Skip to main content

NBA, Prokhorov's firm fire back on Zimbabwe issue; contradiction over report on Harare summit (and did the ESDC check?)

See update below from Village Voice.

On Sunday, the New York Post broke the news that New Jersey Rep. Bill Pascrell, who'd previously asked the NBA to investigate Mikhail Prokhorov and obviously doesn't want the Nets to leave his state, asked the U.S. Treasury Department to investigate whether the investment bank Renaissance Capital--of which Prokhorov's firm Onexim owns nearly half--violated U.S. sanctions in dealing with Zimbabwe.

"Mr. Prokhorov reportedly controls nearly 50% of the investment bank, which recently sponsored an economic summit in Zimbabwe this past February on behalf of the government," Pascrell said in a letter.

On a weekend, that generated a lot of heat, but not much light. The Treasury Department sanctions don't apply to all business in Zimbabwe, just with certain persons and entities.

Responses deny charges

Yesterday came the responses. The Wall Street Journal reported a response from Renaissance Capital, which said Renaissance Capital Africa CEO Andrew Lowe did not attend the February event in Zimbabwe because people from the U.S. sanctions list were attending:
Renaissance Capital is fully aware of the sanctions imposed by the United States on certain Zimbabwean persons and companies and takes its compliance obligations extremely seriously. Contrary to erroneous reports in the press, we have at all times strictly complied with all laws and have no relationship with sanctioned individuals or companies.
Conflicting evidence

That seems to conflict with a 2/15/10 report from the Zimbabwe government newspaper The Herald, headlined 1,000 Delegates Expected for Investment Summit:
MORE than 1,000 local and international delegates converge in Harare today for the 5th Pan African Tourism Investment Summit and the International Conference on Investment Opportunities in Tourism and Related Sectors.

The investment summit, organised by Africa investor in conjunction with the Ministry of Tourism and Hospitality Industry, and the Zimbabwe Tourism Authority, offers the country the opportunity to position itself as an attractive and competitive investment destination.

...The World Bank, International Finance Corporation, African Development Bank, Afrexim Bank, Development Bank of Southern Africa, Industrial Development Corporation, CBA Capital Partners, Actis and Renaissance Capital have confirmed their participation.
So, is this report incorrect? I can't find further confirmation that Renaissance Capital attended, but, if not, they should specifically respond to this article.

SW Radio Africa News, an independent Zimbabwean radio station broadcast on shortwave and via the Internet, did not question the Post report but added a comment from a critic of the government:
Exiled investment banker, Gilbert Muponda, is familiar with Renaissance Capital’s involvement in Zimbabwe and told Newsreel; ‘They specialize in emerging markets that have a high return, but high risks, and they are experts at quantifying and spreading risk.’ He told us although the company did what any investment bank would do (i.e. seek opportunities) this was in violation of US targeted sanctions and the lawmakers in that country had a good case to charge them.
If Muponda's conclusion that "this was in violation" of sanctions relies on secondhand reports, then it's hardly definitive.

Update: A sanctions expert speaks

Neil deMause reports for the Village Voice:
To at least one sanctions expert, though, Prokhorov's Zimbabwe dealings are far from trivial. Usha Haley, an Economic Policy Institute research associate who told the Post that Prokhorov was engaged in "sanctions-busting," tells Runnin' Scared that she doesn't buy the metals magnate's defense: "They have been working with Zimbabwe's officials that have been banned by the U.S. government — there's no doubt about that."
Still, deMause notes that Prokhorov could certainly afford a fine and that the Treasury Department "has no jurisdiction over the organization who really matters in Prokhorov's Nets purchase: the NBA."

Onexim, NBA denials

The AP reported that both Onexim and the NBA denied the charges:
League spokesman Mike Bass said Pascrell was misinformed discussing the sanctions.

"U.S. companies are not prohibited from doing business in Zimbabwe; rather, they are prohibited from conducting business with specifically-identified individuals or entities in that country," Bass said. "The NBA is aware of no information that Mr. Prokhorov is engaged in business dealings with any of these individuals or entities.

..."Mr. Prokhorov's application is stillon track to be voted on by the NBA Board of Governors once a firm date is set for the State of New York to take full possession of the arena site," Bass said.

..."Onexim Group takes very seriously the issue of law and sanctions as applied to Zimbabwe," it said in a statement. "Contrary to erroneous media reports, the company and all of its holdings have always been in strict compliance with all United States and European rules regarding Zimbabwe and have had no dealings whatsoever with companies or individuals on the sanctions list."
Ratner comment: report "not accurate"

The Daily News's Julian Garcia reported:
As for the transfer of power, Ratner said "everything is in great shape" despite accusations by New Jersey Democratic Congressman Bill Pascrell that Prokhorov is violating U.S. sanctions against Zimbabwe by doing business with that country.

