|
Report Date : |
29.12.2012 |
IDENTIFICATION DETAILS
|
Correct Name : |
EXEGO
PTY LIMITED |
|
|
|
|
Registered Office : |
|
|
|
|
|
Country : |
|
|
|
|
|
Date of Incorporation : |
29.08.2001 |
|
|
|
|
Legal Form : |
Australian Proprietary Company |
|
|
|
|
Line of Business : |
Engages
in distribution of automotive aftermarket parts and accessories. |
|
|
|
|
No. of Employees : |
5,011 |
RATING & COMMENTS
|
MIRA’s Rating : |
Ba |
|
RATING |
STATUS |
PROPOSED CREDIT LINE |
|
|
41-55 |
Ba |
Overall operation is considered normal. Capable to meet normal
commitments. |
Satisfactory |
|
Status : |
Satisfactory |
|
|
|
|
Payment Behaviour : |
No complaints |
|
|
|
|
Litigation : |
Clear |
NOTES:
Any query related to this report can be made
on e-mail: infodept@mirainform.com
while quoting report number, name and date.
ECGC Country Risk Classification List – June 30th, 2012
|
Country Name |
Previous Rating (31.03.2012) |
Current Rating (30.06.2012) |
|
Australia |
A1 |
A1 |
|
Risk Category |
ECGC
Classification |
|
Insignificant |
A1 |
|
Low |
A2 |
|
Moderate |
B1 |
|
High |
B2 |
|
Very High |
C1 |
|
Restricted |
C2 |
|
Off-credit |
D |
Australia - ECONOMIC OVERVIEW
Australia's abundant and diverse natural resources attract high levels of foreign investment and include extensive reserves of coal, iron ore, copper, gold, natural gas, uranium, and renewable energy sources. A series of major investments, such as the US$40 billion Gorgon Liquid Natural Gas project, will significantly expand the resources sector. Australia also has a large services sector and is a significant exporter of natural resources, energy, and food. Key tenets of Australia''s trade policy include support for open trade and the successful culmination of the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations, particularly for agriculture and services. The Australian economy grew for 17 consecutive years before the global financial crisis. Subsequently, the former RUDD government introduced a fiscal stimulus package worth over US$50 billion to offset the effect of the slowing world economy, while the Reserve Bank of Australia cut interest rates to historic lows. These policies - and continued demand for commodities, especially from China - helped the Australian economy rebound after just one quarter of negative growth. The economy grew by 1.4% during 2009 - the best performance in the OECD - by 2.7% in 2010, and by 1.8% in 2011. Unemployment, originally expected to reach 8-10%, peaked at 5.7% in late 2009 and fell to 5.0% in 2011. As a result of an improved economy, the budget deficit is expected to peak below 4.2% of GDP and the government could return to budget surpluses as early as 2015. Australia was one of the first advanced economies to raise interest rates, with seven rate hikes between October 2009 and November 2010. The GILLARD government is focused on raising Australia''s economic productivity to ensure the sustainability of growth, and continues to manage the symbiotic, but sometimes tense, economic relationship with China. Australia is engaged in the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks and ongoing free trade agreement negotiations with China, Japan, and Korea.
|
Source : CIA |
Verified Address
Subject
name : EXEGO PTY
LIMITED
Other
style / Business name : REPCO /
ASHDOWN INGRAM / MOTOSPECS
Business
address : 362 Wellington Road
Town :
Mulgrave
Province
: Victoria
Zip/postal
code : 3170
Country
: Australia
Tel : +61 3 95665444
Fax : +61 3
95621193
Email
: webenquiries@exego.com.au
Website
: www.exego.com.au
Registered
address : 362 Wellington
Road
Town :
Mulgrave
Province
: Victoria
Zip/postal
code : 3170
Country
: Australia
Executive Summary
Date
founded or registered : 29/08/2001
Legal
form : Australian
Proprietary Company
Chief
executive : John
Leonard Moller
Issued
& paid up capital : AUD 1
Sales
turnover : AUD
1,002,921,000 (Group-consolidated 12 months, 30/06/2011)
Line
of business : Supplier
in the automotive parts and accessories.
Staff
employed : 5,011
employees (Exego Group)
Country
risk : Country
risk is minimal
Operation
trend : Operational
trend is steady
Management
experience : Management is
adequately experienced
Financial
performance : Group financial
performance is good
Organization
structure : Organizational
structure is stable
Detrimental
: No detrimental found
Payment
history : No payment
delays noted
Registry Data
Registration
date : 29/08/2001
Legal
form : Australian
Proprietary Company
Registration
no Australian Company Number: 097993283
Registered
authority : Australian
Securities & Investments Commission
Fiscal/
Tax no : Australian
Business Number: 97097993283
Registry
status : Live/Active
Previous name : The
Subject was established on 29-08-2001 under the name AUTOMOTIVE PARTS GROUP
AUSTRALIA LIMITED and changed its name to AUTOMOTIVE PARTS GROUP LIMITED on
31-08-2001. AUTOMOTIVE PARTS GROUP LIMITED then changed its name to REPCO
LIMITED on 28-11-2002. On 07-06-2007, the Subject converted into a Australian
Proprietary Company under the name REPCO PTY LIMITED. Finally REPCO PTY LIMITED
changed its name to the current style on 12-02-2009.
