Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Flaherty wades into Barrick's CIBC feud

JACQUIE MCNISH

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 9:26 AM EDT 07/05/08

Dustup threatens to delay ABCP restructuring ...Read the full article

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

  1. rod archibald from port moody, Canada writes: Now tis such a fine thing that minister flaherty is going to such lengths to protect all the small investors-( Barrick and CIBC) such as he did Halloween of 2006. Such devotion should be rewarded - at the next election!
  2. Stude Ham from Canada writes: This is political interference at its worst. We now know something of the corporate sleaze that is fuelling the CRAP (conservative/reform/alliance party).

    Flaherty has absolutely no business interfering in this private dispute between the CIBC and Barrick. Plainly and simply we see the former ontario mike harris cabinet reject once again forcing an issue that is going to cost large numbers of people Billions... absolutely BILLIONS of C$. IT anyone? (naw... deja vu).

    The flake is unfit for office... except the harp put him there only for political purposes (like one of two more votes from ontario).

    Only one way to get rid of the flake...

    DUMP HARPER!
  3. 4Cryin Outloud from Canada writes: From the article: The combination of the failed Ironstone vote and some of the unique facts of Barrick's case has put the Superior Court of Ontario's Mr. Justice Colin Campbell, who is overseeing the court restructuring plan, in a tight legal corner. The centrepiece of the ABCP proposal is a sweeping legal release that will shield all banks and parties linked to the troubled notes from any lawsuits. Under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, judges have been able in previous cases to force legal releases on opposing investors and debtors when it could be shown that a restructuring plan provided at least some benefit to all parties.'

    Restructuring corporate gambling debts gone bad sounds so free market doesn't it, protecting corporatations from lawsuits, so illegal-friendly? And then some wonder why any fair-minded individual may feel a tad revolted with our degraded economic structure and the politicians that support the status quo.
  4. George Stefanapolous from Canada writes: La Banque Nationale again in the hole for some low life involvement in a deal it spun with another financial institution.

    If you think Barrick is going in for 'just cause', wait till the National bank clients (Jean Coutu, Air Transat, and many others) start giving some trouble.

    National Bank has tons of off-balance sheet ABCP under its 'ghost companies' QUANTO FINANCIAL INC as well as METCALF AND MANSFIELD INC.
  5. Concerned Canadian from Streetsville, Canada writes: Mr. Peter Munk and the Barrick organization are renown for being extremely intelligent and diligent investors.

    It boggles the mind that they would rely on a senior bank executive to assure them that there would be no impact from sub-prime loans in the ABCP notes.

    Barrick is not in the habit of investing $65M without doing signigicant research and due diligence.

    Mr. Flaherty should mind his own business and stay out of things.
  6. J Kooman from Canada writes:

    Even as a CIBC shareholder (but with no holdings in Barrick), it appears crystal clear to me that CIBC did not deliver the merchandise Barrick committed to buy.

    So refund the money to Barrick, and CIBC can keep the papers.

    ...
  7. D McAnn from Canada writes: J Kooman, I get your point...BUT these notes were backed by the National Bank, according to the story. Ultimately, CIBC was distributing ABCP backed by another of the major banks in the country. According to my understanding, the backing of another major bank means either a credit line or assets of that bank provide liquidity to the issue. Therefore, National Bank should already have the facility to buy this paper, regardless of how much they have already written down (or will write down). By the way, strongly agree with Concerned Canadian....ultimately some (if not most) responsibility lies with the investor. We live in a society where too many companies/individuals try to pass the blame to someone else for decisions made or actions taken.
  8. The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands writes: There is absolutely no rational reason to link the settlement to the immunity, but for Bay Street's little circle of wagons when one of their own gets caught with a hand in the cookie jar.

    DBRS is allegedly the true culprit in this fiasco. It was the ONLY rating co. to package this junk as AAA. The other two rating services stayed away for a very good reason: junk is junk is junk. Dominion thought it could pull a fast one with the magic of an AAA bait, and admittedly, a lot of suckers swallowed it hook, line and sinker (out of pure greed, like 5 points worth of greed).

    Let all the brokers return all of their commissions and bonuses earned from writing the junk and then we'll see if they deserve an outrageous, unethical patently corrupt get-of-jail card on this one.