"It was inaccurate," Ratner said of Pascrell's accusation. "Not accurate."
Questions raised to ESDC

it's worth looking back at questions raised to the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) when Prokhorov was first announced as the expected majority owner of the Nets and minority owner of the Atlantic Yards arena.

Noticing New York blogger Michael D.D. White, writing on 9/25/09, took off from Pascrell's initial concern that the project likely wouldn't have been approved had Prokhorov been involved at the beginning.

White focused on the infamous incident where Prokhorov was detained in Courcheval, France on suspicion of shipping prostitutes in from Russia.

He also noted that "public agencies typically do background checks when projects are transferred. Otherwise the initial background checks would be meaningless." And, while public comment was submitted regarding the weakness of the ESDC's transferability provisions, White saw no answer from the ESDC.

I pointed out that the timing of the Prokhorov deal seemed clearly orchestrated, in the works but not announced until after the Atlantic Yards plan received its second approval, on September 17, from the ESDC.

White suggested that there is "probably no executed deal by which it would be enforceable." There surely is now, given that the Development Agreement was signed December 23--not that I've taken a recent look at the transferability provisions in the massive set of documents.

October questions

On 10/20/09, before the next monthly ESDC board meeting, White wrote:
ESDC spokesperson, Warner Johnston confirmed to us that Atlantic Yards was not on the agenda and that there were also no plans to put it on. We mentioned Mr. Prokhorov when he asked why it would be. No, he told us, the board has pretty much finished with Atlantic Yards.
He concluded:
If the league does approve Prokhorov then, by virtue of having waited, ESDC can try to minimize its own embarrassment by piggybacking on that approval.

It is also quite possible that ESDC will try to sidestep the Prokhorov issue entirely by doing nothing, (as if that is appropriate). This is perhaps what Mr. Johnston meant when he said that ESDC’s board was pretty much done dealing with Atlantic Yards.
I asked the ESDC Sunday if it had any response to Pascrell's charges and whether the agency had ever officially approved Prokhorov's role and conducted any investigation into him.

I haven't gotten a response yet.

Comments

  1. In addition to the September Noticing New York piece about ESDC's avoidance of a proper vetting or Prokhorov there is this follow-up NNY piece which is also relevant: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, Back to Background Reviews in a Sort of “I told You So” Way: Developments With Respect to Prokhorov.

    http://noticingnewyork.blogspot.com/2010/01/back-to-background-reviews-in-sort-of-i.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. Also relevant to the Prokhorov approval are questions I asked at a January Precinct Council meeting about whether it was wise (or legal?) to close the New York City’s streets, avenues and sidewalks and give them over to Forest City Ratner before the Prokhorov approval, essential to financing the arena was actually in the bag.

    See:

    Wednesday, January 27, 2010
    At another meeting on AY street closings, FCR's Marshall faces some tough questions from the crowd

    http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/2010/01/at-another-meeting-on-ay-street.html

    Michael D. D. White
    Noticing New York
    http://noticingnewyork.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Forest City acknowledges unspecified delays in Pacific Park, cites $300 million "impairment" in project value; what about affordable housing pledge?

Updated Monday Nov. 7 am: Note follow-up coverage of stock price drop and investor conference call and pending questions.

Pacific Park Brooklyn is seriously delayed, Forest City Realty Trust said yesterday in a news release, which further acknowledged that the project has caused a $300 million impairment, or write-down of the asset, as the expected revenues no longer exceed the carrying cost.

The Cleveland-based developer, parent of Brooklyn-based Forest City Ratner, which is a 30% investor in Pacific Park along with 70% partner/overseer Greenland USA, blamed the "significant impairment" on an oversupply of market-rate apartments, the uncertain fate of the 421-a tax break, and a continued increase in construction costs.

While the delay essentially confirms the obvious, given that two major buildings have not launched despite plans to do so, it raises significant questions about the future of the project, including:
if market-rate construction is delayed, will the affordable h…

Revising official figures, new report reveals Nets averaged just 11,622 home fans last season, Islanders drew 11,200 (and have option to leave in 2018)

The Brooklyn Nets drew an average of only 11,622 fans per home game in their most recent (and lousy) season, more than 23% below the announced official attendance figure, and little more than 65% of the Barclays Center's capacity.

