Displaying items by tag: Court
Rai Group loses bid for ARM Cement
13 September 2019Kenya: PricewaterhouseCoopers has rejected Rai Group’s bank guarantee of US$12.5m as part of its US$62.6m bid for ownership of ARM Cement. The bid constituted an attempt to forestall the latter’s sale to Devki Group subsidiary National Cement, which remains under the scrutiny of the courts. Business Daily has reported that Rai Group’s offer failed due to an insufficient expiry period of nine months on the guarantee, exposing the seller to untenable risk.
Cement executive on trial as State Control Committee calls for penalties for officials
12 September 2019Belarus: The Council of Ministers has received a recommendation from the State Control Commission (SCC) that punitive measures be taken against officials responsible for cement production in the midst of another disappointing year. Belapan has reported that members of the SCC blamed the failure to secure efficient performance on untenable costs due to intermediaries. Investigators from the SCC’s Financial Investigations Department (FID) found that Russian intermediaries were selling cement produced in Belarus to Belarusian state-owned companies at a marked-up price. A total of 13 criminal cases have been opened in connection with the findings, including one against an executive of a Belarusian cement company.
In 2013, Belarus completed the modernisation of its three state-owned cement producers, Belarusian Cement, Krasnoselsktroymaterialy and Krichevcementnoshifer to a total capacity of 2.3Mt/yr, at a cost of US$1.1bn. In 2018, the companies missed eight of their 10 key performance targets. Besides cost reduction, capacity utilisation and labour productivity targets were not met.
Elsewhere, Krasnoselsktroymaterialy has tendered for the supply of gas cleaning equipment, including the replacement of bag filters at two of the mills in its grinding facility.
Adelaide Brighton Cement employee in court on US$8.52m fraud charges
11 September 2019Australia: Adelaide Brighton’s credit manager from 2009 to 2017 appeared in Adelaide Magistrates Court accused of defrauding the company of US$8.52m over 230 different occasions. ABC news has reported that the defendant stands charged of aggravated deception and dishonestly dealing with documents.
Australia: A general labourer and rigger who worked for Macweld Industries, contracted by Adelaide Brighton at its Birkenhead cement plant, is suing the cement company. The Advertiser has reported that the man is seeking damages for Adelaide Brighton’s ‘failure to take reasonable action to minimise risk of injury,’ which allegedly led to the man falling through a hole during upgrade works on the plant in 2016. The man previously received an unspecified sum in worker’s compensation benefits from his erstwhile employer.
Rai Group fighting sale of ARM Cement
04 September 2019Kenya: Rai Group must pay a guarantee of US$62.6m to forestall the sale of Athi River Mining (ARM) Cement. The Kenyan financial services company, owned by Jaswant Rai, is backing a claim by Pradeep Paunrana against PricewaterhouseCoopers over its administration of the sale of the publically-owned ARM Cement. Paunrana, erstwhile majority shareholder and managing director of ARM Cement, is contesting the cement company’s sale in May 2019 to Nairobi Cement, a subsidiary of Devki Group, for US$48.2m including a deposit of US$9.62m. Paunrana argues that the sale was unfair because ARM Cement was misvalued, having missed opportunities to sell its fertiliser and mineral production businesses due to pressures from potential buyers. Business Daily has reported that Paunrana previously submitted an unsuccessful bid in consortium with Rai Group to buy back the company for US$62.6m, also May 2019.
Israeli court enters Lev Baron cement import row
04 July 2016Israel: The Supreme Court has posted a temporary injunction preventing the Israel Ports Development & Assets Company and the Ashdod Port Company from halting the cement imports of Lev Baron Commodities. The injunction was imposed in response to an appeal by Lev Baron against Israel Ports and Ashdod Port, according to Israel Business Arena. The move by the court is the latest in a battle between Lev Baron and Israel Ports over the terms of their relationship.
Lev Baron imports cement into Israel, mainly from Cyprus and Turkey. In 2015, it imported 800,000t of cement and is expected to reach 900,000t in 2016. Lev Baron’s imports account for 14% of the cement supply in Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
Australia: The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has filed an appeal against a US$12.6m fine against Cement Australia, which it views is too low. On 16 May 2016 a Federal Court published orders imposing a penalty of US$13.7m on the cement producer. One order was then set aside, reducing the fine to US$12.6m. However, the ACCC contends that a penalty of over US$66m is more appropriate for the breaches of Australia’s competition legislation.