Change
of legal form : None
reported.
Key Management
Name :
John Leonard
Moller
Designation
: Managing Director
Name :
Cary Damien
Laverty
Designation
: Chief Financial Officer
Appointments
Name :
John
Leonard Moller
Designation
: Director
Appointment
date : 30/07/07
Address
: 388
Beach Road
Beaumaris, VIC 3193
Australia
Biography
: Born on
05-01-1959 in Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, Australia.
Name :
Cary
Damien Laverty
Designation
: Company
Secretary
Appointment
date : 24/01/07
Address
: 167
Miller Street
Fitzroy North, VIC 3068
Australia
Biography
: Born on
19-12-1971 in Corryong, Victoria, Australia.
Staff
employed : 5,011 employees
(Exego Group)
Key Advisors
Auditors
: ERNST & YOUNG
120 Collins Street
Melbourne, VIC 3000
Australia
Composition
Authorized
Capital : AUD 1
No of
shares : 1
Ordinary Share
Share
par value : AUD 1
Issued
capital : AUD 1
Paid
up capital :
AUD 1
How
listed : Full List
Composition
Shareholder
name : EXEGO (AUST) HOLDINGS PTY
LIMITED
Address
: 362 Wellington Road
Mulgrave, VIC 3170
Australia
No. of
shares : 1 Ordinary Share
% of shares
: 100%
Structure
Name :
UNITAS CAPITAL
PTE. LTD.
Affiliation
type : Ultimate
Holding Company
Address
: St. George's
Building, 14th Floor
2 Ice House Street
Central
Hong Kong
Comments : Unitas
Capital is among Asia’s most experienced private equity firms, with a focus on
buyouts and growth equity investments into medium-to-large size market leading
companies in the branded consumer, retail and industrial sectors.
- UNITAS CAPITAL was established in 1999
- US$4 billion capital under management
UNITAS CAPITAL History
The Unitas Capital team originally founded J.P. Morgan
Partners Asia in 1999 and then became known as CCMP Capital Asia in 2005 when
spun-off from JP
Morgan. The firm was rebranded as Unitas Capital in January
2009.
Name :
AO II (CAYMAN
HOLDINGS) LIMITED
Affiliation
type : Superior
Holding Company
Address
: Cayman Islands
Name :
EXEGO ACQUISITION
CO PTY LTD
Affiliation
type : Holding
Company
Address
: 362 Wellington Road
Mulgrave VIC 3170
Australia
Name :
EXEGO GROUP PTY.
LTD
Affiliation
type : Intermediate
Holding Company
Address
: 362 Wellington Road
Mulgrave VIC 3170
Australia
Comments : Exego
Group Pty. Ltd. operates as a reseller and supplier of aftermarket automotive
parts and accessories in Australia and New Zealand. It imports and distributes
automotive electrical, fuel injection, air conditioning, and radiators;
motorcycle helmets, clothing, footwear, and accessories; under vehicle and
under bonnet products, including drive train, power steering, engine
management, and braking products, as well as diesel fuel injection parts and
equipment; and engines and engine components, as well as automotive-related
tools and equipment. The company offers products through a network of stores to
trade and retail customers, including motorcycle retail outlets, automotive
electricians, and air conditioning specialists. Exego Group was formerly known
as Repco Group and changed its name to Exego Group Pty. Ltd. in 2009. The
company is based in Mulgrave, Australia.
Name :
EXEGO (AUST)
HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED
Affiliation
type : Parent
Company
Address
: 362 Wellington Road
Mulgrave, VIC 3170
Australia
Name :
MCLEOD
ACCESSORIES PTY LIMITED
Affiliation
type : Sister
Company
Address
: 59 Raubers Road
Northgate, QLD 4013
Australia
Comments
: Importer and
distributor of motorcycle helmets, clothing, footwear and accessories.
Related
companies and corporate
affiliations
comments
: Other
companies of the Unitas Group should be considered affiliates of the
Subject.
Bank Details
Name
of bank : National
Australia Bank Limited
Address
: Australia
Account
details : Current Account
Comments : It
is generally not the policy of local banks to provide credit status information
to non related parties, however interested parties would be advised to consult
first with the Subject if banker's references are required.