The New York Islanders also drew some 19.4% below announced attendance, or 11,200 fans per home game.

The surprising numbers were disclosed in a consultant's report attached to the Preliminary Official Statement for the refinancing of some $462 million in tax-exempt bonds for the Barclays Center (plus another $20 million in taxable bonds). The refinancing should lower costs to Mikhail Prokhorov, owner of the arena operating company, by and average of $3.4 million a year through 2044 in paying off arena construction.

According to official figures, the Brooklyn Nets attendance averaged 17,187 in the debut season, 2012-13, 17,251 in 2013-14, 17,037 in 2014-15, and 15,125 in the most recent season, 2015-16. For hoops, the arena holds 17,732.

But official…

Is Barclays Center dumping the Islanders, or are they renegotiating? Evidence varies (bond doc, cash receipts); NHL attendance biggest variable

The Internet has been abuzz since Bloomberg's Scott Soshnick reported 1/30/17, using an overly conclusory headline, that Brooklyn’s Barclays Center Is Dumping the Islanders.

That would end an unusual arrangement in which the arena agrees to pay the team a fixed sum (minus certain expenses), in exchange for keeping tickets, suite, and sponsorship revenue.

The arena would earn more without the hockey team, according to Bloomberg, which cited “a financial projection shared with potential investors showed the Islanders won’t contribute any revenue after the 2018-19 season--a clear signal that the team won’t play there, the people said."

That "signal," however, is hardly definitive, as are the media leaks about a prospective new arena in Queens, as shown in the screenshot below from Newsday. Both sides are surely pushing for advantage, if not bluffing.

Consider: the arena and the Islanders can't even formally begin their opt-out talks until after this season. The disc…

Skanska says it "expected to assemble a properly designed modular building, not engage in an iterative R&D experiment"

On 12/10/16, I noted that FastCo.Design's Prefab's Moment of Reckoning article dialed back the gush on the 461 Dean modular tower compared to the publication's previous coverage.

Still, I noted that the article relied on developer Forest City Ratner and architect SHoP to put the best possible spin on what was clearly a failure. From the article: At the project's outset, it took the factory (managed by Skanska at the time) two to three weeks to build a module. By the end, under FCRC's management, the builders cut that down to six days. "The project took a little longer than expected and cost a little bit more than expected because we started the project with the wrong contractor," [Forest City's Adam] Greene says.Skanska jabs back
Well, Forest City's estranged partner Skanska later weighed in--not sure whether they weren't asked or just missed a deadline--and their article was updated 12/13/16. Here's Skanska's statement, which shows th…

Not just logistics: bypassing Brooklyn for DNC 2016 also saved on optics (role of Russian oligarch, Shanghai government)

Surely the logistical challenges of holding a national presidential nominating convention in Brooklyn were the main (and stated) reasons for the Democratic National Committee's choice of Philadelphia.

And, as I wrote in NY Slant, the huge security cordon in Philadelphia would have been impossible in Brooklyn.

But consider also the optics. As I wrote in my 1/21/15 op-ed in the Times arguing that the choice of Brooklyn was a bad idea:
The arena also raises ethically sticky questions for the Democrats. While the Barclays Center is owned primarily by Forest City Ratner, 45 percent of it is owned by the Russian billionaire Mikhail D. Prokhorov (who also owns 80 percent of the Brooklyn Nets). Mr. Prokhorov has a necessarily cordial relationship with Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — though he has been critical of Mr. Putin in the past, last year, at the Russian president’s request, he tried to transfer ownership of the Nets to one of his Moscow-based companies. An oligarch-owned a…

Former ESDC CEO Lago returns to NYC to head City Planning Commission

Carl Weisbrod, Mayor Bill de Blasio's City Planning Commission Chairman and Director of the Department of City Planning, is resigning,

And he's being replaced by Marisa Lago, currently a federal official, but who Atlantic Yards-ologists remember as the short-term Empire State Development Corporation CEO who, in an impolitic but candid 2009 statement, acknowledged that the project would take "decades."

Still, Lago not long after that played the good soldier at a May 2009 Senate oversight hearing, justifying changes in the project but claiming the public benefits remained the same.

By returning to City Planning, Lago will join former ESDC General Counsel Anita Laremont, who after retiring from the state (and taking a pension) got the job with the city.

Back at planning

Lago, a lawyer, in 1983 began work as an aide to City Planning Chairman Herb Sturz, and later served as the General Counsel to the president of the NYC Economic Development Corporation, Weisbrod himself.