|
The dramatic implosion of the worlds biggest independent futures broker has left investors facing losses of more than $3bn and raised concerns that warning signs may have been missed. The view of New York's Central Park from the offices of Weil, Gotshal & Manges is spectacular, particularly at this time of year. But when the board of Refco, the brokerage group, convened for an emergency meeting at the law firm's headquarters on October 6, no one was looking at the autumn leaves. All eyes were on Phillip Bennett. The 57-year-old chief executive of Refco had been summoned to explain
why he had failed to disclose a $430m debt he owed the company when it
went public in August. Board members were furious. "There was a great
deal of shock," says one person present at the meeting. "We
were completely duped," says another. Although the scale of the collapse is dwarfed by the likes of Enron and
WorldCom, its speed was unprecedented: from flotation on the New York
Stock Exchange to bankruptcy in two The implosion of the world's independent
futures broker underlines how critical market confidence is for a financial
services company such as Refco. And. in the febrile atmosphere following
a string of scandals, how fragile. Legal actions have been launched against Thomas H Lee, the private equity
firm that bought a majority stake in Refco last year, as well as against
the lead underwriters in the initial public offering - Goldman Sachs,
Credit Suisse First Boston and Bank of America - and Grant Thornton, its
auditors. Also under scrutiny will be work done by Mayer, Brown, Rowe
& Maw, the law firm, and accountants KPMG and PwC. Because the receivable had not been disclosed as a "related party transaction" in its financial statements, its accounts for the past four years "should no longer be relied upon", Refco said. Grant Thornton insisted on the warning because of fears that there could be further problems with Refco's financial reporting. Still, Refco was able to highlight the fact that Mr Bennett had repaid the money, leaving the company's financial position unaffected. Some of its advi—:- ^c^ieveti the market was bound to be nervous but that there was no need to panic. One senior executive says they were aware the group could face a potential
cash squeeze if nervous clients and lenders withdrew funds. "But
we thought the company's liquidity was enough to withstand almost anything
that could have possibly happened," he says. On October 10, that
confidence appeared justified. Although Refco's shares tumbled 45 per
cent, there was no net outflow of funds from the group. |