Mortgages
: Satisfied Charges:
ASIC
Charge Number: 822642
Date
Registered: 21-09-2001
Charge
type: Both Fixed &
Floating
Date
Created: 14-09-2001
Chargees
Name: ANZ FIDUCIARY SERVICES
PTY LTD
ASIC
Charge Number: 822772
Date
Registered: 21-09-2001
Charge
type: Fixed
Date
Created: 19-09-2001
Chargees
Name: ANZ FIDUCIARY SERVICES
PTY LTD
ASIC
Charge Number: 822777
Date
Registered: 21-09-2001
Charge
type: Both Fixed &
Floating
Date
Created: 14-09-2001
Chargees
Name: ANZ FIDUCIARY SERVICES
PTY LTD
ASIC
Charge Number: 822786
Date
Registered: 21-09-2001
Charge
type: Both Fixed &
Floating
Date
Created: 14-09-2001
Chargees
Name: ANZ FIDUCIARY SERVICES
PTY LTD
ASIC
Charge Number: 822789
Date
Registered: 21-09-2001
Charge
type: Both Fixed &
Floating
Date
Created: 14-09-2001
Chargees
Name: ANZ FIDUCIARY SERVICES
PTY LTD
ASIC
Charge Number: 822801
Date
Registered: 21-09-2001
Charge
type: Both Fixed &
Floating
Date
Created: 14-09-2001
Chargees
Name: ANZ FIDUCIARY SERVICES
PTY LTD
ASIC
Charge Number: 889661
Date
Registered: 13-09-2002
Charge
type: Both Fixed &
Floating
Date
Created: 14-09-2001
Chargees
Name: ANZ FIDUCIARY SERVICES
PTY LTD
ASIC
Charge Number: 889662
Date
Registered: 13-09-2002
Charge
type: Both Fixed &
Floating
Date
Created: 14-09-2001
Chargees
Name: ANZ FIDUCIARY SERVICES
PTY LTD
Unsatisfied
Charges:
ASIC
Charge Number: 1459747
Date
Registered: 28-05-2007
Charge
type: Both Fixed &
Floating
Date
Created: 07-05-2007
Chargees
Name: BARCLAYS BANK PLC
ASIC
Charge Number: 1459751
Date
Registered: 28-05-2007
Charge
type: Both Fixed &
Floating
Date
Created: 07-05-2007
Chargees
Name: BARCLAYS BANK PLC
ASIC
Charge Number: 1459752
Date
Registered: 28-05-2007
Charge
type: Both Fixed &
Floating
Date
Created: 07-05-2007
Chargees
Name: BARCLAYS BANK PLC
ASIC
Charge Number: 1459755
Date
Registered: 28-05-2007
Charge
type: Both Fixed &
Floating
Date
Created: 07-05-2007
Chargees
Name: BARCLAYS BANK PLC
ASIC
Charge Number: 1459758
Date
Registered: 28-05-2007
Charge
type: Both Fixed &
Floating
Date
Created: 07-05-2007
Chargees
Name: BARCLAYS BANK PLC
ASIC
Charge Number: 1459759
Date
Registered: 28-05-2007
Charge
type: Both Fixed &
Floating
Date
Created: 07-05-2007
Chargees
Name: BARCLAYS BANK PLC
ASIC
Charge Number: 1459761
Date
Registered: 28-05-2007
Charge
type: Both Fixed &
Floating
Date
Created: 07-05-2007
Chargees
Name: BARCLAYS BANK PLC
ASIC
Charge Number: 1468623
Date
Registered: 19-06-2007
Charge
type: Both Fixed &
Floating
Date
Created: 30-05-2007
Chargees
Name: BARCLAYS BANK PLC
ASIC
Charge Number: 1468625
Date
Registered: 19-06-2007
Charge
type: Both Fixed &
Floating
Date
Created: 30-05-2007
Chargees
Name: BARCLAYS BANK PLC
Legal
Fillings
Bankruptcy
fillings : None reported.
Court
judgements : JUDGE: Pagone J
WHERE
HELD: Melbourne
DATE
OF HEARING: 3 November 2010
DATE
OF JUDGMENT: 5 November 2010
CASE
MAY BE CITED AS: Australian Power Steering Pty Ltd v Exego Pty Ltd
APPEARANCES:
For
the Plaintiff - Mr A. Herskope from the firm Anderson Rice Lawyers
For
the Defendant - Mr G. Rakoczy from the firm Lander & Rogers Solicitors
HIS
HONOUR:
1 The
plaintiff’s liquidators have applied for the Court’s approval to compromise
the
plaintiff’s cause of action against the defendant. Section 477(2A) of the
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) provides that a liquidator of a company must not
compromise debts of certain amounts except with the approval of the Court.
2 The principles relevant to the Court’s consideration of whether to approve a
compromise have frequently been stated. In McPherson’s Law of Company
Liquidation,
the learned authors state:
Thus,
in determining whether to approve a compromise in relation to an insolvent
company’s
affairs, the court’s prime consideration is whether the compromise is
for
the benefit of the creditors as a whole.