    As for Barrick, 'tis a shame that the reading skills their lawyers now bring to bear upon the fine details of the settlement failed them when it came to the big bold and bright disclaimers written all across the original junk announcing for the world that there would be no bank guarantees of the paper. Perhaps Barrick, and everyone else, should look to the Lawyers Compensation Fund for its $66M.
  9. Marc Larose from hearst, Canada writes: Flagerty shouldn't put it's nose into that situation, but let face it Conservative view their position as King and Queen of the country . What us common people beleive in is not an issue for them.
    As for CIBC and Barrick, well i hope Barrick win, because it is time that the greed from the bank come into the lighrt. It is sad to say but this mess has to boile over. It will great a big asset freezes. Also may push us into a recession. We all have to face the music sometimes. It is sad that the common Canadian like me will suffer the most . Anynoby in power will still live like a Kings.
  10. james cyr from Balmertown Ontario, Canada writes: There is nothing wrong with Flaherty acting as a sort of mediator or facilitator to help end the dispute between CIBC and Barrick. I do not, howver, agree that he should directly interfere or try and influence the outcome.
  11. Globe Insider subscriber content
    John Sexton from Toronto, Canada writes:
    It's both curious and bizarre, as a spectator, to witness this big-stick swinging feud between Barrick's and the CIBC: like watching two pit-bull enforcers going at it, all the more horrible and fascinating for the very fact that they once played on the same team. Mr.Munk's squeamish cries of 'He hit me!', viz. his 65 million investment, are hilarious and somewhat pathetic at one and the same time, while the CIBC's ham-fisted attempts at gaining a choke-hold on their opponents sweater, leaves them wide open for more blows and, at best, screams helplessly for arbitration.

    Mr.Justice Colin Campbell is clearly the referee in this game, so that would mean Mr.Flaherty ( a tough-guy who never picks a fight he cannot win) is 'the third man in.': regardless of his intentions, he should draw an automatic penalty, and be ejected from the game.

    The interesting questions are, 'Whose back does Flaherty have?'; and who might be ponying up the incentives that brought the CIBC back to the table? Shall we ask Elections Canada?

    Let the big goons wear themselves out Jim- it will only improve the overall game for the rest of us.

    Tip for investment bankers: try investing in people, in ideas, in Canada:
    guaranteed to be better than paper empires.
  12. E. Biggs from Canada writes: That littel weiner needs to stay out of it and let them settle things themselves. He could not run a hotdog stand and not he involved in this. Thie is what we have courts for.

    WE STILL REMEMBER HALLOWEEN AND WILL.
  13. David C from a constant traveler from, Canada writes: Why did flaherty stick his nose in what is considered a market issue? Is he going to start telling all Canadians how they should invest now? Did Harper tell him to intervene and what did he expect to gain by doing so? Is this a case of power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely?

    Here is a hint, you were elected to form a government (with a minority I might add) and the mandate is to provide governance, not to stick your nose into a dispute between two public companies... That was not the mandate. And while you are at it, take some responsibility for Ontario's woes. And stop blaming the provincial government. You remind me of my children when something gets broken in the kitchen.. He did it! No He did it!
  14. Yogie Bear from The Forest, Canada writes: ....and yet, Flaherty refuses to rise in the HoC to answer questions from John McCallum and instead Baird, minister of the environment, is fielding finance questions.
  15. David C from a constant traveler from, Canada writes: Touche Expert Eel and Wally!
  16. Globe Insider subscriber content
    F. Wm. Woodward from Canada writes: As I have said many times b4 this Guy Flaherty is a complete hoax. I just hope his constituants remember.....
  17. Fred Forest from Canada writes: Everyday births a new comedy from these guys.. Flaherty is so full of advice, I wish he would follow his own advice and CUT MY INCOME TAXES!! I then might have some money to spend and realize the GST savings.. honestly.
  18. w sykora from Canada writes: David C from a constant traveler from, Canada writes: Touche Expert Eel and Wally!

    Pretty lame comment. Haven't got your talking points yet?

    Let's hear it from the Con chorus!
  19. David C from a constant traveler from, Canada writes: w sykora from Canada writes:Pretty lame comment. Haven't got your talking points yet?

    Actually, if you read back a few comments you will notice that I had a prior entry that comprised of two paragraphs. I was endorsing other posters comments in the post you refer to. from your comment I would surmise that you either A: have a massively short attention span or B: do not read anything longer than one or two sentences.

    But hey, thanks for the personal attack, I guess you have proven that you have not got your talking points either. You are a clever bunny though...
  20. sucks to be you from Canada writes: Flaherty's an interfering idiot. BCE is going into the tank because of his meddling, unitholders of income trusts are still out billions and CRA tax coffers are shrinking because all of the above are going private and will have additional billions in carry forward tax losses and / or are exempt from tax and consequently won't be contributors for many years (if at all) to come. Excellent work on Harper/ Flaherty's part! That said, CIBC told Barrick non of their money was invested in ABCP. They too, lied, forced to reimburse Barrick fully, held accountable and prosecuted.
  21. Larry Hill from Canada writes: I really wonder how many posters would be calling for Flaherty's head if HE DID NOT get CIBC back to the bargaining table??