“The ACCC will argue to the Full Court that the penalties imposed on Cement Australia are manifestly inadequate, and not of appropriate deterrent value,” said ACCC Chairman Rod Sims. He added that suitable financial penalties were considered ‘essential’ as a deterrent to anti-competitive conduct and to prevent businesses viewing such behaviour as an acceptable cost of doing business.
The proceedings relate to contracts that were entered into by Cement Australia companies between 2002 and 2006 with four power stations in South East Queensland, to acquire fly ash. The court found numerous contraventions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. It also fined Christopher White, a manager in the Cement Australia fly ash business during the relevant period, a penalty of US$14,700 for his involvement in making the contravening contracts with the operator of the Swanbank power station in 2005.
India: The Calcutta High Court has dismissed two petitions by members of the Birla family intending to challenge the takeover of Reliance Infrastructure by Birla Corporation. Justice Jyotirmoy Bhattacharya held that the petitions were not maintainable stating that decisions taken by the directors could not be called into question by the probate court.
The challenge by the Birla family represents the latest move in a long-running legal battle between the family and accountant R S Lodha, father of the current chairman of Birla Corporation. The cement company announced in February 2016 that it was planning to buy Reliance Infrastructure for US$715m.
EU Commission sends Slovenia to court over eco permits
27 February 2015Slovenia: Slovenia faces EU judicial proceedings for its alleged failure to fully-implement a system of environmental permits for its large industrial plants. The case referred to the EU Court of Justice relates to one of the country's two cement producers, which continues to operate without permits.
The Commission said that matter would be referred to the court for failure to implement provisions of the integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) directive of 2007, which requires that industrial plants be licensed to verify that they meet strict environmental controls. It is the second time that Slovenia has faced EU court action over the IPPC directive, after the Court of Justice found in 2010 that Slovenia was running afoul rules requiring that all plants meet the set requirements.
The EU is seeking a base fine of Euro1.6m for the country plus Euro9009 for each day that the violation persists. The Slovenian Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning said that it was, "Striving to implement as quickly as possible the alleged violations of EU law." Licenses under the IPPC directive became a requirement for member states as of 30 October 2007. According to the Commission, Slovenia has made considerable progress since the 2010 ruling, but full compliance with the judgement has still not been reached.
The new case concerns 'a major cement factory,' which continues to operate without a permit. While it avoided naming the plant, Slovenia has two cement plants owned by Salonit Anhovo and Lafarge. Whereas Salonit Anhovo is a licensed IPPC plant, Lafarge is involved in lengthy bureaucratic and legal proceedings in seeking a permit. It has faced ongoing protests from local groups against it being granted a license. Despite not having a license, the plant continues to operate.
The Environment Ministry said that one of the factors influencing the length of procedures was a ruling by an administrative court in Slovenia demanding that Lafarge's plant be treated as a new facility rather than an existing installation. The Environment Agency, which issues permits, is therefore obliged to complete all procedures prescribed for licensing of new plants.
Court halts appeal against privatisation of cement plant
20 January 2015Egypt: The Supreme Administrative Court has decided to pause an investigation into the appeal against the privatisation of Beni Suef Cement Company.
The court ordered the reinstatement of workers to the company, but decided to suspend looking into the appeal of the privatisation. The suspension is pending another court decision in a case questioning the constitutionality of a law issued in 2014, which bans third parties from challenging sales or investment contracts signed between the government and investors.
The law in question stipulates that courts must suspend viewing appeals of contracts, even if the cases were brought to court prior to the issuance of the law. The law was approved in April 2014 by former interim president Adli Mansour and was heavily criticised by the Egyptian Centre for Social and Economic Rights (ECESR) for its issuance. The ECESR said that the law 'wastes the rights of citizens and workers from detecting suspicions of corruption' in contracts.
The controversy over Beni Suef Cement is more than a decade old. The plant, which has an annual production capacity of 1.5Mt/yr, was sold in 1999 and was then owned as a joint venture project by Lafarge and Titan. In 2002, Titan acquired the shares owned by Lafarge and has since wholly-owned the plant.
In February 2014, an administrative court ruled in favour of the privatisation but ordered reinstating the workers, as stipulated in the sales contract. The court ruling was appealed by the workers, who want the privatisation to be reversed and by company officials, who do not want to bear the costs of reinstating the workers.