When
deciding whether or not to grant approval under s 477(2A), the court will
“pay
regard to the commercial judgment of the liquidator”, though it does not
“rubber
stamp … whatever is put forward by the liquidator”. In considering the
settlement
of legal proceedings, liquidators are expected to obtain advice from
legal
practitioners appropriate to the nature and value of the claims. Where large
sums
are involved courts expect liquidators to secure the advice of experienced
counsel.
Approval of a compromise can be granted retrospectively by the court,
so
that a party to a compromise that is subsequently approved under s 477(2A) is
unable
to say that he or she is not bound by it, even though at the time the
compromise
was made, no court approval had been secured.
The
role of the Court in considering whether to approve a compromise is not that
of a
rubber stamp. The Court must assess for itself, and be satisfied upon
sufficient
probative material, that approval to a compromise should be given. A
Court
will, however, place weight and rely upon the liquidator’s commercial
judgment
in reaching the compromise and generally will not interfere with a
page
11 / 22
liquidator’s
decision unless there is some lack of good faith, legal error or real
and
substantial grounds for doubting the prudence of the liquidator’s conduct.
3 In
this case one of the liquidators has filed an affidavit in support of the
application
to approve a settlement of the proceeding against Exego Pty Ltd
(“Exego”)
for $150,000. The company’s claim in the proceeding is for recovery
of
$847,414.94 comprising amounts owing on unpaid invoices for product sales of
$206,129.01
and unpaid deposit invoices of $641,285.93. These claims are
contested
by Exego which it also asserted were extinguished by set off claims
against
the company in liquidation. The liquidators believe that they are likely to
recover
significantly more than $150,000 if the company is successful in its claim
at
trial but that the proposed settlement provides a sensible commercial outcome
for a
number of reasons.
4
Peter Goodin and Robyn Erskine are the joint and several liquidators of the
plaintiff.
Mr Goodin has sworn an affidavit in which he deposed to the opinion of
both
liquidators that the proposed settlement provides a sensible commercial
outcome
notwithstanding their belief that they would obtain more if the matter
went
to trial. The reasons given by the joint liquidators through Mr Goodin are
that:
(a)
the settlement will provide certainty and will remove the risk of an uncertain
outcome;
(b)
the settlement will avoid incurring further significant costs in prosecuting
the
proceeding;
(c)
the proceeds of the settlement will provide the liquidators with an amount in
hand
from which they can pay out the balance of the company’s legal costs in
the
proceeding and the liquidation costs and part of the employee entitlements;
(d)
the settlement terms have been negotiated at arm’s length between legally
represented
parties;
(e)
the settlement will avoid the need for the liquidators to incur additional
costs to
assess
the validity and strength of the defendant’s allegations in the amended
defences
which, if they were to succeed, would reduce the claim by at least
$171,431
to approximately $676,000;
(f)
the liquidators have been advised by their legal representatives that the case
is
not
without risk of failure and, as in any litigation, is subject to some degree of
uncertainty;
and
(g)
there is uncertainty about the date of trial and how it may be conducted and
disposed
of with the possibility that liability and quantum might be determined
separately.
There
is no reason to doubt that these are the matters which have been taken
into
account personally by the liquidators in reaching their conclusion that a
certain
sum of $150,000 now is preferable to pursuing a larger but uncertain sum
in the
future. The reasons do not each carry equal weight but each may have
played
its part in the decision by two experienced liquidators in reaching the
conclusion
which they have.
5 The
liquidators also rely upon a written advice from counsel recommending
settlement
upon the basis for which my approval is sought. An order was sought
that
the advice from counsel be kept confidential but there is nothing in the
advice
which justifies an order for confidentiality in this case. That advice to the
liquidators
recommended acceptance of $150,000 as proper and appropriate to
settle
the dispute in much the same terms and upon much the same basis as in
Mr
Goodin’s affidavit.
6 It
is appropriate and common for opinions of independent counsel to be given in
evidence
to a Court being asked to approve a settlement. In broadly similar
circumstances
Finkelstein J said in Lopez v Star World Enterprises Pty Ltd:
With
regard to the application under s 33V, my principal task is to assess whether
the
compromise is a fair and reasonable compromise of the claims made on
behalf
of the group members. I am not so much concerned with the position of Mr
Lopez
who, after all, has solicitors and counsel to advise him as to how his
interests
will best be served in the litigation. The group members are not
protected
in this way. It is true that any group member may opt out of the
proceeding
to avoid his or her rights being affected in any way (whether adversely
or
beneficially) by the outcome of this litigation. But, I have no doubt that many
members
of this group (and no doubt members of other large groups who are
represented
in proceedings in the court) will remain as represented parties (that is
not
opt out of the proceeding) without a real appreciation of what that entails. In
particular,
it is likely that many group members will not understand that any
judgment
given in a representative proceeding will be binding upon them: see s
33ZB.
