'playing to the public' and not enough bid attention?
There are also a lot of questions to be asked in respect of the Cyrus 'withdrawal'. When dealing with major tenders such as Virgin's, it is usual that the administrator set particular processes, channels and timelines for submission of bids, submission of additional or supplementary information and a solid timeline of announcement of winning bid.
It is also odd that a rejected tenderer who was not selected as one of the final two was under the illusion that it could lodge an unsolicited bid ? Ditto, for the bondholders and their also unselected, lastminute alternate bid?
Finally, if you announce that the winning bid will be announced on 30 June, why announce it early? Some absolute lack of following processes and commercial etiquette, imho. This will be an interesting story to follow.
We now know that Bain is the 'successful' bidder, but very little about their bid - which seems to have changed dramatically from opening to closing.
XWu
XWu
Member since 09 May 2020
Total posts 197
Agreed. There are complaints in other forum on ET that many QF loyalists are unflattering about the VA fortune and future but the fact is there were a lot of hype even before the administration, as well as during the bidding process and I was also surprised it became a 2-horse race when it seemed that there may be as much as 4 potential serious bidders.
Not sure about how true the Cyrus allegations about the Deloitte's unprofessional conduct but it sure is a great excuse for Cyrus to back out if they ever needed one (although I did think they were serious)
Now there is speculation about bondholders' potential offer?
As if VA needed another uncertainty toward the wait for 2 months to August meeting to ratify the sale agreement!
djtech
djtech
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 02 Sep 2018
Total posts 375
1. About Deloitte pushing their own vision for Virgin, I thought they made it clear they were open to all options and we saw the two similar plans for Virgin by both Cyrus and Bain. I didn't see any overstepping of boundaries from administrators.
2. A lot of bidding occurs in this way. There are tons of non-binding offers but when it comes to it, there will always only be a few left. Then, some would inevitably drop out of the race after their competitiveness is assessed.
3. The withdrawal of Cyrus Capital because of a 'lack of communication and interest' seems like a pretty excuse to conveniently exit out of the bidding process. I believe something happened with the majority bond holder Singapore Airlines that made Cyrus exit out. With only Bain left, there's no point in waiting so why not push forward the timeline? Regarding the merits of Bain, I personally, just looking as an outsider, I would've bet for Bain because they were the ones that have more capital so at least there's a higher chance of large capital injection into the business.
4. Bondholders can make their own bid and present it to the creditors without undergoing the process set by Deloitte that's just how it is.
DanV
DanV
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 04 Nov 2017
Total posts 100
Singapore Airlines had nothing to do with the Cyrus bid.
SIA's parent Temasek on the other hand was reported in the Singapore MSM (Main Stream Media) about rumoured discussions with VA's Bondholders for an "11th hour bid" for VA which never eventuated (as per the long-running "SQ to taek ovah VA" jokes over the years).
bmc
bmc
Virgin Australia - Velocity Rewards
Member since 22 Aug 2013
Total posts 121
Isn't it still the 11th hour?