    From the article, he is not interfering with the settlement process, he is just urging the parties back to the negotiating table.

    HUGE difference.
  22. Brad Fgroupthinkn from Canada writes: Gerrymanderrer; another proud moment for the CONFACISNISTOS.
  23. David C from a constant traveler from, Canada writes: Larry Hill from Canada writes: I really wonder how many posters would be calling for Flaherty's head if HE DID NOT get CIBC back to the bargaining table??

    I would say none since he would not be involving himself in a non governmental business matter. Barrick is playing hardball with CIBC as the board of directors do not want to reduce the record profits they have achieved this year based on current gold prices. BTW: Does anyone know who is on the board of Directors and stands to directly benefit from a hardball approach? The Right Honorable Brian Mulroney... Food for thought, you connect the dots.
  24. Yogie Bear from The Forest, Canada writes: David C from a constant traveler from, Canada writes:

    The Right Honorable Brian Mulroney......

    Harper called an inquiry on the Mulroney/Airbus/Cash/Lies/Fraud/Perjury/Bribe/Corrupt scandel 6 months ago (Nov 13/07) and still no chair appointed and now Flahterly, who sits and pouts when John McCallum take him to task for obvious disregard of the rules and needs Baird to field his questions, is interferring in a dispute with The Right Honorable Brian Mulroney... sitting on the board.

    Connect the dots indeed.
  25. w sykora from Canada writes: David C from a constant traveler from, Canada writes: w sykora from Canada writes:Pretty lame comment. Haven't got your talking points yet?

    Actually, if you read back a few comments...

    Sorry, read too fast and confused myself. Usually the only mutually reinforcing boobs on bulletin boards are the Cons.

    One more point. When I clicked on http://tinyurl.com/537q9 I got the message and a virus warning, so be careful!
  26. Elmo Harris from Niagara, Canada writes: Yogie Bear from The Forest, you are right. There are lots of dots to connect. The most important ones concern Peter Munk, Brian Mulroney, and Stephen Harper. Influence peddling and bribery will always win the day for Barrick. This bunch could certainly teach Karlheinz Schreiber thing or two about these special skills. When Harper and Flaherty leave office, there will be a nice big seat and a huge stipend for them on Barrick's board - for services rendered.
  27. Elmo Harris from Niagara, Canada writes: w sykora, the safest bet is to never even read anything by Stude Ham or Expert Eel. It probably is a virus.
  28. Rick Drysdale from Canada writes: Elmo Harris
    You got it right. This is why sitting members should never, ever get involved in things like this.

    Even if Harper and Flaherty had any business acqumen ? after the crap they have pulled in the the business world nothing they do after their political life is over will not be suspected as payback.
  29. Larry Hill from Canada writes: David C from a constant traveler from, Canada writes: Larry Hill from Canada writes: I really wonder how many posters would be calling for Flaherty's head if HE DID NOT get CIBC back to the bargaining table??

    I would say none since he would not be involving himself in a non governmental business matter

    I would suggest then that the posters do not understand how important this ABCP mess is. If Barrick ends up killing the ABCP current deal, the financial markets will end up stalmated in uncertainty again.

    Then the public would be saying where is the government??
  30. Rick Drysdale from Canada writes: Larry Hill
    I think you and a lot of people are placing way too much importance on this issue of ABCP here in Canada.

    The number of people,companies and dollars involved are small and in the grand scheme of things not all that important. The sky will not fall if the players have to eat this paper.
  31. jimmie rabbit from toronto, Canada writes: gwb = yale

    o'flannery = princeton

    iggy = harvard

    pretty well trashes the value of an ivy league education doesn't it
  32. Yvonne Wackernagel from Woodville, Canada writes: Wow, from my experience, I would say there is not much to choose between these two, but -in any event- I do not think Flaherty should be intervening; of course, he might know more people at one of the entitles???
  33. Larry Hill from Canada writes: Rick Drysdale from Canada writes: Larry Hill
    I think you and a lot of people are placing way too much importance on this issue of ABCP here in Canada.

    Perhaps, Rick. But I work in the financial services industry and might have a different view point than you do.