Even if the group members are provided with a summary of the law relating
to
matters such as issue estoppel and res judicata, it is unlikely to be
instructive to
most
of them.
Accordingly,
the task of the court in considering an application under s 33V is
indeed
an onerous one especially where the application is not opposed. It is a
task
in which the court inevitably must rely heavily on the solicitor retained by,
and
counsel
who appears for, the applicant to put before it all matters relevant to the
court's
consideration of the matter. In this regard there would be few cases where
the
court can properly exercise its power under s 33V without evidence from the
solicitor
supported by counsel that the proposed compromise is in the interests of
the
group members. I appreciate that, on occasion, this will place the solicitor
and
counsel
in a difficult position. The interests of their client will not always be
coincident
with the interests of the members of the group. But, in my view, that is
no
more than a necessary consequence of their client instituting a representative
action.
In
class actions the Court may be concerned about compromising the interest of
group
members who are not separately represented in the proceeding or in the
settlement
negotiations, and in the case of approval under s 477(2A), the prime
consideration
for the Court asked for approval is whether the compromise is for
the
benefit of the creditors. In each case the Court may have to rely heavily on
the
lawyers
retained by those seeking the Court’s approval. The Court will need to
be
informed about all matters that fairly and relevantly bear upon whether
approval
should be given. In that respect, the Court will be dependent upon the
skill,
judgment and candour of the lawyer in identifying for the Court what the
Court
will need to be informed about for the Court’s approval to be properly
considered.
That, as his Honour pointed out in Lopez, may place the lawyer in a
difficult
position because the interest of the lawyer’s client may not always be
coincident
with all affected by the compromise for which approval is sought. The
creditors
have no direct or separate voice in the application for approval of the
settlement
and the liquidator seeking approval and the lawyers giving advice are
not
disinterested in the outcome. Indeed it may be that in some cases it will be
the
liquidators and their lawyers whose benefit will be more evident by the
proposed
compromise than the benefit to other creditors.
7 It
is for such reasons that there should be adequately set out in the opinions
relied
upon the basis upon which the Court can see how the creditors will benefit,
why
the liquidators seek approval for the benefit of the creditors and why the
lawyers
have recommended that the compromise be accepted. The lawyer’s
opinion
should usually be sufficiently detailed to enable the Court to see the basis
upon
which the recommendation was made and, if need be, for the Court to be
able
to evaluate whether the recommendation should be approved. The detail
which
needs to be explained to the Court from which approval is sought will vary
from
case to case as circumstances, complexity and urgency of decision making
differ.
The factors that may bear upon the Court’s approval are likely to differ
greatly
from case to case and to some extent may be unpredictable. In one case
it may
be easy to show how the creditors are likely to benefit from a compromise
whilst
in another the question of approval may be affected by significant
complexity
of the issues involved, the difficulties of forensic evaluation or the need
for
rapid decision to seize a fleeting opportunity.
8 In
this case there is a substantial difference between the amount of the claim
against
Exego and the amount accepted in settlement. The claim would not
appear
to be complex or difficult and the liquidators believe that they are likely to
recover
significantly more than $150,000 if the company is successful in the
proceeding.
However, notwithstanding their belief, the liquidators are prepared to
accept
a substantially lesser amount in what they consider to be a sensible
commercial
outcome. They are supported in that view by an opinion to that effect
by
counsel who has had the carriage of the proceeding since inception and who
has
been involved in its conduct to date. The task of the Court is not one of
deciding
whether it would itself accept the amount but, rather, whether to approve
the
exercise of judgment made by the liquidators. The material filed in this case
in
support of the application for approval is on the thinner end of the scale and
does
not make out a strong case for approval. The opinions and belief expressed
by Mr
Goodin (no doubt upon advice) and those expressed by counsel are largely
expressed
in general words applicable to all cases without much specific or
detailed
application to the particular facts of this case. It is hard to see from the
generalised
statements of benefits of compromise why the particular amount in
this
case is appropriate and ought to receive the Court’s approval. However,
despite
some concern about the strength of the material relied upon in the
application
for the Court’s approval I have decided that approval should be given.
The
amount of the settlement is much smaller than the amount claimed but it is
not
insignificant. To pursue a larger claim is likely to incur additional costs
which
(if
successful) would reduce the net benefit of receipt of a larger amount. There
is
also a
recommendation by counsel that the proposed settlement be accepted by
the
liquidators. The opinion might not be as informative or helpful to the Court as
it
might have been but the Court can have comfort from the fact that independent
and
experienced counsel has recommended the course which experienced
liquidators
propose to accept. The plaintiff’s case against Exego does not
appear
to be complex or particularly difficult to establish but counsel informed me
that
there are complex questions of the set off claim that make success uncertain.
