|
Report Date : |
23.02.2013 |
IDENTIFICATION DETAILS
|
Name : |
EXEGO PTY LIMITED |
|
|
|
|
Formerly Known As : |
REPCO PTY LIMITED |
|
|
|
|
Registered Office : |
362 Wellington Road, Mulgrave, Victoria 3170 |
|
|
|
|
Country : |
Australia |
|
|
|
|
Date of Incorporation : |
29.08.2001 |
|
|
|
|
Com. Reg. No.: |
097993283 |
|
|
|
|
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.
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
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 : 1
USD = AUD 0.97 as of 22-02-2013
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.54.42 |
|
|
1 |
Rs.83.20 |
|
Euro |
1 |
Rs.71.90 |
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.