    I know that there are more than a few large financial transactions that are stalled over this mess.
  34. ah sails from Canada writes: why does Finance Minister Flatulence meddle everywhere is non-expertise is un-wanted..I have never seen a Finance leader so desperate to micro manage when he has proven himself incapable of managing the affairs with which he has a mandate...he just wants to be in the news or rather Harpo wants him front and center, displaying control over this economy
  35. JP M from Canada writes: "Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has taken the unusual step of intervening in a sideshow spat..."

    This could be the lead in to any story about this nincompoop...
  36. The Oracle from Caiman Islands, Canada writes: The Conservative's "free when they want it" market
  37. The Oracle from Caiman Islands, Canada writes: It is understood Flaherty golfs with Peter Munk
  38. Mike from Van from Vancouver, Canada writes: This sounds far too complex for Mr. Flaherty to be of much help with.

    Stick to screwing Canadian investors, big guy. And hopefully you've only got a few months left to do it.
  39. Prairie Boy from Canada writes: I see it this way. Two kids at a party are fighting. The rest of the kids can't get their cake until the two stop fighting. Instead of the adult deciding who is to blame the adult says you two sort it out yourselfs so the others can eat the cake or you go to your rooms.
  40. Mark Shore from Canada writes: It's not as if Minister Flaherty has a day job that keeps him particularly busy, or that could lead to conflicts of interest when he gets entangled in private sector scraps. Just another day at the office with the CPC, nothing to see here, move along...
  41. George Stefanapolous from Canada writes: National Bank should flip this bill, not CIBC!!
  42. garlick toast from Canada writes: this article goes a long way towards explaining why canadians are sitting on their investment money.
  43. John Smith from Ottawa, Canada writes: jimmie rabbit from toronto, Canada writes:
    gwb = yale
    o'flannery = princeton
    iggy = harvard

    pretty well trashes the value of an ivy league education doesn't it

    Good analogy. Is this your thesis paper for for your doctorate at the University of P.O. Box 332?
  44. David C from a constant traveler from, Canada writes: that works prairie boy if you think of the following: There is only a small amount of the cake left, not the whole cake due to a badly planned party. Little Barrick boy is throwing a tantrum because little boy CIBC said he could have 64.5 million dollars worth of the cake instead of sharing a portion of it with the rest of the boys at the party.

    Along comes a farty fellow named flaherty, he does not have any kids at the party, but sticks his nose in and says sort it out you two! Of course what we do not know at this time is if FFF was doing this out of the public good of if Little Barrick boy was going to share the cake with him....
  45. J Lee from Canada writes: I wouldn't be blaming Barrick for sticking up for their own rights that the finance cabal has tried to disregard. Crawford and his ilk should have figured that out long ago, and long before the dog and pony show was performed and long before it got in front of the judge. Stay tuned for next week's show. Maybe Crawford can sign and dance better than he can put a deal together like this one.
  46. I R from White Rock, BC, Canada writes: Since when does the Minister of Finance intervene in private disputes?
  47. Pete Kauchak, Green Tory from Cascadia, Canada writes: Good to see CIBC treats their clients the same as their employees - like crap. I had a CIBC account 20 years ago. I closed it and never went back.
  48. olly olly from Flin Flon, Canada writes: No suprise really since Mr. Mulroney's personal interests are being protected by the Conservative Government, is it? Also, both Bush camps (George Sr. and George W>)and Clinton's money is also being protected...they all are either on the Board or their "straw men" are on the Board of Barrick. ITS A NO-BRAINER!
  49. jimmie rabbit from toronto, Canada writes: John Smith from Ottawa, Canada writes: jimmie rabbit from toronto, Canada writes:
    gwb = yale
    o'flannery = princeton
    iggy = harvard

    pretty well trashes the value of an ivy league education doesn't it

    Good analogy. Is this your thesis paper for for your doctorate at the University of P.O. Box 332?

    whassamatter, too close to home? since you are writing from ottawa can't be gwb; must be iggy or (my best guess) o'flannery.

    by the way, if it wasn't for torontonians paying taxes you guys in ottawa wouldn't be watching any level of hockey above pee-wee.
  50. jimmie rabbit from toronto, Canada writes: Pete Kauchak, Green Tory from Cascadia, Canada writes: Good to see CIBC treats their clients the same as their employees - like crap. I had a CIBC account 20 years ago. I closed it and never went back.

    i'm sure cibc misses your $20 account.

Join the Conversation, Leave a Comment

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

You must be logged-in to submit a comment — login now!

Not registered with globeandmail.com? Register now. It is quick and free.

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top