Counsel
has had the benefit of being fully briefed on the facts of the case and has
had the
benefit of considering its factual and legal strengths and weaknesses.
Counsel
was mindful of the need to bring to the Court’s attention in such
applications
all matters which may affect the Court’s decision about whether to
approve
the compromise and, in that regard, of a duty of candour to the Court.
The
judgment of the liquidators in this case, therefore, should be accepted to
provide
an immediate certainty of a significant amount which will benefit the
creditors
notwithstanding that they forgo the possibility of a larger sum if
successful
at some point in the future.
9
Accordingly I propose to approve the compromise of the debt claimed in the
proceeding
against Exego for $150,000 as sought by the liquidator.
Tax
liens : None reported.
Others
: None reported.
Description
Source
of financial statement : External
Sources
Financial
statement date : 30/06/11
Type
of accounts : Key
figures
Currency
: Australia
Dollar (AUD)
Exchange rate : 1USD = AUD 0.96 as of 28-12-2012
Summarized Financial Information
Consolidation
type : Group Consolidated
Currency
: Australia
Dollar (AUD)
Denomination
: (x1) One
Date
of financial year end : 30/06/11
Length
of accounts : 12 months
Sale
turnover / Income : 1,002,921,000
Comments
: The group’s consolidated financial figure above relates to the Exego Group
full
operation
in Australia.
The
Subject is classified as a small proprietary company by the Australian
Securities
& Investments Commission hence is not required to disclose their
financial
statement.
A
proprietary company is defined as small for a financial year if it satisfies at
least
two of
the following:
- The
consolidated revenue for the financial year of the company and any entities
it
controls is less than $25 million;
-The
value of the consolidated gross assets at the end of the financial year of the
company
and any entities it controls is less than $12.5 million, and
-The
company and any entities it controls have fewer than 50 employees at the
end of
the financial year.
The
Subject meets all criteria to disclose their financial information however is
still
exempted
by the Authority.
Main
activities : The Subject engages in distribution of automotive aftermarket
parts and
accessories.
The
Subject is part of Exego Group. Exego Group operates under four
main
business units:
Repco
Group - Repco markets and distributes automotive parts and
accessories
across Australia and New Zealand to both trade and retail
customers
via approximately 400 stores.
Ashdown-Ingram
- Ashdown-Ingram supplies automotive electrical, lighting,
radiators
and air conditioning products, primarily to automotive electricians
and
air conditioning specialists via its 44 store network across Australia
and
New Zealand.
McLeod
Accessories - McLeod Accessories imports motorcycle helmets,
clothing,
footwear and equipment and on-sells to motorcycle retail outlets.
Motospecs
- Motospecs imports and distributes aftermarket automotive
parts
including: drivetrain, power steering, engine management and
braking
parts. Motospecs has eight reseller branches in Australia and New
Zealand.
Pioneer Autoparts is Motospecs' New Zealand outlet, offering V8
engine
parts, automotive consumables, performance products and
motorsport.
Brand
: REPCO
ASHDOWN
INGRAM
MOTOSPECS
Purchases
International
: Worldwide
Sales
Local
: Yes
International
: New Zealand
Key
events : 26 September 2011
Genuine
Parts Company Invests in Leading Aftermarket Distributor in
Australasia
ATLANTA,
Sept. 26, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- Genuine Parts Company
(NYSE:
GPC) and the Exego Group ("Exego") announced today that they
have
entered into a definitive strategic agreement whereby Exego will issue
new
shares to Genuine Parts Company, representing a 30% stake in
Exego
for approximately $150 million (US$) in cash. Exego,
headquartered
in Melbourne, Australia, is a leading aftermarket distributor
of
automotive replacement parts and accessories in Australasia, with
annual
revenues of approximately $1 billion (US$) and a company-owned
store footprint
of more than 430 locations across Australia and New
Zealand.
Subject to regulatory approvals, the effective date of the
investment
is expected to be on or around December 1, 2011.
Genuine
Parts Company will have the option to acquire the remaining
shares
of the Exego Group at a later date, subject to Exego meeting
certain
earnings thresholds.
Thomas
C. Gallagher, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of
Genuine
Parts Company, stated, "With this investment, Genuine Parts is
well
positioned to participate in the significant long-term growth
opportunities
in the Australasian aftermarket and the potential for targeted
growth
in Asia. Utilizing an initial minority investment in Exego, we are able
to
align ourselves with a company that has a leading market position and a
long
and successful history approaching almost 90 years in the automotive
business.
Exego is a familiar partner to us, as we have had the benefit of
an
informal relationship with their team for the last twenty years. The
structure
of this agreement will truly benefit our shareholders over the
long-term
and allow us to participate in one of the fastest growing
automotive
aftermarkets in the world in a disciplined manner."
