Posted on 03/06/2010 2:48:01 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
BAE cuts links to Saab and ill-fated fighter
David Robertson
BAE Systems is to dispose of its stake in Saab, the Swedish aerospace company, bringing to an end its controversial relationship with the Gripen fighter aircraft.
BAE, Europe’s largest defence company, said today that it had sold half of its 20.5 per cent stake in Saab for SwKr1 billion (£93 million).
The shares were sold to Investor AB, a Swedish investment fund that now owns 30 per cent of Saab’s capital and 39.5 per cent of the voting rights. BAE said that it would dispose of its remaining shares through a market placing.
BAE’s relationship with Saab began in 1998 when it bought a 35 per cent stake in Sweden’s aerospace industry for SwKr3.5 billion. The stake cemented a strategic partnership between Saab and BAE to market the Gripen fighter to export markets.
That relationship still exists but is winding down and BAE was not involved in recent attempts to sell the Gripen to Switzerland and Brazil. BAE also reduced its stake in Saab to 20.5 per cent in 2005, although it has not revealed whether the investment has been profitable.
BAE’s Gripen relationship has been mired in controversy as some of the campaigns to sell the fighter have attracted allegations of bribery and corruption.
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) investigated claims that commissions worth £115 million were given to agents who helped BAE seal a £2.3 billion deal with South Africa for Gripen and Hawk aircraft in 1999. It was alleged that some of that money was used to bribe government officials
The SFO also looked into allegations that politicians and officials in Hungary and the Czech Republic received money from BAE’s middlemen as part of Gripen negotiations in those countries.
(Excerpt) Read more at business.timesonline.co.uk ...
Pretty-lookin’ aeroplane, to be shore......ahem.....
So look, if you have to bribe folks to buy it, you have a problem.
These "commissions" come out of the pockets of BAE/SAAB shareholders. "Military Assistance" to encourage governments to buy the F-16 is paid by the US taxpayer.
Who has the real problem?
That theory would have to be based on the idea that said folks cared that much that they were getting the best deal for their country in the first place, and that rival companies weren’t also trying to do the same thing...
Bang on.
If you are a company doing business in third-world or even second-world countries, you are by definition bribing its officials. If you didnt, you would be out of business. In these places nothing happens unless palms are greased. It’s that simple.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.