The
Exego Group Managing Director, John Moller, said, "We have built a
long-standing
relationship with GPC and its NAPA group over the past
twenty
years and we are excited about the expertise and experience we
can
share between our businesses. NAPA's broad range of automotive
products
and strong focus on providing value to its customers align very
well
with the Exego Group. Genuine Parts Company is a natural long-term
owner
with a commitment to growth in this industry, and we intend to use
the
injected funds to pursue this objective."
About
Genuine Parts Company
Genuine
Parts Company is a distributor of automotive replacement parts in
the
U.S., Canada and Mexico. The Company also distributes industrial
replacement
parts in the U.S. and Canada through its Motion Industries
subsidiary.
S.P. Richards Company, the Office Products Group, distributes
business
products nationwide in the U.S. and Canada. The
Electrical/Electronic
Group, EIS, Inc., distributes electrical and electronic
components
throughout the U.S., Canada and Mexico. Genuine Parts
Company
had 2010 revenues of $11.2 billion.
About
Exego Group
Exego
Group is the largest automotive aftermarket parts supplier in
Australia
and New Zealand; reselling and distributing automotive
replacement
parts, accessories, and related automotive tools and
equipment
through a network of more than 430 stores and a team of more
than
3,800 dedicated staff. The company services both commercial and
retail
customers (commercial revenue represents about 66% of total
revenue).
Exego
Group can trace its origins back to 1922. Its predecessor
businesses
first began supplying automotive parts and equipment to trade
customers
in 1926 and entered the New Zealand market in the early
1980s.
With over 80 years of operational experience, Exego Group brands
are
synonymous with automotive aftermarket products and have a high
level
of brand recognition amongst its commercial and retail customers in
Australia
and New Zealand, with more than 175,000 SKUs in its product
range
and more than 36,000 commercial customers. Due to its market
leadership
and scale, Exego Group has underlying competitive advantages
in
branding, procurement (buying power) and logistics.
December
11, 2006
CCMP
CAPITAL ASIA OFFERS $1.75 FOR REPCO SHARES
CCMP
Capital Asia (CCMPA) has today entered into an Implementation
Deed with
Repco Corporation Limited (Repco), pursuant to which funds
managed
by CCMPA (CCMPA Funds) intend to acquire for cash all of the
shares
in Repco at a price of $1.75 per share.
CCMP
Funds- special-purpose company, CCMP Acquisition Co. Pty Ltd,
proposes
to acquire the shares by means of a Scheme of Arrangement
requiring
the approval of the Court and Repco's shareholders.
CCMPA
partner, Mr Stephen King said: "The offer represents a significant
premium
and in our view is the most certain way for shareholders to realise
value
in the business. Repco faces a number of challenges which we
believe
are best tackled under private ownership. We are aiming to give the
company
the focus, patience and additional investment required to
recapture
its long-term potential".
CCMPA
believes the offer is highly attractive to Repco shareholders,
representing
a premium of:
-
32.6% to Repco's closing share price of $1.32 on 6 December, 2006
(being
the date prior to takeover speculation concerning the company);
-
32.6% to the volume weighted average price of Repco's shares from and
including
28 August 2006 (being the date Repco released its results for the
year
ending 30 June 2006) up to and including 6 December 2006.
The
proposed consideration values Repco, on an enterprise value basis,
atapproximately
$570 million (based on Repco's net debt position as at 30
September
2006) which equates to 8.6x normalized earnings before
interest,
tax, depreciation and amortisation for the year ending 30 June
2006.
About
CCMPA
CCMPA,
formerly known as JP Morgan Partners Asia, is one of the largest
and
most experienced financial sponsors in Asia, and also one of the most
active
funds in the Australian market. CCMPA's first fund, the US$1.1
billion
Asia Opportunity Fund ("AOF I"), was closed in 2000 and was one of
the
first pan-Asia leveraged buyout oriented investment funds raised for the
region.
The Asia Opportunity Fund II ("AOF II") was closed in August of
2005
at US$1.6 billion.
CCMPA has
invested in 23 companies in the Asia-Pacific region to date,
with
total transaction value of over US$10 billion. The commitments are
spread
across Asia in CCMPA's focus markets of Australia, Japan, Korea,
Greater
China, and Singapore.
Further
information can be found at www.ccmpasia.com
CCMPA
has engaged Citigroup Corporate and Investment Bank as
financial
advisor and Baker & McKenzie as legal advisor.
Property
& Assets
Premises
: The Subject operates from premises located at the verified heading
address
consisting of an administrative office and warehouse.
Branches
: In addition, the group operates from a network of over 435 locations
throughout
Australia and New Zealand.
Gross Domestic Products (GDP) &
Economic Overview
Central
bank : Reserve
Bank of Australia
Reserve
of foreign exchange & gold : US$
43.879 billion
Gross
domestic product - GDP : US$
1.586 trillion
GPP
(Purchasing power parity) : 954.296
billion of International dollars
GDP
per capita - current prices : US$
68,916
GDP -
composition by sector : agriculture:
4%
industry: 25.6%
services: 70.4%
Inflation
: 2009:
1.8%
2010: 2.8%
2011: 3.4%
Unemployment
rate : 2009:
5.6%
2010: 5.2%
2011: 5.1%
Public
debt
(General
Government gross debt as
a %
GDP)
: 2009: 16.9%
2010: 20.4%
2011: 22.9%
Government
bond ratings : Standard & Poor's: AAA/Stable/A-1+
Moody's rating: Aaa
Moody's outlook: STA
Market
value of publicly traded
shares
: US$1.258 trillion
Largest
companies in the country : Commonwealth Bank (Banking), BHP Billiton
(Materials), Westpac Banking
Group
(Banking), Rio Tinto (Materials), National Australia Bank (Banking),
ANZ
Banking (Banking), Telstra (Telecommunications)
Trade & Competitiveness Overview
Total
exports : US$210.7 billion
Exports
commodities : Coal, iron ore, gold, meat,
wool, alumina, wheat
Total
imports : US$187.2 billion
Imports commodities : Machinery
and transport equipment, computers and office machines, telecommunication
equipment and parts, crude oil and petroleum products
Export
- major partners : Japan 18.9%, China 14.2%, South Korea 8%, US 6%, NZ 5.6%,
India
5.5%, UK 4.2%
Import
- major partners : China 15.5%, US 12.8%, Japan 9.6%, Singapore 5.6%, Germany
5.2%,
UK 4.3%, Thailand 4.2%
FDI
Inflows : 2008: US$46,843
million
2009: US$25,716 million
2010: US$32,472 million
FDI
Outflows : 2008: US$33,604
million
2009: US$16,160 million
2010: US$26,431 million
Best
countries for doing business : 10 out of 183 countries
Global
competitiveness ranking : 20 (ranking by country on a basis of 142, the first
is the best)
Country and Population Overview
Total
population : 22.23 million
Total
area : 7,692,024 km2
Capital
: Canberra
Currency
: Australian dollars
(AUD)
Internet
users as % of total
population
: 76%
Purchase Term
Local
: Prepayment, D/P, Credit up to 90 days
International
: L/C, D/P, Credit up to 90 days
Sales
Term
Local
: Cash, Credit card, Bank transfer, D/P, Credit up to 90 days
International
: Prepayment, D/P, Credit up to 90 days
Trade Reference/ Payment
Behaviour
Comments
: As local and international trade references were not supplied, the Subject's
payment
track record history cannot be appropriately determined but based
on our
research, payments are believed to be met without delay.
Investigation
Note
Sources
: Interviews and material provided by the Subject
:
Other official and local business sources
FOREIGN EXCHANGE RATES
|
Currency |
Unit
|
Indian Rupees |
|
US Dollar |
1 |
Rs.54.85 |
|
UK Pound |
1 |
Rs.88.40 |
|
Euro |
1 |
Rs.72.63 |
INFORMATION DETAILS
|
Report Prepared
by : |
PDT |
RATING EXPLANATIONS
|
RATING |
STATUS |
PROPOSED CREDIT LINE |
|
|
>86 |
Aaa |
Possesses an extremely sound financial base with the strongest capability
for timely payment of interest and principal sums |
Unlimited |
|
71-85 |
Aa |
Possesses adequate working capital. No caution needed for credit
transaction. It has above average (strong) capability for payment of interest
and principal sums |
Large |
|
56-70 |
A |
Financial & operational base are regarded healthy. General
unfavourable factors will not cause fatal effect. Satisfactory capability for
payment of interest and principal sums |
Fairly Large |
|
41-55 |
Ba |
Overall operation is considered normal. Capable to meet normal
commitments. |
Satisfactory |
|
26-40 |
B |
Capability to overcome financial difficulties seems comparatively
below average. |
Small |
|
11-25 |
Ca |
Adverse factors are apparent. Repayment of interest and principal sums
in default or expected to be in default upon maturity |
Limited with
full security |
|
<10 |
C |
Absolute credit risk exists. Caution needed to be exercised |
Credit not
recommended |
|
---- |
NB |
New Business |
---- |
This score serves as
a reference to assess SC’s credit risk and to set the amount of credit to be
extended. It is calculated from a composite of weighted scores obtained from
each of the major sections of this report. The assessed factors and their
relative weights (as indicated through %) are as follows:
Financial
condition (40%) Ownership
background (20%) Payment
record (10%)
Credit history
(10%) Market trend (10%) Operational size
(10%)
This report is issued at your request without any
risk and responsibility on the part of MIRA INFORM PRIVATE LIMITED (MIPL)
or its officials.